# Perfekt vs. Präteritum



## Darunia

In which cases would you use the *Perfekt past *and when would you use the *Präteritum*? For example, when would I say "*I**ch bin gewesen*" and when would I say "*Ich war*" ? 

Can you also please give me some examples.


----------



## Darunia

I have to figure that there is some reason why no one is answering this but I can't imagine why it is. I must have done something wrong. If someone will fill me in, I'll rectify it.


----------



## Suilan

Questions about the tenses have been asked quite often before. You could use the search function -- unless you have a question about a specific sentence where you are unsure which is the correct tense. 

A general question like yours -- without any context -- would take a reply of several pages.


----------



## schabernack

I can give you an answer beside the grammar rules...
In Austria we use more the *I**ch bin gewesen. *(We learn in school how to use it correctly, I don't remember..)
I think you use it the same way that you use it in English. But I'm not 100% sure. So don't flame me if it is not right.


----------



## berndf

Suilan is right; the question is a bit broad. Let me try to give you the big picture (maybe ignoring a few subtleties):

Usage depends on style and region.

In the colloquial speech in the south, the Perfekt has practically completely replaced the Präteritum. The situation is roughly as in French.

In literary style and in colloquial speech in the north the Päteritum is still widely used and corresponds to the English past tense. The Perfekt expresses a recent past which often but not always coincides with the English present perfect. Where it differs from the English present perfect is that you would e.g. translate "I have been living in Germany for 10 years" as "Ich wohne seit 10 Jahren in Deutschland", i.e. Präsens rather than Perfekt because use of Perfekt would imply you don't live there any more.

Perfekt and Präteritum are often but not always used interchangeably. An example where Perfekt and Präteritum are *not* interchangeable is the following:
(1) "Es hat aufgehört zu regnen."
(2) "Es hörte auf zu regnen."
If it stopped raining and has restarted since you cannot use (1) but you can use (2) (which is again the same situation as in French). Southerners, who generally don't use the Präteritum at all, would in this case use the Plusquamperfekt to replace the Präteritum:
(2') "Es hatte aufgehört zu regnen."


----------



## Natabka

Right, Suilan, questions about tenses are often answered and often asked, but it seems an inexhaustible topic . And I'd like to add that it is not unusual that in different countries the problem is explained differently. With us, it is usually said that German Perfekt is used mostly in speech and Präteritum in writing, that is they are quite synonimical forms, one dying out. Is it right?


----------



## berndf

Natabka said:


> With us, it is usually said that German Perfekt is used mostly in speech and Präteritum in writing, that is they are quite synonimical forms, one dying out. Is it right?


 
Broadly speaking, yes. With this exceptions I noted earlier.


----------



## Suilan

Why would you say the Präteritum is dying out? It is still the main form to indicate the past in anything written, including daily newspapers. 

In this regard, Präteritum is similar to the French passé simple, BUT unlike the passé simple, it is used both for the action (in written French: passé simple, in spoken French passé composé) AND the background information/ongoing activities (in written or spoken French: imparfait).

Example: "I *was* in the garden *mowing* the lawn when Marc *showed up*."

Written French: "J'*étais* dans le jardin et je *tondais* la pelouse (imparfait), quand Marc *vint* (passé simple)."

Spoken French: "J'*étais* dans le jardin et je *tondais* la pelouse (imparfait), quand Marc *est venu *(passé composé)."

Written German: "Ich *war* im Garten und *mähte* den Rasen, als Mark *kam*. (alles Präteritum)"

Spoken German: "Ich *war* im Garten (Präteritum) und *habe* den Rasen *gemäht *(Perfekt), als Mark *gekommen* *ist*. (Perfekt)"


P.S. This speaker would prefer "war" (or warst, waren, wart) to "bin/ist gewesen" (or bist/waren/seid/sind gewesen) in most spoken contexts, even though with other verbs, she prefers Perfekt. Bsp: "Ich war gestern im Kino und habe eine alte Schulfreundin getroffen."


----------



## Suilan

BTW, it should say: "Perfekt oder Präteritum?"

You use _gegen_ to name the opponents in a fight or match: "Max Schmeling gegen Joe Louis" or "Schalke 04 gegen FC Porto"


----------



## berndf

Suilan said:


> Spoken German: "Ich *war* im Garten (ImperfektPräteritum) und *habe* den Rasen *gemäht *(PräteritumPerfekt), als Mark *gekommen* *ist*. (PräteritumPerfekt)"


Do we have an issue with terminology here which he have to sort out before proceeding or was this simply a mistake on your side?



> This speaker would prefer "war" (or warst, waren, wart) to "bin/ist gewesen"


As a northerner, I feel like you but for my wife who is Austrian Präteritum is a historic verb form which is not part of her active (spoken) language at all.


----------



## Suilan

Not an issue. I wrote Präteritum when I meant Perfekt.  I corrected it in the previous post.

Back in school, I learned about Imperfekt and Perfekt. We never used to call it Präteritum at all.


----------



## berndf

I remember that as well. It is my understanding that Präteritum is preferred today to avoid confusions with the Latin/Romance imperfect.


----------



## sokol

berndf said:


> Perfekt and Präteritum are often but not always used interchangeably. An example where Perfekt and Präteritum are *not* interchangeable is the following:
> (1) "Es hat aufgehört zu regnen."
> (2) "Es hörte auf zu regnen."
> If it stopped raining and has restarted since you cannot use (1) but you can use (2) (which is again the same situation as in French). *Southerners*, who generally don't use the Präteritum at all, would in this case use the Plusquamperfekt to replace the Präteritum:
> (2') "Es hatte aufgehört zu regnen."



Southerners (Germans) might, but Austrians certainly don't.
In *Austria *the situation is rather simple:
- *Perfekt *is used in everyday speech, almost exclusively*) (only in some towns, especially in Vienna and surroundings, some people sometimes use 'bookish style' Präteritum in colloquial speech for stylistic reasons - but even for them Perfekt is the unmarked, everyday colloquial form)
- *Plusquamperfekt *is hardly used in everyday speech; well, it is used but if then in an Austrian variety: it isn't "es hatte aufgehört zu regnen" but rather "es hat zu regnen aufgehört gehabt": sounds clumsy in standard language but better in colloquial speech which would be something like "es hat zum regnen aufghört ghabt, als wir aus der Schule gangen sind"; this kind of plu'perfect you even can find in Austrian literature, occasionally; but plu'perfect of course in general is a tense not used very often
- *Präteritum *is used in written texts (and especially in school teachers are very strict that the pupils and students learn and _use _Präteritum when writing), only rarely in speech

In the example above most Austrians most likely would use simple Perfekt except if it were important by context to _underline _that the rain had already stopped, in which case Austrian plu'perfect would be used.

Of course this only describes Austrian use and certainly has no relevance to most parts of Germany.

*) There's one exception to that rule: "ich war" and "ich bin gewesen" are used both, also colloquial, and "ich war" is not rare in use at all. But there is no difference in meaning, not even in style really: both "ich war" and "ich bin gewesen mean exactly the same here in Austria. (Only difference one _might _see here is that _probably _(!) the youth might have a preference for "ich war" even though they also use "ich bin gewesen".)


----------



## berndf

sokol said:


> *) There's one exception to that rule: "ich war" and "ich bin gewesen" are used both, also colloquial, and "ich war" is not rare in use at all.


 
Yes, I agree. _Sein_ and possibly _haben_ are exceptions where Präteritum is also widely used in southern colloquial speech.

Swiss German is different again. I don't actively speek Swiss German but I am used to hearing it. I only know "Er isch gsi" (="Er ist gewesen"). I am not even sure whether there is a Swiss German form for "Er war".


----------



## vermillionxtears

I typically take notes when I study things. I was studying the past tense not too long ago and I basically copied some of the things the site said onto a document. The site said it was "according to Duden" but also that "Germans often don't follow their own rules" so the truthfulness of this usage in everyday speech is disputable.

The notes said something generally like this:

"According to Duden, you use imperfect [Imperfekt] when:

1) an action that happened in a time before the one the event is talked about,
and 
2) has no influence on the present time.
Gestern _regnete_ es und heute scheint die Sonne.
(Yesterday it rained and today the sun is shining.)

You use the perfect [Perfekt] when:

1) an action that started in a time before the one the event is talked about
and
2a) the action is finished and the result is still important in the present time
2b) the end of the action is in the present or even in the future
Heute _hat_ es _geregnet_, aber jetzt scheint die Sonne."

Though I think this is much more true in English than it _seems_ to be in German. :/


----------



## Hutschi

In colloquial language, many people use or prefer the perfect when using a narrative style - especially in regions with special dialects. In some dialects there is (almost) no past tense because the verbs lost there endings, and so you cannot decide whether it is past tense or present tense. In this case it is replaced by the perfect. When speaking standard German, often the words and the sentence structure are adapted, but not the rules for times.

In such regions, you can find also overcompensation like in "ich war in Paris gewesen" for "ich war in Paris".


----------



## sokol

vermillionxtears said:


> Though I think this is much more true in English than it _seems_ to be in German. :/



Unfortunately (as far as learners of German are considered, of course) the rules put by Duden do not have much relevance in practice - not even, many times, for educated speakers on TV and radio (not even in northern Germany, where there too are a great many violations of Duden rules by educated speakers).

The use of Perfekt and Präteritum in Germany, Switzerland and Austria is extremely complicated and different according to regions (with great differencies inside Germany while Austria and most likely Switzerland too are _relatively _homogenuous in use inside the country).



You may of course follow the Duden rules, and if you do native speakers certainly will understand what you say, but they probably will ignore any special meanings intended by you (like wether the event still has connection to the present, or hasn't).
This should cause no major problems in everyday life.

The way we speak is just the way we speak - there's nothing one can do about that.


----------



## Suilan

> Unfortunately (as far as learners of German are considered, of course) the rules put by Duden do not have much relevance in practice - not even, many times, for educated speakers on TV and radio (not even in northern Germany, where there too are a great many violations of Duden rules by educated speakers).


 
Actually, I think §§ 257-262 of the Grammatik Duden explain well enough why Perfekt is preferred in spoken contexts, and some of the uses of Präteritum they suggest would be used by this northern speaker in everyday speech.

Eg: "Meine Mutter hat gestern den Schlüssel vergessen. Als ich nach Hause kam, stand sie vor der Tür."

You could also look up Präteritum and Perfekt in Duden #9,_ Richtiges und Gutes Deutsch_, to find more information on Präteritum and spoken German.

The Duden isn't nearly as prescriptive as some people think.

On the other hand, students of a foreign language need definite rules to be able to master grammar -- the fewer, the better. The Grammar Duden isn't much help to them (unless to very very advanced students) precisely because it tries to describe as much of the German language-as-it's-really-written-and-spoken as possible.



> The use of Perfekt and Präteritum in Germany, Switzerland and Austria is extremely complicated


 
Compared to English tenses or French tenses, German tenses are rather uncomplicated. And there are a lot less of them.


----------



## berndf

I find this a very good observation. I would add that _because_ there is such a variety of uses the rules about German tenses are quite relaxed. I think as a learner you can very well treat the two tenses as identical in meaning, maybe with the slight complication outlined in the last paragraph of my post #5. And even if you get that wrong it is, by far, not as serious a mistake as confusing past tense and present perfect in English.


----------



## sokol

Suilan said:


> Compared to English tenses or French tenses, German tenses are rather uncomplicated. And there are a lot less of them.



Not to mention Spanish.
Of course you're right concerning the tenses themselves; what *is *complicated (and that was what my post was about) is the *use of tenses* in German which, in 'real life', isn't even near that what grammars state.

Also in the north of Germany, of course, even though Präteritum is used there in everyday speech - but there is a trend in Germany to overuse Plusquamperfekt when really Perfekt or Präteritum would be appropriate.
And this use definitely is not restricted to the 'people on the street', you can also hear it on German news reports, and regularly so.


----------



## mickey89

Would you please help me to distinguish the differences between PRÄTERITUM(narrative past) and PERFEKT( conversational past)? Präteritum is said to be mostly used in written german. but sometimes i find it used in spoken german. another point confusing me is that modal verbs,e.g sein, haben, wollen, etc. are advised to be conjugated in Perfekt, whereas there are sentences as follows: "_Wir haben lange warten müssen". _why don't we write: "Wir mußten lange warten" with a view to be simplier


----------



## Henryk

This topic was discussed not too long ago. Look here.

To give you a rather superficial answer: The two render the same thing and can be used interchangeably most of the time, with the Perfekt being preferred in everyday speech and the Präteritum formally and in written language.

In my book, there's no point in learning the exact difference in usage between them. I doubt any native speaker does because you hear everything in everyday speech. The Präteritum forms of "sein", "haben", "müssen", dürfen" and "können" are highly common and I'd warmly recommend to use them since they sound much better than their Perfekt counterparts. As for the other verbs, it depends on whether you're writing a letter or talking to a friend informally.


----------



## Robocop

Swiss German dialect for one does neither have simple past nor past perfect but only present perfect to express what happened in the past. I think that is why there is a preference for the present perfect not only in spoken but also in written standard (Swiss) German.


----------



## chifladoporlosidiomas

Hello everyone. I am in my third year of German this year and I would like to go on to German Five next (granted I learn enough this year). However, this is one big problem; I don't know the exact dynamics of the uses between the two past tenses. My German teacher doesn't give me an explanation as to why I can't use it. It's a lot simpler than the 'conversational' past and easier to use; it's actually the first tense to come to my mind when I'm speaking/writing(more often). And I've looked online and it just tells me that the simple past should only be used in writing (formal writings to be exact). How would I be percieved if I only used the simple past in conversation? What are the pragmatic regulations on its use? Is there truly a difference? And if possible, could you be detailed in your answer and use examples so that I better understand what you are trying to convey. Thanks in advance.

*Merged. Please use search function. *


----------



## sokol

To repeat in a very few words, simplifying hugely:

- If you only use compound past you will be understood perfectly.

- If you manage to speak German without a trace of a foreign accent and you use compound past only native speakers probably will mistake you for a Southerner (Germany), or alternatively for Austrian because Austrians almost exclusively use compound past in spoken standard language. Swiss Germans however try to consistently use _Präteritum _when speaking standard language (even though they only use compound past in dialect).

- There _*are *_rules for when to use _Perfekt _= compound past and when to use _Präteritum _ = simple past - but they are not at all consistently applied by native speakers, so you will be confronted with many "wrong" uses of these tenses by native speakers concerning the norm prescribed by grammars.

For more details please try to read and understand the merged posts above and then ask further questions.


----------



## Suilan

> How would I be percieved if I only used the simple past in conversation?


 

First, there is no difference in meaning between simple past and compound past. You'd be understood, no problem, but it does sound strange. Like you're reading out a novel. 

(1) simple past -- is OK if you ARE telling a story, like an anecdote, something that happened long ago, complete with beginning, story arc, and grand finale. Something where you would expect a moral at the end. Also, a report (for the police or your health insurance about an accident) can be told or written in simple past.

"Ich *hatte* mal einen Freund, der *war* bei der Polizei. Eines Abends *ging* er in eine Kneipe... etc (all in past tense, until conclusion.)"

"Ich *hatte* mal einen Freund, der *fand* es ganz doof, dass... whatever."

"Am Montag, den x.y.2008 *verließ* ich meine Wohnung, *ging* die so-und-so Straße hinunter, als plötzlich ein Auto um die Ecke *schoss*."

(2) Compound past

But other than that, we prefer the compound past in speech or email or private letters.

"Gestern *habe* ich eine Schulfreundin in der Stadt *getroffen*. Wir *haben* uns eine ganze Stunde *unterhalten*."

"Letztes Jahr *ist* meine Tante *gestorben*."

"Shakespeare *hat* xy Dramen *geschrieben*."

In some regions (e.g. where I'm from), we prefer to use the simple past in case of _sein_ and _haben_, but compound past for everything else. So it's:
 
 "Gestern *habe* ich eine Schulfreundin in der Stadt *getroffen*. Leider *waren* wir beide in Eile / *hatten* wir es beide eilig."

(RATHER THAN: leider *sind* wir beide in Eile *gewesen* / *haben* wir es beide eilig *gehabt*)

In some regions (mainly the south) people claim they don't ever use simple past in speech. I always forget to pay attention to that when I listen to them, so I don't know if that's true ;o)


----------



## Suilan

P.S. 


> Imperfect vs. Preterite (compound past)


 
Imperfekt is just another name for Präteritum. The compound past is called Perfekt.


----------



## Suilan

@ Mickey89

Actually, with _müssen_, I would tend toward using the simple past.

"*Musstest* du deinen Ausweis *zeigen*?"

(RATHER THAN: *Hast* du deinen Ausweis *zeigen* *müssen*?")

"*Musstest* du gestern nicht beim Renovieren *helfen*?"

(RATHER THAN: *Hast* du gestern nicht beim Renovieren *helfen* *müssen*?)

"Ich *musste* gestern erstmal meine Bude *aufräumen*."

(RATHER THAN: "Ich *hab* gestern erstmal meine Bude *aufräumen* *müssen*.")

It's to avoid three verb forms in a row. 

But it's not as consistent as with _war_ and _hatte_. I might also use the sentences in brackets, while I would never say: "Ich *bin* gestern im Kino *gewesen*" or: "Ich *habe* gestern einen Unfall *gehabt*."


