# atypical auxiliary verbs in German



## brian

Hi folks,

This might be a simple question--or maybe confusing and difficult, not sure--but I'm wondering whether there are any other auxiliary verbs in German (or even dialects) other than the normal ones--_sein, haben,_ and _werden_.

What I have in mind are auxiliaries like _get_ in English or _venire_, literally "to come," and _andare_, literally "to go," in Italian:

_I *got* fired.
Prima che la casa *venga* venduta... = Before the house gets/is sold...
Il tavolo *va* spostato di là. = The table must be/ought to be moved over there._

and so forth.

So are there any other auxiliaries, like _kommen_ or _gehen_, in German or in dialects? Just curious.


----------



## Frank78

I don´t think you can use a full verb as auxiliary in German. But you can use auxiliaries without full verbs.


----------



## brian

What does that mean?  Example?


----------



## Kuestenwache

In that context is it okay to say "I have something for you" or do you need "got" like in "I've got something for you" somehow my feeling doesn't really give me clue here. In German for example "Ich hab etwas für dich" works absolutely fine.


----------



## berndf

_


brian8733 said:



			What does that mean?  Example?
		
Click to expand...

__Er will nicht mehr *sein*._
_Er will immer mehr* haben*._
_Das wird schon wieder* werden*._

There are a few idoms where you could regard verbs other then the said ones as auxilliaries:
_Er *gehört* geschlagen._
_Er *bekommt/kriegt* gesagt, dass..._

The second example is a bit similar in logic to _he *got* fired_.


----------



## brian

Kuestenwache said:
			
		

> In that context is it okay to say "I have something for you" or do you need "got" like in "I've got something for you" somehow my feeling doesn't really give me clue here. In German for example "Ich hab etwas für dich" works absolutely fine.


I don't know exactly how _got_ works in _I've got_, but I don't think it's a participle of any kind. It's more like a particle or something....

In any case, _I have something for you = I've got something for you_ are both correct, with the exact same meaning. But it doesn't really have anything to do with auxiliary verbs.



			
				berndf said:
			
		

> The second example is similar to _he *got* fired_.



But these are only idioms? I think I've heard _kriegen_ before as an auxiliary, but I can't remember if it was a set phrase or not. Can you ever use it in a made-up sentence like _got_, or is it restricted to set phrases?


----------



## sokol

There are also modal auxiliary verbs - but as far as I've understood your question it is not about modal verbs but about "full" verbs used as auxiliaries.

I don't think there are any other ones in dialects - except for *"tun"* (Edit: or examples as mentioned by berndf) which is widely used in colloquial speech and many dialects:

Ich esse.
Ich *tu *essen.

This use of "tun" is considered very bad style in standard language but still used by some; and it is standard use in many dialects.


----------



## berndf

brian8733 said:


> But these are only idioms?


Ok, I should have said "idiomatic uses of the verbs bekommen, kriegen, gehören". I agree, this use works with many different main verbs and is productive.


----------



## brian

Sorry, by "idiom" I don't mean "idiomatic." That is, a sentence can sound _idiomatic_ (= natural, fluent) without being an _idiom_ (= set phrase).

My question was: are the uses of _bekommen, kriegen, _and _gehören_ restricted to idioms/set phrases? Or can you use them freely in made-up sentences?

@sokol: you're right, I meant auxiliary verbs with past participles, not infinitives. So that discounts modal verbs as well as the colloquial _tun_ (though very interesting ).


----------



## berndf

brian8733 said:


> Sorry, by "idiom" I don't mean "idiomatic." That is, a sentence can sound _idiomatic_ (= natural, fluent) without being an _idiom_ (= set phrase).
> 
> My question was: are the uses of _bekommen, kriegen, _and _gehören_ restricted to idioms/set phrases? Or can you use them freely in made-up sentences?


Sorry, I thought I answered that but obviously wasn't clear enough: I should have said _idiomatic_, not _idiom_; it was poor wording on my side. And, again, yes, this use of _bekommen, kriegen, _and _gehören_ *is* *productive* in contemporary German.


brian8733 said:


> @sokol: you're right, I meant auxiliary verbs with past participles, not infinitives. So that discounts modal verbs as well as the colloquial _tun_ (though very interesting ).


