# He was told that....



## driFDer

Hello everyone. I have a sentence I would like to try out. I will word it a few different ways. Tell me which one is most prefered, and as always, make any corrections needed. Thank you.

[Englisch]
_He was told that he must wait one year._
_- _Er war gesagt, dass er ein Jahr warten muss.
- Es wurde ihm gesagt,.....
- Man sagte es ihm....


----------



## Henryk

> [Englisch]
> _He was told that he must wait one year._
> _- _Er war gesagt, dass er ein Jahr warten musst.
> - Es wurde ihm gesagt.  (He was told that)
> - Man sagte es ihm.  (-,,-)


1) Ihm wurde gesagt, dass er ein Jahr warten müsse. 

Man hat ihm gesagt, dass er noch ein Jahr warten müsse. (Ich finde diese Version am besten.)


----------



## driFDer

Please be patient with me since I am still learning. I have been teaching myself for the last few months. My knowledge of verbs was terrible so I went out and bought a german verb book. It seems to be working out quite well for me. But this example leaves me questioning. I know "present perfect" is used most often in conversation but, from what I have read, the "past tense" is used more often when "telling a story." Would I not want to use "past tense" in this particular situation? I do agree with you though Herny. Your second example does sound and feel much more accurate.


----------



## Henryk

I absolutely understand your situation, I do the same with other languages and know how despairing it can sometimes be. If you have questions, you can post them here everytime and we'll be glad to answer them. I didn't want to make you feel overwhelmed. 

In German, the Präteritum and the Perfekt are completely the same, they are only used differently as you know. 

Well, with the Präteritum you express something you heard, experienced or did yourself. In contrast, the Perfekt is used when you want to express something you were told. 

*But,* nowadays you seldom encounter the Präteritum. If you tell a story, you have to use the Präteritum because one action follows another in the past, it'd sound very horrible to additionally have an auxiliary verb in any sentence. It's the only occasion in which you may not use the Perfekt.

I'd recommend you to only read the last passage, but not to imitate it since it's just bad German. You should stick to the sentence before.

P.S. Please feel free to correct the mistakes I committed.


----------



## driFDer

Danke Henryk! You were a huge help!


----------



## heidita

driFDer said:


> - Man sagte es ihm....


 
Please note that this sentence cannot be followed by any other.

Man sagte es ihm. He was told. (They told it to him).

If you desire to continue the sentences which would be perfectly possible:

Man sagte ihm, dass .........


----------



## elroy

I just want to make sure you understand why "Er war gesagt" is wrong.

First of all, unlike in English, the helping verb in the passive voice is "werden" and not "sein." "Sein" is only used for the so-called "Zustandspassiv," which is not a true passive because it expresses a condition and not an action.

The door was opened. (Somebody opened it.) = Die Tür *wurde* geöffnet.
The door was open. (You could walk right in.) = Die Tür *war* geöffnet. 

This distinction is very important to make, so I'll stress it again: when expressing an _action_ in the passive voice, use "werden" and not "sein."

Now, second, unlike in English, in German an indirect object _cannot_ become the subject of a passive sentence.

I ate the apple. = Ich habe den Apfel gegessen.
The apple was eaten (by me). = Der Apfel wurde (von mir) gegessen.

In the above sentences, "apple" was the _direct object _of the active sentence, and it became the subject of the passive sentence. The same happened in German. So far so good.

I gave the child the pen. = Ich habe dem Kind den Stift gegeben.
The pen was given (to) the child (by me). = Der Stift wurde dem Kind (von mir) gegeben.
The child was given the pen by me. - Das Kind wurde den Stift gegeben.  

In English, both "pen" (the direct object) and "child" (the indirect object) could become the subject of the passive sentence. In German this is possible only with "Stift" (the direct object). The indirect object ("Kind") must remain an indirect object in the passive sentence, and only the direct object can become the subject. In order to parallel the word order in the third sentence above, though, you could start the sentence with the indirect object:

Dem Kind wurde der Stift gegeben.  

Because "he" in "he was told that..." is also the indirect object of the corresponding active sentence ("Somebody told him that..."), it must remain the indirect object of the passive sentence. To maintain the emphasis of the English sentence, you would begin with the indirect object:

Ihm wurde gesagt, dass... 

The subject of this sentence is the noun clause beginning with "dass." 

I hope that helps. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.