----------



## chifladoporlosidiomas

To Suilan:




sokol said:


> To repeat in a very few words, simplifying hugely:
> 
> - If you only use simple past you will be understood perfectly.
> 
> - If you manage to speak German without a trace of a foreign accent and you use simple past only native speakers probably will mistake you for a Southerner (Germany), or alternatively for Austrian because Austrians almost exclusively use simple past in spoken standard language. Swiss Germans however try to consistently use _Präteritum _when speaking standard language (even though they only use simple past in dialect).
> 
> - There _*are *_rules for when to use _Perfekt _and when to use _Präteritum _- but they are not at all consistently applied by native speakers, so you will be confronted with many "wrong" uses of these tenses by native speakers concerning the norm prescribed by grammars.
> 
> For more details please try to read and understand the merged posts above and then ask further questions.


 

Is there some confusion between the two of you? One of you say that it is used rather much in the south and then the other says that it isn't used at all. I was gonna suggest that I just learn a southern dialect (of course, along side Stanard German), but now I'm not so sure about to think. 

I've read the other replies and now I think I'm even more perplexed than before.  IF there is no real difference in the meaning that the two tenses convey, why am I making a big deal over this in the first place? And if so, how will I be viewed by German-speakers if I only use the simple past?????? That's kinda (but not really) the real question. Will they think I'm too 'posh' (stuck-up)?


----------



## ABBA Stanza

chifladoporlosidiomas said:


> Is there some confusion between the two of you? One of you say that it is used rather much in the south and then the other says that it isn't used at all. I was gonna suggest that I just learn a southern dialect (of course, along side Stanard German), but now I'm not so sure about to think.


I think sokol made a small mistake. 

As Suilan says, Southerners have a marked tendency to use the perfect tense. In other words, they'll say (for example):

_"Ich bin zur Schule gegangen"_ instead of_ "Ich ging zur Schule"_, and
_"Es ist nicht gut gelaufen"_ instead of _"Es lief nicht gut"_.

Abba

P.S. I wouldn't recommend using the simple past all the time, as it would sound really strange and would probably only impress a relatively small minority. Occasional use of some of the less weird-sounding forms would be no problem (e.g., _"Es ließ sich nicht mehr ändern"_), but I'd steer clear of saying things like _"Sie aß einen Apfel"_, _"Er wusch sich die Hände"_ or _"Sie flogen nach Italien"_ in everyday conversation if I were you!


----------



## Suilan

> IF there is no real difference in the meaning that the two tenses convey, why am I making a big deal over this in the first place? And if so, how will I be viewed by German-speakers if I only use the simple past?


 
OK, there is a small difference. (Discussed e.g. here, comment 7+8: 
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1244345)

With the simple past (Imperfekt/Präteritum), the point of view lies within the past situation/event you describe. You think yourself back into that situation and tell it as if it were happening just now. (That's why it's also used in novels, eh.)

However, if you tell someone about what you did yesterday (got up, went to work, did some shopping, watched telly, went to bed) -- all of which is past and not interesting enough to relive again in story form -- you want to use compound past (Perfekt). Because usually you look at past events from the present moment, right? Not from within the past.

I think the effect of using simple past in speech is that you come across as very dramatic. You tell everyday events as if they were part of a suspense novel.


----------



## sokol

ABBA Stanza said:


> I think sokol made a small mistake.



Yes I did - I'm very sorry for the confusion, obviously I've mixed up the terms. I'll correct the post above. 

My special excuses go to chifladoporlosidiomas. 



Suilan said:


> OK, there is a small difference. (Discussed e.g. here, comment 7+8:
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1244345)
> 
> With the simple past (Imperfekt/Präteritum), the point of view lies within the past situation/event you describe. (...)
> 
> However, if you tell someone about what you did yesterday (...) you want to use compound past (Perfekt).


Yes, that's approximately the difference between both in those regions where simple past and compound past still are _*clearly *_differentiated.

But as already said in Southern Germany, Switzerland and Austria (and I would guess as well in the south-east - Saxonia and Thuringia) this distinction is not made consistently - and at least in Austria no such distinction is made, not at all.

Further I've also heard on occasion Northerners use simple past when I would have expected compound past (as described by Suilan), and also there's an increase of use of plu'perfect instead of simple past in some northern regions (see for example this thread here).

So unfortunately, from the point of view of a learner of German, the actual _*use *_of tenses is not straightforward.
But as Abba said you should not limit yourself to simple past; it is okay for beginner level, but if you want to make progress in German you have no choice but to learn all the tenses, and try to use it correctly.


----------



## Philo2009

It seems to me that, on any grammar topic, learners require - at least initially - a fairly simple set of rules, exceptions to which, whether of the colloquial or literary kind, can be assimilated gradually over time and with experience. 

Regarding German tense-usage (vis-a-vis English) in the spoken language, I would suggest the following:

1. Use German *simple past *tense (a.k.a. "imperfect/preterite") where 
A) English would use a past progressive (was/were -ing)
or
B) English would use a simple past (was/had, etc.) in reference to a past state/condition rather than to an action or event (put another way, where it would _not_ answer the question 'what did you do/ what happened?')

2. Use German *perfect* tense (a.k.a. present perfect) where
A) English would use a present perfect (have/has -ed), except where combined with an adverbial of duration (since .../for...years, etc.)
B) English would use a simple past (did/walked, etc.) in reference to a past action/event (in other words, something that _would_ answer the question 'what did you do/what happened?')

*Regarding written/literary German, simply substitute simple past for perfect in case 2B.

Examples:

1A. _Ich stand vor dem Bahnhof, als ich ihn gesehen habe._
(I was standing in front of the station, when I saw him.)

1B. _Ich war einmals sehr reich._
(I was once very rich.)

2A. _Ich habe in meinem Leben viele verschiedene Leute gekannt._
(I have known many different people in my life.)

2B. _Gestern habe ich einen neuen Mantel gekauft._
(Yesterday I bought a new coat.)


----------



## chifladoporlosidiomas

Philo2009 said:


> It seems to me that, on any grammar topic, learners require - at least initially - a fairly simple set of rules, exceptions to which, whether of the colloquial or literary kind, can be assimilated gradually over time and with experience.
> 
> Regarding German tense-usage (vis-¨¤-vis English) in the spoken language, I would suggest the following:
> 
> 1. Use German *simple past *tense (a.k.a. "imperfect/preterite") where
> A) English would use a past progressive (was/were¡¡-ing)
> or
> B) English would use a simple past (was/had, etc.) in relation to a past state/condition rather than to an action or event (put another way, where it would _not_ answer the question 'what did you do/ what happened?')
> 
> 2. Use German *perfect* tense (a.k.a. present perfect) where
> A) English would use a present perfect (have/has -ed), except where combined with an adverbial of duration (since .../for...years, etc.)
> B) English would use a simple past (did/walked, etc.) in reference to a past action/event (in other words, something that _would_ answer the question 'what did you do/what happened?')
> 
> *Regarding written/literary German, simply substitute simple past for perfect in case 2B.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> 1A. _Ich stand vor dem Bahnhof, als ich ihn gesehen habe._
> (I was standing in front of the station, when I saw him.)
> 
> 1B. _Ich war einmals sehr reich._
> (I was once very rich.)
> 
> 2A. _Ich habe in meinem Leben viele verschiedene Leute gekannt._
> (I have known many different people in my life.)
> 
> 2B. _Gestern habe ich einen neuen Mantel gekauft._
> (Yesterday I bought a new coat.)


 
This works the best for me; thanks. So there is a SMALL difference in grammatical aspect between the two. However, will the Germans not the subtle difference? And I'll CONCIOUSLY switch between the two when trying to convey an exact meaning. Thanks everyone.


----------



## berndf

Philo2009 said:


> 2A. _Ich habe in meinem Leben viele verschiedene Leute gekannt._





Philo2009 said:


> (I have known many different people in my life.)


I would be careful with this one. The German Perfekt has sometimes and only in some regional varieties of German a present perfect-like meaning in the sense that it refers to a state created by a past action but it is definitely a past and not a present tense form. A typical example is the sentence
_I have been living in London._
This sentence means that you have been living there for some time and still do. But the corresponding German sentence
_Ich habe in London gelebt_
means that you lived for some time in London in the past but do *not* live there any more. If you are still living in London you have to use present tense:
_Ich lebe in London._


----------



## chifladoporlosidiomas

thanks, taking notes.


----------



## Philo2009

berndf said:


> I would be careful with this one. The German Perfekt has sometimes and only in some regional varieties of German a present perfect-like meaning in the sense that it refers to a state created by a past action but it is definitely a past and not a present tense form. A typical example is the sentence
> _I have been living in London._
> This sentence means that you have been living there for some time and still do. But the corresponding German sentence
> _Ich habe in London gelebt_
> means that you lived for some time in London in the past but do *not* live there any more. If you are still living in London you have to use present tense:
> _Ich lebe in London._


 
I couldn't agree more. It is indeed the most fundamental of linguistic principles that an item in language A not be assumed to equate at all times to one in language B simply because it is _capable_ of doing so under certain circumstances! However, should we _wish_ to convey the meaning of the English present perfect (whether in terms of its experiential sense, as in my previous example, or of its resultative sense, as in 'I have lost my wallet' [and it remains lost]), I think you will agree that there really is no German tense other than the perfect that could possibly do the job. (The preterite most certainly will not convey this meaning!)

I was also, you will note, careful to include a caveat regarding modification by duration adverbials, although, for clarity's sake, it could perhaps be added that the modification (as in the case of 'have been -ing') need only be implicit for the present simple to be substituted for the perfect.


----------



## berndf

Philo2009 said:


> I think you will agree that there really is no German tense other than the perfect that could possibly do the job. (The preterite most certainly will not convey this meaning!)


I agree with you that the English present perfect will normally not be expressed by the preterite because Northerners maintain at least traces of the distinction between the English past tense and present perfect and Southerners simply don't use the preterite *at all*.
 
On the other hand, in regionally unbiased Standard German you have to assume that perfect and preterite mean exactly the same and that you simply have no grammatic tense at your disposition to express the difference between the English past tense and present perfect. Standard German only knows past (expressed by two different forms) and present. The English present perfect is sometimes represented by the past and sometimes by the present tense, depending on the precise context.
 
When children learn to name the tenses in primary school they get taught to call them "lange Vergangenheit" and "kurze Vergangenheit", i.e. they get taught that peterite and perfect are simply two different styles to express the same tense.


----------



## Philo2009

As you say, the appropriateness of reading the experiential-resultative sense of an English present perfect into its German counterpart does seem to vary considerably according to region/dialect.  

A major linguistic census of the German-speaking world would seem to be the only way to verify the nature and extent of the divide between those speakers who do, and those who do not, sense some aspectual, as opposed to merely temporal, distinction - probably a somewhat formidable task!


----------



## berndf

I think a census won’t be necessary.

Even Northerners won’t use the perfect in such a way that the understanding of the message depended on the choice of perfect or preterite. Even where the distinction still exists it has become more a matter of nuance or emphasis than of basic meaning. Otherwise the danger of being misunderstood would simply be too big.

As to the representation of the English present perfect in German, imagine you had to transform the sentence into a peculiar dialect of English which lacked both, the present perfect and the continuous form and you had to choose between present and past tenses. Than there are cases where you would rather opt the past and cases where you would rather opt for the present tense. In German you would choose between perfect and present in the same way.

Examples:
Normal English: _I have finished my work._
English without present perfect and continuous form: _I finished my work._
German: _Ich habe meine Arbeit beendet._

Normal English: _I have been living in London for 10 years._
English without present perfect and continuous form: _I live on London since/for 10 years._
German: _Ich lebe seit 10 Jahren in London._


----------



## Philo2009

Not wishing to disagree with anything you have said, I believe that we have come round in a rather large circle back to the very rule that I gave earlier ('2A'), to wit that (rephrasing slightly for the sake of clarity) with the exception of cases of (at least implicit) modification by a duration adverbial, English present perfect verb phrases will always be rendered by German present perfect verb phrases (or, to say the same thing another way, they cannot be rendered _by any German tense other than_ the present perfect).

Naturally - at the risk of stating the obvious - the above seeks to assert *neither* that all German present perfects must necessarily correspond to an English present perfect *nor* that they are therefore automatically to be construed as conveying the experiential-resultative sense of their English (structural) counterpart.

In case it was not so before now, I trust that makes my position clear!


----------



## berndf

No disagreement at all. I just regarded your qualification "except where combined with an adverbial of duration (since .../for...years, etc.)" as a bit too incidental because this exception is an important one and I wanted to elaborate on this. This particular use of the present perfect in English is very bewildering for a German and is responsible for much of the difficulties Germans have learning to use the English present perfect. And an English speaker who used the German perfect in such a case would be misunderstood.


----------



## sokol

I'd like to emphasise the point berndf is making:


berndf said:


> A typical example is the sentence
> _I have been living in London._
> This sentence means that you have been living there for some time and still do. But the corresponding German sentence
> _Ich habe in London gelebt_
> means that you lived for some time in London in the past but do *not* live there any more. If you are still living in London you have to use present tense:
> _Ich lebe in London._


If you would use "habe ... gelebt" in German here you would be misunderstood indeed: people would think that you've lived in London but that you aren't living there anymore.

So this principle even works for those never using the simple past in spoken language (which is the case for Austrian German too of course, as already stated): here you *have *to translate English present perfect as German present tense.

Thus, even if this rule of thumb works in many cases you should be careful, using it may lead to misunderstandings.


----------



## Philo2009

berndf and sokol​ 
Thank you. Your concern is noted and understood. The point regarding present perfect verb phrases with current reference does indeed represent a significant exception to the normal set of tense-correspondences.​ 
The key question would then seem to be this: what exactly do we mean by 'implicit modification by a duration adverbial'? ​ 
Taking each of the structures concerned in turn:​ 
1. Regarding *present perfect SIMPLE* VPs​ 
These can be discounted immediately as posing no real problem, since their ability to refer to current states/conditions is directly dependent on _explicit_ modification.​ 
Thus, for instance,​ 
_I have lived in __London__._​ 
as written means only​ 
_I have lived in __London__ *before*._​ 
(but do not necessarily do so now).​ 
[= Ger._Ich *habe** (vorher/frueher) *in __London__ *gewohnt*._]​ 
For the sentence to have current reference, we would have to add an appropriate duration adverbial, e.g.​ 
_I have lived in __London__ *for ten years*._​ 
. Only then could it be equivalent to​ 
_I have *been living* in __London __for ten years._​ 
[_= __Ger. Ich *wohne* seit zehn Jahren in London_.]​ 
Thus, with regard to present perfect simple VPs, implicit modification is not an issue.​ 

(2) Regarding *present perfect PROGRESSIVE* VPs​ 
In contrast to the simple forms, these naturally have current reference unless sense or context dictate otherwise.​ 
Thus, ​ 
_I have been living in __London__._​ 
will be assumed to convey information about my present whereabouts regardless of the absence of adverbial modification.​ 
(Exceptions to this will be so rare, and contextually so clearly defined, that they scarcely merit discussion.)​ 
The sentence above would therefore correspond to German ​ 
_Ich* wohne* in __London__._​ 
I would suggest, then, that a case of 'implicit modification by a duration adverbial' can effectively be defined as 'any case in which it would be both grammatically and semantically possible to insert a since-phrase of temporal reference'. Thus, to return to a previous example, in the case of ​ 
_I have been living in __London__._​ 
, because the insertion of e.g. 'since last year', giving​ 
_I have been living in __London__ *since last year*._​ 
[_= __Ger.__ Ich wohne *seit letztem Jahr* in __London_.]​ 
neither renders the sentence ungrammatical nor entails any semantic distortion, we may conclude that the German VP would be present tense, and not present perfect. This option to include a temporal since-phrase would then constitute 'implicit modification' as mentioned above and be grounds for invoking the special English perfect - German present tense correspondence. ​ 
It goes, of course, without saying that the same correspondence will automatically apply in any case of _explicit_ modification by a duration adverbial which, even if not itself a since-phrase, could nonetheless be replaced by one.​


----------



## berndf

Philo, again I do not disagree with what you wrote but when discussing things at the level of detail we did one is sometimes in danger overlooking the obvious.

The obvious in this case is that for a substantial part of the German speaking community (I recon close to 50%, maybe even more) there is *no difference in meaning what so ever* between perfect and preterite. The difference is just in style.

Again, no contradiction to what you wrote. I would just recommend keeping this in mind, in particular when explaining German tenses to students.


----------



## Todessprache

Meinem Empfinden nach ist es sogar teilweise durch das Verbum selbst bedingt. Es gibt manche Verben, die gar nicht in Frage in der gesprochenen Sprache als Praeteritum kaemen und andere, die relativ haeufig vorkommen, und dann gibt es welche, die irgendwo in der Mitte stehen, was dies angeht.


----------



## Philo2009

berndf said:


> Philo, again I do not disagree with what you wrote but when discussing things at the level of detail we did one is sometimes in danger overlooking the obvious.
> 
> The obvious in this case is that for a substantial part of the German speaking community (I recon close to 50%, maybe even more) there is *no difference in meaning what so ever* between perfect and preterite. The difference is just in style.
> 
> Again, no contradiction to what you wrote. I would just recommend keeping this in mind, it particular when explaining German tenses to students.


 
Thank you again.
Comment duly noted!


----------



## LandInSicht

Suilan said:


> I think the effect of using simple past in speech is that you come across as very dramatic. You tell everyday events as if they were part of a suspense novel.



Hallo Leute! I'm new here.  I apologize in advance if I do something wrong. 

Now to the matter at hand: I've encountered a native German speaker who says he only uses simple past/Präteritum, even in conversation. He recognizes that it's unusual, and says he doesn't know why he does it. I'm wondering if anyone can elaborate on this quote a little? Is this "very dramatic" to the point of being ridiculous, or pretentious? ie, would people make fun of you for talking like this? Does it sound old-fashioned at all? I'm trying to grasp the nuances of this intriguing two-past-tenses thing (and gain some insight into this guy's personality ) Danke!


