# will heiraten, nachdem er sein Studium abgeschlossen hat (tenses)



## Hussein89ali

I was Listening to a lecture about nach and nachdem. And I came across the following: 

Peter will Heiraten, nachdem er Studium abgeschlossen hat. (The Lecturer says that the two sentences should not be in the same tense ) 

Does this mean that Peter have already finished school and now he wants to get married. Or does it mean that Peter hasn't finished school yet ans he wants to get married after finishing school.


----------



## διαφορετικός

Hussein89ali said:


> Peter will Heiraten, nachdem er Studium abgeschlossen hat. [...]
> 
> Does this mean that Peter have already finished school and now he wants to get married. Or does it mean that Peter hasn't finished school yet ans he wants to get married after finishing school.


It can mean both:

Literally, present tense = the present: "Peter has already finished his studies, and now he wants to get married."
You can understand the present tense as relating to the future: "Peter will wird heiraten wollen, nachdem er das Studium abgeschlossen hat haben wird."


----------



## manfy

In the absence of context, I'd understand


> Peter will *h*eiraten, nachdem er *das *Studium abgeschlossen hat.


as referring to the future.

The intended meaning of such sentences is usually governed by context and if we sense that the meaning might be ambiguous in the given context, we instinctively add time markers or we change the conjunction, e.g.:

Peter will heiraten, nachdem er *nun *das Studium abgeschlossen hat. -> university is completed, now he plans to marry
Peter will heiraten, *wenn/sobald* er das Studium abgeschlossen hat. -> can only refer to the future
Peter will heiraten, *da/weil* er das Studium abgeschlossen hat. -> studies are completed

...and there are probably many more forms to say the same thing in an unambiguous way.


----------



## Kajjo

manfy said:


> In the absence of context, I'd understand
> as referring to the future.


Absolutely, no question at all. 

In everyday language this is clearly understood as "he plans to marry after he will have finished his education". He is not finished, yet.

If he had already finished his education, we would phrase it differently. Formally, #2 is correct that you cold argue, but from an idiomatic point of view, there is simply no ambiguity.


----------



## JClaudeK

Hussein89ali said:


> (The Lecturer says that the two sentences should not be in the same tense )


That's right:

See Temporalsätze mit nachdem - mein-deutschbuch.de


> Temporalsätze mit "nachdem" drücken eine *Ungleichzeitigkeit zweier Handlungen* aus. Die Handlung des Nebensatzes tritt dabei zuerst ein, die Handlung des Hauptsatzes folgt nach dem Nebensatz (invers zu der Konjunktion *bevor*). Das Verb des Nebensatzes steht dabei eine Zeitstufe vor dem Verb des Hauptsatzes. Es gilt:





>



Die Handlung des Nebensatzes tritt dabei zuerst ein, die Handlung des Hauptsatzes folgt nach dem Nebensatz.
_*Peter will heiraten, nachdem er sein Studium abgeschlossen hat.*_


----------



## Hutschi

Hussein89ali said:


> ...
> 
> Does this mean that Peter have already finished school ...


Only a short hint to the semantic part: "Studium" is not in a school but in a university (Universität oder Hochschule/Fachhochschule) in Germany.
It has semantic relevance regarding time:
"Studieren" is after school.
Schule ends at an age of approximately 18, Studium at approximately 24, depending on kind of school and university.



> Peter will heiraten, nachdem er das Studium abgeschlossen hat.


This implies he will marry with approximately 24.
(I finished my "Studium" at an age of 22.)



διαφορετικός said:


> Literally, present tense = the present: "Peter has already finished his studies, and now he wants to get married."
> You can understand the present tense as relating to the future: "Peter will wird heiraten wollen, nachdem er das Studium abgeschlossen hat haben wird."


When I read the sentence I will understand the second meaning (referring to the future) if there is no context.

However:

So I would say: "Peter will heiraten, nachdem er das Studium abgeschlossen hat."
 Peter has the plan to marry after the end of studying.

"Peter wird heiraten wollen, nachdem er das Studium abgeschlossen haben wird."
This "wird" has a modal meaning, too.
I suppose/it can be supposed that Peter will want/wants to marry after the end of studying.
(It is a raw translation, maybe not an idiomatic one.)