----------



## venenum

> First of all, unlike in English, the helping verb in the passive voice is "werden" and not "sein."


 
off-topic: Elroy, are you sure that _helping verb_ is an acceptable synonym for _auxiliary_?


----------



## elroy

venenum said:


> off-topic: Elroy, are you sure that _helping verb_ is an acceptable synonym for _auxiliary_?


 Positive.  In fact, that's the term we always used in school; I did not come across "auxiliary" until much later in my life.


----------



## gaer

There is a direct connection between present day German passive construction and earlier forms of English:

1) And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory,

Note "became" here, then think of "werden".

Now, look at this; although it is not an official translation, it is correct:

1a) And the Word *is become* flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory,

Here is the same construction, actually used:

And they have failed to perceive that the Word *is become* Flesh, not by reason of an addition to the Godhead, but in order that the flesh may rise again. ...

"is become" is literally "ist geworden"

Und das Wort *ist* Fleisch *geworden* und hat unter uns gewohnt, und wir haben seine Herrlichkeit gesehen,

Note this is another translation, same meaning:

2) And the World was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory,

Now, returning to this:


			
				Henryk said:
			
		

> 1) Ihm wurde gesagt, dass er ein Jahr warten müsse.


To him [it] became said, that he must wait a year.
It "became" said to him that he must wait a year.
It "was" said to him that he must wait a year.
Finally:
_*He was told that that he must wait a year.*_


			
				Henryk said:
			
		

> 2) Man hat ihm gesagt, dass er noch ein Jahr warten müsse.


Someone/somebody had told him that he must wait a year.
_*Someone told him that he must wait a year.*_

I do not have a preference here, in German, because the meaning is a bit different. BOth German suggestions seem to me to be excellent. The "man" construction is easier for non-natives to write.

I think Elroy did a superb job of explaining passive, so just remember to use "werden" for passive. But I thought it might be interesting to everyone just how much closer German and English are in this area than seems obvious at first glance!

Gaer


----------



## passerby

gaer said:


> Now, look at this; although it is not an official translation, it is correct:
> 
> 1a) And the Word *is become* flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory,Gaer



That was a fine set of examples.  But could you please explain how in English 'is become' is correct usage?


----------



## gaer

passerby said:


> That was a fine set of examples. But could you please explain how in English 'is become' is correct usage?


Certainly! At one time English often used the verb "to be" exactly as German does today.

ist gekommen=is come

To this very moment "is come" is used in some phrases, but you see it most often in the Bible. I've used Biblical quotations only because they are the easiest to find.

Christ is arisen=Christ HAS arisen.

You should be able to find numerous such examples in Shakespeare.

And that's why "is become"="has become". Same reason.

"Thy silver is become dross[,] thy wine mixed with water."
"Dein Silber ist Schaum geworden und dein Getränk mit Wasser vermischt."

In modern English, "has" replaces "is".

The farther back in time you go, the clearer the links between German and Enlgish become.

Gaer


----------



## elroy

The discussion on "commit a mistake" is now here.  Please restrict your comments in this thread to "He was told that..."


----------



## driFDer

Thanks Elroy for your help as well. I am just now learning about forming the "passive voice." It seems a bit odd but I think I'll have it down in a week or so.



> off-topic: Elroy, are you sure that _helping verb_ is an acceptable synonym for _auxiliary_?


 It was perfectly understandable to me. Most books I read do describe it as "auxiliaries" but there are some books written here that are for "lower-level readers" which use the phrase "helping verb." So Elroy was correct in his respective examples.

I do have one more question however.  Let us say that I want to change "He was told, that..." to a statement such as "He was told."  Could I then say "Man sagte es ihm."? Or if I wanted to use present perfect I could say "Er ist gesagt worden." But I _DO _understand if I wanted to change "Er is gesagt worden" to present, it would be as follows: "Er wird gesagt."  Am I correct thus far?


----------



## elroy

driFDer said:


> I do have one more question however. Let us say that I want to change "He was told, that..." to a statement such as "He was told." Could I then say "Man sagte es ihm."? Or if I wanted to use present perfect I could say "Er ist gesagt worden." But I _DO _understand if I wanted to change "Er is gesagt worden" to present, it would be as follows: "Er wird gesagt." Am I correct thus far?


"Man sagte es ihm" is correct.

After that, you fell into the "making the indirect object the subject" trap again.

The correct forms are "*Ihm *ist es gesagt worden" (or "*Ihm* wurde es gesagt") and "*Ihm* wird es gesagt". 