I disagree. In my mind, _tun_ in _Er tut essen_ *is* an auxilliary as it is in the corresponding English sentence _He does eat_.


----------



## brian

Ok cool.  Can I have some more examples please (with translations, if possible)?


----------



## berndf

brian8733 said:


> Ok cool.  Can I have some more examples please (with translations, if possible)?


_Dieser Thread gehört gelöscht. - This thead ought to be/deserves to be deleted._
_Er bekommt Schlaftabletten verordnet. - He gets prescribed sleeping pills._


----------



## brian

berndf said:


> I disagree. In my mind, _tun_ in _Er tut essen_ *is* an auxilliary as it is in the corresponding English sentence _He does eat_.



Sorry, maybe I was unclear: I know that both _tun_ and _do_ are auxiliaries, but I wanted my question to be restricted to auxiliaries with _past participles_, not infinitives. In _Er tut essen / He does eat_, both _essen_ and _eat_ are infinitives, as are the verbs following the modals, but I wanted to disregard these particular auxiliaries for the purposes of this thread. 



berndf said:


> _Dieser Thread gehört gelöscht. - This thead ought to be/deserves to be deleted._
> _Er bekommt Schlaftabletten verordnet. - He gets prescribed sleeping pills._



Gotcha.  (though I disagree with the sentiment of first example )

So what about this: _Es gehört ihm zurückgegeben = It ought to be returned to him._ ?


----------



## berndf

brian8733 said:


> So what about this: _Es gehört ihm zurückgegeben = It ought to be returned to him._ ?


 Yes, that is fine.


----------



## brian

Last question (maybe...): are these auxiliaries very colloquial, even sub-standard/dialectal (like _tun_), or are they standard and used in everyday speech, even in writing?


----------



## berndf

brian8733 said:


> Last question (maybe...): are these auxiliaries very colloquial, even sub-standard/dialectal (like _tun_), or are they standard and used in everyday speech, even in writing?


As Sokol said, _tun_ as an auxiliary is sub-standard or dialectal. My examples are mainly colloquial but acceptable in (almost?) all registers and are not marked as dialectal.


----------



## Kuestenwache

That depends on the verb they are used with. Generally yes unsing verbs as auxiliaries if they really are not really is sub-standart yet not typically for any specific dialect. Some of those constructions however made their way into standart language like "etwas(mostly a medical procedure or a medication) verorndet bekommen".


----------



## sokol

brian8733 said:


> Last question (maybe...): are these auxiliaries very colloquial, even sub-standard/dialectal (like _tun_), or are they standard and used in everyday speech, even in writing?


Well, they are standard language really.
Some uses *should *be considered colloquial speech (as mentioned above), but some uses of this are perfectly standard language grammar.

There's even a slogan advertising an Austrian TV station (the station which plays mostly "classical" music - "E-Musik" - and news):
"Ö1 gehört gehört" - meaning "Ö1 is worth hearing" (verbs "gehören" - present tense - and "hören" - participle) or word-by-word "Ö1 must (ought to) be heard".


----------



## Kuestenwache

I would not recomment using ads as examples for standart language, a very famous sloagan in German said "Da werden sie geholfen" which is grammatically very questionable. Still "bekommen+participle" to express unability to do something is very common. I think it is derived from "hinbekommen/hinkriegen"-"to manage to do":
"Ich bekommen es nicht hin/Ich kriege es nicht hin, meine Tür richtig zu verschließen" becomes "Ich bekomme/kriege meine Tür nicht richtig verschlossen".
"gehören+participle" seems to me is a form of "sich gehören". "sich für jemanden gehören etwas zu tun" "to suite somebody to do something"
"Es gehört sich in solchen Situationen die Polzei zu rufen" becomes "In solchen Situationen gehört die Polizei gerufen"
And as I said they are not associated with any specific dialect an thus very wide spread so it is hard to say where to draw the line between standart and sub-standart language. Still it is hard for me to immagine such sentences in formal or official letters and since hence they seem to be a phenomenon of spoken language only I would not characterise them as standart language (someone maybe look them up in the Duden I think then we know for sure).


