# ist geboren  (referring to dead people)



## Deleted721968

I would have thought that, when referring to dead people, one should use either "_war geboren_" or "_wurde geboren_".

By my current textbook, "Basic German : a grammar and workbook" Heiner Schenke, uses "_ist geboren_" for famous dead people:

- _Martin Luther ist am 10. November 1483 in Eisleben geboren.
_
Is this an alternative accepted construction or does it convey a completely different meaning?


----------



## JClaudeK

Es gibt schon eine Diskussion zu diesem Thema: geboren (sein, werden; Vergangenheit) 

Ich schließe mich dieser ↓ Aussage an: 


Schimmelreiter said:


> Zustandspassiv _(bin) _vs. Vorgangspassiv _(wurde). _Zur Angabe des Geburtsdatums dient meist das Zustandspassiv: _Wann sind Sie geboren?_


----------



## bearded

....und in dem von JClaudeK verlinkten Thread beachte bitte insbesondere #5:



> ... aber wenn man von Verstorbenen spricht, heißt es stets
> "... wurde am ... in ... geboren".


----------



## Deleted721968

Thanks.


----------



## JClaudeK

bearded said:


> beachte bitte insbesondere #5:
> ... aber wenn man von Verstorbenen spricht, heißt es stets
> "... wurde am ... in ... geboren".


bearded hat recht, hier geht es ja um dieses ↑ Thema (das hatte ich nicht genug im Auge behalten).

Eine Bestätigung findest Du hier


> Soll man schreiben: _Lessing war geboren, Lessing wurde geboren_ oder _Lessing ist geboren_? Alle drei Ausdrucksweisen kommen vor. Aber merkwürdigerweise am häufigsten die falsche! _Er ist geboren_ — das kann man doch vernünftigerweise nur von dem sagen, der noch lebt.
> Am Anfang einer Lebensbeschreibung aber kann es doch vernünftigerweise nur heißen: _er war_ oder _er wurde geboren_; mit *wurde *versetze ich mich — was das natürlichste ist — an den Anfang des Lebenslaufs meines Helden, mit _war_ versetze ich mich mitten hinein.



"Schenke *war ..... *geboren" würde ich nicht sagen, das finde ich seltsam.


----------



## Demiurg

JClaudeK said:


> Eine Bestätigung findest Du hier.


Na, ja. Quelle: Wustmann (*1903*): Allerhand Sprachdummheiten.



> Alle drei Ausdrucksweisen kommen vor. Aber merkwürdigerweise am häufigsten die falsche! _Er ist geboren_ — das kann man doch vernünftigerweise nur von dem sagen, der noch lebt.


So, so. Die am häufigsten vorkommende Form ist also falsch, weil sie dem Herrn Wurstmann nicht gefällt. 



JClaudeK said:


> "Schenke *war ..... *geboren" würde ich nicht sagen, das finde ich seltsam.


Eben. Das Buch ist über hundert Jahre alt.


----------



## JClaudeK

Demiurg said:


> Na, ja. Quelle: Wustmann (*1903*): Allerhand Sprachdummheiten.
> So, so. Die am häufigsten vorkommende Form ist also falsch, weil sie dem Herrn Wurstmann nicht gefällt.


1903:  Ups, das war mir entgangen.

Was empfiehlst _Du_ denn? "*ist* oder *wurde *geboren"?


----------



## Gernot Back

JClaudeK said:


> Was empfiehlst _Du_ denn? "*ist* oder *wurde *geboren"?


Warum sollte man bei einem toten Menschen plötzlich wieder mehr auf den Geburts*vorgang* (mit allem blutigen Drum-und-Dran) fokussieren als auf den Zustand, (irgendwann einmal) geboren (gewesen) zu sein? Stimmt da möglicherweise grundsätzlich etwas nicht mit der Definition von Vorgangs- und Zustandspassiv?

Wie wäre es, bei einem Toten von "_er *war* _[_in einem bestimmten Jahr_]_ geboren_" (Vorvergangenheit) zu sprechen?


----------



## JClaudeK

Deine Abneigung gegen das (vermeintliche) "auf_den_blutigen_Geburts*vorgang*_fokussiert_sein" hast Du ja schon im anderen Thread zur Genüge zum Ausdruck gebracht ....



Gernot Back said:


> Wie wäre es, bei einem Toten von "_er *war* _[_in einem bestimmten Jahr_]_ geboren_" (Vorvergangenheit) zu sprechen?





JClaudeK said:


> * "war ..... *geboren" würde ich nicht sagen, das finde ich seltsam.


----------



## Demiurg

Gernot Back said:


> Wie wäre es, bei einem Toten von "_er *war* _[_in einem bestimmten Jahr_]_ geboren_" (Vorvergangenheit) zu sprechen?