----------



## bearded

Hutschi said:


> "Peter wird heiraten wollen, nachdem er das Studium abgeschlossen haben wird


This formulation sounds a bit odd in my ears: Peter will not start wanting nachdem..., he rather already wants now - in view of a future time.  I agree on ''abgeschlossen haben wird'', but ''wird heiraten wollen'' does not seem correct to me.
How about _Peter will  erst heiraten, nachdem er sein Studium abgeschlossen haben wird._


----------



## Hutschi

That is why it has the other meaning of διαφορετικός's sentence:
"Er wird heiraten wollen"= "I suppose he wants to ..."/"He probably wants to ..."
Duden: werden
Meaning b: "kennzeichnet ein vermutetes Geschehen"

PS:


bearded said:


> This formulation sounds a bit odd in my ears: Peter will not start wanting nachdem..., he rather already wants now - in view of a future time. I agree on ''abgeschlossen haben wird'', but ''wird heiraten wollen'' does not seem correct to me.


Indeed, it is wrong, because it has or may have another meaning.


----------



## manfy

No, Hutschi's sentence is quite alright. It expresses a speculation, an assumption about what Peter will (probably) want to do once he's done with his studies. (or once he [finally] will be done with it)


bearded said:


> How about _Peter will  erst heiraten, nachdem er sein Studium abgeschlossen haben wird._


That's good too, but it expresses what Peter has said/announced at some time in the past.
(future in the subclause is a bit strange though)

[cross-posted]


----------



## διαφορετικός

διαφορετικός said:


> "Peter will wird heiraten wollen, nachdem er das Studium abgeschlossen hat haben wird."





Hutschi said:


> I suppose/it can be supposed that Peter will want/wants to marry after the end of studying.


Yes, this is a possible meaning of my sentence, but I meant just the future-referring meaning of "wird".



bearded said:


> This formulation sounds a bit odd in my ears: Peter will not start wanting nachdem..., he rather already wants now - in view of a future time. I agree on ''abgeschlossen haben wird'', but ''wird heiraten wollen'' does not seem correct to me.


Yes, it's odd. My paraphrase explains how the transition to the future tense would work in the general case, but in this case, it does not work as intended. (It would work better in the following sentence: "Peter heiratet wird heiraten, nachdem er das Studium abgeschlossen hat haben wird.")

The original sentence

"Peter will heiraten, nachdem er das Studium abgeschlossen hat."
can be extended to the following sentence

"Peter will, dass seine Heirat stattfindet, nachdem er das Studium abgeschlossen hat."
without modifying its meaning. This way, the point in time of "will" can be separated from the point in time of "heiraten".
Because the expression of the future with "wird" is a little ambiguous (as Hutschi explained) and not very idiomatic in this sentence, I'd like to show the two possible meanings with other words:

"Peter will, dass seine Heirat jetzt stattfindet, nachdem er das Studium abgeschlossen hat."
"Peter will, dass seine Heirat stattfindet, nachdem er das Studium dereinst abgeschlossen hat."
(The less idiomatic and maybe even incorrect variant with "wird": "Peter will, dass seine Heirat stattfinden wird, nachdem er das Studium abgeschlossen haben wird.")


----------



## bearded

manfy said:


> That's good too, but it expresses what Peter has said/announced at some time in the past.


Is that necessarily so? Can't Peter want something which he didn't announce to anyone?
Ich gebe nicht zwangsweise jemandem bekannt, was ich will.


----------



## berndf

With or without _erst_, the default interpretation of the sentence is that Peter made such an announcement some time is the past. If you want to express that this is an assumption and Peter hasn't told anyone, you have to make this explicit; e.g., by starting the sentence by "Ich glaube, ...".

Back to the original question: _Peter will [h]eiraten, nachdem er [sein] Studium abgeschlossen hat_. This is the canonical sequence of tenses. We can talk about many different variations and if they are impossible or if they are possible but just unlikely. But I see no point in it. Present tense with implied future semantics in the main clause and Perfekt in the subordinate clause is how one *does *say it in real life.

The "jetzt-Zeit" of the subordinate clause is understood to be determined by the (unknown) time of the event described in the main clause and not by the time the sentence is uttered. This makes this choice of tenses completely logical and obvious.


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> With or without _zwar_, the default interpretation of the sentence would be that Peter announced that some time is the past.


Do you mean with or without 'erst'?
So ''Peter will heiraten'' means ''Peter announced that he wants to marry''... Is that a peculiar usage of the verb 'wollen'? I'm thinking of other languages, in which ''he wants to marry/il veut se marier/vuole sposarsi..'' does not imply (I think) that he told his intention to other people. It could be an intention/a wish just in his mind.


----------



## berndf

bearded said:


> Do you mean with or without 'erst'?


Sorry, yes.


bearded said:


> So ''Peter will heiraten'' means ''Peter announced that he wants to marry''... Is that a peculiar usage of the verb 'wollen'?


