# hast/habe or hat?



## dekdek

hello
i'm sorry if this question has asked before but i really couldn't get a possible answer.
on which cases do you use each of the following: habe-hab-haben
hat-hatte
i'm not sure but i heard that hast is used just from "du"
an answer will be appreciated


----------



## valy822

*Indikativ Präsens *
ich habe
du hast
er/sie/es hat
wir haben
ihr habt
sie/Sie haben

*Präteritum* 
ich hatte
du hattest
er/sie/es hatte
wir hatten
ihr hattet
sie/Sie hatten


----------



## dekdek

Vielen dank meine schöne 
Es wird mir helfen


----------



## dekdek

what aout the perfect though? 
and a question form and a negative form please


----------



## Krümelmonster

perfect form: gehabt (ich habe gehabt, du hast gehabt...) by the way: Plusquamperfekt: ich hatte gehabt
question form: just change the word order: habe ich...? hatte ich...? habe ich ... gehabt?
negative form: nicht haben (ich habe nicht / ich hatte nicht / ich habe nicht gehabt...)


----------



## pjay

Perfekt von haben

Ich habe gehabt
Du hast gehabt
Er, sie es hat gehabt
Wir haben gehabt
 Ihr habt gehabt
Sie haben gehabt

Questions:
Hattest du einen schönen Urlaub
Did you have a nice vacation?

Negation:
Nein, ich hatte keinen schönen Urlaub.
No we didn't have a nice vaction.


----------



## dekdek

okkk so can i say for example: did you like it? -
hattet ihr es gemocht?
nein, wir hatten es nicht gemocht.

*and you can't use keinen when you have a verb like in my example right?
(like "ich habe keine platz" when it's refering to a noun)

-and for the perfect : have you eaten your apple? - 
hattest du ihres apfel gegesen?
nein, ich hatte keine apfel gegesen?

argh it gets confusing! Where did i go wrong?

Hope you can make it clear again.


----------



## pjay

No problem Dedek, you almost got it right. Unfortunately German needs a lot of inflexion which makes it confusing.


> hattet ihr es gemocht?


Correct, although this is past perfect, if this is what you want to say. "Had you liked it?"
'Did you like it' would correspond to "Mochtet ihr es" (past) or more commonly "Habt ihr es gemocht" (present perfect)



> "ich habe keine platz"


No, actually "keinen" is correct. Ich habe keinen Platz (accusative).



> have you eaten your apple? -
> hattest du ihres apfel gegesen?
> nein, ich hatte keine apfel gegesen?


Again, you are using the past perfect form. The system works actually pretty much as in English. 

Past perfect: past tense form of "haben" + past participle
Present perfect: present tense of "haben" + past participle

"Hast du deinen Apfel gegessen?" or "Haben Sie Ihren Apfel gegessen (polite form)"
Nein, ich habe keinen Apfel gegessen.

If you insist on using the past perfect forms, you would assume a context in the past (imagine telling a story) and within your past action you are referring to something that happened previously.

"Er saß am Tisch und aß sein Schnitzel. Er hatte _vorher_ seinen Apfel gegessen."

Can you make this distinction in Hebrew, too, just using inflexion, without adverbs or prepositions? Is there something like a past perfect in Hebrew?


----------



## dekdek

Dank,
Ich muss/brauche mehr üben
oh and hebrew is really different
it's hard for me even to think about the similarities 
we don't have perfect tense for sure.
we have something similar to the cases like changing the he she they, but not the verb or the noun coming after it.


----------



## Krümelmonster

"Ich muss mehr üben" oder "Ich brauche mehr Übung" (in der Regel müssen + Verb, brauchen + Substantiv)... und es heißt "danke" 
Ansonsten bitte, kein Problem!


