# Vorgangspassiv - Zustandspassiv



## zorspas

There are some exercises on this site : 

http://www.german-grammar.de/grammar/chapter_18/18_8_3_exercise_3.htm

But some of the answers seem wrong to me? Can someone please check them?

Thanks...


----------



## Baranxi

Actually, they are correct from a purely grammatical point of view (apart from the 2nd and 3rd examples being described as a passive, because I don't see "da sein" as passive). As the page says, it is about the _Zustandspassiv_, which is different from the _Vorgangspassiv_; that is, it is a special form of the passive that is formed with "sein" instead of "werden" and describes a state instead of a process.

Personally, I think that almost all of the examples are extremely unidiomatic, though. 
It's hard to express this, but for example, with "Das Haus ist gebaut gewesen" I hear an emphasis on the fact that the house was in a state of having been _built_ (instead of, er, randomly assembled by flying debris).

A more idiomatic would be a usage like this:
Der Pullover ist gestrickt (und nicht gehäkelt). = The sweater is knitted (and not crocheted).


----------



## zorspas

So 

*Der Brief wird von mir geschrieben* means I am still writing it, it's not done yet.
*Der Brief ist von mir geschrieben* means I have written it, it's done.

Is that right?

Thanks a lot.


----------



## berndf

zorspas said:


> So
> 
> *Der Brief wird von mir geschrieben* means I am still writing it, it's not done yet.
> *Der Brief ist von mir geschrieben* means I have written it, it's done.
> 
> Is that right?


 
That is correct. If you are talking about the state of the letter as having been written by you, you use the _Zustandspassiv_. If you are talking about your past activity of writing the letter you would use the past tense version of the _Vorgangspassiv_:
*Der Brief wurde von mir geschrieben*
or, in particular in southern Germany, Austria and Switzerland:
*Der Brief ist von mir geschrieben worden*
N.B.: The latter variant is not a _Zustandspassiv_ but the perfect tense of the _Vorgangspassiv_.


----------



## Hutschi

> *Der Brief wird von mir geschrieben* means I am still writing it, it's not done yet.


This can be true but the sentence is fuzzy.


Der Brief wird von mir geschrieben.
This can also mean_ I will write this letter. _

If you want to make it clear that it is present time, you are working on it, use:

Der Brief wird von mir gerade geschrieben.


----------



## brian

Hutschi said:
			
		

> Der Brief wird von mir geschrieben.
> This can also mean_ I will write this letter._


Wouldn't that then be _Der Brief wird von mir geschrieben *werden*_? Or is that something different/impossible?


----------



## berndf

brian8733 said:


> Wouldn't that then be _Der Brief wird von mir geschrieben *werden*_?





brian8733 said:


> Or is that something different/impossible?


It is like in English: The use of the future tense is optional. You can use present tense instead, at least if the context is clear (e.g.: "I go to the cinema tomorrow" instead of "I will go to the cinema tomorrow"). This creates the ambiguity Hutschi wrote about.


----------



## brian

Hmm... actually we always use the present _progressive_ I think. "I go to the cinema tomorrow"  should be "I am going..." 

Similarly, "The letter is written (by me)" can only mean that it's already written by me or that it, in general, is always written by me (talking about an habitual letter-writing process).

To convey both present and future meaning, you have to say "The letter is being written by me (right now, tomorrow, etc.)," even though with the future meaning it sounds kind of awkward.

The best is: _The letter will be written by me_, using the explicit future, which is why I thought it would be _wird geschrieben werden_ in German, since _is/is being written_ with future meaning in English sounds bad.


----------



## berndf

brian8733 said:


> The best is: _The letter will be written by me_, using the explicit future, which is why I thought it would be _wird geschrieben werden_ in German, since _is/is being written_ with future meaning in English sounds bad.


That wasn't Hutschi's point. His point was that the person who utters the sentence might not have used the "best" way to say it. You have to anticipate that the person might have been "lazy" and used present tense instead. I didn't imply in any way that "I go to the cinema tomorrow" would be good and idiomatic English. German does not have the continuous form and therefore you don't have the subtle distinction between "I go to the cinema" and "I am going to the cinema". I am sorry, if my choice of an analogy was misleading.