It is the default interpretation. If you say it this bluntly without any_ maybe, perhaps_ or_ probably_, the listener will assume you know it because he told you so.


----------



## JClaudeK

bearded said:


> Is that necessarily so? Can't Peter want something which he didn't announce to anyone?


Doch, das kann er meiner Meinung nach.
Ersetzen wir "will" durch "hat vor/ hat die Absicht, ...", so kann das ein stillschweigend gefasster Beschluss sein:



> Peter *hat vor/ hat die Absicht* zu heiraten, nachdem er sein Studium abgeschlossen hat.


----------



## manfy

bearded said:


> It could be an intention/a wish just in his mind.


But how would you know that? Can you read minds?
To me, "Peter will <dies und das>" always implies that he has told me or let me know in the past in one way or another.


JClaudeK said:


> Doch, das kann er meiner Meinung nach.
> Ersetzen wir "will" durch "hat vor/ hat die Absicht, ...", so kann das ein stillschweigend gefasster Beschluss sein:


That doesn't work for me, I'm afraid. "Er hat vor..." is just another way of saying "Er will.."

The most common and definitive marker of speculation in my regional variation of German is probably 'sicher':
"Er will *sicher *heiraten, nachdem..." or "Er hat *sicher *vor zu heiraten, nachdem..."


----------



## berndf

manfy said:


> That doesn't work for me, I'm afraid. "Er hat vor..." is just another way of saying "Er will.."


Well, there is a slight semantic difference but I agree with you that with respect to the question at hand, whether you know it because he told you so, there is no significant difference between _er hat vor_ and_ er will_.


----------



## bearded

manfy said:


> But how would you know that? Can you read minds?


Well, I don't need him to have told me. Suppose the OP enquiry is the beginning of a novel: ''Peter wants to marry after finishing school, _but he didn't tell anyone, not even his best friend_''.  In your interpretation, the second part of the sentence couldn't exist/would be ruled out.
It is up to you to prove that ''will heiraten'' means ''announced that he wants to marry''.


----------



## berndf

bearded said:


> Well, I don't need him to have told me. Suppose the OP enquiry is the beginning of a novel: ''Peter wants to marry after finishing school, _but he didn't tell anyone, not even his best friend_''.  In your interpretation, the second part of the sentence couldn't exist/would be ruled out.
> It is up to you to prove that ''will heiraten'' means ''announced that he wants to marry''.


It is up to you as the speaker to provide enough context to trigger an alternative interpretation. If you don't, then people will, by default, understand that Peter said so at some point. This is simply how it is.


----------



## JClaudeK

berndf said:


> It is up to you as the speaker to provide enough context to trigger an alternative interpretation.


Anyway, probably  it's just an exercise sentence* on "nachdem". Whether Peter told the others or not  is not very important, IMO.

*Cf.:


Hussein89ali said:


> (The Lecturer says that the two sentences should not be in the same tense )


----------



## anahiseri

context or no context: if you say 
Er will . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . nachdem er  . . . . . . . . .  . hat
present + infinitive                               perfect
This means the action that the subject wants to carry out won't happen until he has done what is expressed in the second clause. He wants means his wish is a feeling now, but it refers to a future action.


----------



## anahiseri

the original sentence:
Peter will heiraten, nachdem er  das Studium abgeschlossen hat
literal translation
Peter wants to get married after he has finished University.
I really don't understand what we are discussing. I don't see any difference in meaning between German and English. Peter's wish is sth. he feels now, in the present, and it is about sth. in the future. And the tenses are the same.


----------



## bearded

anahiseri said:


> This means the action that the subject wants to carry out won't happen until he has done what is expressed in the second clause.


It is actually a bit more complicated. The rule with ''nachdem''  reads (see #5 above):
'''_Das Verb des Nebensatzes steht ... eine Zeitstufe vor dem Verb des Hauptsatzes.'''_

Based on that, please read the following consideration of mine, which I wrote in a private conversation with a German member:

Bei der Anwendung der obigen Regel auf den Beispielsatz
_Peter will heiraten, nachdem er sein Studium abgeschlossen hat_
frage ich mich, welches 'das Verb des Hauptsatzes' hier eigentlich ist.
Es ist nämlich nicht so, dass P. erst sein Studium abschließt und dann _will. _Das relevante Verb ist _heiraten_, was er nach Abschluss des Studiums tun will.
Bei oberflächlicher Lektüre könnte man meinen, 'abgeschlossen hat' stehe richtig im Perfekt, weil 'will' Präsens ist. Dem ist aber nicht ganz so, denn die wirkliche Reihenfolge der Fakten ist 'erst abschließen, dann heiraten' und nicht 'erst abschließen und dann heiraten wollen'. Der zeitliche Vergleich ist zwischen einem Infinitiv (heiraten) und einem Perfekt (abgeschlossen hat)..