----------



## dekdek

i still didn't understand when you're supposed to use müssen, because it went well as i said before "ich muss mehr üben" ( i know you say ich muss zu toilette gehen- the verb is after the noun)
and also i didn't get why you changed the üben - to übung
one is the verb and the other is the noun? 

 now i'd like to try a question and nagative sentence again if i may:

Gereingt er (deinen?) haus gestern? - - (btw, when do i use capital letters?)

Nein, er deinen haus vorgestern gereinigt!

herzlichen dank,
Oded


----------



## Krümelmonster

"üben" is a verb, and "müssen" is used before a verb: "Ich muss üben". (I must / _need to _practice_)_
"Übung" is a noun, and "brauchen" is used before verbs: "Ich brauche Übung". (I _need _practice)

Your other sentence would be: "Hat er dein Haus gestern gereinigt?" (all nouns are written with capital letters) - "Nein, er hat dein Haus vorgestern gereinigt!"

I must be "dein" instead of "deinen" because it is "das Haus" (neutral) and not "der Haus" (masculine).


----------



## dekdek

I hope i'm not bugging you too much, but i'd really like to master the structure of the german sentence *sigh*

I thought the structure of v3+person+noun+v2 (hat er dein Haus gereinigt) is used as present perfect.
I was taught that when you have a specific time in your sentence (yesterday) it can't be the time - perfect, it must be past simple.


----------



## Jana337

dekdek said:
			
		

> I hope *I*'m not bugging you too much, but *I*'d really like to master the structure of the *G*erman sentence *sigh*
> 
> I thought the structure of v3+person+noun+v2 (hat er dein Haus gereinigt) is used as present perfect.
> I was taught that when you have a specific time in your sentence (yesterday) it can't be the time - perfect, it must be past simple.


I am afraid there's no one-to-one correspondence between German and English. In narratives, you should use Präteritum. In dialogues, Perfekt is more appropriate except for verbs like sein, haben, modals and some others where Präteritum forms are prevalent even where Perfekt is standard. This is just a rule of thumb.

Capital letters: You have to capitalize all German nouns. It goes without saying that this language forum expects you to write standard English, too (see rule 22 ).

Jana


----------



## pjay

Dedek, you're not bugging at all. Überhaupt kein Problem.



> hat er dein Haus gereinigt


Hat er dein Haus gereinigt? This should be written as a question and you're right. This IS present perfect. A little higher up in this thread you used some past perfect forms which are different. Don't get confused between present perfect and past perfect. But it's actually simple: Present perfect has an auxilliary "haben" in the present tense + participle and past perfect uses an auxilliary "haben" in the past tense + participle. 

The tense rule you mentioned seems generally true although Jana is right. You have a little more freedom in German when it comes to using tenses. In southern Germany, people hardly ever use the past in colloquial conversations. So in southern Germany (not just Bavaria) things tend to be simple. 90% Present Perfect. Also kann man folgendes in Deutschland sagen:

Gestern war ich im Kino.
Gestern bin ich ins Kino gegangen.


----------



## dekdek

Not simple at allll

I'll use from now on capital letters as long as I remember Jana 

 The other example was really confusing: "Gestern bin ich ins Kino gegangen" because it mixes bin and gegangen.
Can't you just say : Gestern habe ich geschreiben einem Brief?
It must work somehow 

Danke, wieder


----------



## Jana337

dekdek said:
			
		

> Not simple at allll
> 
> I'll use from now on capital letters as long as I remember Jana
> 
> The other example was really confusing: "Gestern bin ich ins Kino gegangen" because it mixes bin and gegangen.


It does not mix anything; "gehen" needs "sein" as an auxiliary verb.  English has "to have" for all verbs, in German verbs of motion etc. require "sein".



> Can't you just say : Gestern habe ich geschreiben einem Brief?


 Mistakes: schreiben - sch*rie*b - geschr*ie*ben (not geschreiben)
Schreiben takes an accusative --> einen Brief.
The participle is always at the very end: Gestern habe ich einen Brief geschrieben.

