# Werden vs werden zu



## FrAngela

Ho guys, I need the help of a German native speaker. Please tell me when I have to use "werden +akk and "werden + zu"? Thank you very much.


----------



## Kajjo

Please give example sentences or more context. We do not write essays, but answer questions.

_Werden_ can be used to express passive voice, to express future tense, in some cases to express irrealis or conditional.

_Werden_ also is a full verb to express change, development, making ("to become").


----------



## Dan2

FrAngela said:


> Please tell me when I have to use "werden +akk


Does "werden" _ever _take the accusative?  (Certainly something like "Ich werde _ihn _besuchen" should not be considered "_werden _+ accusative", mMn.)


----------



## berndf

Dan2 said:


> Does "werden" _ever _take the accusative?


Not really, but this predicative nominative is easy to confuse it with an accusative. The OP obviously meant something like this:
_Der Junge wurde ein Mann_
vs.
_Der Junge wurde zu einem Mann._

@FrAngela : I see no significant difference.

(Thanks Hutschi for the reminder)


----------



## DerFrosch

berndf said:


> Der Junge wurde ein Mann


Sorry, but where's the accusative in that sentence? _Werden _is a copulative verb, isn't it?


----------



## djweaverbeaver

Hi @FrAngela (and @DerFrosch)

_Werden _has either one of two functions.  It either operates as an _*auxiliary *_or _*helping verb*_ (*Hilfsverb*) to form German tenses and moods (Futur und Konjunktiv), in which case it does not determine the case/valency of the other elements in the sentence; that role is left to the main verb (Vollverb).  _Werden _alternatively functions as *linking verb* (_*Kopula*_), just like sein, bleiben (as well as scheinen, wirken, aussehen, and heißen), in which case the noun in the predicate is always in the nominative case.  We also call this noun a _*predicate nominative*_ in English. (Click *here *for more on the German Kopula).

I also have a question of my own.  Is *zu *mandatory, elective or incorrect in the following two examples:

1. Er wird (_*zu*_) Lehrer/Arzt.
2. Bei Vollmond wird er (_*zum*_) Werwolf.

My feeling is that _*zu *_is incorrect in the first sentence (I'm fairly certain of this) because we're talking about a profession, whereas in the second sentence, I feel that *zum *is necessary since being a werewolf is not a permanent state.

I only came up with these examples to perhaps spark the native speakers to think of other instances in which using or omitting *zu *would change the meaning of the sentence.


----------



## Hutschi

Your feeling is correct.

1. Er wird _*zu*_ Lehrer/Arzt.
2. Bei Vollmond wird er _*zum*_ Werwolf. Er verwandelt sich in einen Werwolf oder: Er nimmt bildhaft die Eigenschaften eines Werwolfes an, ohne sich zu verwandeln.
2. Bei Vollmond wird er _*zu einem*_ Werwolf. Er verwandelt sich in einen Werwolf.


Edit: I removed parenthesis with (zu), (zum) to avoid misunderstandings.


----------



## djweaverbeaver

Hutschi said:


> Your feeling is correct.
> 
> 1. Er wird (_*zu*_) Lehrer/Arzt.
> 2. Bei Vollmond wird er (_*zum*_) Werwolf. (Er verwandelt sich in einen Werwolf oder: Er nimmt bildhaft die Eigenschaften eines Werwolfes an, ohne sich zu verwandeln. )
> 2. Bei Vollmond wird er (_*zu einem)*_ Werwolf. (Er verwandelt sich in einen Werwolf)



Danke @Hutschi, but it *zu *necessary in sentence?  It's hard to interpret with the parentheses. I only included them in my original examples for the case that they might be optional.


----------



## Hutschi

Hi,
"Er wird Werwolf", as well as "Er wird Lehrer/Arzt".
is correct.
1) with "zu" was wrong.

PS: "zu" is possible in case of mass nouns or special generic nouns:

Er wird zu Wasser.
Er wird zu Erde.

It is also possible for names:

Anton wird zu Antonia.

"Milch" wird zu "moloko".

"Schuster wird zu Bäcker umgeschult." is without articles only possible in Headlines. (Headline style/Schlagzeilenstil)


----------



## berndf

DerFrosch said:


> Sorry, but where's the accusative in that sentence? _Werden _is a copulative verb, isn't it?


Yes, indeed, it is a "predicative nominative", as I wrote. You might have seen a pre-edit version of my post when you wrote this.


----------



## Gwunderi

Hutschi said:


> "Er wird Werwolf", as well as "Er wird Lehrer/Arzt".
> is correct.
> 1) with "zu" was wrong.



"Er wird Werwolf" doesn't seem correct to me, should be: "Er wird zum Werwolf".
But: "Er wird Arzt/Lehrer" is correct.

Think when a transformation happens, you use "werden zu":
"Wasser wird zu Wein" (a miracle happened : )
"Milch wird zu Butter"
"Wenn ich mich ärgere, werde ich zur Furie."
"Bei Vollmond wird er zum Werwolf."

Or also when someone is made something:
"Er wurde zum Star" versus "Er wurde ein Star"
In the first case, the meaning is rather that he was made/created a star, in the second case it simply means that he became a star.