Also "war ... geboren" gefällt mir überhaupt nicht.  Das klingt für mich nach "früher war er mal dort geboren, aber heute ist er es nicht mehr".


----------



## Hutschi

Es gibt einen historischen Präsens.
Er ist geboren am 5.7.1780./Besser: Geboren wird er am ...
Schon im Alter von ... besucht er die Grundschule in ...
Usw.


----------



## 1Nosferatu2

castagnaccio said:


> I would have thought that, when referring to dead people, one should use either "_war geboren_" or "_wurde geboren_".
> By my current textbook, "Basic German : a grammar and workbook" Heiner Schenke, uses "_ist geboren_" for famous dead people:
> - _Martin Luther ist am 10. November 1483 in Eisleben geboren._
> Is this an alternative accepted construction or does it convey a completely different meaning?



To me _Martin Luther ist am 10. November 1483 in Eisleben geboren _sounds rather strange. It's not really an alternative accepted construction, nor does it convey a different meaning, it just sounds quite bad to be honest. I would most definitely not use it and I'm a bit surprised that your textbook uses it. As already mentioned, there is what's called "Historisches Präsens", but I wouldn't use that either in this context.

Best way to express this idea (in my opinion), especially when talking about dead people:
_Martin Luther wurde am 10. November 1483 in Eisleben geboren._


----------



## Hutschi

I would use this for living persons, too.
Ich wurde am ... in ... geboren.

This is neutral and idiomatic.

Other versions are possible. They might emphasize certain connotations.


----------



## berndf

castagnaccio said:


> I would have thought that, when referring to dead people, one should use either "_war geboren_" or "_wurde geboren_".


Date and place of birth are properties of a person that do not change with their death. With the _Zustandspassiv_, present tense is more appropriate. It is a timeless _is_ as in _2 is a prime number_. The is also a property, which doesn't change with time.


----------



## Gernot Back

berndf said:


> Date and place of birth are properties of a person that do not change with their death. With the _Zustandspassiv_, present tense is more appropriate. It is a timeless _is_ as in _2 is a prime number_. The is also a property, which doesn't change with time.


But that would exclude the belief in *re*births, which I -as a rationalist- wouldn't mind, however.


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> But that would exclude the belief in *re*births, which I -as a rationalist- wouldn't mind, however.


Still for a Hinduist, souls don't have a date and place of birth. Only an _incarnation_ has and an incarnation's date and place of birth doesn't change with the next incarnation of the same soul either.


----------



## anahiseri

berndf said:


> Date and place of birth are properties of a person that do not change with their death. With the _Zustandspassiv_, present tense is more appropriate. It is a timeless _is_ as in _2 is a prime number_. The is also a property, which doesn't change with time.



I see your point, but then, would you also say
Luther *ist* in Eisleben geboren. Er *ist* ein Mönch.      ?
If his birth is timeless, so are the other features of his life, aren't they?


----------



## bearded

As a non-native German speaker, I must say I'm in favour of the classic and long-established  ''wurde geboren'' (after all, by analogy  when you say in English ''he was born'' you don't think of birth in the sense of the  'childbirth/delivery' process)...
But supposing that Gernot's proposal ''war geboren'' was adopted, how should the date of death be indicated?
_Goethe war 1749 geboren und 1832 gestorben
Goethe war 1749 geboren und starb 1832
Goethe war 1749 geboren und ist 1832 gestorben
Goethe war 1749 geboren und war 1832 gestorben
....??_
And as a native speaker of a Romance language I always found it strange/surprising that Germanic languages should not possess an intransitive verb (like _naître/nascere_) to express such a simple concept as 'zur Welt/ans Licht kommen', but must resort to an (originally) passive verb instead.


----------



## anahiseri

war geboren
is, for me, a Plusquamperfekt that would be used in a specific context:

Er war schon geboren, als seine Eltern heirateten


----------



## anahiseri

bearded said:


> As a non-native German speaker, I must say I'm in favour of the classic and long-established  ''wurde geboren'' (after all, in analogy  when you say in English ''he was born'' you don't think of birth in the sense of the  'childbirth/delivery' process)...
> But supposing that Gernot's proposal ''war geboren'' was adopted, how should the date of death be indicated?
> _Goethe war 1749 geboren und 1832 gestorben
> Goethe war 1749 geboren und starb 1832
> Goethe war 1749 geboren und ist 1832 gestorben
> Goethe war 1749 geboren und war 1832 gestorben
> ....??_



hm.... I have just discovered that 
_Goethe *ist* 1749 geboren und (*ist) *1832 gestorben_
_doesn't sound that bad. . . ._


----------



## anahiseri

anahiseri said:


> I see your point, but then, would you also say
> Luther *ist* in Eisleben geboren. Er *ist* ein Mönch. ?



