German Question

[ajaxfetish]

So I have a question for Husar, Ser Clegane, Centurio, or any other native German speakers. Which of the following sounds better?:

-Der Euro wird eingeführt werden müssen haben
-Der Euro muß eingeführt worden sein werden

I realize they're more complicated and perhaps contrived than the vast majority of what anyone would ever say, but I'm trying to establish the relative ordering of German auxiliary verbs, so I want to fit as many kinds in together as possible. Also let me know if they're both horrible and there's something else I've completely overlooked.

Thanks,
Ajax

[Husar]

The second one, but without context, neither seems to make a lot of sense.
The Euro will have to have been introduced? If that's what you want to say, it would be "Der Euro muss eingeführt worden sein."
If it's for example "The Euro will have to have been introduced, before we can start this business.", that would be "Der Euro muss eingeführt worden sein, bevor wir mit diesem Geschäft beginnen können."
Either way the last "werden" shouldn't be there, I cannot really think of any chronological construct where that would make sense.

[Megas Methuselah]

German sounds kinda savage when you hear it out loud. Same with Dutch.

[Fragony]

German sounds kinda savage when you hear it out loud. Same with Dutch.

Dutch is very loud, but German is a very refined and delicate language imo. The melody perfectly sums up the intention of a word. Nothing says HI BABE like mein liebe

[Beskar]

From experience with people of these nationalities, I would characterise these steorotypes:

The Dutch are open and honest people, but free spirited. Dislike being oppressed in anyway.

Germans seem far more methological, but with a broad taste pallet. While not repressed, they are generally far more efficient, which sort of represses actions or makes sure they are done properly.

[Ser Clegane]

What Husar said - both sentences are correct if you remove the last verb.

For the sake of increasing the number of auxiliary verbs you might change it into:

"Der Euro wird eingeführt worden sein müssen"

[Fragony]

Sounds about right, never tell a Dutchie what to do hell hath no fury like a Dutchie patronised, we know what to do and are deeply suspicious about just about everything, the Netherlands is controlled anarchy. Germans are much more lawful and will work within the frame laid out for them, make the best of it, and come up with the best result eventually.

[Louis VI the Fat]

What Husar said - both sentences are correct if you remove the last verb.

For the sake of increasing the number of auxiliary verbs you might change it into:

"Der Euro wird eingeführt worden sein müssen"Der Euro soll eingeführt haben können müssen dürfen wollen werden sein?

[ajaxfetish]

@ Husar: Yeah, like I said, it's highly contrived. I'm just trying to get at the structure, here.
@ Ser Clegane: Interesting. So Der Euro wird eingeführt worden sein müssen would be okay? This isn't going to be as easy as I hoped, then, because that doesn't quite fit with the apparent ordering I'm seeing from other sentences. My German text has the example sentence Ein neues Ausländergesetz hat eingeführt werden müssen (is this a mistake?). This suggests that the perfective haben (or sein) is higher in the structure than the modal müssen, which is in turn higher than the passive werden. But in your example sentence, the modal müssen is higher than the perfective sein. I thought I had it nailed down as future higher than perfect higher than modal higher than passive, but now it looks like it's more complicated than that. I'll have to see if I can come up with another hypothesis and test before getting back to this. Just to double-check, if we put it in a subordinate clause does it still come out right?

Er sagte, dass der Euro eingeführt worden sein müssen werde

Ajax

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Der Euro wird eingeführt werden müssen haben
Der Euro muß eingeführt worden sein werden
These are false too, as Husar pointed out. The last is false because it's either worden sein or werden, past or present, but not both at the same time.

1. Der Euro muss eingeführt worden sein.
The Euro is said to have been introduced / They must have introduced the Euro. The person is reproducing what he heard, or what seems to be the only logical conclusion to him. The same sense as in my example no. 3, but not as a relative clause. Here we have two werden, but it's OK because it is the future construction of a passive construction with einführen.

2. Der Euro muss eingeführt werden.
The Euro ought to be introduced. The person is postulating his claim to introduce the Euro.