I feel that's the difficulty/the problem we've been discussing here. Really not that simple.
The problem was described pretty well by διαφορετικός in #10.
​


----------



## anahiseri

bearded said:


> Der zeitliche Vergleich ist zwischen einem Infinitiv (heiraten) und einem Perfekt (abgeschlossen hat)..


I don't agree with this. The infinitive is not a tense, and if there is a "temporal comparison" it's between present and perfect.
I insist it's the same in English. Another example without "want":
Ich werde spazieren gehen wenn ich die Hausaufgaben gemacht habe.
I will go for a walk when I have finished my homework.
Future - Perfect. same as in English


----------



## bearded

anahiseri said:


> "temporal comparison" it's between present and perfect.


But you cannot deny that
''die wirkliche Reihenfolge der Fakten ist 'erst abschließen, dann heiraten' und nicht 'erst abschließen und dann heiraten wollen' ''
or do you think that ''er will..nachdem er das Studium abgeschlossen hat'' (i.e. between present and perfect) makes sense? Er will jetzt, nicht erst nachdem...


----------



## anahiseri

manfy said:


> know that? Can you read minds?


????? Are you being earnest?
You mean, you cannot make sentences about other people's feelings?


----------



## anahiseri

bearded said:


> ''wird heiraten wollen'' does not seem correct to me.


Why not? It's a normal sentence about sth in the future: about a feeling in the future. He will want to get married. He will want to eat the cake if he sees it. He will not want to play with you if you behave like that. Same in German.


----------



## berndf

bearded said:


> It is actually a bit more complicated. The rule with ''nachdem''  reads (see #5 above):
> '''_Das Verb des Nebensatzes steht ... eine Zeitstufe vor dem Verb des Hauptsatzes.'''_
> 
> ...
> 
> I feel that's the difficulty/the problem we've been discussing here. Really not that simple.
> The problem was described pretty well by διαφορετικός in #10.


I really don't understand what your problem is. The second clause is past from the perspective of the event described in the main clause and that is all that matters.



berndf said:


> The "jetzt-Zeit" of the subordinate clause is understood to be determined by the (unknown) time of the event described in the main clause and not by the time the sentence is uttered. This makes this choice of tenses completely logical and obvious.


----------



## anahiseri

bearded said:


> . . . .
> _Peter will heiraten, nachdem er sein Studium abgeschlossen hat_
> frage ich mich, welches 'das Verb des Hauptsatzes' hier eigentlich ist.
> Es ist nämlich nicht so, dass P. erst sein Studium abschließt und dann _will. _Das relevante Verb ist _heiraten_, was er nach Abschluss des Studiums tun will.
> Bei oberflächlicher Lektüre könnte man meinen, 'abgeschlossen hat' stehe richtig im Perfekt, weil 'will' Präsens ist. Dem ist aber nicht ganz so, denn die wirkliche Reihenfolge der Fakten ist 'erst abschließen, dann heiraten' und nicht 'erst abschließen und dann heiraten wollen'. Der zeitliche Vergleich ist zwischen einem Infinitiv (heiraten) und einem Perfekt (abgeschlossen hat)..
> 
> I feel that's the difficulty/the problem we've been discussing here. Really not that simple.
> The problem was described pretty well by διαφορετικός in #10.
> ​


Mal sehen.... 
_Peter will heiraten, nachdem er sein Studium abgeschlossen hat
Hauptsatz    - -  -,    Nebensatz          Aber diese Reihenfolge ist nicht obligatorisch:
Nachdem er sein Studium abgeschlossen hat, will Peter heiraten. Oder besser:
Nachdem Peter sein Studium abgeschlossen hat, will er heiraten.  
Die Reihenfolge von Haupt und Nebensatz hängt nicht davon ab, was zuerst geschieht:
Er zeigte mir das Brot, das er gebacken hatte.  Hier ist die Reihenfolge der Fakten 1) backen 2) zeigen_
Reihenfolge der Sätze: 1) Hauptsatz (zeigen) (2) Nebensatz (backen) 
Ob ein Verb relevant ist oder nicht (für den Sinn des Satzes, wenn ich es richtig verstanden habe) hat nichts mit der Grammatik zu  tun. 
Im Satz von Peter ist "will" das Verb im Hauptsatz.


