# Konnten besuchen and Können besucht



## rustymason

What's the difference between these two phrases?

1) Wir konnten Österreich nicht besuchen.
2) Wir können Österreich nicht besucht.

Examples in English would be most helpful, if possible.  Danke.


----------



## Jana337

rustymason said:
			
		

> What's the difference between these two phrases?
> 
> 1) Wir konnten Österreich nicht besuchen.
> 2) Wir können Österreich nicht besucht.
> 
> Examples in English would be most helpful, if possible.  Danke.


 The difference is that the latter is plain wrong.  A modal verb needs to be followed by an infinitive (or by a group of verbs one of which is an infinitive; probably beyond your level at the moment).

Wir können Österreich nicht besuchen. - present (possibly with a future meaning)
We cannot/will not be able to go to Austria.
Wir konnten Österreich nicht besuchen. - past
We couldn't/weren't able to go to Austria.
Wir könnten Österreich nicht besuchen. - modal
We couldn't go to Austria (... if we decided to go to Italy because we wouldn't have enough money to do both).

Jana


----------



## rustymason

Oh, that would explain why I couldn't figure out #2!   

Is there another (simple?) past form besides #1?


----------



## Kajjo

No, there is only one simple past in German.

Kajjo


----------



## Jana337

rustymason said:
			
		

> Oh, that would explain why I couldn't figure out #2!
> 
> Is there another (simple?) past form besides #1?


To my knowledge only translations of "to be able to":
Wir waren nicht in der Lage, Österreich zu besuchen.
Wir waren nicht imstande, Österreich zu besuchen.

Jana


----------



## elroy

You could also use the perfect: "Wir haben Österreich nicht besuchen können."


----------



## elroy

linguist786 said:
			
		

> That would be "gekonnt", wouldn't it?


Not when it's directly preceded by an infinitive.


----------



## linguist786

elroy said:
			
		

> Not when it's directly preceded by an infinitive.


Ah okies. Thanks!


----------



## rustymason

So, what's the difference between these two?  

1) Wir konnten Österreich nicht besuchen. - past
3) Wir haben Österreich nicht besuchen können. - perfect

Also, the names of the tenses confuse me.  Each grammar reference book seems to have different names for them, and some have more tenses than others.  Haben Sie a favorite?  Danke.


----------



## Kajjo

rustymason said:
			
		

> Also, the names of the tenses confuse me.  Each grammar reference book seems to have different names for them, and some have more tenses than others.  Haben Sie a favorite?  Danke.



That's surprising for me. The only terms I know are as follow:

Präsens ("Ich liebe.")
Präteritum (=Imperfekt) ("Ich liebte.")
Perfekt ("Ich habe geliebt.)"
Plusquamperfekt ("Ich hatte geliebt.")

What terms have you found?

Kajjo


----------



## Jana337

rustymason said:
			
		

> So, what's the difference between these two?


Check this thread, from post 13 onwards.  





> 1) Wir konnten Österreich nicht besuchen. - past
> 3) Wir haben Österreich nicht besuchen können. - perfect
> 
> Also, the names of the tenses confuse me.  Each grammar reference book seems to have different names for them, and some have more tenses than others. Haben Sie a favorite? Wir duzen uns doch!   Danke.


In German they are called Präteritum and Perfekt. 

Jana


----------



## elroy

I guess my favorite would be "konnten," since that's the one that's more commonly used.   No difference in meaning, though.


----------



## Jana337

Kajjo said:
			
		

> That's surprising for me. The only terms I know are as follow:
> 
> Präsens ("Ich liebe.")
> Präteritum (=Imperfekt) ("Ich liebte.")
> Perfekt ("Ich habe geliebt.)"
> Plusquamperfekt ("Ich hatte geliebt.")
> 
> What terms have you found?
> 
> Kajjo


I think there's some mess in the English terminology. They call Präteritum "simple past tense", "imperfect", "narrative past tense", "preterite". Perfekt is either "perfect" or "compound past tense", "present perfect".  All of these make sense but I imagine that a learner using more sources is a bit overwhelmed. 

Jana


----------



## Kajjo

Jana337 said:
			
		

> I think there's some mess in the English terminology. They call Präteritum "simple past tense", "imperfect", "narrative past tense", "preterite". Perfekt is either "perfect" or "compound past tense", "present perfect".  All of these make sense but I imagine that a learner using more sources is a bit overwhelmed.



Thanks for clarifying that, Jana. I did not know that German tenses have English names. We always use English names when referring to English tenses in school. Nothing else makes sense, I believe.

Kajjo


----------



## rustymason

Kajjo said:
			
		

> That's surprising for me. The only terms I know are as follow:
> 
> Präsens ("Ich liebe.")
> Präteritum (=Imperfekt) ("Ich liebte.")
> Perfekt ("Ich habe geliebt.)"
> Plusquamperfekt ("Ich hatte geliebt.")
> 
> What terms have you found?
> Kajjo


 
The three references I use most, www.Canoo.net , "500 German Verbs," and my English-German dictionary, have many similar tenses but appear to have differing names for them, and each has a few tenses that the others do not seem to have. Too, the online course that I am using most, Eugene Moutoux's Essential German (http://geocities.com/gene_moutoux/Germain.htm), calls two of the past tenses conversational and narrative past tenses, designations I do not recall seeing elsewhere. I just cannot tell for sure.

I'll check out Jana's suggested thread.

Edit:


			
				Jana337 said:
			
		

> I think there's some mess in the English terminology. They call Präteritum "simple past tense", "imperfect", "narrative past tense", "preterite". Perfekt is either "perfect" or "compound past tense", "present perfect". All of these make sense but I imagine that a learner using more sources is a bit overwhelmed.
> Jana


Gewiss!


