Talk:German verbs

[Untitled]

german words are fat

I changed (and corrected the tense of) some examples in the separable prefixes-section. A German native speaker will usually not use the verb "umfahren" when he is talking about a tree. So I replaced the tree with a traffic sign.

Not really understanding the literal-figurative distinction in this part of the article; Is there another verb that does this besides umfahren? into and around both seem literal to me. Also, I would assume umgehen works this way too? 66.153.117.118 20:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I (German native speaker) do not like this distinction, too. I don't think that someone would call the verb "umfahren"(meaning "to drive around"), figurative. As you said, both meanings are perfectly literal. But I would not take the word "umgehen" as a good example for the Wikipedia, because you can derive two completely different nouns from it "das Umgehen"(the avoiding) and "der Umgang"(the acquaintance) which reside in completely different semantic fields.

Überfallen (inseparable) means to attack, überfallen (separable) means to fall over. So for example "Der Räuber fällt über den Mann", the burglar trips over the man. "Der Räuber überfällt den Mann", the burglar attacks the man. Would this be a better example? Wilsonsamm (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

tense and mood

I'm trying to learn to past tense of the subjunctive mood these days, so as I learn I think I'll be expanding these bits somewhat. Wilsonsamm (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To learn how to use the past tense of the subjunctive mood, I want, I advise you to read about the features of verb conjugation in DeutscherPapa. Informative article. Marta987M987 (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

zu + infinitive and modal verbs

I think it needs to be noted somehow the distinctions between using modals and other verb combinations. I mean specifically that zu isn't required for modals. I don't know enough about german grammar to explain it properly. I am not even certain that these concepts are strictly related. But to someone trying to learn proper usage the difference may seem incongruent:

Ich kann lesen. (I am able to read.)

Ich lerne zu lesen. (I am learning to read.)

Does what I am saying make any sense to anyone who can explain it more coherently? 66.153.117.118 20:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It is exactly the same in English. Modal verbs take the bare infinite (without "to").

Ich kann lesen. (I can read.)

Ich lerne zu lesen. (I learn to read.) 213.66.89.174 19:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no one would say "Ich lerne zu lesen". In German we say "Ich lerne lesen". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.226.165.179 (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What makes you so sure? Ich lerne, zu lesen sounds a bit silly, but Er lernte, die schwere Sprache mit ihren komplizierten Zeichen zu lesen ? Isn't native speaker license great --145.253.2.236 (talk) 09:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, but still "zu" sometimes is needed. For example, Ich habe fast geschafft, den Aufsatz fertig zu schreiben. I almost managed to finish the essay. I think this is the kind of thing the fellow meant. Wilsonsamm (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget, wer brauchen ohne 'zu' gebraucht, braucht 'brauchen' gar nicht zu gebrauchen ("who uses 'need' without the 'to', had better stop that usage, too" - though I don't agree to that verse, being Bavarian.)--2001:A60:1572:6701:E5BB:9D76:829E:13DD (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Conjugations

Why do the conjugations not mention past participles? With strong verbs these usually involve changes in vowels just as past tenses do. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Components and word order

Firstly, I'm a German native speaker so my intuitions in regards to the German language can be trusted. I just wanted to point out that contrary to what the article states 'Ich gebe es ihm.' actually isn't strange at all. To me it sounds perfectly normal. If other native speakers agree, and I'm pretty sure they will, I suggest this phrase be moved to the 'normal' section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.221.230.140 (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, This reference agrees with your observation. The grammar rule is direct object (accusative) before indirect object (dative) if the direct object (accusative) is a pronoun. The reference is page 12 from this reference.

TMM53 (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC) TMM53 (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned in this section which orders are incorrect, or if all are correct. Alfakol (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Inseparable prefix in-

I missing the prefix in- in the article. It is a seldom and often mean the negative like in english, i.E. consistent/inconsistent --> konsequent/inkonsequent or acceptable/not acceptable --> akzeptabel/inakzeptabel --195.145.211.209 (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It is missing for two reasons. 1., I cannot see what it has to do with verbs. 2., it is not a German prefix (though arguably rather cognate with un- which is), which is why it is only attached to foreign words taken from Latin.--91.34.213.46 (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)