# Wann werdet ihr in die Berge fahren? (case)



## ParlezSieEspañol

Hello.

I've been trying to understand the plural of this sentence: "Wann werdet ihr zum Berg fahren?", which as far as I know is: "Wann werdet ihr in die Berge fahren?".

My question is: why you use "in die Berge" and not "in den Bergen"?
Also a small side, but related, question: Are fahren and gehen interchangeable in this context?

Thank you for your time.


----------



## Liam Lew's

Your sentences are not equivalent, they don't mean the same. The plural of "Berg" is indeed "Bergen" in dative.

Wann werdet ihr zum Berg fahren. [Here you are talking about one specific mountain]
Wann werdet ihr zu den Berg*en* fahren. [Here you are talking about several specific mountains, maybe several separate mountains in different locations, maybe a range of mountains in a single location.]

Wann werdet ihr in die Berge fahren. [Here you are talking about going to the mountains. Mountains in general, no specific mountains.]

Welcome to the forums by the way!


----------



## ParlezSieEspañol

And what about: "Wann werdet ihr in den Bergen fahren?" Is it correct? If not why?
Also, regarding the small side note: Are "fahren" and "gehen" interchangeable in this context?

Thank you for your prompt reply.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

ParlezSieEspañol said:


> why you use "in die Berge" and not "in den Bergen"?


Accusative of direction: The question is not _Wo?_ but _Wohin?


_



ParlezSieEspañol said:


> Are fahren and gehen interchangeable in this context?


Context? Which context? 


Say, it's March and you're planning on going to the mountains in summer: 
_
Im Sommer *fahre *ich in die Berge.
_

Say, you're old and writing your memoirs (because you are famous) or your autobiography (because it's never too late to become famous): 
_
In meiner Jugend *ging* ich viel in die Berge._


----------



## ablativ

ParlezSieEspañol said:


> Also a small side, but related, question: Are fahren and gehen interchangeable in this context?


_in die Berge gehen: to go for a walk (into the mountains)

in die Berge fahren: to go by car/bus etc. (to the mountains), to drive into the mountains
_


----------



## Perseas

ablativ said:


> _in die Berge gehen: to go for a walk (into the mountains)
> 
> in die Berge fahren: to go by car/bus etc. (to the mountains)
> _


Ich weiß, dass es genau genommen so ist, aber ich hätte eine kleine Frage: Im März (z.B.) plane ich eine Reise in die Berge. Ich denke, ich kann generell "gehen" benutzen, obwohl ich eigentlich mit meinem Auto dorthin fahre. Stimmt?
"Im März gehe ich in die Berge".


----------



## Schimmelreiter

ablativ said:


> _in die Berge gehen: to go for a walk (into the mountains)
> 
> in die Berge fahren: to go by car/bus etc. (to the mountains)
> _


Würdest Du sagen _Nächstes Wochenende gehe ich in die Berge _? 
Und damit einen Fußmarsch von Dir zu Hause _in die Berge_ meinen?



In meinem - natürlich nicht zu verallgemeinernden - Sprachgebrauch ist _in die Berge_ nichts Konkretes. (Zum Unterschied von _Nächstes Wochenende gehe ich *auf einen Berg*_.)


_in die Berge _hat für mich auch nicht zwingend etwas mit Bergsteigen zu tun, eher mit Geographie:

_Im Sommer fahren wir immer in die Berge _(möglicher Gegensatz:_ ans Meer_).


Und nun zu _in die Berge *gehen*_: Das hat tatsächlich mit Alpinistik im weiteren Sinne zu tun (Bergsteigen und Bergwandern), aber doch nicht mit _gehen_ im Sinne einer *Anreise* *zu Fuß.* 
_
in die Berge gehen _kenne ich wirklich nur im ganz abstrakten Sinn meines Beispielssatzes (#4): 
_
In meiner Jugend ging ich viel in die Berge.
_
Natürlich auch Gegenwart: _Ich gehe viel in die Berge.

_*
Aber:* 
_Am Sonntag *fahre*_ _ich in die Berge.
Am Sonntag *gehe* ich *auf einen Berg*_.