----------



## Hutschi

Hi LandInSicht,
welcome to the forum.



> LandInSicht wrote: I've encountered a native German speaker who says he only uses simple past/Präteritum, even in conversation.


I suppose he came from the northern part. I think he does this because it is shorter and he does not see a difference. 

But I'm in doubt whether this is absolutely true or just his opinion and he uses it in the majority of the cases.

In case he uses it also for future and present time, I would consider it strange. Did he really mean "only"? Or just in case of selection of the past tense?

Best regards
Hutschi


----------



## berndf

LandInSicht said:


> I've encountered a native German speaker who says he only uses simple past/Präteritum, even in conversation.


This is hard to believe. There are speakers who NEVER use simple past. But the other way round? No!

Not only in Northern High German, even in Low German there are case where you have to use the perfect, like:
"Dat hev ick allns/ümmer sächt" - "I have always said that".


----------



## Suilan

Perhaps he merely confused the term "Präteritum" with "Perfekt"? It happened twice already in this thread (once to me, oops.) Präteritum used to be called Imperfekt since a few years back, so that's what most adults learned in school.


----------



## Frank78

LandInSicht said:


> Hallo Leute! I'm new here.  I apologize in advance if I do something wrong.
> 
> Now to the matter at hand: I've encountered a native German speaker who says he only uses simple past/Präteritum, even in conversation. He recognizes that it's unusual, and says he doesn't know why he does it. I'm wondering if anyone can elaborate on this quote a little? Is this "very dramatic" to the point of being ridiculous, or pretentious? ie, would people make fun of you for talking like this? Does it sound old-fashioned at all? I'm trying to grasp the nuances of this intriguing two-past-tenses thing (and gain some insight into this guy's personality ) Danke!



Usually simple past/Präteritum is just used in written texts and even here mostly in book (novels, poems,etc). Even newspapers and magazins tend to use the "Perfekt" (I dont use the English word perfect because there are too much differences)

Basically Präteritum and Perfekt mean the same and are used the express finished actions of the past (like the english simple past).

Präteritum in a conversation is very rare. It does sound a bit archaic if you use it all the time.


----------



## Alaedious

Hi! This Internet site is great! 

I read a large number of the discussions concerning the expression of English progressive tenses in German, and I think I'm making some progress in understanding how this may be done. On the other hand, sometimes I feel stumped and this is also linked to the question of the choice been the Perfekt (compound-tense) and the Imperfekt (Präteritum). I have two specific questions in mind. 

a) Imagine I saw a friend yesterday waiting in front of the cinema. I then see my friend today and want to ask: "What were you doing yesterday when I saw you?" My friend replays: "I was waiting for Alex." How would he say this? Ich habe auf Alex gewartet? Ich wartete auf Alex? Both? Or some other way? 

b) Second example: I was in bed the other night, and I heard my computer was making noise, so I got up and put it on stand-by mode. I got back in bed and wondered how I would say: "It was my computer that was making all that noise!" Diesen Krach hat der Computer gemacht? Or, because it was no longer making any noise: Diesen Krach machte der Computer. 

Thanks for any help you might offer!! Danke vielmals!


----------



## Frank78

Hi Alaedious,

and welcome to the German forum.

Perfekt and Imperfekt are practically interchangable in German. The German Perfekt does not have an connection to the Present. (as you might think after reading your second example). Both tenses refer to the past. In an everday conversation people usually prefer the Perfekt over Präteritum. The more south you go the stronger the preferance of the Perfekt. Some people even say Präteritum has become a literature-only tense.

To your examples:
a) Was *hast* du gestern *gemacht* als ich dich *sah/gesehen habe*? (in the second part Präteritum and Perfekt sound naturally to me)
Ich *habe* auf Alex *gewartet.*

b) Mein Computer *hat* diesen Krach *gemacht*. / Es* war *mein Computer, der diesen Krach *gemacht hat.* / Es *ist *mein Computer *gewesen*, der diesen Krach *gemacht hat.*


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

a) In northern Germany, they would say "Ich wartete auf Alex." (At least, that's how we Southerners perceive northern German.  Please correct me if this is misapprehension.) In Austria, Switzerland and southern Germany, always "Ich habe auf Alex gewartet." (Thinking of spoken language. In written language, of course, it MUST be Ich wartete.)
b) Diesen Krach hat der Computer gemacht, for everybody everywhere. The noise made you wake up, and you're still awake, true? So there's a connection to the present, and that's when you use German Perfekt. (The point, in contrast to English, is not whether it's still going on. The point is whether it still has an immediate influence on the present moment of speaking. Which is, by the way, a quite simple explanation for the use of German Perfekt, which is - as far as I see - still missing from this long thread. Actually, the difference between Imperfekt and Perfekt is not very difficult in my opinion.)


----------



## Frank78

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> (Thinking of spoken language. *In written language, of course, it MUST be Ich wartete*.)



Says who?
It´s a matter of style for sure, but Präteritum isn´t mandatory in written texts.



Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> *So there's a connection to the present, and that's when you use German Perfekt*e,



Also wrong to me.

"Ich brach mir vor zwei Wochen mein Bein und es tut immer noch weh."
"Ich war schon zweimal in Südafrika"

Both sentences have a connection to the present.


----------



## Alaedious

Ok! Besten Dank nochmals! I was surprised by the speedy reply and I'm sure to have more questions from time to time! Don't hesistate if you want to know about French and English!


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

Frank78 said:


> Says who?
> It´s a matter of style for sure, but Präteritum isn´t mandatory in written texts.


Says everybody who doesn't only speak German but also knows how to speak it... of course it is mandatory in written texts - it's the German narrative time (Erzählzeit). This is clear even for Wikipedia - so there's no sophisticated research required: "Das Präteritum ist die Erzählform in schriftlichen Texten." - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Tempusformen




Frank78 said:


> Also wrong to me.
> 
> "Ich brach mir vor zwei Wochen mein Bein und es tut immer noch weh."
> "Ich war schon zweimal in Südafrika"
> 
> Both sentences have a connection to the present.


But not wrong in fact - your example sentences are wrong! "Ich war schon zweimal in Südafrika" has to be Präteritum, that's true - because it has NO connection to the present. "Ich bin (!) heute früh aus Südafrika zurückgekommen" would have. And "Ich brach mir vor zwei Wochen das Bein und es tut immer noch weh" is just plain wrong - it has a connection to the present and must therefore be "Ich habe mir das Bein gebrochen und es tut noch weh."

On all this, it's really easy to get the necessary information online. Just very few examples:

"Wenn ein Bezug zur Gegenwart hergestellt wird, kann nur das Perfekt, aber nicht das Präteritum verwendet werden: 
Ich habe das Buch gelesen, deshalb kenne ich es schon.
*Nicht: *Ich las das Buch, deshalb kenne ich es schon." http://canoo.net/blog/2008/10/16/las-ich-oder-habe-ich-gelesen-%E2%80%93-die-zeiten-der-vergangenheit/ (The example given here could be copied from your sentence about the broken leg.)

"In folgenden Fällen *muss* das Perfekt stehen, und nicht das Präteritum: (1) Das Ergebnis eines Ereignisses der Vergangenheit liegt auch noch in der Gegenwart vor: 'Es *hat geschneit!' *– 'Im Lotto *sind* folgende Zahlen *gezogen worden: *...'" http://www.das-oesterreichische-deutsch.at/reserve.html (with two more - much rarer - examples for mandatory use of Perfekt)

"Perfekt erklärt also etwas Aktuelles, daher 'Resultatives Perfekt'..." http://www.deutsch-als-fremdsprache.de/austausch/forum/read.php?4,52297 (a forum much like this one...)

"Erzählzeit im Deutschen ist das Präteritum (Ich kam, sah und siegte); mit deutschem Perfekt übersetzt man nur im Zusammenhang mit Präsens (Ich weiß, ich habe verloren.)." http://www.v-r.de/data/files/352526549/9783525265499_leseprobe.pdf (basics in Latin AND German grammar for Latin beginners)

"Das Perfekt wird für Sachverhalte verwandt, die (relativ zum Sprechzeitpunkt) in der Vergangenheit abgeschlossen wurden, deren Ergebnis oder Folge aber noch zum Sprechzeitpunkt relevant sind. Der Gegenwartsbezug unterscheidet das Perfekt vom Präteritum." http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfekt (The whole explanation of German Perfekt there is surprisingly excellent.)

And even (Bavarian) school kids know exactly how easy it is to discern between Präteritum and Perfekt: "Das Präteritum verwendest du vorzugsweise im Schriftlichen, beim Erzählen. 
Das Perfekt schlägt eine Brücke zwischen Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. (...) Die Grundbedeutung besteht darin, dass eine vergangene Handlung noch stark auf die Gegenwart wirkt oder sich in ihren Auswirkungen noch auf die Gegenwart bezieht. 
Das Perfekt ist eigentlich eine kleine Zeitmaschine, denn mit der Verwendung des Perfekts machst du ein vergangenes Ereignis in der Gegenwart lebendig." http://digitale-schule-bayern.de/dsdaten/11/170.doc

So it's really no miracle to use Imperfekt and Perfekt properly in German. But those who nonetheless don't know how to: please don't add to the confusion of our non-natives here!


----------



## berndf

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> And "Ich brach mir vor zwei Wochen das Bein und es tut immer noch weh" is just plain wrong...


I am afraid I cannot agree. The sentence is perfectly acceptable. "Brach" can always be understood to refer to the act or event of _breaking_ and not to the beginning of the state of _being broken_.

On the general topic: There are simply too many speakers or writers who uses Perfekt and Präteritum interchangeably for it to make sense than listeners or readers pay attention to any semantic difference. Hence it has become impossible to convey any information by the choice of tense.





Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> So it's really no miracle to use Imperfekt and Perfekt properly in German. But those who nonetheless don't know how to: please don't add to the confusion of our non-natives here!


Umgekehrt wird ein Schuh 'draus! By explaining semantic differences which are not recognized by native speakers any more, you we would most likely add to non-native speakers' confusion and not reduce it. 

I am not against explaining these rules to non-native speakers. But it should be made clear that they are today just matters of style and convey no practical information any more.


----------



## Hutschi

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> But not wrong in fact - your example sentences are wrong! "Ich war schon zweimal in Südafrika" has to be Präteritum, that's true - because it has NO connection to the present. ...



Indeed it has a connection to the present.
Depending where I am:

If I am in South-Africa: The connection is_ Ich bin jetzt hier, war aber schon vorher zweimal hier._

If I am not in South-Africa:  The connection is: _Ich bin jetzt nicht in Südafrika, war aber schon zweimal dort._

I agree with Berndf that it is just a question of style whether you use perfect or preteritum. 

In very few cases there may be set phrases where only one of the times is used, and in some cases complicate forms usually are not used. 
*
Examples: *

- "Es ist ein Schnee gefallen" - fixed phrase from a folk song

- "Hast Du gut geschlafen?" is much preferred to "Schliefst du gut?" independend on the time.


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

I agree with both of you that common usage has been blurring the lines between Präteritum and Perfekt for a long time now, and I also agree that there are more than just a few exceptions, as in your spot-on example, Hutschi: "hast du gut geschlafen", you're absolutely right about that.
But I disagree with you, Bernd, that the difference "conveys no practical sense anymore". I for one don't use them interchangeably, and same goes for all people I've dealt with in my - quite long - professional life (which has always been about writing, in various contexts, journalism, humanities, school and so on). But maybe that's a question of regional usage, once more? Of course, my professional contacts have typically been Austrian...
Edit: as far as the broken leg, Bernd, please re-read the quotation "ich habe das Buch gelesen" vs. "ich las das Buch" above.
Edit, once more: as far as South Africa, Hutschi, the connection has to be grammatically (priority to present tense) or of immediate, causal relevance for the speaker's present: Weil ich schon zweimal in Südafrika gewesen bin, fahre ich heuer lieber nach Sambia (priority to a present tense main clause). Heute früh bin ich noch in Südafrika gewesen, deswegen habe ich noch nicht die Koffer ausgepackt. (causal relevance) The fact that everything I've seen or done in my life before has SOME relevance for the present is not sufficient to use Perfekt.


----------



## Hutschi

I'm afraid we're moving in a circle, but I want to summarize it a little bit:

1. The difference between imperfect and perfect exists. It is used and follows rules.

2. There are slightly different rules depending on region (main differences are between North and South, but also others exist), and on style (spoken language vs. written language)

3. In some cases the meaning of the forms is different - but this can also differ regionally. 

4. Sometimes one of the forms is seldom used outside of set phrases or it is replaced by the other.

5. The form may depend on the point of view (Standpunkt/Zeitkoordinaten) of the narrator. 

6. Often the relations are build synthetically, using additional words to make it clear. "Gestern las ich ein Buch"="Gestern habe ich ein Buch gelesen." - "Ich habe gerade ein Buch gelesen." "Ich habe gerade angefangen, ein Buch zu lesen."

---

And we should note, that in written texts the style is restricted. There are implicit or explicit style guides. Usually the style is consistent in a document.


----------



## berndf

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> But I disagree with you, Bernd, that the difference "conveys no practical sense anymore". I for one don't use them interchangeably, and same goes for all people I've dealt with in my - quite long - professional life (which has always been about writing, in various contexts, journalism, humanities, school and so on). But maybe that's a question of regional usage, once more? Of course, my professional contacts have typically been Austrian...


I wrote “information”, not “sense”. It suffices if a majority or even a sizable minority of speakers/writers uses Perfekt and Präteritum interchangeably to make it unwise for a listener/reader to allow the choice of tense to influence one’s understanding of a sentence. In this respect it does not convey any practically relevant information any more.


Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> Edit: as far as the broken leg, Bernd, please re-read the quotation "ich habe das Buch gelesen" vs. "ich las das Buch" above.


I agree with your example of "ich habe das Buch gelesen", just not with the example "ich brach mir das Bein". If you take the semantic distinction between Perfekt and Präteritum seriously "ich habe mir das Bein gebrochen" implies that the leg is still broken. But this might not be what you want to express. Of course, we all know that a leg doesn't heal within two weeks. But for the sake of the arguments let's replace two weeks by 2 months. It is quite possible that the leg still hurts though it isn't broken any more after that time.

I agree that this is not the most typical interpretation of the sentence but it is a possible one and hence you cannot call the Präteritum "plainly wrong". If you had written "unusual" I would have agreed with you.


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

berndf said:


> If you take the semantic distinction between Perfekt and Präteritum seriously "ich habe mir das Bein gebrochen" implies that the leg is still broken.


No, sorry, that's not correct - this is English grammar, NOT German. In English, past perfect tense (especially with -ing) means it's still going on. In German just that it has causal relevance for the present, and the example about the broken leg is excellent to demonstrate the difference: If it's no longer broken, but still hurts, German will use Perfekt (causal relevance for the speaker's present). English will not, as far as I know, since the leg is no more broken, just hurting.


----------



## Hutschi

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> In German just that it has causal relevance for the present, and the example about the broken leg is excellent to demonstrate the difference: If it's no longer broken, but still hurts, German will use Perfekt (causal relevance for the speaker's present). English will not, as far as I know, since the leg is no more broken, just hurting.



Hi Tifoso, I do not understand this. But I try:

So you can say, for example:

"Ich habe ein Brot gebacken. Es liegt jetzt hier." 
  Causality is available that is why perfect is used.

But you have to say: 
"Ich buk ein Brot. Heute gehe ich ins Kino." (No causality - that is why imperfect is used.)


Or - to remove any possible (direct) causality:
"Es schneite. Ich lache."
"Niemand buk ein Brot. Heute gehe ich ins Kino." ("Niemand buk ein Brot" is a lie, so that cannot imply a causality.)


Or - with causality:
"Es hat geschneit. Ich lache." This implies that I laugh because it was snowing - so I have to use the perfect.

I never used it this way.


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

Perfect. That's what I mean, Hutschi (and what I taught some generations of students). In terms of style, we might qualify this further because of the second, strictly formal use of Perfekt: priority to a main clause or a context in present tense. So it would be, in any case, "nachdem ich ein Brot gebacken habe, gehe ich ins Kino" (no causal connection, but present tense in the main clause, and the temporal clause is prior to that); and even with main clauses only, if the entire text is in present tense, you'd use Perfekt for the interjected main clause describing something that happened earlier. But basically, as far as the sense conveyed by the use of Perfekt, it's precisely as you said in your latest example.


----------



## Hutschi

"Nachdem ich ein Brot gebacken habe, gehe ich ins Kino."

Here I also would use the perfect only (in the first part).
It has a speciality. Even if the first part is perfect, the real time is future. In this case both parts are in the future in reality.

I would not use: Nachdem ich ein Brot buk, gehe ich ins Kino. 

But:
Nachdem ich ein Brot buk, bin ich ins Kino gegangen. (Both are in the past.)


