# would have been + present particple (past participle)



## Ohara321

Hello I have a question regarding sentences using werden.


How would one translate a setence like" If he left the pizza in the oven, the pizzia would have been getting burnt. 

My best guess would be:

Wenn er die Pizzia zu lange in dem Ofen haette bleiben lassen, waere es wohl verbrannt worden.

I think, however, that this would translate more like: "......, the pizzia would have been burnt"

How would you indicate the the process of burning would have been happening without being completed?

Basically, my question is: How would you translate sentences which use the "would have been + present particple" construction for the active voice and for the passive voice, (although not commonly used), the " would have been getting + past particple"


----------



## Robocop

I don't fully understand your question(s). Look at the example sentence below and try again to explain what you would like to know:

Active voice:
- Wenn er nicht davon gelaufen wäre, *würden *die anderen ihn *geschlagen haben* (alternative: *hätten *die anderen ihn *geschlagen*).
- If he had not run away, they would have beaten him.

Passive voice:
- Wenn er nicht davon gelaufen wäre, *würde *er von den anderen *geschlagen worden* *sein *(alternative: *wäre *er von den anderen *geschlagen worden*).
- If he had not run away, he would have been beaten (by the others).


----------



## RandalZ

Hard one, I think it could be

If he would have left the pizza in the oven, the pizza would have been getting burn.
Wenn er die Pizza in dem Offen lässte, die Pizza würde brennen anfangen werden.


----------



## Robocop

RandalZ said:


> If he would have left the pizza in the oven, the pizza would have been getting burn.
> Wenn er die Pizza in dem Offen lässte, die Pizza würde brennen anfangen werden.


- If he had left the pizza in the oven, it would have been burnt.
- Wenn er die Pizza im Ofen gelassen hätte, _würde sie verbrannt worden sein._ This is grammatically correct but very awkward, you would rather say: _wäre sie verbrannt_.


----------



## RandalZ

Such an odd phrase in both languages hihi.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Where I live, the natives would make easy work of such a sentence. They would simply say something like:

_"Hätte er die Pizza im Ofen gelassen, wäre sie verbrannt gewesen."_

Anything much more than that, and they'd wonder why you were speaking so bloatedly.

Abba


----------



## Robocop

ABBA Stanza said:


> Where I live, the natives would make easy work of such a sentence. They would simply say something like:
> 
> _"Hätte er die Pizza im Ofen gelassen, wäre sie verbrannt gewesen."_
> 
> Anything much more than that, and they'd wonder why you were speaking so bloatedly.


Where I live, the natives would prefer:
_"Hätte er die Pizza im Ofen gelassen, wäre sie verbrannt."_ - I do not consider "wenn" clauses as bloated forms of expression (see post #4).
Moreover, my understanding of the initial post was that the poster takes a special interest in the construction of certain sentences, not in how to best make a *particular *statement (I may be mistaken though ...).


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Robocop said:


> Where I live, the natives would prefer:
> _"Hätte er die Pizza im Ofen gelassen, wäre sie verbrannt."_


That's why I said "where I live". There is a marked tendency in my region to use "gewesen" where _Hochdeutsch_ would probably leave it out. In this case, it would definitely be added. I've become so used to hearing it said that way now, that the sentence almost seems incomplete without it! As always, it's simply a matter of what one is used to.



Robocop said:


> - I do not consider "wenn" clauses as bloated forms of expression (see post #4).


Nor do I. I just offered one example. Of the others that had been suggested, the simpler form of your example from post #4, namely _"Wenn er die Pizza im Ofen gelassen hätte, wäre sie verbrannt"_ appealed to me the most, as it is no more bloated than the version I suggested. However, I wouldn't like using your _"würde sie verbrannt worden sein"_ in spoken language. 



Robocop said:


> Moreover, my understanding of the initial post was that the poster takes a special interest in the construction of certain sentences, not in how to best make a *particular *statement (I may be mistaken though ...).