"Er wurde zum Sinnbild für Tapferkeit."
"Sie wurde zur Ikone des Tanzes."



> "Schuster wird zu Bäcker umgeschult." is without articles only possible in Headlines. (Headline style/Schlagzeilenstil)



Not sure if this is an other case, like:
"Er wird zum Artz ausgebildet." (He is trained *to be* a doctor)


----------



## djweaverbeaver

Thanks @Gwunderi.  That's what I thought.  I knew I had seen a similar example before in the dictionary, and I've just found where I saw it:  _*Nachts wird er zum Vampir*_ (*here*).

I did, however, come across two other examples (*DWDS *dictionary [1.e.]).  I would be very happy to get your (/y'all's) interpretation of these:

3. _*Er ist zum Dieb geworden.*_
4. *Ich werde zum Lehrer und zeigt ihr: das ist Weizen, das ist Gerste.* - Natur u. Heimat. 1960


----------



## Hutschi

Gwunderi said:


> "Er wird Werwolf" doesn't seem correct to me, should be: "Er wird zum Werwolf".
> But: "Er wird Arzt/Lehrer" is correct. ...
> 
> ...



It is correct in some context. It is like "Er wird Kundschafter/Pionier/Mäuschen etc."

It is he becomes a member of the category or organization "Werwolf".

By the way, 1945 "Werwolf" was a Nazi-organization.


----------



## Demiurg

djweaverbeaver said:


> Thanks @GwunderiI did, however, come across two other examples (*DWDS *dictionary [1.e.]).  I would be very happy to get your (/y'all's) interpretation of these:
> 
> 3. _*Er ist zum Dieb geworden.*_
> 4. *Ich werde zum Lehrer und zeigt ihr: das ist Weizen, das ist Gerste.* - Natur u. Heimat. 1960



That are temporary roles but not professions.

_Er ist Dieb geworden. _(a professional thief)
_Ich werde Lehrer. _(a professional teacher)


----------



## Gwunderi

djweaverbeaver said:


> I would be very happy to get your (/y'all's) interpretation of these:
> 
> 3. _*Er ist zum Dieb geworden.*_
> 4. *Ich werde zum Lehrer und zeigt ihr: das ist Weizen, das ist Gerste.* - Natur u. Heimat. 1960



"Er ist zum Dieb geworden."
The meaning I hear is that he didn't (consciously and willingly) choose to become a thief, rather the circumstances made him become a thief.

Like in: "Er ist zum Mörder geworden."
It wasn't his plan, he didn't make the conscious choice to become a murderer, rather the circumstances led him to murder.

Somehow like in the example: "Er wurde zum Star". The circumstances led him to become a star (or people made a star of him).

"Ich werde zum Lehrer und zeige ihr: …"
I think here you also could say: "Ich werde Lehrer …" (I'll become a teacher …)
Could also mean: I'll become a teacher to her / I'll be in the role of a teacher to her …
Don't know if the meaning would change if you simply say: "Ich werde Lehrer und …", perhaps with more context.

BTW: "Nachts wird er zum Vampir" is a classical example


----------



## DerFrosch

berndf said:


> You might have seen a pre-edit version of my post when you wrote this.


I had indeed, where you stated that "_werden_" _can _take the accusative. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## djweaverbeaver

Hutschi said:


> 2. Bei Vollmond wird er _*zum*_ Werwolf. Er verwandelt sich in einen Werwolf oder: Er nimmt bildhaft die Eigenschaften eines Werwolfes an, ohne sich zu verwandeln.
> 2. Bei Vollmond wird er _*zu einem*_ Werwolf. Er verwandelt sich in einen Werwolf.



@Hutschi, how could the use of _*zum *_in the first sentence mean something difference from _*Nachts wird er zum Vampir*_?  Are you intimating that this means that the person didn't really turn into a vampire?


----------



## Hutschi

"Nachts wird er zum Vampir" is grammatically the same.

There are 2 interpretations:

1. The person becomes literally a vampir. He turns into a vampir.
2. The person becomes a vampir in the sense that he behaves as if he were a vampir.

In case of vampir stories only the first is true.
But If I say "Ich werde gleich zum Vampir" it is the second one.  In this case the person does not really become a vampir.

1. describes a fairy tale.
2. describes a psychological state.

(I did not mention actors or carneval dressing (Faschingskostüme), this is another case.)


----------



## Alan Evangelista

Sorry to ressurect this topic, but I have the same question and I cannot reach a clear full answer from the previous answers.



Gwunderi said:


> Er wird Werwolf" doesn't seem correct to me, should be: "Er wird zum Werwolf".





Hutschi said:


> It is correct in some context. It is like "Er wird Kundschafter/Pionier/Mäuschen etc."
> 
> It is he becomes a member of the category or organization "Werwolf".



Your answer seems confusing to me, Hutschi. What "becoming a pioneer" and "becoming a little mouse" have in common? 

I suppose you meant that "werden zu" would be used in a temporary change, such as turning into a werewolf (= assuming the wolf/man shape) for one night and coming back to human form in the morning, and "werden" for a definitive change, such as (1) becoming a werewolf/little mouse for his whole life, or (2) becoming a member of an organization. Is that right?



djweaverbeaver said:


> Er ist zum Dieb geworden





Demiurg said:


> That are temporary roles but not professions.