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

...and one more word to Bernd, with regard to an earlier of Hutschi's examples: If you'd really think that it's "unwise for a listener/reader to allow the choice of tense to influence one’s understanding of a sentence", this would mean not to allow (yourself and others) to understand Hutschi's example at all:
"Ich habe gerade angefangen, ein Buch zu lesen" 
vs.
"Ich fing gerade an, ein Buch zu lesen (als es an der Tür klingelte, for example)"
have TOTALLY different meanings, and to neglect them would very simply mean not to understand basic German. So it's not unwise to allow the use of Imperfekt or Perfekt to influence one's understanding of a sentence, on the contrary, it's indispensable. (Bearing in mind, however, the blurred lines mentioned above - not all German speakers/writers respect the rules, and the rules have become somewhat blurry themselves over time. But the basic difference is still there!)
As the "ich habe gerade angefangen" - "ich fing gerade an" example shows, Perfekt is NOT always (and perhaps not even often) a tense describing the past - very often (in all the "causal relevance" cases, I think), it's describing the present!!! So it's hard to understand why anybody would use these tenses (in written language!) interchangeably, and honestly, I don't think anyone does. I think people only claim so because they're unable to explain the difference.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Edit: I see that the thread has moved on quite a bit since I started formulating my ideas for this post, so it's referring to quotes made some time back now. Nevertheless, I hope people here will find my comments interesting and/or useful.



Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> So it's really no miracle to use Imperfekt and Perfekt properly in German. But those who nonetheless don't know how to: please don't add to the confusion of our non-natives here!


If you guys will allow me to add my two cents' worth to the discussion ... (as a non-native, I think I'm entitled to confuse myself! )



berndf said:


> On the general topic: There are simply too many speakers or writers who uses Perfekt and Präteritum interchangeably for it to make sense than listeners or readers pay attention to any semantic difference. Hence it has become impossible to convey any information by the choice of tense.


Yes and no. When reporting recent events, the present perfect seems to me to be strongly favored. For example, it's commonplace to hear the _Tagesschau_ begin with something like:

_Guten Abend meine Damen und Herren. Der Chef der Gewerkschaft Verdi *hat* die neuen Pläne der Bundesregierung zum Thema XYZ *stark kritisiert*._

By contrast, it would be quite unusual (does it occur at all?) to hear the newsreader say:

_Guten Abend meine Damen und Herren. Der Chef der Gewerkschaft Verdi *kritisierte stark* die neuen Pläne der Bundesregierung zum Thema XYZ._

As such, it (at least to me) just doesn't feel like a piece of current news if someone uses the simple past (i.e., Präteritum). For example, suppose I saw someone in the street where I live shouting:

_"Ein Feuer brach aus!"_

I'm not sure people around here would immediately understand what he was talking about. I'd probably think he was right. Indeed, we've even had two fires in our village in the last few years. However, if this person instead shouted

_"Ein Feuer ist ausgebrochen!"_,

then it suddenly sounds like he's not talking about either of the two fires I mentioned above, but about a new fire that's just broken out. As such, people will quickly start taking action now.

(Maybe it's different in North Germany. I can't say.)



berndf said:


> I am not against explaining these rules to non-native speakers. But it should be made clear that they are today just matters of style ...


Yes, but there is some system to the style. It's not completely the case that everyone is choosing between the two alternatives independently, as they would do on deciding what is, say, their favourite color.

For example, I work for an international company, with a good mixture of Germans from all parts of the country. Despite that, when talking to someone about the status of some current issue that is relevant to me, I've heard Germans say hundreds of times:

_Es hat sich erledigt._

On the other hand (and don't ask me why, it's just an observation), I've yet to hear someone say (in this context) the equivalent using the simple past:

_Es erledigte sich._

So, even if it is a just question of style, almost everyone is apparently choosing the same style in this case. So if a foreigner chooses the other style, he or she will stick out from the crowd.

Again, my observations may simply be the result of living and working in South Germany. Having said that, I do watch TV from North Germany (e.g., the _NDR Talkshow_), and although the simple past is used more than it is around here (especially when a story is being told), I can't remember seeing anyone who persistently used the simple past throughout. Their usage of the simple past almost always seems to be well-balanced and natural.

Cheers,
Abba


----------



## berndf

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> No, sorry, that's not correct - this is English grammar, NOT German. In English, past perfect tense (especially with -ing) means it's still going on. In German just that it has causal relevance for the present, and the example about the broken leg is excellent to demonstrate the difference: If it's no longer broken, but still hurts, German will use Perfekt (causal relevance for the speaker's present). English will not, as far as I know, since the leg is no more broken, just hurting.


In this case you could never use Präteritum because every past event may have a causal relevance for the present.

*Klammer auf* Lass es mich mal so sagen: Ich komme aus einer Sprachregion (geboren in Hamburg, die Familie meines Vaters aus Schleswig-Holstein und die meiner Mutter aus Ostpreussen), in der die Unterscheidung auch noch umgangssprachlich verankert ist oder zumindest vor nicht allzu langer Zeit es noch war. Für mich hat "ich habe mir das Bein gebrochen" die Konnotation, das es noch gebrochen ist. Deine Erklärungen hören sich für mich so an, als seinen sie von etwas aus dem Ruder gelaufenen theoretischen Beschreibungen geleitet. Ich sehe zwar auch einen Unterschied zwischen dem (nord-) deutschen Perfekt und dem englischen present perfect, diese beziehen sich aber im Wesentlichen auf Fälle, wo wir Präsens benutzen würden, z.B. "I have been living... since/for..." = "Ich lebe/wohne ... seit ...". *Klammer zu*


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

Hutschi said:


> Even if the first part is perfect, the real time is future.


Yes, same goes for the future, as well. Perfekt (in the case of formally/grammatically determined usage, as opposed to causally determined) is used to describe priority to present OR future tense.


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

ABBA, everything you wrote is perfectly correct. All your examples have an immediate connection to the speaker's present (the fire is still burning, and the news announced on TV are the LATEST news, not the news of two months ago). In addition, bear in mind that I was writing about written language here, not about spoken language (not even spoken TV/radio language, which somehow holds a middle position between written and spoken).

Bernd, ad Klammer auf: klar, wenn ich nur den Hauptsatz verwende "ich habe mir das Bein gebrochen", dann muss es noch gebrochen sein. Aber mit dem Zusatz "es tut noch immer weh" ist es meine Überzeugung, dass das Perfekt auch dann verwendet gehört, wenn das Bein inzwischen nicht mehr gebrochen ist. Und zwar meine feste Überzeugung; ich würde das, wäre ich Deutschlehrer, als Fehler anstreichen, wenn in so einer Situation jemand das Imperfekt verwendet. Aber vielleicht ist meine Position für diesen konkreten Fall ein bisserl (Austriazismus!) zu rigoros.


----------



## Hutschi

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> "Ich habe gerade angefangen, ein Buch zu lesen"
> vs.
> "Ich fing gerade an, ein Buch zu lesen (als es an der Tür klingelte, for example)"
> have TOTALLY different meanings



I would use these excamples usually this way, too.

But I would say: 

"Ich habe gerade angefangen, ein Buch zu lesen - da klingelte es an der Tür." 

Is this contradictionary or wrong?

PS: Ich komme aus einer Sprachregion, in der itzgründisch gesprochen wurde, das ist ein oberfränkischer Dialekt, lebe aber seit über 50 Jahren in Dresden. Allerdings habe ich den starken Einfluss meiner Eltern, die mit mir Hochdeutsch sprachen, allerdings unter dem Einfluss des zugrunde liegenden Dialekts. In der Dialektgegend wird fast nur Perfekt verwendet, weil im Dialekt die Endungen vom Imperfekt fast verschwunden sind.


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

IMHO it's wrong.


----------



## Hutschi

But there is no causality. In a narrative way the narrator moves along the time line. "Ich habe gerade angefangen, ein Buch zu lesen" is over. Now - independently, the bell rang.


"Ich habe gerade angefangen, ein Buch zu lesen - da hat es an der Tür geklingelt."  This has another sense. It implies that both were at the same time.


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

Please re-read what I wrote above: there are two mandatory cases of Perfekt use - 1. causal relevance, 2. purely grammatical priority to a main clause (or a context) in present tense. Which latter is NOT the case in your example - the main clause is in Imperfekt. So the priority (IF priority is intended) has to be Plusquamperfekt: Ich hatte gerade angefangen, ein Buch zu lesen - now it's over - da klingelte es an der Tür. The meaning is slightly different in Ich fing gerade an, ein Buch zu lesen, als es klingelte: the bell is ringing a few moments earlier in the latter example, so to speak.


----------



## Hutschi

Ich fing gerade an, ein Buch zu lesen, als es klingelte. - Here I assume that both were at the same time. So there definitely seem to be differences in usage.
Ich fing gerade an, ein Buch zu lesen. Da klingelte es. Here the bell rang a little bit later.


----------



## berndf

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> Aber mit dem Zusatz "es tut noch immer weh" ist es meine Überzeugung, dass das Perfekt auch dann verwendet gehört, wenn das Bein inzwischen nicht mehr gebrochen ist.


Dagegen stäubt sich meine Intuition vehement. Ich verstehe Dein Argument gegen das Präteritum, auch wenn ich es nicht für zwingend halte. Wahrscheinlich würde ich intuitiv Plusquamperfekt verwenden, um den perfektischen Aspekt auszudrücken, wenn das Bein jetzt nicht mehr gebrochen ist.


----------



## berndf

ABBA Stanza said:


> _Guten Abend meine Damen und Herren. Der Chef der Gewerkschaft Verdi *kritisierte *_stark_ die neuen Pläne der Bundesregierung zum Thema XYZ *stark*._


This sound perfectly normal to me.


ABBA Stanza said:


> _Es hat sich erledigt._
> 
> On the other hand (and don't ask me why, it's just an observation), I've yet to hear someone say (in this context) the equivalent using the simple past:
> 
> _Es erledigte sich._


In cases like this one where only one form ever exists, there is nothing to differentiate and hence no information conveyed. In cases where both are possible any you hear or read Perfekt you never know if the original meaning is really intended or if the speaker/writer always uses Perfekt. Hence you will start paying attention to context to differentiate and you end up with a situation where either only one of the two forms ever is "schriftsprachlich korrekt" or where the difference doesn't matter. And this means that the difference between the two tenses does not convey any information any more.


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

ABBA was correct when writing he still has to meet someone who says "Es erledigte sich" instead of "Es hat sich erledigt", of course - in every-day context, you'll perhaps never need the meaning that's conveyed by "Es erledigte sich". Which doesn't however, Bernd, mean it's wrong or there is no more information conveyed by the difference of the two tenses: "Es erledigte sich" is being used in accounts of past developments or events. Das Problem erledigte sich damals rasch ... no way of using Perfekt here!

So let me draw a bottom line to this thread (my personal bottom line, of course - no intention here of speaking for anybody else, just an announcement that I intend to leave you in peace on this thread): the discussion has been very helpful for me because I think I'm now able to explain it much simpler and perhaps better than before. I'm attempting a definition now, which has the charm of explaining BOTH cases of mandatory Perfekt usage, the "causal" and the "purely grammatical" one; but since most of you will perhaps fiercely oppose it, let me first make the necessary qualifications: there are, as we said, quite a few exceptions, individually, regionally and for certain words/in certain phrases; and the use of Perfekt in spoken language has been broadly (and I think, satisfactory) discussed on this thread, so please bear in mind that I'm speaking exclusively of written standard language here. And yes, I'm going to simplify and overdo it a little bit in my definition attempt, but I think I'm going to make it clearer this way.

Ok: German Perfekt and Präteritum are not at all synonymous. They don't even describe the same time. Präteritum/Imperfekt describes the past. Perfekt describes the present. Attention: it RECOUNTS something that happened before (i.e. in the past). But it DESCRIBES the present, and more specifically: it explains the developments that immediately led to the speaker's present situation - basically, it's answering "how come"-questions for the present, and only for the present (ok, no: also for the future, but this is perhaps neglectable for a first basic definition). 

"Ich habe gerade angefangen, ein Buch zu lesen" (which you might tell somebody who called you by phone) - this is pure present. You can't use it for something that happened yesterday.

Whereas "Ich fing gerade an, ein Buch zu lesen, als mich Martha anrief" means this happened at some time in the past, two days ago or 14 years ago.

This explains, as I said above very briefly, also the "non-causal" use of Perfekt, where it simply depends from a present tense main clause - "Nachdem ich das Brot gebacken habe, gehe ich ins Kino". Here again, it's explaining the present situation of the speaker, though not in a causal ("how come") sense but simply in a linear way - when he's finally going to the cinema, his current state is that he has baked a bread just before. (PS for Hutschi: the past version of this sentence cannot be "nachdem ich buk, bin ich gegangen" - wrong tenses in both parts of the sentence. Rather, it's "nachdem ich gebacken hatte, ging ich". We old Latinists are very strict about consecutio temporum. )

And it also explains the rather surprising rule to be found on one of the websites I've been quoting above: guilt has to be stated in Perfekt - "er hat es getan", not "er tat es". The sentence is not about the moment he did it, but about the present moment (when he's perhaps being convicted, put in jail, whatever), and the Perfekt verb is just answering the "how come"-question - why is he in jail now? (That site just neglected that, of course, there is a past version, as well - but there, it has to be Plusquamperfekt, "er hatte es getan".)

So to put it as briefly as possible (perhaps too briefly, but anyway ):

Perfekt is not about the past. It's always about the present.
Präteritum is never about the present. It's always about the past.

I can hardly imagine a sharper contrast, so I have to insist that the difference between the two tenses conveys information - much more so than many (most?) other grammatical differences!

For those who are REALLY interested in the question, I might add that German Perfekt is not as much related to Latin or Italian (or French? I don't understand much French) perfect or English past perfect tense as to ancient Greek perfect. In ancient Greek, perfect is ALWAYS to be translated as present tense, and it simply describes present conditions (while present tense describes present actions).

Thank you all for your patience!


----------



## sokol

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> So to put it as briefly as possible (perhaps too briefly, but anyway ):
> 
> Perfekt is not about the past. It's always about the present.
> Präteritum is never about the present. It's always about the past.



I agree that this is the rule as _*some*_ grammarians put it, and that indeed a _*significant, if small*_ percentage of German native speakers uses tenses more or less consistently like this (of course I am too talking of standard language here, and mostly written standard language at that; if we were talking of spoken language - be it standard language or colloquial speech - probably only a _*very*_ small percentage of native speakers would be consistent here).

I don't think that we could easily establish how many native speakers really would use tenses in formal written standard language consistently like you described, but I think you have to agree that in Austria hardly anybody does (I'd even say that only a _*tiny*_ percentage of German language teachers in Austria will do).
And I think we also have established in this thread that even in Germany only a minority seems to agree on this rules.

So if only a minority of German language speakers abide by this rule (language teachers included, prestige media and writers included), how could one possibly proclaim these rules as "correct German use"?
If one would do so one would claim that most educated German native speakers don't know their standard language.

We're right at the prescriptive/descriptive distinction again.

Note, it is of course not the case that "once" all German native speakers had followed those rules, quite the contrary: in the 19th century Austrian writers, along with many writers from Southern German lands, made extensive use of Perfekt in literature.
The use of Perfekt and Präteritum as completely different timeframes is not native to most German speaking regions and never was a thoroughly accepted norm of German standard language - it never came further than being promoted by some to become the norm for standard language (but never achieved this status, neither when looking at literature nor with other written language like _Kanzleisprachen_ which were considered exemplary use of standard language in former times).

So I don't see what use there is in claiming there were such a rule - as even many of those who should know their German (and whose use of standard language is considered exemplary) do not know this rule - or if they do are incapable of applying it correctly.

To try and postulate this rule would mean to fall back into prescriptivism, which I am not willing to do.


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

sokol, much as I respect your position, I don't share it (no big surprise, I guess). Let me just say that it's funny for me to come across as the prescriptivist here. So far in my life, I've always been the one (not just, but particularly in the context of grammar) who said "rules are there in order to be violated". Actually, much of the quality of literature is due to the violation of grammatical rules. But it's my deep conviction that when you're learning a language (including your own native language), you first need to learn the rules thoroughly, theoretical as they may be. And THEN you are in a position to violate them. Deliberately. Not just because you don't know better. Of course, nobody observes the Perfekt/Imperfekt or any other rule strictly. But the crucial difference is between those who deliberately don't observe them (because they know enough about language to create their own, modified set of rules) and those who can neither observe them nor violate them in the proper (transitive) sense of the word, just ignore them, because they've never learned enough about them. This is the difference between sophisticated and clumsy use of language.
But actually, much as I'd love to continue this discussion since it's so interesting, it's leading far off-topic, and to the topic as such, I have really nothing to add, as I said before.


----------



## berndf

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> Let me just say that it's funny for me to come across as the prescriptivist here. So far in my life, I've always been the one (not just, but particularly in the context of grammar) who said "rules are there in order to be violated". Actually, much of the quality of literature is due to the violation of grammatical rules. But it's my deep conviction that when you're learning a language (including your own native language), you first need to learn the rules thoroughly, theoretical as they may be. And THEN you are in a position to violate them. Deliberately.


Well, descritivists argue as follows: Rules change over time and they change because people start to use grammatical forms differently. Grammar book do not lead this development them they are constantly running behind it. Grammar rules merely describe in a systematic way what native speakers do anyway. If native speaker's widely accepted usage contradicts grammar rules then the rules are wrong, not what native speakers say. 

Your earlier statement that the Perfekt is about the present not about the past simply isn't reality any more. Some speakers, like you and me, still use it the old way but we are a rapidly shrinking minority. In my daughter's school (she is attending the German school in Geneva), they don't even bother explaining the difference any more, they just call it "lange und kurze Vergangenheit". She will probably learn the old rules when she gets a bit older (she is 11 now) but I bet it will be perceived by her generation as a "history lession" and nothing more.


----------



## sokol

berndf said:


> In my daughter's school (she is attending the German school in Geneva), they don't even bother explaining the difference any more, they just call is "lange und kurze Vergangenheit".


It is the same in Austrian schools - German school teachers don't even bother trying to explain the difference (and I bet most of them don't even think there is any: and I'm talking of secondary and higher education too).