----------



## zorspas

yet another example : 
*
Die müssen evakuiert werden.* - What I understand from this : _they need to be evacuated. (they are not yet evacuated)_

if we change this as 

*Die müssen evakuiert sein.* - What I understand from this : _they needed to be evacuated (so they have been evacuated already)_


----------



## berndf

zorspas said:


> *Die müssen evakuiert sein.* - ... _they needed/*will need* to *have* be*en* evacuated_


The need exists at present (or in the future, see #5); the evacuation must have happened in the past (or in the past relative to the future time when the need will exist). In other words: the place must be empty *now *(or in the future).

In this case the perfect infinitive of the _Vorgangspassiv_ has the same meaning:
*Die müssen evakuiert worden sein.*
This corresponds more closely to the English equivalent.


----------



## Hutschi

*Die müssen evakuiert worden sein.*

This means usually in German: I (or we) *suppose*, they have been evacuated.

*Die müssen evakuiert sein.* This means either: *I suppose they have been evacuated, *or *it is necessary they are evacuated.*


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> *Die müssen evakuiert worden sein.*
> 
> This means usually in German: I (or we) *suppose*, they have been evacuated.
> 
> *Die müssen evakuiert sein.* This means either: *I suppose they have been evacuated, *or *it is necessary they are evacuated.*


 
That is a different use of "müssen" and both versions can really mean both. In spoken language it depends on stress pattern of the sentence which meaning prevails.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

zorspas said:


> _they needed to be evacuated (so they have been evacuated already)_


That would translate to: _"Die/Sie mussten evakuiert werden"_.

Both _"Die müssen evakuiert werden"_ and _"Die müssen evakuiert sein"_ have the *same* translation in English, namely:

_"They must/need to be evacuated"_.

In other words, unlike in German, we cannot tell without context whether the English sentence _"They need to be evacuated"_ is talking about the process of evacuation or the state of being evacuated.

Abba


----------



## zorspas

The important point for me here is to pinpoint which one is about the _process _and which one is about the _state_. What I have in my mind is; passive with *werden *is about the process and *sein *is for the _state_. This state and process stuff is kind of confusing. In Turkish for the process continuous tenses are used.

This is what I understood from your answers:



> Die müssen evakuiert sein :
> 
> 1- They have/had to be evacuated.   (they evacuated already)
> 2- They might have been evacuated. (I suppose they evacuated already)





> Die müssen evakuiert werden :
> 
> 1- They have to be evacuated. (not evacuated yet)





> Die müssen evakuiert worden sein :
> 
> 1- They might/must have been evacuated. (they evacuated already)
> 2- They might/must have been evacuated. (I suppose/believe they have been evacuated)


Thanks a lot.


----------



## berndf

ABBA Stanza said:


> Both _"Die müssen evakuiert werden"_ and _"Die müssen evakuiert sein"_ have the *same* translation in English, namely:
> 
> _"They must/need to be evacuated"_.
> 
> In other words, unlike in German, we cannot tell without context whether the English sentence _"They need to be evacuated"_ is talking about the process of evacuation or the state of being evacuated.


I'm afraid I can't agree with that. "Evakuiert werden" means "to be evacuated" while "evakuiert sein" means "to have been evacuated" (see above, #11).


----------



## Hutschi

berndf said:


> I'm afraid I can't agree with that. "Evakuiert werden" means "to be evacuated" while "evakuiert sein" means "to have been evacuated" (see above, #11).


 

"Die müssen bis heute abend evakuiert sein." This means at the evening of today it must be ready. It means the status. 

"Die müssen bis heute abend evakuiert werden." this means, there is some time for handling. It means the process.

If you have both:

"Die müssen bis heute abend evakuiert worden sein." It means the status that the process has to be completed.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

berndf said:


> ... "evakuiert sein" means "to have been evacuated" (see above, #11).


Thanks, Bernd, but I am still a little bit confused. i understand that, with the _Zustandspassiv_, the process referred to by the _Vorgangspassiv_ is completed. The completion of this process has already occurred some time in the near or more distant past. In this sense, "has been" (as you mentioned in the quote above) seems like an appropriate translation.