Gwunderi said:


> The meaning I hear is that he didn't (consciously and willingly) choose to become a thief, rather the circumstances made him become a thief.



So, "werden zu" may have 2 different meanings: temporarily assume a role/profession or unwillingly become something due to circumstances?

Although they may match in the thief example, they do not always do. Ex: He turned into a traveler for two years. (I do not see any implicit meaning of unwillingness, he may have done the activity willingly or not). If both meanings of "werden zu" mentioned above are possible, is the corresponding sentence in German (Er wurde zwei Jahre lang zu einem Reisenden) ambiguous?


----------



## Hutschi

Both are


Alan Evangelista said:


> Sorry to ressurect this topic, but I have the same question and I cannot reach a clear full answer from the previous answers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your answer seems confusing to me, Hutschi. What "becoming a pioneer" and "becoming a little mouse" have in common?
> 
> I suppose you meant that "werden zu" would be used in a temporary change, such as turning into a werewolf (= assuming the wolf/man shape) for one night and coming back to human form in the morning, and "werden" for a definitive change, such as (1) becoming a werewolf/little mouse for his whole life, or (2) becoming a member of an organization. Is that right?
> 
> 
> ...



"Werden" can be as well a temporary change as a permanent change.

"werden"="Change" is very diffuse in German, it has many meanings. It may be replaced by very different words.
It may be to become old: Ich werde alt.
It may be "I will become a student." (This is usually temporal, for some time (some years).
It may be part of a cycle: "I'm becoming tired" (Ich werde müde).

It may indicate a static change, a real change or a fairy tale change (I'm becoming a mouse/a dragon- Ich werde eine Maus/ein Drachen.
It may be figurative. Ich werde zum Drachen. I'm becoming a dragon. I change into a dragon. = figurative it means: I will become very angry and loud.

With "zu" there is a material change into a new object/thing/person.  "Werden zu" wird verwendet, wenn etwas zu einem anderen Gegenstand, zu einer anderen Person oder zu einem Bauwerk wird. "Zu" zeigt die Richtung der Entwicklung zum Zielobjekt an. "Zu" ist fast immer redundant. (Mir fällt kein Beispiel ein, wo es anders ist.) It can be used with nouns.
Without "zu" it can additionally be used with properties/colors etc. It can be used with nouns, adverbs and adjectives. (German definition of adjective, in English it can belong to a adverb. Er wird schneller. He becomes faster.

Aus dem Samen wird eine Pflanze.=Der Samen wird zur Pflanze. Point of view is different.
Der Samen entwickelt sich zur Pflanze.

Der Zauberer verwandelt sich in eine Maus. = Er wird eine Maus. (Sie wird dann vom "Gestiefelten Kater" gefressen. (Märchen vom gestiefelten Kater.

---
_What "becoming a pioneer" and "becoming a little mouse" have in common?_ - Both are nouns.

"Little mouse" may be used figurative in German. "Kleine Maus" can mean: "my little child."


----------



## JClaudeK

Hutschi said:


> "Little mouse" may be used figurative in German. "Kleine Maus" can mean: "my little child."


In this case, it's a term of endearment such as _sweetheart_.


----------



## Alan Evangelista

Hutschi said:


> "Zu" ist fast immer redundant.



Die ältere Diskussion machte das überhaupt nicht deutlich. Jetzt ist es mir klarer. Vielen Dank!


----------



## Hutschi

Without "zu" you have to use a accussative nominative (corrected). With "zu" it will be a prepositional object in dative. ("Zu" is a preposition.)

If you can use "verwandeln" as synonym, it can also be a preposition "in" (English: into").
"Er verwandelt sich in eine Ameise."  = "Er wird zu einer Ameise" = "Er wird eine Ameise".

"Verwandeln" is often used in context sourcery, and sometimes it is used when changing the form or the mood. Also figuratively. (Sie verwandelt sich in eine Furie. Sie wird zur Furie. But: "Sie wird eine Furie" is not idiomatic when used figuratively as: _She becomes very angry. _


----------



## elroy

Hutschi said:


> Without "zu" you have to use an accussative object.


 Nominative, not accusative.


----------



## Hutschi

You are right, elroy. I corrected it above. Thanks for correction. 

I think I mixed it up with "Er verwandelt sich in eine Ameise" with "in+Accussativ".


----------



## Alan Evangelista

Hutschi said:


> Without "zu" you have to use a accussative nominative (corrected). With "zu" it will be a prepositional object in dative. ("Zu" is a preposition.)



Thanks, but I already clearly understand the grammar difference. My question was about meaning/usage difference and that already became clear in your last answer.


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Alan Evangelista said:


> unwillingly become something due to circumstances?


Das kann in Ausnahmefällen zutreffen, aber
Er wurde zum Star
ist nicht das gleiche wie
Er wurde zum Star gemacht (They made him a star).

In den meisten Fällen gilt:
Er wurde zum Star = Er wurde ein Star.


----------