The explanation you get usually is that in formal language you are supposed to use Präteritum (and Plusquamperfekt if necessary, obviously; but not Perfekt), and that's it.


----------



## Frank78

This change can´t be that new, can it?

"Die ich* rief*, die Geister
werd ich nun nicht los" 
(Der Zauberlehrling)

A clear reference to the present and I wouldn´t call Goethe an intentional rules violator 

Since the tenses have been imposed artificially on the German language it´s a bit like back to the roots of ancient German(ic) which , as far as I know, just had two tenses (past and non past).


----------



## berndf

Frank78 said:


> This change can´t be that new, can it?
> 
> "Die ich* rief*, die Geister
> werd ich nun nicht los"
> (Der Zauberlehrling)
> 
> A clear reference to the present and I wouldn´t call Goethe an intentional rules violator


I think this example just demonstrates that Tifoso's interpretation of "reference to the present" was too extensive.


Frank78 said:


> Since the tenses have been imposed artificially on the German language it´s a bit like back to the roots of ancient German(ic) which , as far as I know, just had two tenses (past and non past).


Yes. Proto-Germanic certeinly only distinguished these two tenses. Though rooted in OHG constructs the use of Perfekt as a tense in its own rights started in MHG. Also in OHG it was most likely an imitation of Late Latin usage (you might be interested in reading this thread) but we don't know this for sure.


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

berndf said:


> Your earlier statement that the Perfekt is about the present not about the past simply isn't reality any more. Some speakers, like you and me, still use it the old way but we are a rapidly shrinking minority. In my daughter's school (she is attending the German school in Geneva), they don't even bother explaining the difference any more, they just call it "lange und kurze Vergangenheit". She will probably learn the old rules when she gets a bit older (she is 11 now) but I bet it will be perceived by her generation as a "history lession" and nothing more.


 
Well, these lines are forcing me back into this discussion. What you are saying here is that your daughter will not be able to read German literature, because she's simply not going to understand it properly. The whole treasure of literature is written - attention - of course not STRICTLY the way I explained the use of Perfekt and Imperfekt, but definitely in a way that makes - PROPER - understanding of those texts impossible if you've never learned those rules. Ten minutes ago, I went to my bookshelf and took out three books of which I know that they are written in what I think is exemplary language; I opened two of them on a random page and read random passages, and checked the third one whether there is any comment there on our topic. These are the results, Perfekt in green, Imperfekt in red:

1. Erwin Chargaff, Abscheu vor der Weltgeschichte, Stuttgart 1988, Seite 62: "Es ist wahrscheinlich zeit meines Lebens mein großer Fehler gewesen, mehr von den Menschen zu erwarten als ich das Recht hatte. Der kühle Skeptizismus eines Montaigne konnte nicht so leicht enttäuscht werden."

2. Peter Bamm, Alexander oder die Verwandlung der Welt, Zürich 1965, Seite 158: "Alexander weihte dieses Bild (ein Porträt des Königs als Zeus, Anm. TB) dem Tempel der Artemis in Ephesos. Ein letzter Abglanz dieses Meisterwerks ist uns erhalten geblieben in einer römischen Darstellung Alexanders als Zeus, die im Hause der Vettier in Pompeii gefunden wurde. Alexander ließ dem Künstler für dieses Bild zwanzig Talente überreichen. Das ist das höchste Honorar, das je ein Maler für ein Bild erhalten hat."

Your daughter will not be able to understand whether the Roman copy from Pompeii still exists or whether it has been destroyed, say, in WWII (which would mean to use Imperfekt "blieb erhalten"); or whether (according to Bamm's opinion, which I doubt btw) the remuneration was the highest until then or the highest ever. Before somebody doubts again that my interpretation of Perfekt and Imperfekt is correct, let me quote also the following sentence:
"Nur die viertausend Goldflorins, für die König Franz I. von Frankreich von Leonardo da Vinci die Mona Lisa erwarb, lassen sich mit Alexanders Honorar für Apelles vergleichen." You see? The highest ever, hence Perfekt.

3. The one where I hoped to find, and actually found, a comment on our topic here is one of the very best books for anyone trying to REALLY learn about the nuances of German language: Hans Weigel, Die Leiden der jungen Wörter, Zürich/München 1974, Seite 76:
"Sokrates starb durch Gift. Aber er ist nicht umsonst gestorben.
Der Redner redete und redete. Endlich sagte er: Ich habe gesprochen.
Merken Sie sich, bitte, diese beiden Beispiele.
Dann werden Sie besser wissen, wann Sie das Imperfekt und wann Sie das Perfekt anwenden sollen."

The fact that historical books are written as they are written makes it simply impossible, for me, to accept fundamental changes of language use like the one most of you are claiming here has already happened (I'm not entirely convinced). Even if I was the last German speaker who knew the "old" rules, I'd still insist that knowledge of these rules (attention: I did NOT say strict observance of these rules!!) is indispensable for writing and reading proper German, and that nobody else does. It's impossible to bow to a majority here simply because the historical books are written as they are written.
I'm not typically inclined to cultural catastrophism; but if the standard of language use is set by Hessischer Rundfunk, Deutsche Welle and your daughter's teachers, and if Bamm, Weigel or Chargaff could no longer be understood the way they intended to be, this would really mean the end of middle European civilization (this, and NOT minaret building in the Alps ).


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

...and example no. 4 from my bookshelf, again a quotation from the first random page where I opened the book:

"Weil ihnen Wien genügt hat, sind sie nichts geworden zum Unterschied von denen, denen Wien nicht genügt hat und die im entscheidenden Augenblick aus Wien weg in das Ausland gegangen sind, dachte ich auf dem Ohrensessel."

This is not MHG literature; it's from Thomas Bernhard, Holzfällen, Frankfurt am Main 1984, p. 96. Bernhard died just 21 years ago, and yet I must conclude from this thread that both school teachers and school kids (and perhaps some members of this forum, as well?) are no longer able to explain or understand why and when he used Präteritum or Perfekt.


----------



## Hutschi

"Dachte ich" ist eine andere Erzählebene. Für uns stellt sie die Vergangenheit dar. Für den Moment des Denkens liegt dieses aber in der Gegenwart und der erste Teil mit den Perfektbestandteilen, über die gedacht wird, bezieht sich darauf.
Im vorliegenden Fall sind die Vorgänge "genügt hat" aber bereits abgeschlossen, also vollendet. Wenn ich Imperfekt verwenden würde, wäre die Erzählzeit und die Zeit über die erzählt wird, nicht mehr abgegrenzt.
Hier haben wir den Fall, dass Perfekt einen Vorgang als vollendet betrachtet. (In der Schule haben wir die Form noch als "vollendete Gegenwart" bezeichnet.)

Wir müssen beachten, dass wir hier eine Metaebene (das Denken) und eine untergeordnete Ebene (das Gedachte) haben, die jeweils entsprechende Zeitformen brauchen.

Es gibt also eine weitere Bedeutung:
_Vollendete Vorgänge (Perfekt=vollendete Gegenwart, Plusquamperfekt=vollendete Vergangenheit) und laufende Vorgänge (Gegenwart, einfache Vergangenheit) ._ - Diese Abgrenzung wird aber nur in entsprechendem Kontext in der Praxis durchgeführt.


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

Das ist selbstverständlich ebenfalls eine mögliche Art, die Regel zu formulieren (mir persönlich erscheint sie etwas kompliziert, aber jeder steht halt auf einer anderen Leitung, sozusagen). Es funktioniert aber auch nach "meiner" Regel ganz einfach: Das Perfekt steht ja dann, wenn die (Vorgeschichte der) Gegenwart des Sprechers erklärt wird. Und da, was er damals auf dem Ohrensessel dachte, für seine (damalige) Gegenwart relevant war (auf präzise der Zeitebene, auf der er, auf dem Ohrensessel, dachte, waren die anderen erfolgreich oder Versager), steht eben das Perfekt.


----------



## berndf

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> "Weil ihnen Wien genügt*e*, sind sie nichts geworden zum Unterschied von denen, denen Wien nicht genügt*e* und die im entscheidenden Augenblick aus Wien weg in das Ausland gegangen sind, dachte ich auf dem Ohrensessel."


So ist es für einen Norddeutschen meiner Generation idiomatisch. Ev. würde man das erste "genügte" durch Perfekt oder Präsens ersetzen. Ich weiß nicht, warum Du "dachte" rot hinterlegt hast. Hälst Du das für falsch? "Gedacht hat" statt "dachte" wäre unidiomatisch und würde als oberdeutscher Perfekt empfunden werden.


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

berndf said:


> Ich weiß nicht, warum Du "dachte" rot hinterlegt hast. Hälst Du das für falsch?


Ganz einfach: weil ich in allen oben zitierten Beispielen das Perfekt grün und das Imperfekt rot gefärbt habe. Also nein, ich halte es nicht für falsch. (Hätte auch alle Imperfektformen blau färben können. )


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

Übrigens: Deine "norddeutsch-idiomatische" Variante ist selbstverständlich ebenfalls möglich und keineswegs ein Widerspruch zur Grundregel. Du gewichtest damit nur anders: Bei Dir wird betont, dass den Weggegangenen zum Zeitpunkt des Weggehens Wien nicht genügt hat (und den Dagebliebenen schon), während Thomas Bernhards Formulierung impliziert, dass ihnen Wien zum gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt (also zum Zeitpunkt des Ohrensesselsitzens) immer noch nicht bzw. schon genügt. Beides ist selbstverständlich sprachlich einwandfrei in Ordnung, es bleibt ja dem jeweiligen Autor überlassen, auf welchen inhaltlichen Aspekt er fokussieren möchte. Aber mit nord- oder süddeutsch hat das nichts zu tun. Und über die Grundregel (Perfekt - Gegenwart, Imperfekt - Vergangenheit) sind wir uns ja, wie ich mit Freude sehe, einig, deshalb würdest auch Du sagen: "sind sie nichts geworden", denn das ist eindeutig (für den Ohrensesselsitzer) Gegenwart.


----------



## berndf

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> Ganz einfach: weil ich in allen oben zitierten Beispielen das Perfekt grün und das Imperfekt rot gefärbt habe. Also nein, ich halte es nicht für falsch. (Hätte auch alle Imperfektformen blau färben können. )


Ok, dann hatte ich das falsch verstanden.


----------



## sokol

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> "Weil ihnen Wien genügt hat, sind sie nichts geworden zum Unterschied von denen, denen Wien nicht genügt hat und die im entscheidenden Augenblick aus Wien weg in das Ausland gegangen sind, dachte ich auf dem Ohrensessel."


Das Beispiel ist eigentlich unpassend: denn der Satz in Perfekt entspricht einem Gedankengang während des im-Ohrensessel-sitzens - und entspricht somit, wenn man so will, einer direkten Rede.

Auch ist es eine etwas starke Behauptung zu sagen, man würde die deutsche Literatur nicht verstehen, wenn man Perfekt und Präteritum nicht so verstehen würde, wie von dir beschrieben (und wie heutzutage nur noch von einer Minderheit gebraucht).

Du vergisst, dass ein grosser Teil der deutschen Literatur überhaupt nie diese Regeln für Präteritum und Perfekt angewandt hat - oder nur inkonsistent, in manchen Fällen.
Thomas Bernhard ist wohl einer der wenigen Österreicher, dem zugetraut werden könnte, Perfekt und Präteritum wirklich so gebraucht zu haben: ich hab schon lang keinen Bernhard mehr gelesen, aus der Erinnerung kann ich das nicht sagen; der obige Satz ist für mich jedenfalls kein Beweis. 

Viele andere österreichische Autoren haben jedoch niemals Perfekt und Präteritum konsequent als unterschiedliche Zeitformen behandelt; dasselbe gilt übrigens bestimmt auch für viele Autoren aus Deutschland (moderne ebenso wie ältere).

Es will mir nicht in den Kopf, warum ausgerechnet ein Wiener wie du, der ohne Zweifel von Leuten umgeben ist, für die Perfekt und Präteritum lediglich stilistische Varianten derselben Zeitform sind, so vehement dafür eintritt, dass nur diese Norm die "Richtige" sein kann.

(Die dabei noch nicht einmal in Deutschland gängig ist, sondern lediglich von einer Minderheit gebraucht wird. In Deutschland gibt's darüber hinaus übrigens auch noch andre Tendenzen, die das Zeitensystem weiter in Bewegung bringen - etwa der Gebrauch von Plusquamperfekt, wenn eigentlich Präteritum gefordert wäre, oft schon in deutschen Nachrichtensendungen zu hören.)

Ich will's aber jetzt dabei belassen und nicht weiter zu argumentieren versuchen.


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

sokol said:


> Du vergisst, dass ein grosser Teil der deutschen Literatur überhaupt nie diese Regeln für Präteritum und Perfekt angewandt hat - oder nur inkonsistent, in manchen Fällen.


Na ja - ich habe aber tatsächlich einfach die erstbesten vier Bücher, die mir als "schön geschrieben" eingefallen sind, aus dem Regal genommen und keinerlei Recherche nach "passenden" Beispielen unternommen, ehrlich. Ich bezweifle also vehement, dass Dein "großer Teil" so groß ist, wie Du glaubst.



sokol said:


> Auch ist es eine etwas starke Behauptung zu sagen, man würde die deutsche Literatur nicht verstehen, wenn man Perfekt und Präteritum nicht so verstehen würde, wie von dir beschrieben (und wie heutzutage nur noch von einer Minderheit gebraucht).


Das finde ich nicht - siehe das oben gebrachte Bamm-Zitat! Wenn Du Perfekt und Imperfekt nicht exakt so verstehst wie ich (und Bamm), dann kannst Du den Satz über das höchste Honorar (wenn wir jetzt von der Infomation, die im Folgesatz steckt, absehen - und bei entsprechender Recherche ließen natürlich unzählige Literatur-Beispiele OHNE Zusatzinformation finden!) einfach nicht interpretieren.



sokol said:


> Viele andere österreichische Autoren haben jedoch niemals Perfekt und Präteritum konsequent als unterschiedliche Zeitformen behandelt; dasselbe gilt übrigens bestimmt auch für viele Autoren aus Deutschland (moderne ebenso wie ältere).


Von den vier Autoren meines "Zufallstests" sind drei Österreicher: Bernhard, Weigel und Chargaff. Ich halte also, einmal mehr, Dein "viele andere österreichische Autoren" nicht für erwiesen.



sokol said:


> Es will mir nicht in den Kopf, warum ausgerechnet ein Wiener wie du, der ohne Zweifel von Leuten umgeben ist, für die Perfekt und Präteritum lediglich stilistische Varianten derselben Zeitform sind, so vehement dafür eintritt, dass nur diese Norm die "Richtige" sein kann.


Dass ich mich nicht auf die gesprochene Sprache beziehe, habe ich deutlich klargemacht. Selbstverständlich verwende in gesprochener Sprache auch ich, als Wiener, als absolut einzige Imperfektform "war". Sonst habe ich bestimmt noch nie ein Imperfekt in den Mund genommen, außer beim Vorlesen oder im Grammatikunterricht. Aber was ändert das an der (und zwar auch an meiner!) Schriftsprache?


----------



## berndf

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> Dass ich mich nicht auf die gesprochene Sprache beziehe, habe ich deutlich klargemacht. Selbstverständlich verwende in gesprochener Sprache auch ich, als Wiener, als absolut einzige Imperfektform "war". Sonst habe ich bestimmt noch nie ein Imperfekt in den Mund genommen, außer beim Vorlesen oder im Grammatikunterricht. Aber was ändert das an der (und zwar auch an meiner!) Schriftsprache?


Dies erklärt natürlich einiges. Wir Deutschen unterscheiden nicht derart zwischen Schriftsprache und gesprochener Sprache wie Österreicher oder Schweizer. Ein sehr grosser Prozentsatz der Bevölkerung spricht auch im Alltag Standardsprache. Der Unterschied besteht für uns im Wesentlichen darin, dass wir schriftlich einige besonders hemdsärmelige Ausdrücke vermeiden. Der Versuch bestimmte Formen entgegen der Entwicklung der gesprochenen Sprache schriftlich auf Dauer aufrecht zu erhalten empfänden die meisten Deutschen als Don Quixoterie und wäre auf Dauer zum Scheitern verurteilt. Und dass ausgerechnet Österreicher und Schweizer das Fortdauern der Präteritum/Perfekt-Unterscheidung in der deutschen Schriftsprache auf Dauer sichern sollten, erscheint mir mehr als unwahrscheinlich.

Es wird aber sicher auch weiterhin Autoren geben, die auf die Unterscheidung wert legen und die Formen auch elegant verwenden werden (es wäre auch Schade, wenn nicht). Sollten diese sich aber so ausdrücken, dass der Sinn des geschriebenen ohne genaue Kenntnis der alten Bedeutungen sich nicht erschliesst, so müssten sie damit leben, nicht richtig verstanden zu werden. In der Praxis wird dies aber nur sehr selten ein wirkliches Problem darstellen. Auch bei Deinem Bamm-Zitat würde ich das Folgende um kein Jota anders verstehen, als das Original:
_Alexander weihte dieses Bild (ein Porträt des Königs als Zeus, Anm. TB) dem Tempel der Artemis in Ephesos. Ein letzter Abglanz dieses Meisterwerks blieb uns erhalten in einer römischen Darstellung Alexanders als Zeus, die im Hause der Vettier in Pompeii gefunden wurde. Alexander ließ dem Künstler für dieses Bild zwanzig Talente überreichen. Das ist das höchste Honorar, das je ein Maler für ein Bild erhielt._​


----------



## Alaedious

Hello everyone! 