You could, of course, also begin with "es": "Es ist ihm gesagt worden," "Es wurde ihm gesagt," and "Es wird ihm gesagt".


----------



## gaer

elroy said:


> "Man sagte es ihm" is correct.
> 
> After that, you fell into the "making the indirect object the subject" trap again.
> 
> The correct forms are "*Ihm *ist es gesagt worden" (or "*Ihm* wurde es gesagt") and "*Ihm* wird es gesagt".
> 
> You could, of course, also begin with "es": "Es ist ihm gesagt worden," "Es wurde ihm gesagt," and "Es wird ihm gesagt".


Elroy,

The forms I see most often are:

Es wird ihm gesagt,…
Es wurde ihm gesagt,…

I have no idea if this word order (for this particular phrase) really is more common than other possibilities, but this raises another question.

Help from natives please!

Is there a reliable rule for telling when to use "wird" and when to use "wurde"? I am afraid I may be open Pandora's Box.

Gaer


----------



## FloVi

"wird" ist Gegenwart oder Zukunft, "wurde" Vergangenheit.


----------



## gaer

FloVi said:


> "wird" ist Gegenwart oder Zukunft, "wurde" Vergangenheit.


With all due respect, if the answer were that simple, I would not have asked the question. 

Please examine many sentences using both the constructions I just mentioned. Then try translating them into English. You should see the problem immediately. 

Gaer


----------



## elroy

gaer said:


> Elroy,
> 
> The forms I see most often are:
> 
> Es wird ihm gesagt,…
> Es wurde ihm gesagt,…


 I would agree that these are more common and neutral.  The ones starting with "ihm" were supposed to emphasize that part of the sentence. 


> Is there a reliable rule for telling when to use "wird" and when to use "wurde"? I am afraid I may be open Pandora's Box.


 I'm afraid I don't think I know what you're getting at.

Here's the way I see it: 

Ihm wird gesagt, dass... = He is (usually) told that...; He is being told that...
Ihm wurde gesagt, dass... = He was told that...; He used to be told that...; He was being told that... 

Isn't it that simple?  If not, I seek native help as well!


----------



## FloVi

Tut mir leid, aber ich sehe das Problem nicht. Oder meint ihr, dass man "Es wird ihm gesagt" auch dann verwenden kann, wenn die Aktion selbst in der Vergangenheit liegt?


----------



## gaer

FloVi said:


> Tut mir leid, aber ich sehe das Problem nicht. Oder meint ihr, dass man "Es wird ihm gesagt" auch dann verwenden kann, wenn die Aktion selbst in der Vergangenheit liegt?


At least that.

Okay, I did not want to give context in this case because I am not sure the context will be right. I have to pick examples from Google, and they may be wrong.

*Es wird ihm gesagt*, die wahren Meister hätten sich nach Tibet zurückgezogen.

I don't think this means "he is being told". What tense would you pick to translate this into English?

*Es wird ihm gesagt*, dass der Zug nicht weiterfahren wird, da bestimmte Gleise wegen des Hochwassers unter Wasser stehen.

In most of the sentences I've found, the translations would most likely be "he was told". It is as if the tense of "werden" is "in sync" with the tense of the remainder of the sentence, but even that does not seem to be true in all cases.

*Es wurde ihm gesagt*, die Häftlinge würden zwischen einem und fünfzehn Tagen in Einzelhaft gehalten.

Again, "He was told…". But now the verb following is "würden".

*Es wurde ihm gesagt*, mein Mann sei nicht mehr im Haus. 

Wird or wurde here? I'll stop here, because this is only the beginning of my confusion about this construction, which I have never ever misread or had trouble understanding. I simply don't understand the rules.

Gaer


----------



## heidita

Nein, finde ich nicht. Gut von Elroy erklärt.

Es wird ihm gesagt. Gegenwart
Es wurde ihm gesagt. Vergangenheit.


----------



## FloVi

Wenn Du mal den ganzen Abschnitt liest, wirst Du feststellen, dass der Autor einen dramaturgischen Trick anwendet:

"Mehrere Monate reist Theos Bernard kreuz und quer durch Indien bis hinunter nach Sri Lanka und versucht weiterhin Personen zu treffen, die ihm seine Fragen zu Yoga beantworten können. Unter anderem besucht er dabei das Yoga-Institut von Lonavla [...], wo er Gespräche mit dem Swami Kuvalayananda führt. Auf seiner Reise merkt er, dass es schwierig ist, Kenner der höheren tantrischen Hatha Yoga Praktiken zu finden, da diese in Indien bereits etwas aus dem Gebrauch gekommen waren. Es wird ihm gesagt, die wahren Meister hätten sich nach Tibet zurückgezogen."