----------



## sokol

Kuestenwache said:


> I would not recomment using ads as examples for standart language, a very famous sloagan in German said "Da werden sie geholfen" which is grammatically very questionable. Well, not only questionable but, as we both know, just wrong.  Still "bekommen+participle" to express unability to do something is very common. I think it is derived from "hinbekommen/hinkriegen"-"to manage to do":
> "Ich bekommen es nicht hin/Ich kriege es nicht hin, meine Tür richtig zu verschließen" becomes "Ich bekomme/kriege meine Tür nicht richtig verschlossen".


This example now, "bekommen + participle" or (as is more usual in Austria) "kriegen + particple" ("Ich kriege mein Gehalt nicht ausgezahlt"), I would consider - well: _rather _colloquial though not strictly non-standard.

Also this example for "gehören": "Das gehört geändert!" at least to me sounds rather colloquial. Other uses of the same word though sound more like standard language to me, like: "Das gehört überprüft." (Still one could rephrase this as "Das muss überpfürft werden" in which case there's absolutely no doubt that this is acceptable in standard language; but for me there's no need at all to rephrase this, I'd consider "Das gehört überprüft." as correct and acceptable even for formal use of standard language.)

So I'm not entirely sure myself where there is a line (if there is one) between standard language use and colloquial use. My personal impression is that it depends entirely on use (and thus that there's no clear-cut rule).


----------



## Hutschi

Is "gehen" in "Ich gehe arbeiten" used as auxiliary verb?


----------



## Derselbe

brian8733 said:


> Last question (maybe...): are these auxiliaries very colloquial, even sub-standard/dialectal (like _tun_), or are they standard and used in everyday speech, even in writing?


 
a) 
The definition of auxilary verbs is that they are used with participle forms as opposed to modal verbs which are used with infinitive forms. That disqualifies "tun" as an auxiliary verb in my opinion. The explanations found in wikipedia are wrong on that in my opinion.

b)
Unlike most of my native fellows, I regard all of the examples for auxiliary verbs others than "sein" "haben" "werden" with no exception as substandard. Just to give you a broader view on what people might think about those constructions. However, I'm aware of the fact that they are frequently used. From a linguistic point of view I find them very interesting, but at least in written language my suggestion would be not to use them. But that's up to you, I guess 



> Is "gehen" in "Ich gehe arbeiten" used as auxiliary verb?


Since my definition of auxiliary verbs is that they are used with participle forms, it can't be an auxiliary verb.
Besides that, I think this is an ordinary infinitive construction.


----------



## Hutschi

If I understand it right in the Wikipedia, "auxiliary verbs" are not the same as "Hilfsverben". 

They are combining both "Hilfsverben" and "Modalverben". "Modalverben" are sometimes called: "modale Hilfsverben", in this case they belong to the class "Hilfsverben".

Is this correct?

In this case the question for "auxiliary verbs" would include a discussion of such verbs.

---

If the infinitive argument is correct, than "werden" is not an "Hilfsverb".

"Ich werde arbeiten." has the same form and almost the same meaning as "Ich gehe arbeiten." In both sentences, "werden" is infinite. Or do I understand this wrong?


----------



## Derselbe

Hutschi said:


> If I understand it right in the Wikipedia, "auxiliary verbs" are not the same as "Hilfsverben".
> 
> THey are combining both "Hilfsverben" and "Modalverben". "Modalverben" are sometimes called: "modale Hilfsverben", in this case they belong to the class "Hilfsverben".
> 
> Is this correct?
> 
> In this case the question for "auxiliary verbs" would include a discussion of such verbs.


Yes, there seems to be some confusion as to which category to use. Maybe we should stick to the German terms "Hilfsverb" and "Modalverb".



> If the infinitive argument is correct, than "werden" is not an "Hilfsverb".
> 
> "Ich werde arbeiten." has the same form and almost the same meaning as "Ich gehe arbeiten." In both sentences, "werden" is infinite. Or do I understand this wrong?


 
No, I guess you're right. Now, I see a difference between "gehen" and other finite verbs as well. Usually finite verbs can not be combined with infinitives without using "(um) zu". The combination <conjugated verb+inifinitiv without zu> is usually a characteristic of Modalverben. 

Does anyone know the history of the construction "ich gehe + infinitive". Has it been used all the time or is it a recent development. Maybe there is something like the English "am going to"-future developing in German language.


----------