Maybe. But there's also a certain skill in knowing how to simplify German sentences down to an acceptable level. Beginning (or, better said, intermediate) students tend to dive into the subjunctive in all its gory detail, only to find out when they finally get here that most of the fancier constructions are much less used in practice than they expected, except possibly in some types of literature.

All the best.

Abba


----------



## berndf

ABBA Stanza said:


> That's why I said "where I live". There is a marked tendency in my region to use "gewesen" where _Hochdeutsch_ would probably leave it out.


I don´t know where you live but I am virtually sure_ not_ in this case. _"Hätte er die Pizza im Ofen gelassen, wäre sie verbrannt gewesen."_ would be understood to mean that the pizza was already burnt before - which wouldn't make much sense. The tempus constructions in subjunctive are a bit special.


----------



## Hutschi

_Where I live, it is also without "gewesen"._

_"Hätte er die Pizza im Ofen gelassen, wäre sie verbrannt gewesen."_

Normalerweise steht hier nicht "gewesen", weil es sich nämlich hier um den Verlauf und nicht um den Zustand handelt.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Hutschi said:


> _..._weil es sich nämlich hier um den Verlauf und nicht um den Zustand handelt.


How can you tell? For example:

_"Hätte er die Pizza im Ofen gelassen, wäre sie verbrannt gewesen."_

Isn't it obvious here that I can't be talking about _Verlauf_ here, because that would be impossible (for the reason berndf mentioned)? Ergo: I must be talking about the _state_. 

By contrast, isn't the sentence without the "gewesen" ambiguous?:

_"Hätte er die Pizza im Ofen gelassen, wäre sie verbrannt."_

How can one distinguish here between _"wäre sie verbrannt"_ meaning an action in the past, and _"wäre sie verbrannt"_ implying the would-be current state, as shown by the two possible translations below?:

_1. "If he'd left the pizza in the oven, it would have been burned." _
_2. "If he'd left the pizza in the oven, it would [now] be [in a] burned [state]." _

Abba


----------



## Robocop

ABBA Stanza said:


> How can you tell? For example:
> 
> _"Hätte er die Pizza im Ofen gelassen, wäre sie verbrannt gewesen."_
> 
> Isn't it obvious here that I can't be talking about _Verlauf_ here, because that would be impossible (for the reason berndf mentioned)? Ergo: I must be talking about the _state_.
> 
> By contrast, isn't the sentence without the "gewesen" ambiguous?:
> 
> _"Hätte er die Pizza im Ofen gelassen, wäre sie verbrannt."_
> 
> How can one distinguish here between _"wäre sie verbrannt"_ meaning an action in the past, and _"wäre sie verbrannt"_ implying the would-be current state, as shown by the two possible translations below?:
> 
> _1. "If he'd left the pizza in the oven, it would have been burned." _
> _2. "If he'd left the pizza in the oven, it would [now] be [in a] burned [state]." _


Now I finally understand what you are getting at but (in German) it does not work that way. 
_"Hätte er die Pizza im Ofen gelassen, wäre sie verbrannt gewesen"_ *absolutely *requires an *amendment *to make sense to native speakers. 

For example: _"Hätte er die Pizza im Ofen gelassen, wäre sie verbrannt gewesen als _er sich endlich von der redseligen Frau Baronin losreissen und wieder seiner Arbeit zuwenden konnte (I am unable to provide a better example ...).

*Without such an amendment*, (99 out of 100) native speakers would clearly expect - by experience of life - that you talk about what would have *happened *to the pizza after it was forgotten in the oven.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Thanks, Robocop!

