# Verben mit Präfix



## Rid

Servus-

Kennt jemand eine Sprachregel, die jemandem "waehlen zwischen unterschiedliche Synonyme aus", zu wissen hilft.


----------



## Jana337

Rid said:
			
		

> Servus-
> 
> Kennt jemand eine Sprachregel, die jemandem "waehlen zwischen unterschiedliche Synonyme aus", zu wissen hilft.


Hallo und herzlich willkommen! 

Ich verstehe die Frage nicht so ganz. Kannst du uns ein konkretes Beispiel geben? Man muss die Bedeutung der Wörter gut verstehen. Dann kann man sich entscheiden, welches Wort in welchen Zusammenhang passt.

Jana


----------



## Rid

Ich denke, dass meine  Frage hat mit dem Praefix.  Ich verstehe nicht, den Grund warum man "be-, ent-, er-" und so weiter sagen soll.  Sprachregeln wie diese sind mir ganz verwirrend.  Ich studiere nicht in der Schule, nur Sprachwissenschaftsbuecher.  Ich habe mich ganz allein gelehrt, wenn irgenjemand mein Deutsch bitte pruefen koennte, waere ich sehr dankbar sein. Danke im Voraus!


----------



## Henryk

Rid said:
			
		

> Ich denke, dass meine Frage hat mit dem Praefix. Ich verstehe nicht, den Grund warum man "be-, ent-, er-" und so weiter sagen soll. Sprachregeln wie diese sind mir ganz verwirrend. Ich studiere nicht in der Schule, nur Sprachwissenschaftsbuecher. Ich habe mich ganz allein gelehrt, wenn irgenjemand mein Deutsch bitte pruefen koennte, waere ich sehr dankbar sein. Danke im Voraus!


_Ich denke, dass meine Frage mit Präfixen zu tun hat. Ich verstehe nicht, wieso man "be-", "ent-", "er-" und so weiter nutzt. Sprachregeln wie diese verwirren mich sehr. Ich lerne Deutsch nicht in der Schule, sondern durch Sprachwissenschaftsbücher. Ich habe es mir selbst beigebracht. Wenn jemand mein Deutsch prüfen könnte, wäre ich sehr dankbar. Danke im Voraus._

Die Vorsilben geben dem Verb eine neue 
Bedeutung,die man oft aus dem Stammverb nicht ableiten kann.

http://web.letras.up.pt/alemao3/praefixregeln.htm


----------



## Jana337

Vor allem sind es keine Synonyme. Wenn du Englisch sprichst, wirst du wissen, dass "bring up" und "bring about" eine unterschiedliche Bedeutung haben. Genauso verhalten sich zum Beispiel "erhalten" und "aushalten". Man muss diese Vokabeln einfach lernen. Es gibt keine zuverlässige Regel, die dir sagt, wenn er- und wenn vor- benutzen. 

Jana


----------



## heidita

Jana, ein kleiner Vermerk

.... die dir sagt, *wann *er- und *wann* vor- *zu *benutzen.


----------



## Whodunit

Wenn du schon korrigierst, dann noch weiter. 



			
				heidita said:
			
		

> Jana, ein kleiner Vermerk
> 
> .... die dir sagt, *wann *er- und *wann* vor- *zu *benutzen ist.


 
"when to use" und "how to use" gehen nicht so einfach ins Deutsche zu übersetzen. 

Vielleicht ist Wikipedia abermals hilfreich und es verschafft dir einen besseren Überblick über die gesamte Systematik.


----------



## effeundici

*NEW QUESTION

*Hallo everybody, I've just begun to study German and I find verbal prefixes very interesting and useful.

I've realized that at least some prefixes have a precise meaning and always change the meaning of a verb into another meaning which is even partially predictable.

Example: 

sprechen - versprechen.....if you speak a lot you are...promising something 
hoeren - zuhoeren...if hear to someone...you are listening


But actually I managed to understand only the meaning of some prefixes; that is;

- Ver , same as over in English
- Vor , before
- Zu, to
- Aus , from
- Ein, into

but what about be, er, ent, etc. 

Can you help me with the others? 

Thanks in advance


----------



## Frieder

effeundici said:


> *NEW QUESTION
> 
> *Hallo everybody, I've just begun to study German and I find verbal prefixes very interesting and useful.
> 
> I've realized that at least some prefixes have a precise meaning and always change the meaning of a verb into another meaning which is even partially predictable.
> 
> Example:
> 
> sprechen - versprechen.....if you speak a lot you are...promising something
> hoeren - zuhoeren...if hear to someone...you are listening
> 
> 
> But actually I managed to understand only the meaning of some prefixes; that is;
> 
> - Ver , same as over in English
> - Vor , before
> - Zu, to
> - Aus , from
> - Ein, into
> 
> but what about be, er, ent, etc.
> 
> Can you help me with the others?
> 
> Thanks in advance



  Ver = over? what about vergeben, verzählen, verorten?
  Vor = before? what about vorgeben, vorschlagen, vorhaben?
  Zu = to? what about zuschlagen, zurichten, zuschließen?
  Aus = from? what anbout ausgeben, aussehen, ausschweifen?
  Ein = into? what about einschalten, einsehen, einhalten?

