German Question

[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"

[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

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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