        Another question comes to my mind concerning the expression of past habits. To express the idea: "I used to smoke too much (when I was twenty)" would you say "Ich rauchte zu viel" or "Ich habe zu viel geraucht" or both or some other way? Perhaps with the help of certain adverbs? 

Thanks for your help again! 

                         Alaedious


----------



## Hutschi

Without additional phrases or context I would use "Ich habe zu viel geraucht". This has the connotation that I finished smoking too much - if you do not add " und ich rauche immer noch zu viel."

"Ich rauchte zu viel" sounds incomplete to me. It is not wrong, but I would use it only in special context:

"Damals rauchte ich (immer) zu viel."
This does not exclude: "Damals habe ich (immer) zu viel geraucht".

Note the Plusquamperfekt (Vorvergangenheit):
Ich hatte zu viel geraucht und bekam deshalb Krebs. (I had finished smoking when the cancer started.)
vs. Ich rauchte immer zu viel und bekam deshalb Krebs. The smoking may have continued.

_Ich habe immer zuviel geraucht und deshalb Krebs bekommen. _(Cancer was a result of smoking.)

_Ich rauchte immer zuviel und habe deshalb Krebs bekommen. _(I do not see a difference in the meaning between the last two sentences, but I think, Tifoso does.)


----------



## Alaedious

Ok, thank you Hutschi! 

Martin Durrell's "Hammer's German: Grammar and Usage" suggests that habitual past actions is one of the contexts in which spoken north (Standard) German sometimes (but not systematically) uses the Präteritum. The example he gives is:

Ich habe gewusst, dass sein Vater trank. 
I knew his father used to drink. 

This is my favorite grammar book so far, but the problem with all the English-German grammar books I have is that they lead you to believe the Präteritum is used in the spoken language in the entire German-speaking world for the *past progressive* and for *recording a state* (Die Rechnung lag auf dem Balkon), or a *habitual or repeated action in the past* (Bei uns in der alten Heimat dauerten die Sommerferien länger als hier), since they don't give any examples like the ones I've been asking about in this posting. Das heisst: one can say BOTH:

"Ich habe gewusst, dass sein Vater trank" *and*
"Ich habe gewusst, dass sein Vater (damals) getrunken hat." 

"Damals habe ich zu viel geraucht" *and* "Damals rauchte ich zu viel." 

...basically depending on which part of the German-speaking world you come from.

And that:

"Ich bin mit dem Rad in die Schule gefahren, aber ich bin gar nicht bis zur Schule gekommen" can translate as *both*: 
"I rode my bike to school" *or* "I was riding my bike to school", depending on what the speaker wishes to say.

Please correct me if I make mistakes! I am just a beginner and I'm here to learn!


----------



## Hutschi

Alaedious said:


> Ok, thank you Hutschi!
> 
> Martin Durrell's "Hammer's German: Grammar and Usage" suggests that habitual past actions is one of the contexts in which spoken north (Standard) German sometimes (but not systematically) uses the Präteritum. The example he gives is:
> 
> Ich habe gewusst, dass sein Vater trank.
> I knew his father used to drink.



This is a good example.

In case of "Rauchen" we would get:

Weil mein Vater (oft/gewöhnlich/zu viel) rauchte, bekam er Krebs.

Here the repeated action is important.


> "Ich bin mit dem Rad in die Schule gefahren, aber ich bin gar nicht bis zur Schule gekommen" can translate as *both*:
> "I rode my bike to school" *or* "I was riding my bike to school", depending on what the speaker wishes to say.


 
Sorry, here I cannot say it in English, because I do not know the nuances good enough.

It is an idiom and the meaning is different to the literal sense. It means:

"Ich bin mit dem Rad in die Schule gefahren, aber ich bin gar nicht bis zur Schule gekommen"

"Ich startete mit dem Rad und fuhr in Richtung Schule, habe sie aber nicht erreicht, weil etwas eintrat, das das verhinderte." 
I do not see a difference in the meaning to 
"Ich fuhr mit dem Rad in die Schule, aber ich bin gar nicht bis zur Schule gekommen."
I do not know if the second sentence implies repeated driving or not in the north. In my region it does not, but it also does not forbid it - if the context does not clarify it. 

Here I would add "heute", "gerade", "gewöhnlich" or "immer" or similar particles to add enough redundancy to make it clear.


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

If you're asking about *spoken* language, the Austrian standard version would be "Ich habe gewusst, dass sein Vater trinkt", the past being indicated by Perfekt (since we have no Präteritum in spoken language here), the present tense in the clause indicating that it happened at the same level of time as the main clause (it was then, when I knew it, present reality).
In the first example, I'd suggest using Perfekt also in written language since "too" implies a present judgement: you're now (let's suppose, I don't know of course!) 33, and NOW you think the amount of cigarettes you smoked daily when you were 20 was exaggerated. You didn't think so at the time... so the sentence describes your present, hence you're using Perfekt.
"Ich rauchte zu viel" is not incomplete, it has a differently nuanced meaning, like in "Ich saß den ganzen Abend in dieser Spelunke herum, trank ein Bier nach dem anderen und rauchte zu viel."
Hutschi, no, I don't see a difference between the two sentences you gave, I just wouldn't use the latter since it doesn't make sense to me. The fact that you smoked too much is relevant for your present, as well, so why should it be Imperfekt? (Thinking of written language, of course.)


----------



## Alaedious

Hi again! 

        Do Austrians ever use the Präteritum in the spoken language with very common verbs, such as these examples:

         Ich _dachte_, du bist in Berlin! 
         Das ist ja leichter, als ich _dachte_! 
         Er _glaubte_, mich gesehen zu haben.
         Ich _wusste_ nicht, dass er heute kommt. 

Or would they always use the Perkfekt... Ich habe gedacht, er hat geglaubt, etc....?


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

Never ever. The only verb whose Präteritum we're using in Austrian spoken language is "sein": war, waren, warst, wart, all common forms. No other Präteritum is ever to be heard in Austrian everyday conversation.


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

If you allow me: here's a riddle for all of you, natives and non-natives alike. What do you think of the following lines? Are they idiomatic according to your understanding of German language? And what's your interpretation in terms of content?

"Mir ging es so wie wohl den meisten, als ich gestern von der Verleihung des Friedensnobelpreises an Barack Obama erfuhr. Ich fragte mich: Wofür?"

I'm curious about all your interpretations, but if berndf happens to be around, I'd be particularly curious about his.


----------



## berndf

It sounds idiomatic to me. But I might say "Ich habe mich gefragt: Wofür?". My use in oral language is not consistent*.
_______________
_*Nach Studium im Frankfurt und über 20 Jahre Ehe mit einer Österreicherin geht mir inzwischen sogar das doppelte Perfekt flüssig von der Zunge._


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

So no irritation on your behalf? No suspicion the author wants to tell us something particular, perhaps: unusual?

Even though I know it's probably childish, I'd be glad if others would chime in, as well.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> Never ever. The only verb whose Präteritum we're using in Austrian spoken language is "sein": war, waren, warst, wart, all common forms. No other Präteritum is ever to be heard in Austrian everyday conversation.


What about modal verbs? Is it OK in Austria to say things like:

_Es tut mir leid, aber ich konnte nicht kommen._

Or does on have to say _"es tut mir leid, aber ich habe nicht kommen können"_?



Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> If you allow me: here's a riddle for all of you, natives and non-natives alike. What do you think of the following lines? Are they idiomatic according to your understanding of German language? And what's your interpretation in terms of content?


Sorry, Tifoso, but you've got me there. I can't find any hidden messages at all . For me, the following two sentences are identical in meaning:

_"Mir *ging* es so wie wohl den meisten, als ich gestern von der Verleihung des Friedensnobelpreises an Barack Obama *erfuhr*. Ich *fragte* mich: Wofür?"

"Mir *ist* es so wie wohl den meisten *gegangen*, als ich gestern von der Verleihung des Friedensnobelpreises an Barack Obama *erhahren habe*. Ich *habe* mich *gefragt*: Wofür?"_

I'm still curious to know the answer to your riddle though! 

Cheers,
Abba


----------



## berndf

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> So no irritation on your behalf? No suspicion the author wants to tell us something particular, perhaps: unusual?


No, not unusual. But I understand the nature of the line as narrative, i.e. the author tells what happened yesterday.


----------



## berndf

ABBA Stanza said:


> What about modal verbs? Is it OK in Austria to say things like:
> 
> _Es tut mir leid, aber ich konnte nicht kommen._
> 
> Or does on have to say _"es tut mir leid, aber ich habe nicht kommen können"_?


_I hoab net kumma kinna_.

The issue is that Upper German dialects have completely lost the preterite already about 400 years ago. It is not only unusual to use preterite, the forms literally don't exist any more; with the exception of "sein", as Tifoso mentioned. Austro-Bavarian has only two finite conjugation schemes: one indicative, namely present and one subjunctive of unspecified tense (i.e. no differentiation between Konjunktiv I and II), e.g.
_I sich=ich sehe_ (Indikativ Präsens) and
_I sichat=ich sehe_ (Konjunktiv I) or _ich sähe_ (Konjunktiv II).


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

Bernd, we're going to bestow the title "Austrian h.c." upon you.  
Almost... I'm not aware of any Austrian dialect using "hoab" for "habe" - it should be "hob" or "hab".
And perhaps we should also mention that the dialect subjunctive is actually rare, that's almost theoretical. In real life, "ich sähe" is "i tat sengn" ("täte" is the Austrian dialect equivalent to "würde").

ABBA, really always "ich habe nicht kommen können" (oh yes, there are also people here who do NOT speak dialect). As far as the riddle, of course I'm going to answer it, but let's wait until tomorrow - perhaps on Monday, some more people would like to participate. 
Perhaps I should add the lines are from a written text, no spoken language (but also no Austrian author, so the difference between written and spoken should be less important according to Bernd).


----------



## teto_90

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> "Mir ging es so wie wohl den meisten, als ich gestern von der Verleihung des Friedensnobelpreises an Barack Obama erfuhr. Ich fragte mich: Wofür?"
> 
> I'm curious about all your interpretations, but if berndf happens to be around, I'd be particularly curious about his.


I'm not German but I'll give a try as well..."Ich fragte mich" tells me that the author wondered repetedly, more than once, about the reason of the event. "Ich habe mich gefragt", on the contrary, doesn't give me this impression, it just tells me that, yes, the author wondered about the reason, but stop, no further indications.


----------



## berndf

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> Almost... I'm not aware of any Austrian dialect using "hoab" for "habe" - it should be "hob" or "hab".


I accept the criticism.

There are many variant, from "g'schert" "haun" to Viennese "hawe/howe" but the most typical is "hab/hob" with a rounded or unrounded dark "a", similar to the Scandinavian "aa".


----------



## Hutschi

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> If you allow me: here's a riddle for all of you, natives and non-natives alike. What do you think of the following lines? Are they idiomatic according to your understanding of German language? And what's your interpretation in terms of content?
> 
> "Mir ging es so wie wohl den meisten, als ich gestern von der Verleihung des Friedensnobelpreises an Barack Obama erfuhr. Ich fragte mich: Wofür?"
> 
> I'm curious about all your interpretations, but if berndf happens to be around, I'd be particularly curious about his.



For me it seems to be idiomatic, too.

In case of "Wofür hat er ihn bekommen?" - which is not in the sentence - I would use the perfect. 
In the other part of the sentence I also would not have problems with the perfect, but it would shift slightly to idiomatic coll. language in the following case: 
"Mir ist es so gegangen, wie wohl den meisten, als ich gestern von der Verleihung des Friedensnobelpreises an Barack Obama erfahren habe. Ich habe mich gefragt: Wofür?"
One of the reasons: I would try to avoid duplicate verbs in written language (in literary texts). And in perfect you always have to repeat aux. verbs.

But if you change "als" to "während" I would prefer imperfect: während er ihn bekam. "Als" can have both the meaning: "während" and "nachdem" - depending on the context.


----------



## berndf

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> If you allow me: here's a riddle for all of you, natives and non-natives alike.


I came across the following example: A man returns from the dentist and was asked whether the dentist had to drill. I thought about what would be idiomatic for me a northerner. Maybe my results are interesting for you ("*" means unidiomatic):
_Er hat gebohrt. _
_*Er bohrte._
_*Er hat bohren müssen._
_Er musste bohren._
In Westphalia the following would be idiomatic in colloquial speech: _Er tat bohren._
 
@Abba: The last one I find interesting because in English I would say:
_*He drilled._
_*He has drilled._
_He did drill._
_He had to drill._
_*He has had to drill._
Do you agree?


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

Well, conferring the number of recent views of this thread and the number of replies to the riddle, we may conclude that more than just a few people are afraid to say something wrong. Without any reason, though. We're not at school here, and it's just fun, not an exam.  All the more, thank you to those who actually replied. There is unfortunately no winner, though.  Here we go with the explanation:

After my random ten-minutes "bookshelf test" on Saturday, I thought I'd do some deeper research. In the light of what berndf had said what's idiomatic for a northern German of his generation, I started looking for Hamburg-related writers born 1960 (which must be just about Bernd's year of birth) online. The first one I found brought no suitable result since there's just one of her texts available online, and it's entirely written in present tense. The second writer I found is SF-author Karl Olsberg, born 1960 in Bielefeld (which is not too far south of Hamburg and certainly part of Northern Germany, too) and living in Hamburg. He has a blog, and that's where I found the text on Obama.
The lines I quoted are the very start of that text. I was immediately irritated. Why the heck would he use Präteritum for those two sentences? His position of yesterday, I thought, is his present position, so the two sentences explain something present, and so they'd have to be written in Perfekt. The Präteritum, in my book, would mean this is a historical position that he shares no longer. That's what I thought; and so, quite obviously, I concluded that Bernd is right, and that northern Germans of his generation make completely arbitrary use of Perfekt and Imperfekt.
Not so. I was wrong and so was, I regret I have to say, Bernd. Olsberg is using the Präteritum exactly the way I understand it: the text goes on explaining why he was so surprised and outright negative about the Nobel Prize for Obama; but then, he delineates how he started thinking about it once more: "Ist es nicht bemerkenswert, dass der oberste Befehlshaber der größten Atomstreitmacht der Welt öffentlich für deren Abschaffung plädiert? Ist dies nicht ein ungeheuer mutiger Schritt, der allein schon die höchste aller Auszeichnungen rechtfertigt?"
And he ends with the highest praise for the Nobel Prize Committee: "Falls das (die Vision einer atomwaffenfreien Welt, Anm. TB) gelingt, war dies vielleicht die klügste Entscheidung, die das Nobelpreiskommittee je getroffen hat." So his position of yesterday is really just of historical importance, and he tells us so from the very start of his text - and just by the use of Präteritum instead of (what we - at least: what I - would expect) Perfekt, without any further hints. (And he uses also Perfekt how I understand it: "...je getroffen hat" - hindsight from our present moment.)

So I have to conclude from the fascinating discussion on this thread that for professional writers (though I don't doubt at all that we could find some exceptions, as well) and for a significant part of readers alike, including myself, it goes without saying that Perfekt and Präteritum mean what I outlined earlier on this thread, but that another significant part of readers doesn't any longer apprehend the shades and nuances of meaning conveyed by this distinction between the two tenses.

Edit before hitting the "submit reply" button (since Bernd's latest posting just came in): in this case, your view is identical with mine. It's most probably still aching, so relevant for the present moment, hence Perfekt.


----------



## berndf

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> …in this case, your view is identical with mine. It's most probably still aching, so relevant for the present moment, hence Perfekt.


But this is not the reason. The reason is that the aspect is static and not dynamic, i.e. context not narrative, i.e. we are talking about the state of being subjected to drilling and not about the act of drilling. In a narrative context I would prefer Präteritum:
_Zuerst untersuchte er alle Zähne und bei einem bohrte er._


----------



## sokol

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> Almost... I'm not aware of any Austrian dialect using "hoab" for "habe" - it should be "hob" or "hab".


I agree, no Austrian dialects use this particular sound, but some writers use grapheme <oa> for the "o" in "hob"; so probably that's where Bernd got this spelling.


Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> And perhaps we should also mention that the dialect subjunctive is actually rare, that's almost theoretical. In real life, "ich sähe" is "i tat sengn" ("täte" is the Austrian dialect equivalent to "würde").


On a sidenote, yes, true again, but in rural dialects the old Konjunktiv forms are still widely used; "sag" (for "sähe") is quite rare, same goes for "frass" (= "frässe"), but others are still common ("gab" for "gäbe").



Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> So his position of yesterday is really just of historical importance, and he tells us so from the very start of his text - and just by the use of Präteritum instead of (what we - at least: what I - would expect) Perfekt, without any further hints.


Now _*does*_ he, did he _*really*_ intend this by use of Präteritum, and _*if*_ he did (which of course is perfectly possible as there are still Northerners who seem to use more or less consistently Präteritum to "mean" something not related to the present), how many of his readers did understeand this when reading the sentence at first?

The answer is: nobody of the readers of this thread, obviously, at least not at first sight (not even you, and you were the only one who knew the full context); and probably not many readers of his blog overall, be they German or Austrian or Swiss.

So I just wanted to point out, again, that I don't see much use in holding up a norm which never was used consistently throughout the whole German speaking area and which nowadays seems to be in constant decline.


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

sokol said:


> (not even you, and you were the only one who knew the full context)


Well actually, I did. Just after what we had discussed here, I thought it was impossible that my interpretation was right for a northern German. But if I hadn't searched and found Olsberg's text in the particular context of this thread, everything would have gone smoothly: he uses Imperfekt, and I conclude he is telling me about a position that he shares no more, even if it's his position of yesterday.