----------



## linguist786

rustymason said:
			
		

> So, what's the difference between these two?
> 
> 1) Wir konnten Österreich nicht besuchen. - past
> 3) Wir haben Österreich nicht besuchen können. - perfect
> 
> Also, the names of the tenses confuse me. Each grammar reference book seems to have different names for them, and some have more tenses than others. Haben Sie a favorite? Danke.


They are _both_ past tenses - but of a different kind. To be honest, the second one would very rarely be used (Infact I don't think it would hardly _ever_ be used - but natives can confirm this)

The first one is called the _imperfect_ tense - used for:

1) Describing things in the past - e.g. "It was good" "The visit was enjoyable" etc
2) Talking about things that happened continuously in the past (for a period of time)
3) Talking about something that _was_ happen_ing_. e.g - I was playing football, I was talking to him.

Generally, the imperfect is used for incompleted actions in the past (not necessarily "incompleted" - but things that happened over some time)
It is usually translated as "used to (whatever)" e.g. "I used to play football" *OR *"was ---ing" e.g. "I was playing football"

The second one is the _perfect_ tense. It's used for:
1) Talking about completed actions in the past - e.g "I hit elroy" - This is one completed action in the past. It happened once, that's it.

Having said that, there are a bunch of verbs that simply _tend_ to use the imperfect (even though, strictly speaking, the perfect should be used) "können" (like the above) is one of them. "Wissen" is another - you would very very rarely hear "Ich habe das gewusst" - you'd hear "Ich wusste das"

Hope that helps
(oh - suggestions/corrections welcome )


----------



## rustymason

Linguist, what you have described for the German imperfect (edit: and perfect) sounds exactly like the Latin imperfect (edit: and perfect). Nicht wahr?


----------



## linguist786

rustymason said:
			
		

> Linguist, what you have described for the German imperfect sounds exactly like the Latin imperfect. Nicht wahr?


Ja klar! Das ist aber was wir hier in England beigebracht werden.. (für alle Sprachen)


----------



## rustymason

It looks as thought the Perfekt is what some call, "conversational past."


----------



## Kajjo

Yes, I guess so. At least "narrative past" is Präteritum.

Kajjo


----------



## Jana337

linguist786 said:
			
		

> Ja klar! Das ist aber was wir hier in England beigebracht werden.. (für alle Sprachen)


Das wird uns hier in England beigebracht.
We are taught, I am given etc. cannot be translated literally. The German passive voice only works with the direct object of the active voice!
Sie haben uns die Grammatik beigebracht.
noun verb indirect object direct object participle

Uns wurde die Grammatik beigebracht. 
Wir wurden die Grammatik beigebracht. 

A ridiculous commercial spot said "Da werden Sie geholfen". The whole country laughed.  

Jana


----------



## Kajjo

Jana337 said:
			
		

> A ridiculous commercial spot said "Da werden Sie geholfen". The whole country laughed.



The actress is known for her illiteracy and stupidity (which both might well be acted).

Kajjo


----------



## elroy

linguist786 said:
			
		

> They are _both_ past tenses - but of a different kind. To be honest, the second one would very rarely be used (Infact I don't think it would hardly _ever_ be used - but natives can confirm this)
> 
> The first one is called the _imperfect_ tense - used for:
> 
> 1) Describing things in the past - e.g. "It was good" "The visit was enjoyable" etc
> 2) Talking about things that happened continuously in the past (for a period of time)
> 3) Talking about something that _was_ happen_ing_. e.g - I was playing football, I was talking to him.
> 
> Generally, the imperfect is used for incompleted actions in the past (not necessarily "incompleted" - but things that happened over some time)
> It is usually translated as "used to (whatever)" e.g. "I used to play football" *OR *"was ---ing" e.g. "I was playing football"
> 
> The second one is the _perfect_ tense. It's used for:
> 1) Talking about completed actions in the past - e.g "I hit elroy" - This is one completed action in the past. It happened once, that's it.
> 
> Having said that, there are a bunch of verbs that simply _tend_ to use the imperfect (even though, strictly speaking, the perfect should be used) "können" (like the above) is one of them. "Wissen" is another - you would very very rarely hear "Ich habe das gewusst" - you'd hear "Ich wusste das"
> 
> Hope that helps
> (oh - suggestions/corrections welcome )


Linguist, what you have described applies to the Romance languages, but not to German.

In German, these distinctions do not apply. For example, one can use the perfect to describe a continuous action or state of being, and one can use the simple past to describe a single event:

_Letztes Jahr bin ich jeden Morgen um 5 Uhr aufgestanden._
(Last year I got up every morning at 5 a.m.)

_Als ich letztes Jahr im Paris war, sah ich eine alte Freundin._
(Wenn I was in Paris last year, I saw an old friend.)

In the above sentences, you could also use "stand...auf" and "habe...gesehen," respectively, with absolutely no difference in meaning.

Another example:

_Bist du schon mal in Deutschland gewesen?_
and
_Warst du schon mal in Deutschland?_

both mean "Have you ever been to Germany?"

As I stated in a previous post, *there is no difference in meaning* between the two. The primary difference is that in colloquial German the perfect is used most of the time, with a few exceptions ("sein," "haben," the modals, and a few other verbs _tend to be _used in the simple past); in more official contexts (newspaper articles, for example), the simpe past tends to be used for all verbs.

Only context determines whether a continuous or single action is meant.

I hope that helps clarify things. Numerous threads have been devoted to this issue; if I can find any of them I'll come back and post links.


----------



## linguist786

Thanks Jana, for the correction

and Thanks elroy - for the explanation.

much appreciated


----------