I have just realized that here I'm mixing perfect and present really.


----------



## διαφορετικός

anahiseri said:


> If his birth is timeless, so iare the other features of his life, aren't they?


Exactly. Because Martin Luther has died, I would not say (maybe except if using the "historisches Präsens"):
"Martin Luther ist braunhaarig"
"Martin Luther ist geboren am ..."
I would rather say:
"Martin Luther war braunhaarig"
"Martin Luther wurde geboren am ..."

The phrase "Martin Luther war geboren am ..." may also be correct, but I don't find it appropriate.


----------



## berndf

anahiseri said:


> I see your point, but then, would you also say
> Luther *ist* in Eisleben geboren. Er *ist* ein Mönch.      ?
> If his birth is timeless, so are the other features of his life, aren't they?


Being born sometime somewhere is an immutable property, being a monk not, as the example of Luther shows.


----------



## διαφορετικός

anahiseri said:


> I have just realized that here I'm mixing perfect and present really.


No, "ist geboren" is not perfect, it is "Zustandspassiv".


----------



## berndf

διαφορετικός said:


> "Martin Luther wurde geboren am ..."


This is Vorgangspassiv. The sentence is certainly correct, idiomatic and meaningful but it doesn't mean the same.

*If* you would use _is geboren_ rather than _wurde  geboren_ in a certain context for a living person, I see no reason why tenses should change after the person's death.


----------



## bearded

διαφορετικός said:


> No, "ist geboren" is not perfect, it is "Zustandspassiv"



'Zustandspassiv' is not a verbal tense. Did you mean ''it is not perfect, it is present''?  If so, it would not be suitable for translating ''he was born''.


----------



## berndf

bearded said:


> 'Zustandspassiv' is not a verbal tense. Did you mean ''it is not perfect, it is present''?  If so, it would not be suitable for translating ''he was born''.


_Ist geboren_ has two possible syntactic interpretations: _Aktiv Perfekt _and _Zustandspassiv Präsens_. @anahiseri had confused the two and @διαφορετικός pointed that out to her.


----------



## διαφορετικός

berndf said:


> This is Vorgangspassiv. The sentence is certainly correct, idiomatic and meaningful but it doesn't mean the same.
> 
> *If* you would use _is geboren_ rather than _wurde  geboren_ in a certain context for a living person, I see no reason why tenses should change after the person's death.


Well, maybe there is no official rule for that. But when I speak about an object which does not exist any longer, I do not use the present tense to describe its properties:
"I have eaten an apple. That apple was a fruit." rather than "... is a fruit".



bearded said:


> 'Zustandspassiv' is not a verbal tense. Did you mean ''it is not perfect, it is present''?  If so, it would not be suitable for translating ''he was born''.


I should have said: "It is not perfect, it is 'Zustandspassiv' in the present tense." In many cases it might be a suitable translation, because the "Zustandspassiv" in the present is similar in meaning to the perfect of the passive voice.


----------



## anahiseri

I realize that "ist geboren" is a special verb form, but to me it sounds just like 
"er ist gestolpert",  "er ist gekommen", and in fact like "er ist gestorben", which is not Zustandspassiv.
That's why I analyzed it as Perfekt, while "er ist ein Mönch" is obviously Präsens.


----------



## Gernot Back

berndf said:


> _Ist geboren_ has two possible syntactic interpretations: _Aktiv Perfekt _and _Zustandspassiv Präsens_.


I don't see how you could possibly come to the interpretation _Aktiv Perfekt_.
Unlike _sterben_ (intransitive verb of change of state, requiring the auxiliary _sein_ in the Perfekt),_ gebären_ is a transitive verb.

"Er ist gestorben" is _Aktiv Perfekt,_ "er ist geboren" is not; it is simply _Zustandspassiv Präsens_, derived from _Handlungspassiv Perfekt_: "Er ist geboren worden."

_Er ist (qualvoll) gestorben _​
is something slightly different from

_Er ist tot._​
... just as slightly different as _He is seated_ vs. _He is sitting / he sits_.
Cf.: sit at the end of the table


----------



## Hutschi

anahiseri said:


> I realize that "ist geboren" is a special verb form, but to me it sounds just like
> "er ist gestolpert",  "er ist gekommen", and in fact like "er ist gestorben", which is not Zustandspassiv.
> That's why I analyzed it as Perfekt, while "er ist ein Mönch" is obviously Präsens.