Interestingly, thinking of the English expression, it occurred to me that there are even three possible interpretations of the phrase:

_"If he'd left the pizza in the oven, it would have been burned"_

*1. Process:* _"If he'd left the pizza in the oven, it would have been burned [rather than baked]."_ =
_"Hätte er die Pizza im Ofen gelassen, wäre sie verbrannt."_

*2. State:* _"If he'd left the pizza in the oven, it would have been [in a] burned [condition]."_ = (or so I had hoped, but - from Robocop's answer -apparently not... )
_"Hätte er die Pizza im Ofen gelassen, wäre sie verbrannt gewesen."_

*3. Separate process:* _"If he'd left the pizza in the oven, it would have been [considered inedible and] burned [later, by throwing it into the incinerator along with the rest of the waste]."_ =
_"Hätte er die Pizza im Ofen gelassen, wäre sie verbrannt worden."_

As Robocop suggests, it's experience that allows us to determine which of these possible meanings is most likely to apply in any given context. Computer programs (syntactical analyzers), lacking this experience, would have difficulty understanding the semantics here.

I agree with Robocop that the first case is the most likely. However, if referring to an event that has already occurred in the past (maybe recollecting the only time that person ever tried doing cooking and almost messed up, if it were not for being reminded on time to take the pizza out of the oven), then I'm not so sure. For instance, let's take another example. Supposing someone asks me whether I trained for a whole hour last Sunday. I'm sure I could (grammatically correctly) reply:

_"Was, eine ganze Stunde?! Hätte ich so lange trainiert, wäre ich kaputt gewesen!"_

Isn't the second sentence analogous to the _"hätte er die Pizza im Backofen gelassen, wäre sie verbrannt gewesen"_ example? If so, why should the one of the two sentences be correct and the other one not? Doesn't it all depend on context?

Abba


----------



## Robocop

ABBA Stanza said:


> _"Was, eine ganze Stunde?! Hätte ich so lange trainiert, wäre ich kaputt gewesen!"_


It is not an analogous construction! 
Compare: kaputt sein (predicative) <==> einschlafen
For example:
_"Was, eine ganze Stunde?! Hätte ich so lange trainiert, wäre ich anschliessend gleich eingeschlafen _gewesen_."_


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Robocop said:


> It is not an analogous construction!


They are if _verbrannt_ is interpreted as being an adjective, aren't they?! VIZ:

Eine schwarze Pizza (adjective) 
Die Pizza ist schwarz (adjective)

Eine verbrannte Pizze (adjective)
Die Pizza ist verbrannt (ambiguous: adjective or verb?)

Your whole argumentation up to now seems to be based on the fact that _verbrannt_ must be acting as a verb (and not an adjective) in the original context. My argument is that both interpretations are possible, and only the context can determine which of the two possibilities is most likely to be correct.

Whether "gewesen" can be added depends on how _verbrannt_ is interpreted:

Die Pizza ist verbrannt (adjective) --> Die Pizza ist verbrannt gewesen 

Die Pizza ist verbrannt (verb) --> Die Pizza ist verbrannt gewesen 

When I'm writing _gewesen_, I'm thinking of _verbrannt_ as being an adjective. However, because you're instead interpreting _verbrannt_ in my examples as being a verb, the _gewesen_ logically makes no sense to you.

This adjective/verb ambiguity exists in English, too. For example:

_"The store is closed."_

It is impossible, without further context, to know whether _closed_ is behaving as an adjective here (i.e., the store is in a closed state) or as a verb (i.e., lights being switched off, doors being locked, etc.). Only the context can help here. For example:

_"The store is closed on Sundays."_ (-> adjective)
_"The store is closed at 6pm."_ (-> verb)

This ambiguity carries through all the way through to the most complicated grammatical forms in the English language. Therefore, I cannot understand why, although the same ambiguity appears to exist in simpler German constructs, when we get to the subjunctive of the original example presented in this thread, the adverbial interpretation suddenly appears to no longer be an option. 

