The problem is.

In English the word before the verb is the subject. SVO.

But you could also turn it round and say "the trainers are the problem", can't you?

So shouldn't it be possible to say "the problem are the trainers?

Problem = singular = is: correct, but it could sound a bit odd. Try switching the order:
The trainers, who always tell us what to do, are the problem.
or
The trainers who always tell us what to do are the problem.
Note that there's a difference in meaning between the two sentences, too. In the first, all trainers have the fault of telling us what to do. In the second, it's only those trainers who always tell us what to do (thus forming a subgroup of the group "trainers") who are the problem.

If you turn it round and say 'The trainers are the problem', then 'trainers' is now the word before the verb, so 'trainers' is now the subject, and 'are' is correct. Turn it back again, and 'problem' is the subject again.

Word order decides the subject in English. Word order doesn't decide the subject in German.

'The problem is the trainers' does not sound any odder than' The trainers are the problem'. Why should it?

Word order decides the subject in English.

I think CM2DD means: 'The subject decides the word order in English.' From which you can then deduce the subject if you, as the reader/hearer, have to interpret the sentence.

But she's otherwise quite right. If 'The problem' comes first, the speaker/writer meant it as the subject, and it's singular. If 'the trainers' comes first, then that's the subject, and it's plural.

I meant that you can't change the word order (in a standard sentence) without changing the subject. In German, you can:

Der Hund biss den Mann.
Den Mann biss der Hund.

In German, changing the word order does not necessarily change the subject.
In English, it does. 'The man bit the dog' means that the man was the biter. It can't mean that the dog was the biter. If you made a mistake and said 'Him bit it', English speakers would still interpret that as 'He bit it', because the word before the verb can't be the object.

Engl. "trainers" kenne ich nur als Sportschuhe. Du brauchst "coaches".

Nö, trainers can be people, too.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/br...

Es ist, glaube ich, noch ein wenig komplizierter im D. "To be"/sein verknuepft hier zwei Substantive im Nominativ. Das Standardbeispiel "Der Mann bis den Hund" hilft hier daher nicht. Allerdings wird in Konstruktionen "Etwas ist/sind Etwas" stets das Pluralverb verlangt.

Die Trainer sind das Problem. - Das Problem sind die Trainer. Niemals: Das Problem ist die Trainer.
Die Wettlaeufe waren der Hoehepunkt. - Der Hoehepunkt waren die Wettlaeufe.

Es ist nicht moeglich anhand des Falles oder der Wortorder zu entscheiden, was das Subjekt ist. Aber sprachliche Logik macht im D Hoehepunkt, Wettlauf etc. zum Objekt und verlangt daher das Pluralverb.

(Das aendert natuerlich alles nichts an CM2DDs und escovilles Aussagen zum englischen Satz.)

@ 6 - Ohne Deklination geht auch im Deutschen nur SVO.

@Manni: Nur bei transitiven Verben (Mann biss Hund). Bei gleichsetzenden Verben wie hier, kann man immer noch vertauschen:

Das sind meine Schuhe. - Meine Schuhe sind das.

Unterschied im D ist nur, dass bei gleichsetzenden Verben und unterschiedlichem Numerus stets der Plural bevorzugt wird. Hat natuerlich etwas damit zu tun, dass - wie oben gesagt - im D das Subjekt nicht immer durch die Satzstellung definiert werden kann.

Die Satzergänzung im Nominativ heißt Gleichsetzungsnominativ.
Es gilt wie in der klassischen Definition: Über das Spezifische, das Subjekt, wird ausgesagt, welchem Allgemeinen es eingeordnet, untergeordnet wird (und dann näher definiert wird):

Ein Golfball ist ein Ball, (mit dem Golf gespielt wird.)



Gleichsetzungsnominativ

Es hilft die "als"-Probe: gilt als, wird als ... betrachtet

Das Problem gilt als Trainer. - Nein
Die Trainer gelten als Problem. - Ja, 'Trainer' ist Subjekt.



Die Kongruenz von Subjekt und Verb ist zwingend:

Das Problem sind die Trainer (Subjekt).



edit: ausführliche Beschreibung

There is a difference between the subject and the complement. And 'is/are' means lots of different things in logic.

'The teacher is Mr Halliday' does not make the same statement as 'Mr Halliday is the teacher' (though each implies the other). (I think: mutatis mutandis with 'problem' and 'trainers')

'Dogs are animals' does not even imply 'Animals are dogs'.

The subject is the one that comes first.

Having said which: it is a good general rule of style (not of grammar) not to have a plural subject and singular complement (or vice versa), but to rephrase your sentence.