3. Er sagte, dass der Euro eingeführt worden sein muss / müsse.
He said that the Euro must have been introduced.

4. Sie müssen den Euro eingeführt haben.
They must have introduced the Euro. The same as above, but in active instead of passive.

5. Der Euro wird eingeführt werden müssen.
The Euro is going to have to be introduced. Sorry if this is a kind of arbitrary construction, or if it's even plain wrong in English. The person speaking talks about what's going to be a definite necessity in the future.

6. Der Euro muss (bereits) eingeführt gewesen sein.
The Euro must have been (already) introduced by then. Very similar to example no. 1, but in the Plusquamperfekt.


My German text has the example sentence Ein neues Ausländergesetz hat eingeführt werden müssen (is this a mistake?).
A new immigration law had to be passed. No this is no mistake. It is, however, bad style, and it sounds very much like southern German to me. Better would be Ein neues Ausländergesetz musste eingeführt werden. Why you would need to employ Perfekt in that context, even in a spoken conversation, is beyond my understanding (as not being from southern Germany, but Bavarians might have a different opinion). Your textbook example suggests perfective - passive - modal.


Der Euro wird eingeführt worden sein müssen.
Ser Clegane's example suggests future - perfective - passive - modal, while the perfective part is there because his sentence is in Futur II if I'm not mistaken.


Er sagte, dass der Euro eingeführt worden sein müssen werde
No, you got to change the word order.

Er sagte, der Euro werde eingeführt worden sein müssen.
Wow, I can't believe it, but this is really correct!

[Ibrahim]

a long grammer lesson

:dizzy:

I still wonder how on Earth I got away with an A in 1st semseter german.

[ajaxfetish]

My German text has the example sentence Ein neues Ausländergesetz hat eingeführt werden müssen (is this a mistake?).
A new immigration law had to be passed. No this is no mistake. It is, however, bad style, and it sounds very much like southern German to me. Better would be Ein neues Ausländergesetz musste eingeführt werden. Why you would need to employ Perfekt in that context, even in a spoken conversation, is beyond my understanding (as not being from southern Germany, but Bavarians might have a different opinion). Your textbook example suggests perfective - passive - modal.


Der Euro wird eingeführt worden sein müssen.
Ser Clegane's example suggests future - perfective - passive - modal, while the perfective part is there because his sentence is in Futur II if I'm not mistaken.
Precisely. I'm trying to combine the Futur II (future perfect) with passive and a modal, as these seem to be the main four paraphrastic constructions in German (there's also a paraphrastic subjunctive, the Konjunktiv II, but all the auxiliaries have subjunctive forms, so they don't need to go the paraphrastic route with würden, and I don't think I can combine that with the others). If it's impossible to use all four auxiliary verb constructions simultaneously, I'd deal with it, but it would be unlikely that they couldn't be combined and it looks like they can, even if the result is ridiculously dense. I'm just trying to find a consistent hierarchy between them, which is proving elusive.



Er sagte, dass der Euro eingeführt worden sein müssen werde
No, you got to change the word order.

Er sagte, der Euro werde eingeführt worden sein müssen.
Wow, I can't believe it, but this is really correct!
So, you can combine all four auxiliaries, but you can't do so in a subordinate clause? (one with dass, or ob, or weil, or what have you, and all the verbs arrayed at the end). That seems improbable to me. Are you sure?

One more question: you said the perfect passive modal construction from the textbook sounded both clunky and southern. If we put the verbs in the same order as Ser Clegane's example that was also future tense, does it come out the same, or better, or ungrammatical?

textbook: Ein neues Ausländergesetz hat eingeführt werden müssen
reordered: Ein neues Ausländergesetz muß eingeführt worden sein

Ajax

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Precisely. I'm trying to combine the Futur II (future perfect) with passive and a modal, as these seem to be the main four paraphrastic constructions in German (there's also a paraphrastic subjunctive, the Konjunktiv II, but all the auxiliaries have subjunctive forms, so they don't need to go the paraphrastic route with würden, and I don't think I can combine that with the others). If it's impossible to use all four auxiliary verb constructions simultaneously, I'd deal with it, but it would be unlikely that they couldn't be combined and it looks like they can, even if the result is ridiculously dense. I'm just trying to find a consistent hierarchy between them, which is proving elusive.