On the other hand, the completion state continues into the present, and in real-world scenarios, it is often only the present state that is of interest.

For example, the sentence _"der Laden ist geöffnet"_ could (from the above logic) be translated as either _"the store has been opened"_ or as "_the store is open"_. I think it's fair to say that usually the latter is meant. If I wanted to translate _"the store has been opened"_ I would instead use _"der Laden ist geöffnet worden"_.

The confusion probably arises from the conflicting adjectival use of past participles. For example:

_"Die Tür ist weiß." =_
_"The door is white."_ (adjective)

_"Die Tür ist weiß gestrichen." =_
_"The door is painted white."_ (adjective) or...
_"The door has been/is  painted white."_ (_Zustandspassiv_)

By choosing "is" instead of "has been" in the last sentence, the distinction between whether "ist ... gestrichen" is used as an adjectival expression or as _Zustandspassiv_ becomes academic. If, on the other hand, one insists that the _Zustandspassiv_ means "has been", then the above example becomes ambiguous.

Lastly, maybe the interpretation (_zustandspassiv_ vs. adjectival phrase) depends on whether an adjectival use is reasonable in a particular context? For example:

_"Die Einwohner sind evakuiert." =_
_"The inhabitants have been evacuated."_
("are evacuated" makes it sound like they've had their brains removed! )

_"Die Haüser sind evakuiert." =_
_"The houses have been/are evacuated."_
(both interpretations are possible here, aren't they?)

Abba


----------



## berndf

ABBA Stanza said:


> For example, the sentence _"der Laden ist geöffnet"_ could (from the above logic) be translated as either _"the store has been opened"_ or as "_the store is open"_. I think it's fair to say that usually the latter is meant. If I wanted to translate _"the store has been opened"_ I would instead use _"der Laden ist geöffnet worden"_.


I think _geöffnet_ as in _der Laden ist geöffnet_ is a simple adjective and not a _Zustandspassiv_. For a reason I fail to comprehend _der Laden ist geöffnet_ sounds more elegant than _der Laden ist offen_. In my mind there is no difference in meaning (except that _der Laden ist offen_ can *also *mean _die Tür des Ladens steht offen_).


----------



## Hutschi

berndf said:


> I think _geöffnet_ as in _der Laden ist geöffnet_ is a simple adjective and not a _Zustandspassiv_. For a reason I fail to comprehend _der Laden ist geöffnet_ sounds more elegant than _der Laden ist offen_. In my mind there is no difference in meaning (except that _der Laden ist offen_ can *also *mean _die Tür des Ladens steht offen_).



In school I learned it this way: "Geöffnet" is a "Partizip" here, also called "Mittelwort", because it is between (in the middle) of verb and adjective. It has properties of both. 
In "die Tür ist geöffnet" "geöffnet" is a participle and works as adjective. 

I do not know if "participle" and "Partizip" are exactly the same. In the Wikipedia the descriptions are quite different for both.

In "Der Laden steht offen" "offen" belongs to the verb. It is a part of the separable verb  "offenstehen".

I'm not sure about "Der Laden ist offen". Is it an adverb or an adjective? I would think it is an adverb, but I am not sure.


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> In school I learned it this way: "Geöffnet" is a "Partizip" here, also called "Mittelwort", because it is between (in the middle) of verb and adjective. It has properties of both.





Hutschi said:


> In "die Tür ist geöffnet" "geöffnet" is a participle and works as adjective.


I find it sometimes useful to distinguish between participles and verbal adjectives though the difference is, admittedly, somewhat artificial. It explains a few oddities in some European languages. E.g. in French the present participle is invariant while derived verbal adjectives are declined.
 



Hutschi said:


> I'm not sure about "Der Laden ist offen". Is it an adverb or an adjective? I would think it is an adverb, but I am not sure.


It is called a "predicative adjective", like "der Apfel ist *rot*". This contrasts with an "attributive adjective", like "der *rote* Apfel". In German attributive adjectives are invariant which causes occasional confusion with adverbs.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Hutschi said:


> I do not know if "participle" and "Partizip" are exactly the same. In the Wikipedia the descriptions are quite different for both.


Yes, I meant _Partizip_.



berndf said:


> I think _geöffnet_ as in _der Laden ist geöffnet_ is a simple adjective and not a _Zustandspassiv_.