But if you were to tell a story, you would say: Gestern schrieb ich gerade einen Brief, als mich ein Freund anrief und wollte, dass ich mit ihm ins Kino gehe. Der Film war sehr spannend. Er hieß ... and so on. 



> It must work somehow
> 
> Danke, wieder


 I am sure it will work out. 

Jana


----------



## gaer

Jana has already explained the whole problem of "conversation" vs. narrative, but let me try to explain in the simplest possible way.

You seem to understand English well, so let me us it:

In some European languages, not just German, people describe everyday events this way:

"Today I have studied for several hours."

 It means: "Today I studied for several hours."

This can get chained together too. 

"I have have asked two questions in the Forum and [have] recieved two answers."

Ich habe zwei Fragen gestellt und ich habe zwei Antworten bekommen.

Ich habe zwei Fragen im Forum gestellt und [habe] zwei Antworten bekommen.

There is no absolute rule about how many events you can chain together in this way. It's a matter of feel, but if you understand this, you will realize that what is being said is this:

"I asked two questions in the forum and recieved two answers."

This particular characteristic of German is so strongly stressed in the US that what you and I think of as "plain old past tense" is actually taught later. In the one course I took years ago, the professor stressed "habe geschrieben, habe getan, habe gemacht, habe gelernt" and so on and said, quite correctly, that we would not need "schrieb, tat, machte, lernte" etc. By that he meant that most of the class wanted minimum language credit and would not be reading books. I already knew all these forms, since I had been reading books for several years. You must know them to read!

(He was a great teacher and gave me additional material on verb forms that would make a few Germans sweat a little.)   

The moment you pick up a book and begin to read it, all of a sudden you see what I conveniently call "simple past" dominate in all narrative. When characters in the book begin to talk, they change to the "have + participle" form.

My friend in France always uses this, in English, forgetting that we don't do it. He writes things like this

"I have received your email, and I have written a reply an hour later."

He means: "I received your email, and I wrote a reply an hour later."

If you just keep this in mind, as a general principle, you will instantly get a feel for German conversation.

And there is one other thing that will help you. In older English, especially in the Bible, you will see: "He is risen." "He is come." In moderen English, these are "He has risen." "He has come." From this you can instantly see how much closer English was to German just a couple centuries ago. 

Now, did I help you or confuse you?

Gaer


----------



## pjay

Well, I must admit, my example might have been a bit confusing, because there are actually two auxilliaries in German and many other European languages that can be used with the present perfect. In most cases it's "haben" but in  some cases it's "sein". The standard case is "haben" and I should have stuck with it. 

"Gestern habe ich einen Brief geschrieben"

This is present perfect of course and this is decent standard German. The use of an adverbial at the beginning of the sentence ("gestern") requires the verb (participle) to move to the end of the sentence. That's why geschrieben moves to the end. This is a peculiarity of German and only a few other languages.


----------



## jester.

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Gestern schrieb ich gerade einen Brief, als mich ein Freund *anrufte* und wollte, dass ich mit ihm ins Kino gehe.



Ein kleiner Hinweis: Es heißt anrief.

Auch ohne die Vorsilbe "an" ist die Vergangenheitsform von rufen "rief".


----------



## dekdek

Thanks everyone for your help.
I think that I got it quite well but I still have to think about it more 
So.. when I have time I'll try to make a new sentence.
The cases are kinda tough as well (shreib-shrieb,in-im?)


----------



## dekdek

I'll try to write some sentences, would be great if you corrected 

*Vor einem Jahr besuche ich meinen Freund in Solingen. Dann wir fahren mit anderen Kindern nach Berlin und Düsseldorf. Die Reise war sehr spaß, und wir treffen nach einem Jahr in Israel. 
(this is supposed to be a story in the past).

Now a question and negative sentence:

Hast du für deinem Prüfung studieren?
Nein, Ich habe für meinem Prüfung keinen studiert.