Er verwendet in diesem Abschnitt konsequent die Gegenwart, um den Leser näher an das Geschehen zu holen. Die Gefahr ist, dass man wirklich konsequent sein muss. Mit diesem Kniff erlebt der Leser das alles zeitgleich mit dem Protagonisten. Es passiert dabei jedoch oft, dass ungeübte Autoren die Zeiten vermischen und dann wird es problematisch.


----------



## heidita

*Es wird ihm gesagt, die wahren Meister hätten sich nach Tibet zurückgezogen. So reift in ihm der feste Entschluss, später auch Tibet zu bereisen. ...*

Hier zum Beispiel handelt es sich um die Gegenwart, die verwendet wird, wenn man eine Geschichte erzählt.

*Es wurde ihm gesagt*, die Häftlinge würden zwischen einem und fünfzehn Tagen in Einzelhaft gehalten.

Again, "He was told…". But now the verb following is "würden".

Indirekte Rede


----------



## gaer

FloVi said:


> Wenn Du mal den ganzen Abschnitt liest, wirst Du feststellen, dass der Autor einen dramaturgischen Trick anwendet:
> 
> "Mehrere Monate reist Theos Bernard kreuz und quer durch Indien bis hinunter nach Sri Lanka und versucht weiterhin Personen zu treffen, die ihm seine Fragen zu Yoga beantworten können. Unter anderem besucht er dabei das Yoga-Institut von Lonavla [...], wo er Gespräche mit dem Swami Kuvalayananda führt. Auf seiner Reise merkt er, dass es schwierig ist, Kenner der höheren tantrischen Hatha Yoga Praktiken zu finden, da diese in Indien bereits etwas aus dem Gebrauch gekommen waren. Es wird ihm gesagt, die wahren Meister hätten sich nach Tibet zurückgezogen."


In this example the agreement in tense is 100% clear. This style is also used in English, present tense narration.


> Er verwendet in diesem Abschnitt konsequent die Gegenwart, um den Leser näher an das Geschehen zu holen. Die Gefahr ist, dass man wirklich konsequent sein muss.


Again, I understand, and the same problem exists in English. It is tricky to write this way.


> Mit diesem Kniff erlebt der Leser das alles zeitgleich mit dem Protagonisten. Es passiert dabei jedoch oft, dass ungeübte Autoren die Zeiten vermischen und dann wird es problematisch.


 
This is exactly why I did NOT want to use examples from Google. I have no way of judging if the grammar used is correct or not.

This is the only thing I have been able to find out so far.

"Es wird gesagt…"

No problem. "It is said,…"

"Es wird ihm gesagt,…"

"It is said to him" is quite unusual in English. I can't think of one example where this construction would be used. I still think a translation problem exists, or to be more specific, there is not a simple one-to-one correspondence between the tense of "werden" in this particular construction and the use of present or past tense in English.

And the use of "it is being said to him" is even more ususual.

Gaer


----------



## FloVi

"Es wird ihm gesagt,..." halte ich auch im Deutschen für unüblich, zumal die Zeit nicht eindeutig erkennbar ist. Es ist auch sehr schwer, solche Sätze für sich allein zu beurteilen. Gerade in solchen Fällen ist viel vom Kontext abhängig. Hinzu kommt, dass sehr viele Leute in solchen Grenzfällen nicht besonders - ich formuliere es vorsichtig - sorgfältig mit den Zeiten umgehen.

Jetzt kann ich Deine Verwirrung verstehen, doch ich bleibe bei der ursprünglichen Aussage, was Vergangenheit und Gegenwart/Zukunft angeht. Letztlich ist es tatsächlich so einfach. ;-)

Um eine Eindeutigkeit bezüglich Gegenwart und Zukunft herzustellen, kann man noch "gerade" bzw. "noch" einfügen:

"Es wird ihm (gerade) gesagt,..."
"Es wird ihm (noch) gesagt,..." oder
"Es wird ihm gesagt werden,..."
Das allerdings halte ich für recht gewagt. Es soll Gegenden in Deutschland geben, in denen man für solche Formulierungen verprügelt wird.