Hi, this "Er ist gestorben" can be like "Er ist zur Welt gekommen." It is certainly active. He did it himself. Both show a status (der Prozess (sterben) ist beendet - er ist tot, der Geburtsprozess ist beendet, er existiert von da an).
"Er ist geboren" is similar to "er ist ermordet". It is passive. It shows the status, too. Er ist am Leben. Er ist tot.
"Geboren" is a participle. In school in the first classes we called it also "Mittelwort", (word in the middle between a verb and an adjective).
In "Er ist geboren/gestorben/ermordet" it is more at the side of adjective. Like: Er ist gesund. This is the same in active and passive.

edit: The easiest way would be to interprete it in present tense as Participle in the function of an adjective. This includes all cases. It does not require active or passive.
 I do not know if this works in past tense, too. The participle has properties of adjective and of verb.


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> I don't see how you could possibly come to the interpretation _Aktiv Perfekt_


Yes, and that was her mistake. The interpretation is semantically excluded. But the confusion is understandable because in principle the two forms can be constructed the same way (conjugated form of _sein_ + past participle).


----------



## bearded

Gernot Back said:


> "er ist geboren''..... is simply _Zustandspassiv Präsens_,


Then for translation of ''he was born'' the form you proposed _er war geboren _might be considered (although it sounds..odd.) And can you please reply to my above #18 and indicate the form you would then suggest for the date of death?

 Since English does not possess an auxiliary verb like 'werden' for passive forms, but only 'to be',  for translation of ''he was born'' a choice has to be made between ''er war geboren'' und ''er wurde geboren'' (in informal, perhaps non-standard English, sometimes 'to get' is used for passive forms. But surely ''he got born'' is not idiomatic).
 In the past, Germans have traditionally chosen ''er wurde am...geboren'' (to my knowledge). Please explain why you don't like the _Geburtsvorgang: _after all, it's the process/procedure by which we all came to life.


----------



## berndf

bearded said:


> Then for translation of ''he was born'' the form you proposed _er war geboren _might be considered (although it sounds..odd.) And can you please reply to my above #18 and indicate the form you would then suggest for the date of death?


_He was born_ is _er wurde geboren_. In the vast majority of cases the English passive corresponds to the German Vorgangspassiv and not the Zustandspassiv. Sometime you can achieve the same effect than the German Zustandspassiv in English be using the perfect aspect: _er ist geheilt = he has been cured_.


----------



## anahiseri

berndf said:


> Yes, and that was her mistake. The interpretation is semantically excluded. But the confusion is understandable because in principle the two forms can be constructed the same way (conjugated form of _sein_ + past participle).


Another reason for my confusion is the fact that "gebären" is hardly ever used in the active form. And I am still confused after reading the explanations in the website Deutschplus. Here it says that the active form corresponding to the 
"Zustandspassiv" *Der Laden ist geöffnet* is *Man öffnet den Laden.*
I don't agree, I would say that the passive for "Man öffnet den Laden" is "Der Laden wird geöffnet" (Präsens in both), and so the active for "Der Laden ist geöffnet (worden)" is "Man hat den Laden geöffnet".
By analogy, 
I understand that "er ist geboren" is a short form for "er ist geboren worden", so the active form would be "Jemand hat ihn geboren".So the correspondence with English is, in my opinion:
"er ist geboren"= "er ist geboren worden" = He has been born
"er wurde geboren" = He was born
"er war geboren"= "er war geboren worden" = He had been born

I suppose berndf will agree with this, though others maybe not.


----------



## anahiseri

The only problem with my scheme is that *He is born* would also be *Er ist geboren*, so there is no one-to-one correspondence.


----------



## Gernot Back

anahiseri said:


> Another reason for my confusion is the fact that "gebären" is hardly ever used in the active form.


The idea of the transitive verb _gebären _in the active voice is better expressed by the intransitive verb _niederkommen_ in German. You simply have no choice, as a mother, whether you want to give birth to your child or not, nine months after begetting it.

Bald feiern wir ja auch das Fest "Mariä Niederkunft" aka "Weihnachten".


----------



## Demiurg

anahiseri said:


> Another reason for my confusion is the fact that "gebären" is hardly ever used in the active form.


Maybe not in present tense but perfect tense is common:

_Sie hat einen gesunden Jungen geboren._


----------



## JClaudeK

anahiseri said:


> Another reason for my confusion is the fact that "gebären" is hardly ever used in the active form.


Im Präteritum kann man es schon noch antreffen (obwohl es langsam auch aus der Mode kommt), im Präsens* aber praktisch nicht.
*Im Präsens sagt man stattdessen:  ein Kind zur/ auf die Welt bringen//  einem Kind das Leben schenken


----------



## Demiurg

JClaudeK said:


> Im Präteritum kann man es schon noch antreffen ...


Besonders um diese Jahreszeit. 


> Und sie *gebar* ihren ersten Sohn und wickelte ihn in Windeln und legte ihn in eine Krippe; denn sie hatten sonst keinen Raum in der Herberge.


----------