So, you can combine all four auxiliaries, but you can't do so in a subordinate clause? (one with dass, or ob, or weil, or what have you, and all the verbs arrayed at the end). That seems improbable to me. Are you sure?
The problem is that a proper subordinate clause requires the verb to be at the end. To my feeling as a native speaker that didn't study his language at university, I'd say that there is no possibility for such a sentence you suggested.


One more question: you said the perfect passive modal construction from the textbook sounded both clunky and southern. If we put the verbs in the same order as Ser Clegane's example that was also future tense, does it come out the same, or better, or ungrammatical?

textbook: Ein neues Ausländergesetz hat eingeführt werden müssen
reordered: Ein neues Ausländergesetz muß eingeführt worden sein
Well your examples are both correct, but the meaning shifted. By constructing the reordered sentence with müssen, it reads "a new immigration law is said to have been passed", whereas the textbook's sentence translates to "a new law had to be passed".

Also: Ser Clegane's original sentence was in Futur II (future - perfect - passive - modal). Your textbook example is in Perfekt (perfect - passive - modal). Ein neues Ausländergesetz wird eingeführt worden sein müssen would be your example in Futur II. Your suggestion above (muss eingeführt worden sein) does not imply Futur II, but Präsens.

[ajaxfetish]

The problem is that a proper subordinate clause requires the verb to be at the end. To my feeling as a native speaker that didn't study his language at university, I'd say that there is no possibility for such a sentence you suggested.
Well, I've got to trust your intuition as a native speaker. Fact trumps theory.


Well your examples are both correct, but the meaning shifted. By constructing the reordered sentence with müssen, it reads "a new immigration law is said to have been passed", whereas the textbook's sentence translates to "a new law had to be passed".Okay, that's very encouraging! It sounds like the problem I'm facing is that the modals can occur at more than one place in the hierarchy, with different scope and therefore different meaning depending on the level. That could well clear up the whole issue that's bothering me, though it may take some work to figure out the different possible levels and the scope differences exactly. Thanks for that.


Also: Ser Clegane's original sentence was in Futur II (future - perfect - passive - modal). Your textbook example is in Perfekt (perfect - passive - modal). Ein neues Ausländergesetz wird eingeführt worden sein müssen would be your example in Futur II. Your suggestion above (muss eingeführt worden sein) does not imply Futur II, but Präsens.
I know. I was taking the future tense out of it to see if the ordering of the other three auxiliaries in Ser Clegane's sentence would still be grammatical without the future verb's influence. It sounds like the answer is yes?

Ajax

[ajaxfetish]

Okay, so I was originally torn up as to which of the following would be the proper hierarchy for German auxiliaries:

1)
Future
Modal
Perfect
Passive

2)
Future
Perfect
Modal
Passive

The new hypothesis is that the order is as follows:

3)
Future
----Modal A
Perfect
----Modal B
Passive

This predicts that the future will always occur higher in the structure than any other auxiliary, and the passive will always occur lower. Modals and perfective auxiliaries may occur in either order relative to each other, but the difference in ordering will imply a difference in meaning. It would still be very unlikely, of course, to find all four types of auxiliaries in the same clause. Looking through Centurio's suggested examples for various combinations of auxiliaries (post #10), everything seems consistent with this.