----------



## heidita

Gaer, why translate _sagen _with _say_. Easier in this case tell.

Es wird ihm gesagt =I hm wird gesagt = He is told.

Es wurde ihm gesagt = Ihm wurde gesagt = He was told.


----------



## gaer

FloVi said:


> "Es wird ihm gesagt,..." halte ich auch im Deutschen für unüblich, zumal die Zeit nicht eindeutig erkennbar ist.


Results 1 - 10 of about 7,910 for "Es wird ihm gesagt". (0.12 seconds) 

This surprised me, and it may turn out that many of these "hits" are duplications. I think you also understand my extreme reluctance to use Google as a source of what is right or wrong.

Obviously I can't read through more than 7,000 hits, but I did examine enough to see a pattern. I believe the answer is as simple as you say it is, in German. It is certainly simple to understand the meaning in all sentences I read.


> Es ist auch sehr schwer, solche Sätze für sich allein zu beurteilen. Gerade in solchen Fällen ist viel vom Kontext abhängig. Hinzu kommt, dass sehr viele Leute in solchen Grenzfällen nicht besonders - ich formuliere es vorsichtig - sorgfältig mit den Zeiten umgehen.


This is what I feared. In addition, there is more than one tense that is possible to get the same idea across in English. Let me give you one concrete example.

"I called the screening company today, and *I was told* that there is no date set yet for installation."

"I called the screening company today, and *I am being told* that there is no date set yet for installation."

"I called the screening company today, and *they [the people at the company] are telling me* that there is no date set yet for installation."

"I called the screening company today, and *they told me* that there is no date set yet for installation."

I think that if the grammar is being used correctly, it should be "I am talking to them right now and I am being told…"

OR

"I just talked to them and I was told…"

If the same kind of sloppy usage happens in German informally, then I think my question has been answered.


> Jetzt kann ich Deine Verwirrung verstehen, doch ich bleibe bei der ursprünglichen Aussage, was Vergangenheit und Gegenwart/Zukunft angeht. Letztlich ist es tatsächlich so einfach. ;-)


Well, if anything about language is simple, I suppose you might say that. 

Unless someone else has something to add, I will end it here. 

Gaer


----------



## gaer

heidita said:


> Gaer, why translate _sagen _with _say_. Easier in this case tell.
> 
> Es wird ihm gesagt =I hm wird gesagt = He is told.
> 
> Es wurde ihm gesagt = Ihm wurde gesagt = He was told.


I used "said" with this:

"Es wird gesagt." "Told" is not possible here. This is more or less a set phrase in English: "It is said that…"

In the example you are using, I agree.

Regardless, I think I understand, Heidi.

I may have used "It was said to him" to explain the structure literally to the person who posted the questions today. But that has nothing to do with my question about tense here, and I believe you and FloVi have cleared it up.  

Gaer


----------



## FloVi

gaer said:


> Results 1 - 10 of about 7,910 for "Es wird ihm gesagt". (0.12 seconds)



Ich habe mein Google auf "nur Deutsch" eingestellt und komme sogar auf nur rd. 3000 Ergebnisse. Unsere Diskussionen hier fallen wohl unter die Kategorie "German for runaways" (Deutsch für Fortgeschrittene ), da werden wir in den meisten Fällen kein Glück im Internet haben.


----------



## passerby

gaer said:


> Certainly! At one time English often used the verb "to be" exactly as German does today.
> 
> ist gekommen=is come
> 
> To this very moment "is come" is used in some phrases, but you see it most often in the Bible. I've used Biblical quotations only because they are the easiest to find.
> 
> Christ is arisen=Christ HAS arisen.
> 
> You should be able to find numerous such examples in Shakespeare.
> 
> And that's why "is become"="has become". Same reason.
> 
> Gaer


Thank you for taking the time to respond.  My problem was the grammatical context of the original sentence you proposed 





> "1a) And the Word is become flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory,"


 because the past tense 'dwelt' does not agree.  If 'is become' is used, shouldn't it then read 'dwells' to make 'is become' in this sentence correct usage?