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

And one more thing, sokol, which I obviously failed to make clear all the time: I don't want to "hold up a norm" (I'm not nearly as prescriptive as you seem to think). I'm just convinced that you need to know the norm, or you won't be able to understand (a great number of) texts with all the nuances that are to be found there. And what's more, I also think that you're depriving yourself, in your own use of (written) language, of one of the subtlest instruments of nuancing the expression that German grammar is offering. So it's not about "right" or "wrong"; it's about understanding (every shade) or not, and about exploiting the potential of delicate expressions that German grammar is so full of.


----------



## sokol

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> I'm just convinced that you need to know the norm, or you won't be able to understand (a great number of) texts with all the nuances that are to be found there.


And my point is that you cannot hold up which does not exist.

And that you couldn't possibly deprive yourself of a valuable means of expressing meanings if hardly anybody is capable of understanding it.

But we both know that we won't agree on this topic, not if we were going on discussing a further 50 or 100 posts.


----------



## berndf

sokol said:


> I agree, no Austrian dialects use this particular sound, but some writers use grapheme <oa> for the "o" in "hob"; so probably that's where Bernd got this spelling.


Yes, probably. I thought of this after reading Tifoso's correction. The digraph <oa> is probably indicating the dark-a as being in-between <a> and <o> and not indicating a diphthong.




Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> I'm just convinced that you need to know the norm, or you won't be able to understand (a great number of) texts with all the nuances that are to be found there.


The way I see it, the nuances are contained in the context and depending on this context one or the other form is more natural. But the tenses themselves do not contain independent information (any more). Anything else would simply be to prone to misunderstandings. That is why the use of Präteritum and Perfekt is often seen as "stylistic".


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

One more finding that may be interesting for you (though probably only very few non-native German speakers will be able to understand it - sorry, this is truly complicated stuff!): I did some further (final, even I am getting tired of it) research, and found an obviously very famous grammarian (unknown to me so far, since I'm no grammarian at all, just an experienced writer/reader): Harald Weinrich, described as the inventor of textual linguistics (see below).
He has his own, obviously enormously influential theory as to Präsens/Perfekt on the one and Imperfekt/Plusquamperfekt on the other hand, which has the charm of encompassing not just German but also English, Latin, French, Italian, Spanish... the whole world of Indo-European languages, it seems. His monography in question is very simply called "Tempus"; he reflects on the totally improper names of the tenses ("Perfekt", "Imperfekt"), and writes on the specific question of German Perfekt/Imperfekt: "Wir können auch sagen: daß Vergangenheit im Perfekt nicht als perfectum, sondern als imperfectum erscheint. (Im Imperfekt erscheint Vergangenheit als perfectum.) Dabei ist es nicht zwingend nötig, daß der im Verb ausgedrückte Vorgang selber bis in die Gegenwart weiterläuft." (It's on Google Books in large parts, that's where you can read more.) I hope you would agree that this position (Perfekt describes the "imperfect" = not finalized past, while the action delineated by the verb doesn't necessarily have to be going on though; Imperfekt describes the "perfect" = finalized past) is identical with mine, though I've of course not been able to express my thoughts as clearly as he does.
Sokol will argue, no doubt, that just a neglectable number of old-fashioned guys are understanding German that way, but hey, Mr. Weinrich is not just another odd reference , the book in question is "das Gründungsdokument der Textlinguistik" (the founding document of textual linguistics), as Lutz Hagestedt, professor of literature at the Rostock University (and by the way, born 1960 !! in Goslar, northern Germany) says in this text: http://www.literaturkritik.de/public/rezension.php?rez_id=4210&ausgabe=200110, where he explains Weinrich's theory (in a no less complicated way than Weinrich himself, though). So please: I don't doubt what most of you said about the shrinking number of readers who are able to understand it, but please don't doubt, on the other hand, that professional writers (of literature, not of newspaper articles) typically intend their texts to be apprehended the way I've explained it. Yes typically, not just a few or a percentage of them. This is not changed by the sad fact that their intention is obviously proving fruitless towards a - perhaps - large and - quite probably - constantly growing number of readers. Which is interesting enough in itself.


----------



## Sowka

Hello 



Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> And he ends with the highest praise for the Nobel Prize Committee: "Falls das (die Vision einer atomwaffenfreien Welt, Anm. TB) gelingt, war dies vielleicht die klügste Entscheidung, die das Nobelpreiskommittee je getroffen hat." So *his position of yesterday is really just of historical importance*, and *he tells us* so from the very start of his text - and *just by the use of Präteritum* instead of (what we - at least: what I - would expect) Perfekt, without any further hints. (And he uses also Perfekt how I understand it: "...je getroffen hat" - hindsight from our present moment.)


 
I've been pondering on this since yesterday evening and: I don't think so (the part of your text marked bold). I interpret "ich dachte" here not as the whole mindset that he had yesterday and that has changed since (with regard to this particular question), but simply as the immediate mental reaction.

He perceived the news, and a thought popped into his mind. All this is set in the same time frame; that's just natural.

I can say this because the same happened to me.  But my doubts have NOT changed in the meantime, and still I would describe this "ich dachte" as that very singular event at the moment of hearing the news.

So, in my opinion, there's not hidden meaning in the (grammar of the) text. 

In written language I would set the whole thing in Präteritum, and I guess in spoken language I would use Perfekt to describe the (mental) events.

I imagine myself speaking to my colleague on the morning after hearing the news: "Hast Du das gehört von Obama und dem Nobelpreis? Als ich das gehört hab, hab ich gleich gedacht: "Was soll *das* denn?""


----------



## Hutschi

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> I hope you would agree that this position (Perfekt describes the "imperfect" = not finalized past, while the action delineated by the verb doesn't necessarily have to be going on though; Imperfekt describes the "perfect" = finalized past) is identical with mine, though I've of course not been able to express my thoughts as clearly as he does.



I agree that the German names "Perfekt" and "Imperfekt" of the time forms do not properly describe them. 
But I did not learn "Perfect"="finalized path" and imperfect="not finalized path" in school. They related it to the handling at the time of view (Beobachtungszeitpunkt). So in Imperfect the handling was going on when I say: "Ich dachte." They are related to the handling and not to the time itself.

process --- observation time in the past --- process finished --- present time (Imperfekt) 
process finished --- time of description/speach (past or present time) (Perfect)

But strictly speaking, that was what I learned in school and it is superseded by the usage. But it declares why I say "Das hat mich überrascht" and not so often "Das überraschte mich". 

There is another item: Because of "haben" is a verb (Hilfsverb), it may or not may have a meaning on its own.


----------



## berndf

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> … he reflects on the totally improper names of the tenses ("Perfekt", "Imperfekt"), and writes on the specific question of German Perfekt/Imperfekt: "Wir können auch sagen: daß Vergangenheit im Perfekt nicht als perfectum, sondern als imperfectum erscheint.





Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> (Im Imperfekt erscheint Vergangenheit als perfectum.) Dabei ist es nicht zwingend nötig, daß der im Verb ausgedrückte Vorgang selber bis in die Gegenwart weiterläuft." (It's on Google Books in large parts, that's where you can read more.)


I totally agree, "Imperfekt" is a misleading term in German which is therefore rejected by most grammarians today. You won't find this term in any of my previous posts in this thread. In Latin grammar it describes a past action which was not yet completed at a reference point in time. In German this combination of tense and aspect *does not exist*. In English the Latin/Romance imperfect roughly corresponds to the past continuous ("He was reading [imperfective action in the past] a book when she entered [reference point in time] the room").

The Classical Latin perfect could mean one of two things: A terminated action in the past (past-perfective, preterite) *or* a present state caused by a completed past action (perfect). Late Latin developed a composite verb form to separate the perfect from the perfective aspect. This Late Latin verb form is most likely the origin of the English present perfect *and* the German Perfekt. The precise demarcations between these aspects are slightly different in English and German but the basic meaning of the differentiation is the same.

I still have the impression that there is a slight misconception on you part as to what these aspects express: It is important to notice that the perfect aspect is a property of the sentence and what it tries to convey and not of reality itself. The choice of preterite or perfect does not depend on whether or not the leg is still broken or whether or not the teeth still hurt. The choice depends on what you are talking about, whether you are talking about the past *event or action* of breaking a leg or drilling or whether you are talking about to *state* of your leg still being in plaster or your teeth still hurting or your teeth being in such a poor state that the dentist had to drill.


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

Sowka, you may be interested in browsing Weinrich's book: http://books.google.at/books?id=MdY...&dq=weinrich+tempus&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false. Of course I accept that you would use Präteritum even if your opinion hasn't changed since, but in this case, myself (which admittedly is of limited relevance) and Weinrich (had I known him before, I'd never have attempted to explain it myself) don't think your use of Präteritum is German standard language.

Hutschi, I guess it's just a typo, but as it is, your post appears as if you've got Weinrich wrong: he says Perfekt is describing the NOT finalized ("imperfect") past, and Imperfekt the finalized ("perfect") past. Totally paradoxical, thus.



berndf said:


> The choice of preterite or perfect does not depend on whether or not the leg is still broken or whether or not the teeth still hurt. The choice depends on what you are talking about, whether you are talking about the past *event or action* of breaking a leg or drilling or whether you are talking about to *state* of your leg still being in plaster or your teeth still hurting or your teeth being in such a poor state that the dentist had to drill.


Bernd, about that, you may be right or not, I'm honestly not enough of a grammarian to judge it. But I think this is a less fundamental difference than the ones we've already been discussing on this thread. Perhaps it would make sense if we all read Weinrich's book, and came back to this thread afterwards - it would probably make our discussion both easier and better funded.



berndf said:


> In English the Latin/Romance imperfect roughly corresponds to the past continuous ("He was reading a book when she entered [reference point in time] the room").


Just one word from a former Latin teacher (yes, unfortunately: myself): while you're describing Latin perfect perfectly , the meaning of Latin imperfect is different: 1. long-lasting actions or conditions in the past, 2. repeated actions in the past, 3. attempted actions in the past (which is making it sort of a subjunctive - a meaning that's driving Latin learners mad, but is still preserved in modern Italian grammar). The reference to continuous/not continuous is English grammar, not Latin.


----------



## Hutschi

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> Hutschi, I guess it's just a typo, but as it is, your post appears as if you've got Weinrich wrong: he says Perfekt is describing the NOT finalized ("imperfect") past, and Imperfekt the finalized ("perfect") past. Totally paradoxical, thus.



I got this, but I wanted to say that I learned it (almost) the other way around in school. 

But Weinreich compares the times to the present time if I understand it right, and in school we learned it (Berndf explained it similarly) compared to a reference point in the past. As least the quotation gave no reference point. 

Basically they taught as if German is Latin. But it isn't.

(There are more such thing based on Latin: the case system is oriented on the Latin system.)


----------



## ABBA Stanza

berndf said:


> I still have the impression that there is a slight misconception on you part as to what these aspects express: It is important to notice that the perfect aspect is a property of the sentence and what it tries to convey and not of reality itself. The choice of preterite or perfect does not depend on whether or not the leg is still broken or whether or not the teeth still hurt. The choice depends on what you are talking about, whether you are talking about the past *event or action* of breaking a leg or drilling or whether you are talking about to *state* of your leg still being in plaster or your teeth still hurting or your teeth being in such a poor state that the dentist had to drill.





Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> Bernd, about that, you may be right or not, I'm honestly not enough of a grammarian to judge it. But I think this is a less fundamental difference than the ones we've already been discussing on this thread. Perhaps it would make sense if we all read Weinrich's book ...


I must admit, I haven't read the book. However, from what I've seen from the excerpts so far, there doesn't seem to be much of a difference between Bernd's and Weinrich's views. Note, however, that Bernd didn't refer to the "perfect tense", but rather to the "perfect aspect". Thus:

event or action = finalized past -> "imperfect" aspect
state = unfinalized past (not necessarily extending into the present) -> perfect aspect

I think this distinction between aspect and tense is important. These aspects and the notions of "finalized" and "unfinalized" past are linguistic concepts that can be generically applied to a multitude of languages. As such, scholars can refer to these concepts independently of how these concepts are mapped to real tenses and constructs in current idiomatic language.

In terms of modern colloquial German, these mappings appear to me to be roughly as follows:

"imperfect" aspect -> Präteritum, Perfect
perfect aspect -> Perfect

In other words, the use of the Perfect tense provides no clues as to whether the "imperfect" or perfect aspect was intended. As already mentioned, this situation arises from the fact that natives from many southern regions generally shun the Präteritum. In addition, even natives from northern Germany will often avoid the Präteritum for a particular verb if it sounds too clumsy.

On the other hand, the use of the Präteritum does provide the information that the "imperfect" aspect was intended. This itself could be an argument for using it. However, not using it (and thus not providing this information) does not make the Perfect "wrong" (in my book), just arguably less suitable.

Cheers,
Abba


----------



## berndf

ABBA Stanza said:


> In terms of modern colloquial German, these mappings appear to me to be roughly as follows:
> 
> "imperfect" aspect -> Präteritum, Perfect
> perfect aspect -> Perfect
> 
> In other words, the use of the Perfect tense provides no clues as to whether the "imperfect" or perfect aspect was intended. As already mentioned, this situation arises from the fact that natives from many southern regions generally shun the Präteritum. In addition, even natives from northern Germany will often avoid the Präteritum for a particular verb if it sounds too clumsy.
> 
> On the other hand, the use of the Präteritum does provide the information that the "imperfect" aspect was intended. This itself could be an argument for using it. However, not using it (and thus not providing this information) does not make the Perfect "wrong" (in my book), just arguably less suitable.


For me this sum it up rather nicely.


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

Abba, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. And I'm not sure whether you've got Weinrich right (but this is perhaps due to MY possible misapprehension of your post). Weinrich is clearly attributing those aspects to German tenses, and he says that, paradoxically, the "imperfect aspect" is being expressed by Perfekt (the tense!), and the "perfect aspect" by Imperfekt (= Präteritum, but the paradoxical play on words is of course working far better if we stick to the totally improper "old" term "Imperfekt").
Again, I'm not sure whether I'm understanding well what you are saying, but your guess as to modern colloquial German is precisely contrary to Weinrich's (and my) definition. Which may be true for many German speakers, that's what results from the discussion on this thread.

Edit: Weinrich's and my view is of course only true for written language, let me stress that once more.


----------



## berndf

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> Just one word from a former Latin teacher (yes, unfortunately: myself): while you're describing Latin perfect perfectly , the meaning of Latin imperfect is different: 1. long-lasting actions or conditions in the past, 2. repeated actions in the past, 3. attempted actions in the past (which is making it sort of a subjunctive - a meaning that's driving Latin learners mad, but is still preserved in modern Italian grammar). The reference to continuous/not continuous is English grammar, not Latin.


Fascinating topic. In my understanding, past continuous "he was reading" is included in your "1." (cf. here). I'd love to continue this discussion at an appropriate place (maybe in an EHL thread).

The important thing here is to note that we agree there is no "imperfect" in German, whatever it might express in Latin or any modern Romance language.


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

...or that, IF there is such a thing as "imperfect" in German, it's expressed by the tense that's wrongly called "Perfekt".


----------



## berndf

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> Abba, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. And I'm not sure whether you've got Weinrich right (but this is perhaps due to MY possible misapprehension of your post). Weinrich is clearly attributing those aspects to German tenses, and he says that, paradoxically, the "imperfect aspect" is being expressed by Perfekt (the tense!), and the "perfect aspect" by Imperfekt (= Präteritum, but the paradoxical play on words is of course working far better if we stick to the totally improper "old" term "Imperfekt").
> Again, I'm not sure whether I'm understanding well what you are saying, but your guess as to modern colloquial German is precisely contrary to Weinrich's (and my) definition. Which may be true for many German speakers, that's what results from the discussion on this thread.


When you say "imperfect aspect" you refer to a grammatic concept and its meaning. When you say "Imperfekt" you refer to a verb form (=conjugation scheme) in a given language (here German), independently of its meaning or funtion.


----------



## berndf

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> ...or that, IF there is such a thing as "imperfect" in German, it's expressed by the tense that's wrongly called "Perfekt".


I don't quit see what you have in mind. Could you give me an example where the German Perfekt conveys an imperfective meaning (long lasting, repetitive or habitual action in the past), *if* properly distinguished from Präteritum?


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

No, Bernd, not in this sense. In this sense, we don't differ. (I was intending "imperfect" just in the sense of Weinrich's definition: not finalized, such as your broken leg still in the plaster.)


----------



## Hutschi

After we discussed many aspects of the past, I want to give a hint to the present tense:

There is a special polite form using the "Präteritum" form:

If somebody asks you "Wie war Ihr Name?" he does not suspect you changed it. He means "Wie heißen Sie?"

At the phone: "Wie war gleich Ihr Name?" (As you see in context, it is spoken language.)
The waitress asks: "Wem gehörte die Jacke?"

(In extreme cases: "Wer war das Schnitzel?" = "Wem soll ich das Schnitzel bringen?" - Bastian Sick gave a lot of such examples.)

In both cases it does not *mean *past tense but present tense. As far as I see it, Perfekt tense can not be used this way. (I'm not sure. "Wie ist gleich Ihr Name gewesen?" ? )

This way "Präteritum" can have a present meaning.

Is this wide spread and what does the grammarians say to this form?

A similar form expresses curiosity. 
The past of curiosity is about the future: "Wann war doch gleich der Start?" (Here Perfekt is not possible in this sense, I think.)