Sentence 1: Der Euro muss eingeführt worden sein
----Modal
----Perfect
----Passive

Sentence 2: Der Euro muss eingeführt werden
----Modal
----Passive

Sentence 3: Er sagte, dass der Euro eingeführt worden sein muss / müsse
----Modal
----Perfect
----Passive

Sentence 4: Sie müssen den Euro eingeführt haben
----Modal
----Perfect

Sentence 5: Der Euro wird eingeführt werden müssen
----Future
----Modal
----Passive

Sentence 6: Der Euro muss (bereits) eingeführt gewesen sein
----Modal
----Perfect
----Passive? Another Perfect?
(I'm not yet familiar with this exact construction. I'm used to the plusquamperfect or past perfect involving a preterite form of sein along with a past participle. Here it looks like we've got the infinitive of sein followed by the past participle of sein followed by a past participle. I'm guessing the influence of the modal required the first sein to be in infinitive, making a preterite form impossible, but I couldn't have predicted the result. I'm also unclear as to whether the two stacked sein's mean plusquamperfect, passive, or both. Regardless, it doesn't seem to contradict the above hierarchy)

And for Ser Clegane's mega-sentence with all four auxiliaries: Der Euro wird eingeführt worden sein müssen
----Future
----Modal
----Perfect
----Passive


One other question this raises for me is whether it's ever possible in a German sentence to have two different modals, one in each of the possible modal slots. I suspect it's not, but it would be very intriguing if it is.

Ajax

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

German is so complicated, but a good language to learn :clown:.

[Joooray]

This whole thread just made me realized how little I know about German grammer, me being a native German speaker. A shame really. :shame:

But I guess when it comes naturally, you don't really care too much about why you say it the way you do.

[Husar]

This whole thread just made me realized how little I know about German grammer, me being a native German speaker. A shame really. :shame:

But I guess when it comes naturally, you don't really care too much about why you say it the way you do.

I know, neither do I, I don't know English grammar either and I forgot all the latin (and incidentally also german) grammar again. Either I get a "feeling" for it or I'll forget it.

[Joooray]

I know, neither do I, I don't know English grammar either and I forgot all the latin (and incidentally also german) grammar again. Either I get a "feeling" for it or I'll forget it.

Thanks for pointing out that my English spelling is even worse than my German grammar. :sweatdrop:

The only thing where I really miss not having learned the rules better when I was young is when it comes to punctuation. It sucks to not be sure how to use it and need your girlfriend to take a look and any important text you write. :shame:

[Husar]

Thanks for pointing out that my English spelling is even worse than my German grammar. :sweatdrop:

The only thing where I really miss not having learned the rules better when I was young is when it comes to punctuation. It sucks to not be sure how to use it and need your girlfriend to take a look and any important text you write. :shame:

First off, I don't blame you, a lot of english people seem to spell grammar wrong as well, you may have just picked it up from someone thinking he spelled it correctly.
And then at least you have a girlfriend... ~;)
What I don't really get in either language is when it's "English" and when it's "english", the built-in spellchecker here wants me to write "English person" but to me it's "english person" since english is used as an adjective of person, if it were just "the English are coming!" then it's a capital E in german since "English" is a noun now but in English (the language, thus capital E, right?) it's a capital E since it's a distinctive name like first and last names or city names, which are also capitalized.
I have to think about this for a second every time I have to decide what to do. :dizzy2:
Oh, add to that that I have a tendency to leave the Shift key before pressing the letter key and that may explain any mix you might come across...

[ajaxfetish]

This whole thread just made me realized how little I know about German grammer, me being a native German speaker. A shame really. :shame:

But I guess when it comes naturally, you don't really care too much about why you say it the way you do.
Yeah, you don't need to have a conscious understanding of your own grammar. You know it much more completely than I do, it's just subconscious. I couldn't have described English grammar with much accuracy or depth before I started studying it.


What I don't really get in either language is when it's "English" and when it's "english", the built-in spellchecker here wants me to write "English person" but to me it's "english person" since english is used as an adjective of person, if it were just "the English are coming!" then it's a capital E in german since "English" is a noun now but in English (the language, thus capital E, right?) it's a capital E since it's a distinctive name like first and last names or city names, which are also capitalized.
Yeah, we've got different rules for capitalization in the two languages, which throws me off all the time, too. For us, it's proper names that get capitalized, regardless of part-of-speech. I do pretty well capitalizing all my nouns in German, but I always want to capitalize proper adjectives as well, like Amerikanische Studenten.