Abba

Edit: I've just re-read the original post, and it's clear that Ohara321 is asking for the *verb* form rather than the adjectivial (state) form. Oops! Should have read the post more closely! Therefore it's clear to me now that there's no place for _gewesen_ any more, and I agree with Robocop and others that it must be "wäre sie verbrannt" (ohne _gewesen_). Maybe that was the whole source of the confusion? If so, I'm sorry, although I hope my posts made for some interesting reading nevertheless! :-;


----------



## sokol

This, Abba:


ABBA Stanza said:


> Eine verbrannte Pizze (adjective)
> Die Pizza ist verbrannt (ambiguous: adjective or verb?)


brings me back to that one:


ABBA Stanza said:


> _"Hätte er die Pizza im Ofen gelassen, wäre sie verbrannt gewesen."_


Yes indeed: "verbrannt" could be interpreted both as a verb or as an adjective. Only that in this sentence, phrased like this, verbal use is suggested - and therefore "wäre ... verbrannt gewesen" would be plu'perfect which isn't quite correct standard language but nevertheless widely used (especially in northern-ish regions of Germany) when you would expect simple past (preterite or perfect, or subjunctive as here).

But if you formulate this sentence like that:
_Wäre die Pizza verbrannt gewesen, hätte er sie im Ofen gelassen.
_"verbrannt" is used as an adjective. The meaning also shifts: here you say that the pizza was *not *burnt which was the reason why he took it out of the oven - else he would have left it there.
While the sentence above ("hätte ... gelassen, wäre ... verbrannt gewesen") means that if he had left the pizza in the oven it would have become burnt (or plu'perfect in the 'stricter' sense which however wouldn't make much sense here).



ABBA Stanza said:


> Whether "gewesen" can be added depends on how _verbrannt_ is interpreted:
> 
> Die Pizza ist verbrannt (adjective) --> Die Pizza ist verbrannt gewesen
> 
> Die Pizza ist verbrannt (verb) --> Die Pizza ist verbrannt gewesen


Well yes, it would work - and by the way, this "ist verbrannt gewesen" also could be a plu'perfect, meaning however would be the same.
(I still would say it is plu'perfect rather than an adjective, in this particular case - but it doesn't make a difference so let's not split hairs. )

It only doesn't work very well in the first sentence above ("hätte ... gelassen, wäre ... verbrannt gewesen"); or more precisely, this is probably northern speech.
(It may be that some Norhterners disagree with that: I am not sure if they will consider this use, in this specific case, idiomatical; I wouldn't know as I don't use this tempus substition. This was discussed before, see this thread - and I am unable to confirm if this sentence here could be seen in the same light, that is: acceptable probably even in northern standard language and certainly in colloquial speech.)

I am not surprised that Robocop, being Swiss, is not happy with this construction - nor am I, it sounds unnatural to me.
But I suspect, as explained, that this would be perfectly okay in many regions of Germany.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Thanks for the detailed exlanations, sokol. 

From what you're saying, it sounds like you agree that, in general, both interpretations (adjectivial and verbal) are possible, but that the context can make one interpretation more likely than the other, or even rule out one of the options completely.



			
				sokol said:
			
		

> Well yes, it would work - and by the way, this "ist verbrannt gewesen" also could be a plu'perfect, ...


Thanks for pointing that out. My grammar book teaches the "*war* verbrannt" construction for forming the plu'perfect, but now you've mentioned it, I recognize that "war" can be replaced by "*ist ... gewesen*" without changing the meaning. Indeed, the latter would probably be the preferred form here in Hessen. The only problem is, it's difficult to find out, because the plu'perfect is so rarely used in everyday conversation! And in serious works of historic literature, where the authors would use it, they would probably tend to the "war" alternative instead.

Abba


----------



## berndf

ABBA Stanza said:


> Thanks for pointing that out. My grammar book teaches the "*war* verbrannt" construction for forming the plu'perfect, but now you've mentioned it, I recognize that "war" can be replaced by "*ist ... gewesen*" without changing the meaning. Indeed, the latter would probably be the preferred form here in Hessen. The only problem is, it's difficult to find out, because the plu'perfect is so rarely used in everyday conversation! And in serious works of historic literature, where the authors would use it, they would probably tend to the "war" alternative instead.