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

berndf said:


> When you say "imperfect aspect" you refer to a grammatic concept and its meaning. When you say "Imperfekt" you refer to a verb form (=conjugation scheme) in a given language (here German), independently of its meaning or funtion.


 
Yes, but as I said ABBAve, Weinrich is actually mapping those aspects to German tenses, and he does it vice versa: perfect (as in "finalized") aspect = Imperfekt tense, imperfect (as in "not finalized") aspect = Perfekt tense.


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

Hutschi, since this is, as you said, spoken language, we are of course using Perfekt in the same sense in Austria: Wem hat die Jacke da gehört?
I don't agree, though, that this is a total equivalent to present tense. The point is you've told your name before, and the person at the other end didn't memorize it or didn't understand it properly. That's why s/he doesn't ask "wie ist Ihr Name?" (s/he would ask that if you had not told it before) but "wie war er?" in the sense of "was war das noch einmal, was Sie mir vorher gesagt haben?"

Edit: and yes, in written language, I would consider the use of Präteritum in this sense and situation German (as in German German) dialect. The procedure of A telling B his name by phone is not yet finalized, hence it had to be Perfekt in written standard language.


----------



## Hutschi

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> Hutschi, since this is, as you said, spoken language, we are of course using Perfekt in the same sense in Austria: Wem hat die Jacke da gehört?
> I don't agree, though, that this is a total equivalent to present tense. The point is you've told your name before, and the person at the other end didn't memorize it or didn't understand it properly. That's why s/he doesn't ask "wie ist Ihr Name?" (s/he would ask that if you had not told it before) but "wie war er?" in the sense of "was war das noch einmal, was Sie mir vorher gesagt haben?"



You are right, it was only a rough translation. I did not tell all connotations. I meant it is about the "Gegenwart" (in a lax sense). 
Of course it can be written, but we consider written dialogues as spoken language, don't we?

PS: How can I describe in English whether I mean the grammatical form "present tense" or the time "present tense"?


----------



## berndf

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> Yes, but as I said ABBAve, Weinrich is actually mapping those aspects to German tenses, and he does it vice versa: perfect (as in "finalized") aspect = Imperfekt tense, imperfect (as in "not finalized") aspect = Perfekt tense.


I think he means the perfect*ive* and not the perfect aspect. The terminology can be quite confusing at times.



Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> No, Bernd, not in this sense. In this sense, we don't differ. (I was intending "imperfect" just in the sense of Weinrich's definition: not finalized, such as your broken leg still in the plaster.)


I see.


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

berndf said:


> I think he means the perfect*ive* and not the perfect aspect. The terminology can be quite confusing at times.


You are perfectly right, Bernd, that's what he meant, and that's what I meant, too. My knowledge of linguistics wasn't simply good enough for that distinction, I had never heard of it. So please understand everything I posted recently about "imperfect aspect" and "perfect aspect" as "imperfective aspect" and "perfective aspect", respectively. Sorry to add to the confusion you mentioned.


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

Hutschi said:


> PS: How can I describe in English whether I mean the grammatical form "present tense" or the time "present tense"?


This is of course a question for ABBA, but I would say "present tense" vs. "present moment".


----------



## sokol

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> Harald Weinrich - Tempus:
> "Wir können auch sagen: daß Vergangenheit im Perfekt nicht als perfectum, sondern als imperfectum erscheint. (Im Imperfekt erscheint Vergangenheit als perfectum.) Dabei ist es nicht zwingend nötig, daß der im Verb ausgedrückte Vorgang selber bis in die Gegenwart weiterläuft."


Oh but I never doubted that some grammarians think that this is the adequate and correct normative description of German tenses.  I know that this view exists, you can even find it in (some) German textbooks and grammars.
(Also I don't think that Weinrich means it this strictly but I couldn't be sure, I've only read a few paragraphs of it on Google books.)

The problem is that I don't think they are right - first and foremost they're oversimplificating, it isn't perfectly correct to claim that Perfekt is for actions still relevant to the present (be they finished or not; like Iberian Spanish pretérito perfecto) while Präteritum is for things which definitely happened in the past (like Spanish tenses imperfecto and indefinido as used in Iberian Spanish).

I can offer some examples from _Andreu Castell, Gramática de la lengua alemana_ (a quite extensive German grammar written for Spanish learners, and comparing with Spanish tenses as used in Spain).
It says there on page 119 that while in dialogues Perfekt is used (vs. Spanish indefinido), in narratives it is Präteritum, and some sample sentences make quite clear that this is true and that Präteritum is not an option even though the action definitely belongs to the past (quoting now):
_- Was hast du nach dem Krieg gemacht? 
- Ich habe zuerst zwei Jahre lang als Kellner gearbeitet._
In narrative this clearly would be Präteritum (quoting again):
_- Nach dem Krieg arbeitete er zuerst zwei Jahre lang als Kellner._
(Obviously the questions "was ... gemacht" has no place in the narrative except as indirect speech in Konjunktiv, like: "Er fragte, was er nach dem Krieg gemacht habe, und bekam zur Antowort, er habe/hätte ...")

So why not a tempus of "the >distant<past" (that is: Präteritum) is used in German dialogues but one of "past still >present<"? That'd be a clear violation of this rule would one try to stick to it. In Spanish a tempus of the past indeed is used - in the Spanish sentence indefinido is used, even in dialogues.

But of course you also find in this grammar examples where Präteritum is paralleled with Spanish indefinido/imperfecto and Perfekt with Spanish pretérito perfecto.

In Spanish it is very important not to mix up "distant" past and "past which is still present", or more precisely: in Iberian Spanish it is while in American Spanish indefinido may be used in cases when Spaniards would prefer pretérito perfecto.

But in German no such distinction exists: not in the same way, not as sharp as in Iberian Spanish - not even for Northerners I think (of course I will accept if Northerners correct me, this is just my opinion, also by judgement of what was written so far in this thread ).

Romance languages (except for French and northern Italian dialects) still distinguish sharply between both "kinds of" path, and so do Bulgarian and Macedonian in Slavic languages.
But Germanic languages lost this already at Common Germanic stage (which too has been mentioned already), and the similar distinction which developped between Perfekt and Imperfekt in northern Germany is not exactly parallel to the same system in Romance languages.

In Spanish you can indeed set some event apart from the present on _*purpose*_ if you use indefinido (instead of pretértio perfecto); but in German this does not work - or only a small minority*) at most would understand such an attempt as such.
*) That is, a small minority even if we're only speaking of Northern Germany. Let alone the rest of the German speaking region.

Also it is important that we don't mix this up with Aspekt (aspect) and Aktionsart (for that see Wiki; English uses the German term, or also lexical aspect which however may mislead to misinterpret this as aspect) - neither is (technically speaking) relevant here.

There is no parallel for Slavic aspect in any one Romance or Germanic language, aspect also exists independently from time in Slavic (which is exploited extensively by Macedonian and Bulgarian, both of whom have a fully developed aspect system as well as past tenses "of the present" and past tenses "of the past").
Of course people always are mislead to think of Slavic perfective aspect as something similar to Spanish indefinido but I can assure you that this is not the case: you'd get awfully wrong translations if you tried to replace indefinido by perfective aspect. But this post is long enough as it is, and it's anyway leading off-topic (and also there are discussions about this very same topic in Slavic forum already).

And Aktionsart is something different: Aktionsart actually is the closest you probably get to Slavic aspect but still significantly different: it is the difference between "blühen" - durative and "erblühen" - inchoative, etc.; while Slavic perfective aspect in a verb may make clear that an action has been completed while in imperfective aspect it is left unsaid whether an action has been completed or not - completion is irrelevant with imperfective aspect.
But that's only a tiny aspect of Slavic aspect (and excuse the pun), I'm only explaining this to make clear that neither Aktionsart nor aspect are, strictly speaking, to the definition of Präteritum and Perfekt.

So let's put aside that probably no significant percentage of German native speakers (say, more than 10% which I doubt) were using Perfekt and Präteritum consistently in formal written language to mean different things (I don't doubt that a huge percentage of Northerners use both Perfekt and Präteritum - my doubt is about their consistency ), and that even many teachers of German language are incapable of consistantly using any "clear-cut" rules as formulated by grammarians.

(And also we'd better put aside Aspekt and Aktionsart here as this might confuse the situation unnecessarily.)


*If we only consider the use of formal standard language by those who have mastered some consistency in distinguishing Perfekt and Präteritum by meaning* (and not by style, as is the case in Switzerland, Austria and a good part of Southern Germany at least, and of course I'm talking about formal standard language here) it is still impossible to clearly distinguish Perfekt as the "tense of anything which still has relevance to the present" while Präteritum were the "tense which strictly refers to the past".

As Bernd said:


berndf said:


> The choice depends on what you are talking about, whether you are talking about the past *event or action* of breaking a leg or drilling or whether you are talking about to *state* of your leg still being in plaster or your teeth still hurting or your teeth being in such a poor state that the dentist had to drill. [/FONT][/COLOR]


This is interesting: so in narrative mood (say, we're interviewing a football player) it would be Präteritum:
(A) "Letzte Saison war ich kaum im Einsatz, da brach ich mir ja schon in der dritten Runde den Fuss, aber diese Saison war richtig gut!"
(I still think that even Northerners might say here "habe ... gebrochen", or if they didn't then "hatte ... gebrochen" which I would consider grammatically incorrect in this case. The action is completed and part of the past either way.)
But Perfekt if referring in some way to the present:
(B) "Diese Saison bin ich ja kaum im Einsatz gewesen, ich habe mir schon in der dritten Runde den Fuss gebrochen." (He's still in plaster, or if he's playing already then still hasn't found his form, so still his broken leg is of relevance to the present.)

Sentence (A) would be incorrect in Spanish if you use pretérito perfecto = more or less Perfekt. If Northerners would consider Präteritum being not only idiomatic but the only correct choice if you want to give this exact meaning (that is, you need to use Präteritum else people would think you're still in plaster) then I'm inclined to accept that such a rule as suggested by Tifoso could exist; however, I'm doubting this.
In sentence (B) I think you could use both pretérito perfecto = "Perfekt" in Spanish (which however would strongly emphasise that you're still in plaster) and indefinido = to be paralleled with Präteritum (this would emphasise that he's playing again, that the broken leg is past tense for him literally). Again, if it were clear by using of Perfekt alone that you're still in plaster (or at least not fully recovered) I would accept „Tifoso's rule“, but again, I doubt it: I think the use of Perfekt, even for Northerners, wouldn't rule out the option that you've recovered fully already.

(And sorry for only picking a few statements out of the last posts but my answer is too long already as it is.)


----------



## berndf

sokol said:


> This is interesting: so in narrative mood (say, we're interviewing a football player) it would be Präteritum:
> (A) "Letzte Saison war ich kaum im Einsatz, da brach ich mir ja schon in der dritten Runde den Fuss, aber diese Saison war richtig gut!"
> (I still think that even Northerners might say here "habe ... gebrochen", or if they didn't then "hatte ... gebrochen" which I would consider grammatically incorrect in this case. The action is completed and part of the past either way.)
> But Perfekt if referring in some way to the present:
> (B) "Diese Saison bin ich ja kaum im Einsatz gewesen, ich habe mir schon in der dritten Runde den Fuss gebrochen." (He's still in plaster, or if he's playing already then still hasn't found his form, so still his broken leg is of relevance to the present.)


Yes, and I would use "hatte ... gebrochen"... (plus there is a high chance I might call "Bein" what you call "Fuss", but that is a different matter).


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

This discussion is still growing better  - thank you for this extraordinarily interesting post, and allow me to pick out just few points, as well.


sokol said:


> ...they're oversimplificating...


Granted, and so did I, but you have to admit I said from the very beginning that I was going to simplify. Of course it's valuable to add and discuss all qualifications, exceptions and deviations, but if you want to explain a rule, a certain amount of simplification is indispensable. Just about every aspect of every language is too complex to be expressed in a rule without any simplification. As for the blurred lines between the two tenses, we've been discussing them broadly on this thread. So the question, for me, is whether the (necessarily simplified) rule contains a valid explanation or not, and not the simplification itself.



sokol said:


> It says there on page 119 that while in dialogues Perfekt is used (vs. Spanish indefinido), in narratives it is Präteritum, and some sample sentences make quite clear that this is true and that Präteritum is not an option even though the action definitely belongs to the past (quoting now):
> _- Was hast du nach dem Krieg gemacht? _
> _- Ich habe zuerst zwei Jahre lang als Kellner gearbeitet._
> (...)
> So why not a tempus of "the >distant<past" (that is: Präteritum) is used in German dialogues but one of "past still >present<"? That'd be a clear violation of this rule would one try to stick to it.


I think we agree that the present moment for which a past action/condition has to be relevant in order to be expressed in Perfekt is not OUR present moment, but the present moment of the speaker. Even "my rule" would do the job of explaining why Perfekt is being used in this direct speech: I imagine the two persons didn't meet since the war, so they're about to fill the gap of information, to recount their lives *up to the present moment*. So no violation of the rule.
But not very surprisingly, "Weinrich's rule" does the job even better: if you read Hagestedt's explanatory article to which I've linked on the last page, you'll see that Weinrich, obviously, deduces from his basic "Perfekt is not finalized past and Präteritum is finalized past" rule that Präsens and Perfekt represent "gespanntes Reden" about the past (may we call them the "intense tenses"  in English?), Präteritum and Plusquamperfekt, on the other hand, "entspanntes Reden" (the "laid back tenses", perhaps). So if it really matters to the two persons of the dialogue, Perfekt is used. Remember, it may be as distant as possible - it doesn't need to go on, just to be of any importance for the present moment, more precisely: for the speaker at his/her present moment. Not for the author who may write about it 40 years later, and not for the reader who may read about it 220 years later.



sokol said:


> Again, if it were clear by using of Perfekt alone that you're still in plaster (or at least not fully recovered) I would accept „Tifoso's rule“, but again, I doubt it...


Let me add that while it might be considered flattering for me that you are calling it "Tifoso's rule", it might also be somewhat diminutive for the rule; I'm only the last and the least person who phrased a rule of (roughly) the same content - it might be more appropriate to call it "Weinrich's rule", or at least, if we're not sure enough about Weinrich before really reading his book, "Hans Weigel's rule". This is to say that I'm not as important as the term "Tifoso's rule" might imply; and not as lonely on my position as it might imply, too.


----------



## thomas9

*Moderator note: Merged threads.

*I know that the simple past (ich saß) is used more in writing than ich habe gesessen.  In Bavaria, where I study, I have heard that it is almost always ich habe gemacht instead of the simple past, ich machte (ect.).

My question is, if someone (in Bavaria especially) is telling a story, should one use the simple past in order to shorten the sentences or always use the imperfect?
For example:
I went to the store, and on the train I sat next to a girl.  Then as I was shopping, I saw her again.

Is it:
Ich bin zum Laden geganen, und in der Ubahn habe ich neben einem Mädel gesessen.  Dann als ich eingekauft habe, habe ich sie noch mal gesehen

OR

Ich bin zum Laden gegangen, und in der Ubahn saß ich neben einem Mädel.
Dann, als ich einkaufte, habe ich sie noch mal gesehen  

THANKS


----------



## Tifoso Bonisolli

In spoken language, in Bavaria and Austria, Perfekt only... You may want to read this long but interesting thread, all the answers you're looking for are to be found here already.


----------



## Alaedious

Tifoso Bonisolli said:


> If you're asking about *spoken* language, the Austrian standard version would be "Ich habe gewusst, dass sein Vater trinkt", the past being indicated by Perfekt (since we have no Präteritum in spoken language here), the present tense in the clause indicating that it happened at the same level of time as the main clause (it was then, when I knew it, present reality).


 
So, Tifoso, in spoken Austrian German, one wouldn't say "Ich habe gewusst, dass sein Vater *getrunken hat*"? 

The mere fact that one begins the sentence with "Ich habe gewusst" lets the speaker know that they're talking about the past?


----------



## chrisabraham

I have stumbled into gold in this site and this topic.  What I have discovered in exploring and considering all of your words is that maybe the German "past tense" in modern, spoken, German -- and even in written German -- is less complicated than English's.  I believe the confusion here -- and why this thread is both so long with twins elsewhere -- is that we're unwilling to let go of the nuance and complexity of both French past and English past and just accept that the past, in German, has lest to do with grammar form, necessarily, and more to do with context and sentence structure.  That said, I am new here and may very well have either misinterpreted or maybe even put words in your mouths.


----------



## sokol

Alaedious said:


> So, Tifoso, in spoken Austrian German, one wouldn't say "Ich habe gewusst, dass sein Vater *getrunken hat*"?
> 
> The mere fact that one begins the sentence with "Ich habe gewusst" lets the speaker know that they're talking about the past?


Well, both sentences have different _*nuances*_ meanings, in spoken German; here the one from Tifoso:

- Ich habe gewusst, dass sein Vater _*trinkt*_.

Here everyone would think that his father is well and alive, and that the "Ich-Erzähler" knew that all the time (or for a long time at least).

And then the other one:

- Ich habe gewusst, dass sein Vater _*getrunken hat*_.

Now here another interpretation is more likely: the one that the father is already dead (without indicating whatsoever whether his drinking habit had anything to do with it or not), and that the "Ich-Erzähler" knew that all the time; or _alternatively_ that his father is alive and well but that he's clean now, and no longer drinking.
So this sentence indicates that the drinking habit is terminated (not continued, something of the past), while the former suggests that the habit hasn't been interrupted.

Actually, I do not even know _exactly_ how those nuances could or should be given in standard German - I guess that in Germany "trinkt" would be rendered with Perfekt ("getrunken hat"), and that "getrunken hat" should be "trank": but I could be wrong.


----------