Ajax

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

I know. I was taking the future tense out of it to see if the ordering of the other three auxiliaries in Ser Clegane's sentence would still be grammatical without the future verb's influence. It sounds like the answer is yes?
Der Euro muss eingeführt worden sein. If it's this what you mean then the answer is yes, yes.


The new hypothesis is that the order is as follows:

3)
Future
----Modal A
Perfect
----Modal B
Passive

This predicts that the future will always occur higher in the structure than any other auxiliary,
Since the future is always with werden, the answer is yes. Der Euro wird kommen, pflegte Helmut Kohl zu sagen.


and the passive will always occur lower.
Since the passive is also built with werden, the passive werden goes to the end. Der Euro wird eingeführt werden.


Modals and perfective auxiliaries may occur in either order relative to each other, but the difference in ordering will imply a difference in meaning. It would still be very unlikely, of course, to find all four types of auxiliaries in the same clause. Looking through Centurio's suggested examples for various combinations of auxiliaries (post #10), everything seems consistent with this.
Sorry not sure about this.


Sentence 1: Der Euro muss eingeführt worden sein
----Modal
----Perfect
----Passive
CORRECT.


Sentence 2: Der Euro muss eingeführt werden
----Modal
----Passive
CORRECT.


Sentence 3: Er sagte, dass der Euro eingeführt worden sein muss / müsse
----Modal
----Perfect
----Passive
Perfect - passive - modal.
Your solution would be correct IF the sentence would be a main clause: Der Euro muss eingeführt worden sein.


Sentence 4: Sie müssen den Euro eingeführt haben
----Modal
----Perfect
CORRECT.


Sentence 5: Der Euro wird eingeführt werden müssen
----Future
----Modal
----Passive
Future - passive - modal.


Sentence 6: Der Euro muss (bereits) eingeführt gewesen sein
----Modal
----Perfect
----Passive? Another Perfect?
CORRECT.

I probably didn't properly realize that I used a different verb in the last sentence: eingeführt sein instead of eingeführt werden. That's why it's the exact same construction like sentence no. 1 in the exact same tense. I'm sorry, I think I involuntarily brought you on a wrong track.


(I'm not yet familiar with this exact construction. I'm used to the plusquamperfect or past perfect involving a preterite form of sein along with a past participle. Here it looks like we've got the infinitive of sein followed by the past participle of sein followed by a past participle. I'm guessing the influence of the modal required the first sein to be in infinitive, making a preterite form impossible, but I couldn't have predicted the result. I'm also unclear as to whether the two stacked sein's mean plusquamperfect, passive, or both. Regardless, it doesn't seem to contradict the above hierarchy)
The infinitive of sein is sein. There's only one sein, namely the Partizip Perfekt Passive (PPP) gewesen.


And for Ser Clegane's mega-sentence with all four auxiliaries: Der Euro wird eingeführt worden sein müssen
----Future
----Modal
----Perfect
----Passive
Well, if the modal is müssen, than it's clearly future - perfect - passive - modal.


One other question this raises for me is whether it's ever possible in a German sentence to have two different modals, one in each of the possible modal slots. I suspect it's not, but it would be very intriguing if it is.
You mean können and müssen? Ich werde Englisch können müssen. I will have to dominate English. Endlich wieder müssen können. Finally being able to pee again. But I agree these ain't real modals.

Ever tried these?
http://forum.wordreference.com/index.php
Grammar nazis a big part ...

http://www.babelboard.de/forum.php
A very dedicated, yet small germanophone community. I know there is somebody who will defnitely discuss that matter in English with you.