This took me a long time to do *sigh*
But I hope that I got at least the base.
Vielen dank für ihre Hilfe!


----------



## Henryk

Could you provide your sentences also in English? 

I'd like to help but it's difficult if I don't know what you exactly mean by your sentences. 



> Hast du für deinem Prüfung studieren?
> Nein, Ich habe für meinem Prüfung keinen studiert.


Hast du für deine Prüfung gelernt?
Nein, ich habe nicht für meine Prüfung gelernt.


----------



## pjay

> Vor einem Jahr besuch*t*e ich meinen Freund in Solingen. Dann f*u*hren *wir *mit anderen Kindern nach Berlin und Düsseldorf. Die Reise *hat viel Spaß gemacht*, und wir tr*af*en *uns *nach einem Jahr in Israel.


1) Du hast die Geschichte in der Gegenwart erzählt. Du musst die Verben in die Vergangenheit setzen.

2) Der zweite Satz beginnt wieder mit einem Adverb ("dann"). Das konjugierte Verb ist im Deutschen immer an zweiter Stelle. Deutsch nennt man darum eine V2-Sprache. Wenn also das Adverb an erster Stelle ist, kommt das Verb sofort danach und dann erst das Subjekt ("wir").

3) Anders als im Englischen ist "treffen" im Deutschen ein reflexives Verb, mit Reflexivpronomen ("uns").

4) Besser wäre "ein Jahr später".

Trotz der Fehler ist der Satz sehr gut verständlich. Wenn ich Hebräisch lernen müsste, wäre das bestimmt sehr schwierig.


----------



## dekdek

Danke Henryk und Pjay.
pjay, Vielleicht ist mein Satz klar, but yours isn't 
I didn't really get your explanations because I don't understand many German words. If you can, translate it to English please.
I also tried to put the verbs in the past, but couldn't find any past form for them.
When do you use Kein and when Nicht?

The story I wanted to tell: A year ago I visited my friend in Solingen. Then we went with other kids to Duesseldorf and Berlin. The trip was very fun and we met a year later in Israel.


----------



## pjay

Ok, here goes....



> Vor einem Jahr besuch*t*e ich meinen Freund in Solingen. Dann f*u*hren *wir *mit anderen Kindern nach Berlin und Düsseldorf. Die Reise *hat viel Spaß gemacht*, und wir tr*af*en *uns *nach einem Jahr in Israel.



1) You told your story in the present. You should put your verbs in the past.

2) The 2nd sentence starts with an adverb ('dann'). The conjugated verb form must be in 2nd position in a standard German declarative sentence. That's why German is generally called a V2 language. So when the verb is in 2nd place the subject ('wir') must follow it. 

3) Unlike English the German verb "treffen" is a reflexive verb, i.e. it requires a reflexive pronoun ('uns' = engl. 'us').

4) "ein Jahr später" (a year later) would fit better, but that's no mistake.

You made some mistakes, but everybody understands exactly what you mean.


----------



## gaer

Pjay,

The suggestions I'm making below regarding English are in no way improvements or corrections of what you wrote. Your replies in German and English were excellent, but here and there they were a bit different.

Dekdek, 

I am comparing what he Pjay in German with his translation of his own suggestions, because I think it might help you understand a few things. He made no mistakes. I'm simply being a bit more literal.


			
				Pjay said:
			
		

> 1) Du hast die Geschichte in der Gegenwart erzählt. Du musst die Verben in die Vergangenheit setzen.
> 
> 1) You told your story in the present. You should put your verbs in the past.


First, notice that Pjay wrote "hast…erzählt". This is a perfect example of conversational use of "haben + verb". It looks like "have told", but just "told" is not only better for translation, it is correct. I would translate "Du musst" as "you have to", in this case. Mussen and sollen are tricky, so it's a matter of feel, but in this case you truly *have to* put your verbs in past tense. You have no choice. If you put them in present tense, it's 100% wrong. 