----------



## passerby

gaer said:


> In addition, there is more than one tense that is possible to get the same idea across in English. Let me give you one concrete example.
> 
> "I called the screening company today, and *I was told* that there is no date set yet for installation." Gaer


 


> "I called the screening company today, and *I am being told* that there is no date set yet for installation." that is to say _'Jein'_


The only context I think this would be correct in is to insert the word 'now' after 'and':  I called the screening company today.  Now I am being told ... Note my full stop.  What is happening here is a) A report is given about what was done that day - The company was called.  Then b) whereby in the past the company told me xyz, NOW I am being told by them abc.  Whether this is absolutely true is somewhat in doubt.  This is perfectly acceptable grammar. It is an ongoing narrative of what the company says. The use of the passive voice may be an indication the narrator feels himself somewhat of a victim. If the full stop and the 'now' are eliminated in speech then it is just an ellipsis of thought.



> "I called the screening company today, and *they [the people at the company] are telling me* that there is no date set yet for installation." actually also '_jein'_ The same holds true as above, except this uses the active voice.


 


> "I called the screening company today, and *they told me* that there is no date set yet for installation." This has a different meaning than the sentence above.  It is a narrative of simple fact of what transpired. A call was made. A question was asked of the company and a response was given.


 


> I think that if the grammar is being used correctly, it should be "I am talking to them right now and I am being told…"
> 
> OR
> 
> "I just talked to them and I was told
> If the same kind of sloppy usage happens in German …"


The above constructions are not 'sloppy usage' (ellipsis aside) and the grammar is not being used 'incorrectly'.  I hope you will see from my explanation that they convey different meanings and not, as you had assumed, the same one ("there is more than one tense that is possible to get the same idea across") You actually only show 2 _tenses_ using 2 different _voices_ (passive/active) (examples 1&4, 2&3) 


> Unless someone else has something to add, I will end it here.


as you see, I had something to add


----------



## passerby

gaer said:


> "Es wird gesagt." "Told" is not possible here. This is more or less a set phrase in English: "It is said that…"
> Gaer


I don't see why it wouldn't.  I agree with what  heidita and FloVi have posted. How does this work for you, gaer?   

"For many months T.B. travels all over India all the way down to Sri Lanka trying to meet people who can answer his questions about Yoga.  Among other things he visits the L.Y. Institute [...] where he has discussions with Swami K. In his travels he notices that it is difficult to find people knowledgeable about the higher levels of tantric Hatha Yoga practices, as these had gone somewhat out of use. He is told that the true masters have retreated to Tibet."


----------



## gaer

passerby said:


> "I called the screening company today, and I am being told that there is no date set yet for installation." that is to say 'Jein'
> 
> The only context I think this would be correct in is to insert the word 'now' after 'and': I called the screening company today. Now I am being told ... Note my full stop.


Right. I completely agree with you. But I think you misunderstood my intention. My intention was to show that at times, informally, we are imprecise. It is wrong, but we do change in "mid-stream". I would not write this, but I might say it, carelessly. "Was told" is the only correct wording.

I won't respond to your other points, because again I agree. But this is just what makes context and other additional factors so important, and what makes translation and art, not a science.

Let me wrap up my own point with these two sentences:

1) "I called the screening company today, and I am being told that there is no date set yet for installation."

This is wrong if I really mean that I was told this—and if there is no reason for me to switch to present progressive.

2) "I called the screening company today, and [now] I am being told that there is no date set yet for installation."

This is correct, without the addition of "now" if context makes it clear that the answer I received today is different. Yesterday the company told me one thing, today it is telling me another thing.

I believe, but I'm not sure, that I sensed a bit of this complexity with the use of "wird" vs. "wurde" in some of the sentences I read, but I am unable to judge whether or not possible ambiguity in tense results from German itself or substandard construction by people who are not good writers. 

Gaer


----------



## gaer

passerby said:


> I don't see why it wouldn't. I agree with what heidita and FloVi have posted. How does this work for you, gaer?
> 
> "For many months T.B. travels all over India all the way down to Sri Lanka trying to meet people who can answer his questions about Yoga. Among other things he visits the L.Y. Institute [...] where he has discussions with Swami K. In his travels he notices that it is difficult to find people knowledgeable about the higher levels of tantric Hatha Yoga practices, as these had gone somewhat out of use. He is told that the true masters have retreated to Tibet."