[ajaxfetish]

Future - passive - modal.
Sorry, I realize I may have caused some confusion with this. I'm talking about the sentence's structural hierarchy. This isn't the same as its linear order. From front to back, you get future auxiliary, main verb, passive auxiliary, modal auxiliary. From top to bottom, however, you get future auxiliary, modal auxiliary, passive auxiliary, main verb. This is because in the latest syntactic theory, German verbal phrases are head-right instead of head left. I diagrammed the sentence to illustrate: WARNING!! Spoiler Contains Syntax!

https://img685.imageshack.us/img685/6866/germansentencediagram.jpg

So when I talk about higher in the structure, I consider the conjugated verb highest, and then count down from the end of the sentence to the main verb. It's easier in subordinate clauses, because then it's all just a right to left deal. (I've not addressed it in the tree, but it's possible the future auxiliary begins in a future-specific phrase and is raised to T before being raised to C)


You mean können and müssen? Ich werde Englisch können müssen. I will have to dominate English. Endlich wieder müssen können. Finally being able to pee again. But I agree these ain't real modals.
Right. It looks like one of them's being used as the main verb in each sentence. It is possible to have languages with double modals (some southern American dialects allow double modals such as might could.


Ever tried these?
http://forum.wordreference.com/index.php
Grammar nazis a big part ...

http://www.babelboard.de/forum.php
A very dedicated, yet small germanophone community. I know there is somebody who will defnitely discuss that matter in English with you.
I haven't, but that may be a good resource for getting more native speaker intuitions. I'll look into it. Thanks.

Ajax

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Sorry, I realize I may have caused some confusion with this. I'm talking about the sentence's structural hierarchy. This isn't the same as its linear order. From front to back, you get future auxiliary, main verb, passive auxiliary, modal auxiliary. From top to bottom, however, you get future auxiliary, modal auxiliary, passive auxiliary, main verb. This is because in the latest syntactic theory, German verbal phrases are head-right instead of head left. I diagrammed the sentence to illustrate: WARNING!! Spoiler Contains Syntax!

https://img685.imageshack.us/img685/6866/germansentencediagram.jpg

So when I talk about higher in the structure, I consider the conjugated verb highest, and then count down from the end of the sentence to the main verb. It's easier in subordinate clauses, because then it's all just a right to left deal. (I've not addressed it in the tree, but it's possible the future auxiliary begins in a future-specific phrase and is raised to T before being raised to C)
You've put really a lot of effort into it. As a native speaker I never took care of this. I'm sorry but I don't feel like I could help you anymore now at this point. :shrug:


Right. It looks like one of them's being used as the main verb in each sentence. It is possible to have languages with double modals (some southern American dialects allow double modals such as might could.
What about ...
Sie sind so nah, sie müssten sich berühren können.
Würden Sie sich beherrschen können, wenn man Ihnen dies vorwirft? (the latter spoken only)

[ajaxfetish]

What about ...
Sie sind so nah, sie müssten sich berühren können.
Würden Sie sich beherrschen können, wenn man Ihnen dies vorwirft? (the latter spoken only)

The first looks a lot like a double modal. How would it best be translated into English? "They are so near, they must be touchable"? The only modal I recognize as such in the second is können. Would you categorize würden along with the modals? What would be the difference between Würden Sie sich beherrschen können and Könnten Sie sich beherrschen?

Ajax

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Regarding sentence no. 1: They are so near, they should be almost in range for touching each other.

Regarding sentence no. 2: Könnten Sie sich beherrschen and Würden Sie sich beherrschen können are equal in what they express. The first könnten is Konjunktiv II, while the other would be the Ersatzform. So, I guess it's not a modal ...

The second sentence I labelled "spoken only" because it's really bad. In a book, the sentence would be Könnten Sie sich beherrschen, wenn man Ihnen dies vorwerfen würde / vorwürfe? Lamentably, the Konjunktiv II is loosing ground and gives in to the Ersatzform. You receive strange looks when you use the strong forms of the verbs apart from the obvious ever fitting würde, könnte, möchte, ginge, täte, hätte, wollte.

Wollten Sie das machen müssen? Das möchte ich niemals machen müssen. Would you like to be forced to do that? I'd never ever want to have to do that. If wollen is a modal verb, but I think this could be the case.