There is no general rule that decribes the function of prefixes. You'll
have to learn each and every one of them - so sorry. But look at
English (or Italian) prefixes and you'll see that there is no inherent
logic that applies to _all _words with the same prefix.


----------



## effeundici

Oh come on Frieder, it's quite clear that prefixes have been added over the time with a logic, maybe very subtle or very remote, but still there must be a logic. For sure there's one in Italian and Latin prefixes.

Also, I've even found some german grammars which describe these prefixes like this:



*Prefix**Meaning**Examples**be*-_like English be-

makes verb take a direct object (acc.)_*s. befinden* (be located)
*befolgen* (follow)
*befreunden* (befriend)
*begegnen* (meet)
*bekommen* (get)
*bemerken* (notice, remark)
*emp*-sense, receive*empfangen* (receive)
*empfehlen* (recommend)
*empfinden* (feel)*ent*-away from

_English de-/dis-_*entarten* (degenerate)
*entbehren* (miss, do without)
*entdecken* (discover)
*entfallen* (elude, slip)
*entfernen* (remove, take out)
*entkalken* (decalcify)
*entkleiden* (disrobe, undress)
*entkommen* (escape, get away)
*entlassen* (discharge, release)
*entstehen* (originate, be formed/created)
*entwerten* (devalue, cancel)
*er*-fatal, dead*erhängen* (hang, execute)
*erschiessen* (shoot dead)
*ertrinken* (drown)_like English re-_*s. erinnern* (remember)
*erkennen* (recognize)
*erholen* (recover, relax)*ge*-- -*gebrauchen* (use, make use of)
*gedenken* (commemorate, intend)
*gefallen* (like)
*gehören* (belong to)
*gelangen* (arrive at)
*geloben* (vow)
*genesen* (recover, recuperate)
*gestalten* (shape, form)
*gestehen* (confess)
*gewähren* (grant, give, offer)
*miss*-_English mis-_*missachten* (disregard, disdain)
*missbrauchen* (abuse, misuse)
*misstrauen* (mistrust)
*missverstehen* (misunderstand)
*ver*-bad, awry
_English mis-_*verachten* (despise)
*verbilden* (miseducate)
*verderben* (go bad, spoil)
*s. verfahren* (go astray, get lost)
*verkommen* (go to ruin, become run down)
*verschlafen* (oversleep)lose, away/out*verdrängen* (drive out)
*verduften* (lose its aroma)
*verlassen* (leave, abandon)
*verlieren* (lose)_English for-_*verbieten* (forbid)
*vergeben* (forgive)
*vergessen* (forget)???*verbinden* (bandage, link, tie)
*vergrößern* (enlarge)
*verhaften* (arrest)
*versprechen* (promise)*voll*-*full, complete*vollenden* (complete, finish)
*vollführen* (execute, perform)
*vollstrecken* (enforce, execute)


----------



## berndf

_Emp-_ is not a separate prefix. It is a labialized version of _ent- _in front of /f/.
The general meaning of _ent- _is _away from/off_.
The general meaning of _ver-_ is _far (away)_. It is actually cognate with English _far_ and the _for-_.
The general meaning of _ge-_ (in verbs or nouns) is either perfective (_gedenken = to think back_) or collective (_Berg=single maintain; Gebirge=mountain range_). I am not quite sure how these two meanings connect, if at all.


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> _Emp-_ is not a separate prefix. It is a labialized version of _ent- _in front of /f/.
> The general meaning of _ent- _is _away from/off_.
> The general meaning of _ver-_ is _far (away)_. It is actually cognate with English _far_ and the _for-_.
> The general meaning of _ge-_ (in verbs or nouns) is either perfective (_gedenken = to think back_) or collective (_Berg=single maintain; Gebirge=mountain range_). I am not quite sure how these two meanings connect, if at all.


1. Then how do you explain 'entfernen'?  Why not 'empfernen'? And 'entführen'?  Emp- does not have the ''away-from' meaning of 'ent-'.
2. The ge- prefix has also to do with past participles (Gebäude possibly connected with 'gebaut': das Gebaute).


----------



## manfy

bearded man said:


> 1. Then how do you explain 'entfernen'? Why not 'empfernen'? Emp- does not have the ''away-from' meaning of 'ent-'.


I'd explain it with: We've come to our senses!  Well, at least, some of our forefathers did. According to Grimm it used to be "_mhd. enpfërren_" in Middle High German.

But this example illuminates very well that you cannot create a simple list of prefixes for modern German and claim that ent- always means this, ver- always means that, and be- always something else.
The language has more than 1000 years of evolution on its back, hence you cannot seriously expect that it evolved in a logical and straight-as-an-arrow fashion!