Let's look at the German:

"Mehrere Monate reist Theos Bernard kreuz und quer durch Indien bis hinunter nach Sri Lanka und versucht weiterhin Personen zu treffen, die ihm seine Fragen zu Yoga beantworten können. Unter anderem besucht er dabei das Yoga-Institut von Lonavla [...], wo er Gespräche mit dem Swami Kuvalayananda führt. Auf seiner Reise merkt er, dass es schwierig ist, Kenner der höheren tantrischen Hatha Yoga Praktiken zu finden, da diese in Indien bereits etwas aus dem Gebrauch gekommen waren. Es wird ihm gesagt, die wahren Meister hätten sich nach Tibet zurückgezogen."

This is: Es wird *ihm* gesagt. In this case, "he is told" is not only correct but the translation I would choose. "It is said to him" is wordy and awkward.

I was talking about a different thing: "Es wird gesagt". Here I was think of this construction:

It is [often] said that the English are arrogant. (I don't believe this at all, by the way, but I am grasping for an example sentence.)

*Es wird oft gesagt*, dass man das Radfahren nie verlernen kann. 
_*It is often said*_ that one/we never forget(s) how to ride a bike. Here "told" no longer works.

I am irritated by my own posts in this thread, because we have lacked sufficient context from the beginning, and that is primarily my fault. 

Gaer


----------



## passerby

gaer said:


> I was talking about a different thing: "Es wird gesagt". Here I was think of this construction:
> 
> It is [often] said that the English are arrogant. (I don't believe this at all, by the way, but I am grasping for an example sentence.)
> 
> *Es wird oft gesagt*, dass man das Radfahren nie verlernen kann.
> _*It is often said*_ that one/we never forget(s) how to ride a bike. Here "told" no longer works.
> 
> I am irritated by my own posts in this thread, because we have lacked sufficient context from the beginning, and that is primarily my fault.
> 
> Gaer



Ok, sorry I misunderstood you.  I guess we've got the topic covered.


----------



## gaer

passerby said:


> Thank you for taking the time to respond. My problem was the grammatical context of the original sentence you proposed
> 
> "1a) And the Word is become flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory,"
> 
> because the past tense 'dwelt' does not agree. If 'is become' is used, shouldn't it then read 'dwells' to make 'is become' in this sentence correct usage?


Same tense problem!

"1a) And the Word *is become* flesh and *has dwelt* among us, and we *have seen* his glory," 

OR

"1a) And the Word *is become* flesh and [now] *dwells* among us, and we *have seen* his glory," 

Why is "dwelt" used? I don't understand it myself. I can only assume that it refers to the fact that Christ was only upon this earth until his crucifixion and resurrection, thus some kind of past tense. It is up to you whether or not it is correct to mix "has become" (is become) with "dwelt". 

My gut reaction is to use "has dwellt". However, since I am not a religious person, my interpretation may be entirely wrong.

Gaer


----------



## heidita

gaer said:


> *Es wird oft gesagt*, dass man das Radfahren nie verlernen kann.
> _*It is often said*_ that one/we never forget(s) how to ride a bike.
> 
> Gaer


 
You mentioned before that you had a problem with this structure, when a personal pronound was involved. 

It was said to him = Es wurde ihm gesagt/He was told

In the structure above, I cannot see where the problem may lie. As the structure is the same in English and German.

Es wurde gesagt/It was said

ES ist gesagt worde/It has ben said

Es wird gesagt weden/ It will be said

Different though with a more difficult structure, namely the one when an auxiliary is involved.

Es soll ihm gesagt worden sein/They say he has been told


----------



## gaer

heidita said:


> You mentioned before that you had a problem with this structure, when a personal pronound was involved.
> 
> It was said to him = Es wurde ihm gesagt/He was told
> 
> In the structure above, I cannot see where the problem may lie. As the structure is the same in English and German.


Heidi, I think my problem came from reading incorrectly written sentences by Germans. When I was careful to examine sentences from more reliable sources, my questions disappeared. I don't think I have a problem any more. 


> Es wurde gesagt/It was said
> 
> ES ist gesagt worde/It has ben said
> 
> Es wird gesagt weden/ It will be said
> 
> Different though with a more difficult structure, namely the one when an auxiliary is involved.
> 
> Es soll ihm gesagt worden sein/They say he has been told


These are fine now. As I said earlier, I have never had a problem reading such sentences. My problems began when I looked at some sentences in a Google search.

We both know this can lead to some very incorrect sentences. Unless a sentence appears some time in the future needing an English translation that I am unable to translate properly, I think I am satisfied!