If I understand you (both) correctly, the _Zustandspassiv_ should always be translated into English as "has been", and that in cases where the present tense is assumed ("is"), it's because it's actually not the _Zustandspassiv_ at all, but simply a case of the past participle being used as an adjective.

Can either of you (or someone else) please confirm this as a general rule? Many thanks!

Abba


----------



## berndf

ABBA Stanza said:


> If I understand you (both) correctly, the _Zustandspassiv_ should always be translated into English as "has been", and that in cases where the present tense is assumed ("is"), it's because it's actually not the _Zustandspassiv_ at all, but simply a case of the past participle being used as an adjective.


I think this is the most logical way to solve your mystery.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

berndf said:


> I think this is the most logical way to solve your mystery.


Very well, then. But of course that doesn't really "solve" the problem at all, because there's no a priori way of telling which is which - the syntax is identical in both cases.

I guess, as ever, it just boils down to experience...

Abba


----------



## berndf

ABBA Stanza said:


> I guess, as ever, it just boils down to experience...


Unfortunately yes. 

If "der Laden ist geöffnet" weren't a set phrase you would be in doubt because there is the adjective "offen" which you might have used instead. In this case you would have to use the perfect “der Laden ist geöffnet worden” to revive the meaning “the shop has been opened” even though this could be ambiguous too because of different meaning of the perfect in the South.


----------



## brian

I'm not sure if I completely understand the confusion... or maybe I am too confused myself. I would think it's more cryptic _in English_ because I thought: _Zustandspassiv_ --> "is/are" *or* "has/have been" + adj./particip.; _Vorgangspassiv_ --> "is/are" *or* "gets" + particip.

In other words, both can be translated with "is/are" in the proper context:

*Vorgangspassiv:*

_Die Tür wird (von jemandem) geöffnet = The door is/gets opened (by someone).
Der Brief wird (von jemandem) geschickt = The letter is/gets sent (by someone).
Die Zeitungen wird jeden Tag ausgeträgt = The newspapers are/get delivered every day.

_*Zustandspassiv**:*

_Die Tür ist _(nicht "von jemandem") _geöffnet = The door is open._
_Der Brief ist _(nicht "von jemandem") _geschickt = The letter is/has been sent.
Die Zeitungen sind ausgeträgt = The newspapers are/have been delivered._

Right? Or maybe we're saying the same thing. I guess my point is that I would sometimes translate the _Zustandspassiv_ with "is/are" and not "has/have been," depending on context, although perhaps this boils down to an AE/BE difference.


----------



## berndf

brian8733 said:


> _Die Tür ist _(nicht "von jemandem") _geöffnet = The door is open._


Not quite. The is a slight difference between _Die Tür ist offen_ (_the door is open_) and _Die Tür ist geöffnet_ (_the door has been opened_). In the former case the door might be open because it was never shut. In the latter case the door must have been shut at some point in time and opened by someone even if it doesn't matter by whom and why. Sometimes the difference between these two meanings is negligible but sometimes it matters.


----------



## brian

True, and in English if we want to convey that idea explicitly, we would say _The door is/has been open*ed*_, but the sentence _The door is open_ (at least to me) can mean both:

- a door is open because it was never shut, or it's always open: _The door is open._
- a door is usually closed but for some reason got opened by someone: _The door is open. Why is the door open? It's usually closed._

Maybe it would help to see an example of _The Tür ist geöffnet _with a little more context, and I'll tell you what I would say.


----------



## berndf

Of course it can mean both. The sentence _the door is opened _conveys more information than the _door is open, _i.e. if a door is _opened _it is also _open_ but if a door is _open _it is not necessarily _opened_. In cases where you don't have an adjective which is distinguishable from the past participle, like _the door is closed_ and _the door is closed_, you have a potential ambiguity. And that was the issue of the last part of this discussion. In the terminology of German grammar this translates into the question if _die Tür ist geschlossen_ is a Zustandspassiv or if _geschlossen_ is an adjective. Actually, in this case it would normally be interpreted as a Zustandspassiv because if you explicitly did not want a Zustandspassiv you would say _die Tür ist zu_.


----------