As an auxiliary of the pluperfect you cannot replace "war" by "ist gewesen" without being perceived as speaking in a very dialectal way (->Doppeltes Perfekt), also in Hessen. Even speakers who rarely use the pluperfect in very day conversation never fail to recognize a pluperfect when hearing it. "Wäre verbrannt" could be either interpreted as subjunctive pluperfect (=hypothetical past) or as past subjunctive with an adjective (=hypothetical tenseless). But "wäre verbrannt gewesen" would be pluperfect by both interpretations and even if you could theoretically construct an interpretation without a pluperfect meaning (as done above) this would not be intuitive to a native speaker.


----------



## BaleenBrush

The pizza would have been burned can be done three ways.
would have been + verb in English is passive voice. For which I believe "Sie wäre verbrannt worden" would suffice.
Sie wird verbrannt - it is burned
Sie wurde verbrannt - it was burned
Sie ist verbrannt worden - it has been burned
Sie war verbrannt worden - it had been burned
Sie wäre verbrannt worden - it would have been burned

Secondly, would have been + predicate adjective could properly represent it would have been burned with "Sie wäre verbrannt gewesen." This translates to "It would have been burnt," where burned is an adjective.
"Sie wäre verbrannt" using a predicate adjective would be in present tense technically, and translate to something like "It would be burnt."
Sie ist verbrannt - it is burned
Sie war verbrannt - it was burned
Sie wäre verbrannt - it would be burned
Sie ist verbrannt gewesen - it has been burned
Sie war verbrannt gewesen - it had been burned
Sie wäre verbrannt gewesen - it would have been burned

That leaves us with the forms of verbrennen itself:
Sie verbrennt - it burns
Sie ist verbrannt - it has burned
Sie war verbrannt - it had burned
Sie wäre verbrannt - it would have burned
As you can see here, it's TECHNICALLY not the same translation in English in either form (would have burned/would be burned as opposed to would have been burned), but nobody would ever notice a difference in English. And I don't know much about Germans, but if they split hairs like that, they're ridiculous. What the original poster needs to do is find out if there is a specific way in which it needs to be formed. If not, no one will care. The sentence will be understood.

Basically, the verb to burn is a pain. It can be both transitive and intransitive. Add that to the fact that the adjective and the past participle are identical (in both languages), and you've got yourself a mess of ways to interpret the same thing. None of which really change the meaning.
I would personally use passive.


----------



## Ohara321

I think this phrase best fits what i was trying to express

Wenn er die Pizzia im Ofen gelassen haette, haette sie verbrannt werden koennen/sollen. 

is it possible to say "haette sie verbrannt werden" without a modal?


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Ohara321 said:


> Wenn er die Pizzia im Ofen gelassen haette, haette sie verbrannt werden koennen/sollen.


The modal verb "sollen" ("should") doesn't fit at all here. "Können" is OK, although the sentence is a bit of a handful. It would be easier to just say:

_"Wenn er die *Pizza* im Ofen gelassen hätte, hätte sie *verbrennen können*."_



Ohara321 said:


> *I*s it possible to say "haette sie verbrannt werden" without a modal?


No. "Werden" requires the auxiliary verb "sein", not "haben", and must be conjugated correctly:

_"..., *wäre* sie verbrannt *worden*."_

Abba


----------



## BaleenBrush

ABBA Stanza said:


> The modal verb "sollen" ("should") doesn't fit at all here. "Können" is OK, although the sentence is a bit of a handful. It would be easier to just say:
> 
> _"Wenn er die *Pizza* im Ofen gelassen hätte, hätte sie *verbrennen können*."_
> 
> 
> No. "Werden" requires the auxiliary verb "sein", not "haben", and must be conjugated correctly:
> 
> _"..., *wäre* sie verbrannt *worden*."_
> 
> Abba



Yup. But...
"Sie hätte verbrennen können" is technically present tense, isn't it?


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Merry Christmas, Baleen!