----------



## berndf

anahiseri said:


> Ob ein Verb relevant ist oder nicht (für den Sinn des Satzes, wenn ich es richtig verstanden habe) hat nichts mit der Grammatik zu tun.
> Im Satz von Peter ist "will" das Verb im Hauptsatz.


@bearded hat insofern recht, als Perfekt im Nebensatz tatsächlich am besten semantisch zu erklären ist. Mit _will_ und seine Zeitstufe (Präsens) hat das ganze eigentlich nichts zu tun. Die Zeit des Nebensatzes ändert sich nicht, wenn man den Hauptsatz ändert:
_Peter will heiraten, nachdem er sein Studium abgeschlossen hat_.
_Peter wird heiraten, nachdem er sein Studium abgeschlossen hat_.
_Peter heiratet, nachdem er sein Studium abgeschlossen hat_.

Der Hauptsatz beschreibt ein Ereignis und auf das bezieht sich der Nebensatz. Die einzige Unterscheidung, die relevant ist, ist, ob das Ereignis vergangen ist oder nicht. Wenn das Ereignis bereits in der Vergangenheit liegt, dann wird der Nebensatz eine Stufe weiter in die Vergangenheit gezogen:
_Peter heirate*te*, nachdem er sein Studium abgeschlossen hat*te*_.


----------



## bearded

anahiseri said:


> Why not? It's a normal sentence about sth in the future: about a feeling in the future. _He will want_ to get married. _He will_ _want_ to eat the cake if he sees it. He will not want to play with you if you behave like that. Same in German.


Sorry I cannot agree with that. Please note that the OP sentence is ''Peter will...'' (Peter will schon jetzt),  nicht ''Peter wird wollen''.
 This is my reply to your question, but I will not continue this discussion further.
Anscheinend siehst Du nicht ein, dass Sinn und Grammatik eines Satzes miteinander doch eng verbunden sind (nichts für ungut!).


----------



## Hutschi

Here it is the connection to the future:
(see also Bernd #30)

Er will etwas machen.

"Wollen" is in German "to want"
"Machen" is infinitive and does not indicate time.


"er will" is a time period with a time point and point of view in present time and tense, and it makes the infinitive "heiraten" to happen in future time. In English this "will" became grammaticalized and lost the meaning "to want to".
Unlike "will" in English it is not grammaticalized, it keeps the sense "to want to".
But it indicates that "machen" is in the future time (not tense)
Tense - I mean the grammatical tense.
Time - I mean the time when it happens.


Peter will (present tense, present time, puts "heiraten" into the future time)
heiraten (infinitive, does not indicate when it happens),
nachdem er Studium abgeschlossen hat (Finish of studying is in the future, point of view is past time in the future time - Vergangenheit in der Zukunft).

We already discussed the points, I just wanted to summarize with the original sentence.
Many of the problems occurre because time and tense use the same names in German, for example Gegenwart.
You can use present tense to indicate future time.
Without connotation to "want to" you can say:

Er heiratet, (present tense, the next part shows that it is future time)
nachdem (shows the time range)
er das Studium abgeschlossen hat. (perfect tense, future time = He will marry after studies will be finished)


----------



## anahiseri

bearded said:


> Please note that the OP sentence is ''Peter will...'' (Peter will schon jetzt), nicht ''Peter wird wollen''.


It's Hutschi who introduced "wird wollen" in post 5, and bearded replied in post 6.
Hutschi mentions both meanings the  modal  and the temporal (future).
Hutschi, great summary. (read it after first posting this) There may in fact be some confusion with German will and English will.


----------



## bearded

anahiseri said:


> It's Hutschi who introduced "wird wollen" in post 5,


Sure, and I explained in my reply why I don't agree with his interpretation:


> Peter will not start wanting nachdem..., he rather already wants now


Now you put the same question (''why not?'') and seem to not consider my reply, since you insist on ''he will want''.   I won't polemize any more - this time I promise.


----------



## berndf

bearded said:


> Please note that the OP sentence is ''Peter will...'' (Peter will schon jetzt), nicht ''Peter wird wollen''.


Wie du sicherlich weißt, ist dieser Unterschied im Deutschen nicht sehr bedeutsam. Es gibt zwar einen Futur der Vollständigkeit Halber, aber systematisch wird nur zwischen nicht mehr beeinflussbarem, d.h. vergangenem, und beeinflussbarem, d.h. nicht-vergangenem, unterschieden.


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> Wie du sicherlich weißt,...


Ich werde Dir per PM antworten, um mein Versprechen einzuhalten.


----------