Gaer


----------



## driFDer

heidita said:


> ES ist gesagt worde/It has ben said


 
This is the same example I posted earlier but, only to be told it was wrong. I _DO_ understand that when changing a sentence from the active voice to the passive voice, the direct object becomes the subject in the passive voice. The book I am currently reading gives the following as examples on how to form the passive voice.

- _*Er wird gefragt*_ (he is being asked)
- _*Wir werden gelobt*_ (We are being praised)

present perfect: _*Er ist gefragt worden*_ (he has been asked) I just substituted "fragen" with "sagen." You might see where I got confused when being told I was using this form incorrectly.

past perfect: _*Wir waren gelobt worden*_ (we had been praised)

I don't want to go off topic with the use of "fragen" but the examples in the preceeding sentences is where I drew my info from earlier in this thread.

Here are some more examples.  Do tell me if I am forming them incorrectly. I will change (well try to at least) the following active sentence (The teacher reads the book) to the passive voice:

*present:* Das Buch wird von dem Lehrer gelesen.
*present perfect:* Das Buch ist von dem Lehrer gelesen worden.
*past:* Das Buch wurde von dem Lehrer gelesen.
*past perfect:* Das Buch war von dem Lehrer gelesen worden.
*future:* Das Buch wird von dem Lehrer gelesen werden.
*future perfect:* Das Buch wird von dem Lehrer gelesen worden sein.


----------



## Kajjo

Dear Drifder,
your examples are correct. I think your confusion might be due to the definition of "object" -- here only accusative objects are meant, not dative objects. 

Canoo.net very clearly explains how you convert 
Transitive Verben zu Vorgangspassiv
Intransitive Verben mit Objekt zu Vorgangspassiv
Intransitive Verben ohne Objekt zu Vorgangspassiv
Please have a look and then we discuss this issue further.

Kajjo


----------



## maicart

I had a similar question:

"He was told not to play loud music".

My try:

a) Ihm wurde gesagt, keine laute Musik zu spielen.
b) Es wurde ihm gesagt, keine laute Musik zu spielen.

From the previous threads, I'm not sure whether the correct form in a) is: "Ihm wurde gesagt" or "Ihm wurde *es* gesagt".

Is the "es" necessary or is it redundant?


----------



## Kajjo

maicart said:


> "He was told not to play loud music".


Unfortunately, in this case "gesagt" is not idiomatic with an infinitive construction. Either replace the full verb or add a modal verb in the infinitive or dass-construction.

with full verb:

_Ihm wurde verboten/untersagt/nicht erlaubt, laute Musik zu spielen.
_
with modal verb:
_
Ihm wurde gesagt, dass er keine laute Musik spielen darf/soll.
Ihm wurde gesagt, er dürfe/solle keine laute Musik spielen.

Es wurde ihm gesagt, dass er keine laute Musik spielen darf/soll.
Es wurde ihm gesagt, er dürfe/solle keine laute Musik spielen.
_
The placeholder-"es" is possible. It depends on emphasis and further particles whether a native prefers the version with or without placeholder. 

However, an "es" without placeholder function is not idiomatic:

_ Ihm wurde es gesagt, dass er keine laute Musik spielen darf/soll._


----------



## maicart

@Kajjo Thanks for your thorough explanation!


----------



## maicart

@Kajjo Just one more thing. What about...

Er _wurde verboten_, laute Musik zu spielen. (He was forbidden to play music).

Another example:

Ich _wurde gebeten_, zurückzutreten. (I was asked to resign).

„_wurde + Partizip II“_ = Präteritum Passiv, richtig?


----------



## Kajjo

_ Er wurde verboten, laute Musik zu spielen.
 Ihm wurde verboten, laute Musik zu spielen.
_
Please note for the transition of active to passive that intransitive verbs (those without an accusative object) having dative, genitive or prepositional objects don't change the case of these objects. See here for more details: canoonet - Verb: Akiv und Passiv: Vorgangspassiv

_Ich verbiete ihm, laute Musik zu hören.
Ihm wurde verboten, laute Musik zu hören.
_
In contrast, active transitive verbs have an accusative object which turns into the subject of the passive sentence:

_Er bittet mich zurückzutreten.
Ich wurde gebeten zurückzutreten._



maicart said:


> „_wurde + Partizip II“_ = Präteritum Passiv, richtig?


Yes, but of course "wurde" adapts the correct person (_wurde, wurdest, ..._). See here for full details: canoonet - Verb: Flexion: Passiv


----------



## maicart

@Kajjo Thanks, another great explanation.


----------