I was just looking at "vergessen" (to forget) and wondering what the stem "gessen" could possibly mean. It does not exist in modern German.
Grimm shows its checkered history:_verb. oblivisci, mhd. vergëʒʒen, ahd. fargeʒan (Graff 4, 278), alts. fargetan, forgetan, mnd. vorgeten, ags. forgitan, altfries. urieta, zusammensetzung zu hd. gisse (gita), das sich im altn. geta, im goth. ags. bigitan, alts. bigetan, ags. an-, on-, ofer-gitan, ahd. argëʒan wiederfindet
_​
Of course, aside from language researchers, no native speaker does know that. So, for a normal speaker "vergessen" is its own word. Even though ver- looks like a prefix it is not treated as one since the stem "gessen" is not used any more and makes no sense by itself.


----------



## thtoan79

effeundici said:


> like English be- makes verb take a direct object (acc.)


I'm afraid we have a mistake here. 'begegnen' as far as I know accepts no direct object (Akkusative Ergänzung). Why was it even included here?


----------



## jazyk

The be- in _begegnen_ is not a prefix as there is no such verb as _gegnen_.


----------



## berndf

jazyk said:


> The be- in _begegnen_ is not a prefix as there is no such verb as _gegnen_.


It is one of the prefixed verbal derivations from the adverb that gave rise to the modern preposition _gegen_; the other being _entgegnen_.


----------



## jazyk

Right, but there is no verb _gegnen_.


----------



## Perseas

thtoan79 said:


> I'm afraid we have a mistake here. 'begegnen' as far as I know accepts no direct object (Akkusative Ergänzung). Why was it even included here?


Neither "sich befinden" takes an accusative object. I guess, they are included there because of the prefix be-.


----------



## bearded

Perseas said:


> Neither "sich befinden" takes an accusative object.


Well, that's a reflexive verb.  I figure that 'sich' is the accusative object (ich befinde 'mich'...).


----------



## thtoan79

Perseas said:


> Neither "sich befinden" takes an accusative object. I guess, they are included there because of the prefix be-.


well, actually, though it's not highly logic, but I think "sich befinden" is acceptable. Because "sich" in "sich befinden" is actually Akkusativ, and not "Dativ". In most cases "sich" in reflexive verbs can be replaced by an Akkusative/Dative Ergänzung (accusative/dative object).


----------



## Perseas

jazyk said:


> Right, but there is no verb _gegnen_.


I read that "begegnen" comes from the Mhd verb "be-*gegenen*".


----------



## Kajjo

thtoan79 said:


> I'm afraid we have a mistake here. 'begegnen' as far as I know accepts no direct object


That's why I insisted on all these "rules" just being _rough rules of thumb_. You cannot use "_be_ makes it transitive" as a law -- it is just an observation that often fits and sometimes does not fit.

In this case, "begegnen" is not derived from "*gegnen" (non-existent), so in this case this might be the reason for the rule to fail.



Perseas said:


> Neither "sich befinden" takes an accusative object


Well, the reflexive version does have the accusative reflexive pronoun "sich" instead of an accusative object. This is consistent, I believe.

_Ich befinde mich in bester Gesellschaft._

However, the non-reflexive version does take an accusative object anyway:

_Ich befinde ihn für schuldig.
_
Note that "finden" is transitive, too. In this case, the prefix "be-" changes the meaning and usage, but not the transitivity.

_Ich finde mich in bester Gesellschaft wieder.
Ich finde, dass er schuldig ist. <with object clause>_


----------



## berndf

jazyk said:


> Right, but there is no verb _gegnen_.


Not any more. But even if there had never been one, _be_- is still a prefix.

It is indeed odd, though, that _be_- generates an intransitive verb.


----------



## Kajjo

berndf said:


> It is indeed odd, though, that _be_- generates an intransitive verb.


That's true -- but we have to accept that all our rules of thumb have several exceptions. They are no laws, but more observations.


----------



## effeundici

As a beginner in the study of German, rules of thumb can be very useful. Cases and genders in German are so diverse and difficult that after 4 years of study and practice, I still speak on the basis of "statistics". For example when I have no idea about the gender I use masculine as statistically more probable. When I have no idea about the form of the past particle I just use the ge- form. I hope that that will clarify my intentions to the native speakers. I have a lot of friends who study German very seriously and with obsessive attention to grammar. They have always good marks in exercises but none of them is able to speak any live German after years! (I can ! I exploit the stunning capacity of native speakers to automatically correct my continuous flow of flaws!). So I will keep using prefixes in the naive way. It will work most of the time .. with a lot of support from the native speakers!


----------



## Kajjo

effeundici said:


> I have a lot of friends who study German very seriously and with obsessive attention to grammar. They have always good marks in exercises but none of them is able to speak any live German after years!


I agree, learning German (or probably any new living language) requires _using _the language as much as possible. But of course you only get better if you are corrected and if you try to understand concepts and get a feeling for expressions.

You comment sounds as if you contradict our attempt to learn the meaning by examples. However, this is exactly what you do: Real life examples and a lot of active usage instead of complicated rules that will fail anyway. So again, I recommend to find a solution to a concrete issue and not trying to over-analyse prefix analysis.


----------