			
				Pjay said:
			
		

> 2) Der zweite Satz beginnt wieder mit einem Adverb ("dann"). Das konjugierte Verb ist im Deutschen immer an zweiter Stelle. Deutsch nennt man darum eine V2-Sprache. Wenn also das Adverb an erster Stelle ist, kommt das Verb sofort danach und dann erst das Subjekt ("wir").
> 
> 2) The 2nd sentence starts with an adverb ('dann'). The conjugated verb form must be in 2nd position in a standard German declarative sentence. That's why German is generally called a V2 language. So when the verb is in 2nd place the subject ('wir') must follow it.


Here Pjay has changed his sentence a bit in English. His explanation is actually improved, since he adds the words "declarative sentence". I believe you also know about "verb-kickers", words that push verbs to the end of a clause. 

I would translate it this way:

The 2nd sentence starts *again* with an adverb ("dann"). The conjugated verb is always in second place/position in German. That's why (darum) "one" calls (names/nennen) German a V2-language. So if (wenn also) the adverb is in first position, the verb comes immediately after and then the subject ("wir").

The words "dann erst" are a bit hard to explain. Perhaps "only then", but that is very "loose". It merely strengthens that the subject does not come until the verb has already appeared. 


			
				Pjay said:
			
		

> 3) Anders als im Englischen ist "treffen" im Deutschen ein reflexives Verb, mit Reflexivpronomen ("uns").
> 
> 3) Unlike English the German verb "treffen" is a reflexive verb, i.e. it requires a reflexive pronoun ('uns' = engl. 'us').


3) In contrast to [Anders als, literally "other than"] English, "treffen" is a reflexive verb, with that reflexive pronoun ("uns").


			
				Pjay said:
			
		

> 4) Besser wäre "ein Jahr später".
> 4) "ein Jahr später" (a year later) would fit better, but that's no mistake.


"Ein Jahr später" (a year later) might be better. With wäre he is suggesting that it might be better, subjunctive, and this is why, in English he made it clear that it was a stylistic suggestion, not a correction.


			
				Pjay said:
			
		

> Trotz der Fehler ist der Satz sehr gut verständlich. Wenn ich Hebräisch lernen müsste, wäre das bestimmt sehr schwierig.
> 
> You made some mistakes, but everybody understands exactly what you mean.


Despite the mistakes the paragraph is quite (sehr gut, literally "very well") understandable. If I had to learn Hebrew, it would certainly be very difficult.

Once again, to make things crystal clear, nothing I have suggested meant for a correction or improvement of what Pjay wrote, only a clarification of exactly what the German says in case you can use it to study his excellent German!

Gaer


----------



## dekdek

Ihr sind am größten!
Ich werde mehr Sätze wieder schreiben.

 By the way - do you know of any site that I can read in a children's story? So I can get to know the rules better


----------



## dekdek

Oh and anyway I have more questions as usual 

*What was wrong with my sentence - "Die Reise war sehr spaß"? Is it because "fun" is different than "good"?

In this sentence : "Anders als im Englischen ist "treffen" im Deutschen ein reflexives Verb" - Why does the "ist" come before the noun?
I got the idea that the order of the sentence might be like in old English,
but I didn't get when I should use each order.

Thanks again


----------



## Krümelmonster

"Spaß" is a noun. If you use it as a verb, you can put it that way: "Die Reise war sehr spaßig (funny)". (Though there are better words for it than spaßig)
You never use a noun with "sehr", but with "viel":
"Die Reise hat uns viel Spaß gemacht."

I don't want to confuse you, but you may also hear "Die Reise hat uns sehr Spaß gemacht", but then the "sehr" refers to the verb "machen" and not to the "Spaß".

I don't know how to answer your second question, but the word order changes because of the "Anders als im Englischen...". Without that you would say: "Treffen" ist im Deutschen ein reflexives Verb.


----------