And of course a trainer can mean 'one who trains'.

.

Re #13. And of course a trainer can mean 'one who trains'.

In fact, in AE it wouldn't normally mean anything else. At least I don't hear it used loosely for athletic shoes although I do have a pair of "cross-trainers", referred to as such. Is its use for a wide variety of athletic shoes BE or only DE? Trainers is also not used for training wheels on a child's bicycle; possibly for a type of toddler's underwear.

OT re #15: Is its use for a wide variety of athletic shoes BE or only DE?

Definitely BE but not DE*, AFAIK. Isn't "sneakers" the general AE equivalent? And isn't "sneakers" also now used in German-speaking countries, IIRR?

Note that there are some regional variations in the UK. "Trainers" is, I think, widely used, but there are some other words (such as "pumps" in the Midlands). Google for more info on that.

*DE = German or Denglish?

'Sneaker' is used in German (advertising mainly) for Converse-style shoes, not running shoes.
http://www.esprit.de/de/women/alle_marken/SCH...

Whatever happened to the thread entitled 'Das Problem sind die Nachbarn'? From as early as 2004 or so, with Ghol and Peter {us} and others. A classic.

"Sneaker" sind im Deutschen nicht nur "Converse-style shoes". Wer wissen will, was im Deutschen so alles als "Sneaker" gilt, der kann zum Beispiel bei dem Händler Kickz nachsehen. Basketballschuhe, "coole" Adidas-/Nike-/Puma-/Wasauchimmer-Schuhe sind alles Sneaker. Das ist schon ziemlich deckungsgleich mit "trainer" in BE bzw. "sneaker" in AE.

Und was natürlich auch nicht fehlen darf, ist "kicks", was in den letzten 20 Jahren vor allem im AE immer allgegenwärtiger geworden ist, vor allem für Basketballschuhe. (Und was dem deutschen Händler Kickz seinen Namen gegeben hat.)

Edith will gerade nicht, daher ein neuer Beitrag.

@hm: Das hier könnte der Faden sein, den du meinst:

Discussion deleted

Ich hoffe, der Link geht. Der Faden ließ sich auch über Google nicht sofort finden.

Sportschuhe
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls...

Sneaker site:de
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls...

I see a difference there.

Ein Sneaker (engl. sneaker - Schleicher) ist ein weicher Laufschuh, mit dem man sich leise bewegen kann. Im Deutschen wird er gemeinhin mit Turnschuh bezeichnet. Im Gegensatz zum hochfunktionellen, spezialisierten Sportschuh ist der Sneaker eher ein legerer, vom Laufschuh abgeleiteter und modischer Straßenschuh, der meist in dunkleren Farben gehalten ist und zur Freizeitkleidung tragbar ist.
http://www.adglossar.de/Sneaker

@CM2DD: So do I. But do you see a (big) difference between your

Sneaker site:.de

and

Trainers site:.co.uk

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rl...

The difference is marginal, I think.

But even if we can't agree on the terminology, this discussion has had its merits. Without it, I would never have seen this ... thing:

http://zeitgeist.yopi.de/luxus/44/stilettos-s...

To me, the photos of UK trainers are like the photos of DE Sportschuhe, not like the DE Sneakers, Jalapeño. I would wear German Sneaker with a skirt to go shopping in town, but I would never wear trainers/Sportschuhe with a skirt; I wear them with jogging pants to go jogging, no more.

IMHO quite a few of the UK trainers in the Google pictures are DE sneakers. Not all of them, granted, but a few. Perhaps UK "trainers" is more inclusive and covers both DE Sneakers and DE Sportschuhe?

All I know is that I wouldn't wear either of them with a skirt to go shopping in town ...



I'd wear the "things" from #22.

And about the "trainer" thing: in AE, a "trainer" would be like a personal trainer, an individual fitness coach (in a sports context), while the person responsible for training an athletic team would be a "coach".

Does anyone use the term 'plimsolls' these days? Standard in my childhood, alongside 'gymshoes'.

I like the dry comment in the second link in #22:

"Es ist eher eine Art Party oder Schlafzimmer-Kollektion." :-)

@Jalapeño:

Thanks for the link in #20. Evidently that is indeed the one I was thinking of; I just didn't remember that it had so much other stuff in it and that it was actually begun on a different topic, because that one sentence was such a radical discovery for me at the time.

Reminds me of the AE/BE difference between saying, "The team is . . ." and "The team are . . ."

I would say: The problem is that the trainers always tell us what to do.