BaleenBrush said:


> Yup. But...
> "Sie hätte verbrennen können" is technically present tense, isn't it?


I think I know what you're getting at. Past subjunctive is often used to construct a phrase in the present tense (e.g., _"ich hätte jetzt Zeit"_). However, in this case, where there's the auxiliary verb _haben_, a model verb (_können_) and an infinitive (_verbrennen_), we are most definitely talking about something in the past. Compare:

Present

_"Sie *kann verbrennen*"_ = it can burn
--> (subjunctive) _"Sie *könnte verbrennen*"_ = it could burn

Past (Perfect)

_"Sie *hat verbrennen können*"_ = it was able to burn
--> (subjunctive) _"Sie *hätte verbrennen können*"_ = it could have burned

Abba


----------



## Ohara321

Can verbrennen be used like so?

*Sie hätte verbrennen können*

Correct me if i am wrong but i thought the sentence would have to use the verb *brennen* and not *verbrennen *if a sentence like " Sie hätte verbrennen werden können" was converted into a sentence that did not use the passive voice (like Abba has done), so it would have to be:

Sie hätte brennen können

brennen is intransitive and verbrennen is transitive

Once again, correct me if i am wrong.


----------



## Robocop

One more time, in reply to the initial post, the most plausible and idiomatic translation by native speakers is:
Wenn er die Pizza im Ofen gelassen hätte, _wäre sie verbrannt_.


----------



## berndf

Ohara321 said:


> Can verbrennen be used like so?
> 
> *Sie hätte verbrennen können*
> 
> Correct me if i am wrong but i thought the sentence would have to use the verb *brennen* and not *verbrennen *if a sentence like " Sie hätte verbrennen werden können" was converted into a sentence that did not use the passive voice (like Abba has done), so it would have to be:
> 
> Sie hätte brennen können
> 
> brennen is intransitive and verbrennen is transitive
> 
> Once again, correct me if i am wrong.


"Brennen" means buring in flames. A log in the fire place "brennt". A pizza in the oven "verbrennt" but as the pizza itself is not in flames you cannot use "brennen".


----------



## BaleenBrush

Ohara321 said:


> Can verbrennen be used like so?
> 
> *Sie hätte verbrennen können*
> 
> Correct me if i am wrong but i thought the sentence would have to use the verb *brennen* and not *verbrennen *if a sentence like " Sie hätte verbrennen werden können" was converted into a sentence that did not use the passive voice (like Abba has done), so it would have to be:
> 
> Sie hätte brennen können
> 
> brennen is intransitive and verbrennen is transitive
> 
> Once again, correct me if i am wrong.



verbrennen can be used both transitively and intransitively (I'm pretty sure).

And Robocop, he wasn't just asking for a translation, it was an example so he could make sure he understood a concept.

As for the passive method, he had the verbs correct in his original post, which is still my favorite way to do it.

Abba:
Is double infinitive always past tense?
My teacher never really gave me a good translation or specific use back when I learned it. He also never explained why in a subordinate clause, the conjugated form of haben doesn't go to the end.

Also, even though it's not christmas here yet, I know it is there: So merry christmas to y'all as well.


----------



## Robocop

BaleenBrush said:


> verbrennen can be used both transitively and intransitively (I'm pretty sure).
> 
> And Robocop, he wasn't just asking for a translation, it was an example so he could make sure he understood a concept. ==> You are right regarding the motivation of the initial inquiry. However, his example phrase is plainly unsuitable for such a discussion (because talking about options makes sense only if the options work in usage) and that is why I offered different examples in post #2 already.
> 
> As for the passive method, he had the verbs correct in his original post,   which is still my favorite way to do it. ==> think twice about it
> 
> Abba:
> Is double infinitive always past tense?
> My teacher never really gave me a good translation or specific use back when I learned it. He also never explained why in a subordinate clause, the conjugated form of haben doesn't go to the end. ==> Some things just cannot be explained logically, you simply have to learn them. We face the same challenge when learning English.





Ohara321 said:


> My best guess would be:
> Wenn er die Pizza zu lange in dem Ofen haette bleiben lassen, waere sie wohl verbrannt worden.


Ohara321's guess is  *grammatically *correct but no native speaker would ever use this wording. It is not idiomatic and it just does not make sense with regard to "real life experience". Any single situation that could possibly occur *in the given context* would be expressed differently by native speakers.


----------



## BaleenBrush

And I'll take your word for it. I've never been to any German-speaking countries, and only met a couple people who speak it natively. I'm sure, just like in English, the easiest way to get your point across is the path taken (unless the person is really pretentious). In fact, most American-English speakers don't even know what the subjunctive mood is.
And, yes, you did go over the different cases in an earlier post; I agree. And maybe he needs those for some specific assignment, so it may not just be in case he needs to say it some time. However, it's good to know that's how a native would say it.


----------



## berndf

BaleenBrush said:


> Is double infinitive always past tense?


This "double infinitive" is in reality a weird form of pluperfect (-> Ersatzinfinitiv). This construct has the additional difficulty of being in subjunctive mood. Let us take a simpler case in indicative: "Die Pizza konnte verbrennen". This is simple past. The pluperfect form of this would normally be "Die Pizza hatte verbrennen *gekonnt". But for modal verbs the past participle is replaced by an infinitive: "Die Pizza hatte verbrennen können".


----------



## ABBA Stanza

BaleenBrush said:


> And, yes, you did go over the different cases in an earlier post; I agree. And maybe he needs those for some specific assignment, so it may not just be in case he needs to say it some time. However, it's good to know that's how a native would say it.


I agree. It's nice to also be able to raise follow-up questions that are related to the original subject if anything remains unclear. This is one of the strengths of the WR forums that I particularly value. If there is anything that you do not understand, please do not be afraid to ask. Your comments are always welcome. 

Abba


----------



## Todessprache

Ohara321 said:


> Hello I have a question regarding sentences using werden.
> 
> 
> How would one translate a setence like"* If he left the pizza in the oven, the pizzia* *would have been getting burnt.*
> 
> My best guess would be:
> 
> Wenn er die Pizzia zu lange in dem Ofen haette bleiben lassen, waere es wohl verbrannt worden.
> 
> I think, however, that this would translate more like: "......, the pizzia would have been burnt"
> 
> How would you indicate the the process of burning would have been happening without being completed?
> 
> Basically, my question is: How would you translate sentences which use the "would have been + present particple" construction for the active voice and for the passive voice, (although not commonly used), the " would have been getting + past particple"


 
To be honest I find this in English very strange and does not seem standard to me.

"If he had left the pizza in the oven, it would be burnt" seems much more correct. 

Auf Deutsch: wenn er die Pizza im Ofen gelassen haette, waere sie verbrannt.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Todessprache said:


> To be honest I find ["the pizza would have been getting burnt"] in English very strange and does not seem standard to me.


I tend to agree, although strictly-speaking it's probably correct. Ohara321's idea was to hypothetically project back to a time where the pizza was in the process of becoming burnt, but had not yet reached this state. The validity of the original sentence can be more easily seen using a better (analogous) example:

_"If I had not eaten well the day before, I would have been getting very hungry by this time."_

The above sentence sounds perfectly natural to me.



Todessprache said:


> "If he had left the pizza in the oven, *it would be burnt*" seems much more correct.
> 
> Auf Deutsch: wenn er die Pizza im Ofen gelassen haette, *waere sie verbrannt*.


I think we all agree (now) that _"wäre sie verbrannt"_ is the most idiomatic way of translating the second part of the original sentence. However, don't forget that it doesn't mean _"it would be burnt"_ in this context. Rather, it means _"it would have burnt"_ (i.e., past tense) here because, as already mentioned, _verbrannt_ is being used as a verb and not as an adjective.

All the best.

Abba


----------