----------



## Liam Lew's

Perseas said:


> Ich weiß, dass es genau genommen so ist, aber ich hätte eine kleine Frage: Im März (z.B.) plane ich eine Reise in die Berge. Ich denke, ich kann generell "gehen" benutzen, obwohl ich eigentlich mit meinem Auto dorthin fahre. Stimmt?
> "Im März gehe ich in die Berge".


Ja das geht, siehe auch Schimmelreiters Post.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Liam Lew's said:


> Ja das geht, siehe auch Schimmelreiters Post.


Das ist nicht meine Meinung.     Da hab ich mich offenbar missverständlich ausgedrückt.


Bei einer konkreten Reise _in die Berge/ins Gebirge_ würde ich schon _fahren_ sagen: 
_
Im März fahre ich in die Berge._


Vergleiche dies, bitte, mit einer Aussage über eine Vorliebe/eine Freizeitbeschäftigung (abstrakt): 
_
Ich gehe gern in die Berge._


----------



## Liam Lew's

Ich würde "fahren" auch stark bevorzugen, habe die andere Variante in umgangssprachlichen Kontexten aber schon so oft gehört, dass ich nicht behaupten könnte, sie wäre falsch.


----------



## ablativ

@ SR: Zum einen ist explizit nach dem Unterschied zwischen 'gehen' und 'fahren' gefragt worden, den habe ich in aller Knappheit, ohne auf idiomatische Ausnahmen einzugehen, zu erklären versucht.

Zum anderen fand ich Dein Beispiel mit Deiner Jugend ausnahmsweise nicht so gelungen wie sonst , da jemand, der die genannte Unterscheidung nicht kennt, danach noch immer nicht weiß, ob Du damals in die Berge gefahren bist oder dort(hin) bzw. in ihnen (den Bergen) gewandert bist.

Und ja, _ich wandere in die Berge. _Wenn die nicht direkt vor der Haustür (auch das gibt es) liegen/sich befinden, muss ich natürlich erst einmal irgendwie dorthin kommen. Reales Beispiel (bis auf 'heute'): _Heute haben wir uns _(im Urlaub) _den Ort _(Nauders) angesehen und morgen *gehen* wir (rauf) in die Berge (gemeint ist 'zu Fuß') und mit der Seilbahn *fahren *wir abends wieder runter. 

_gehen _wird ja oft auch für 'umziehen' gebraucht: _nächstes Jahr gehe ich für drei Jahre nach England. _Daran habe ich bei den Bergen auch gedacht, aber da sagt man wohl eher _ich ziehe in die Berge, _obwohl unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen _gehen _auch möglich ist.

_Im März gehe ich in die Berge _würde ich persönlich eher nicht sagen, sondern ich  würde dorthin fahren. Aber ich räume gerne ein, dass _gehen_ wohl auch passt, wenn man sich so ausdrücken will, was vielleicht auch unterschiedlicher regionaler Sprachgebrauch ist.

Bestimmt gibt es noch viele andere Kriterien zu beachten, ich wollte nur verdeutlichen, dass _go _nicht immer 'automatisch' mit _gehen _übersetzt wird, sondern meistens mit ​_fahren_.

PS: _Ich freu mich schon, morgen geht's in die Berge _könnte ich noch anbieten - oder ohne 'Berge': Bei Magenbeschwerden geh ich immer zu Dr. Schmidt - auch wenn der seine Praxis in einer anderen Stadt hat.

Edit: PS soeben eingefügt und schon vorher mit mehreren Beiträgen gekreuzt, daher unnötiges Aufrollen von schon geklärten Punkten


----------



## ParlezSieEspañol

Schimmelreiter said:


> Accusative of direction: The question is not _Wo?_ but _Wohin?_


I'm not sure if I fully understand this. I see that the question is "*Wann* werdet ihr in die Berge fahren?", so why you mention "Wo" and "Wohin"?
What are you trying to say is that there's like an implicit question in the sentence for location/direction? If so it is, is there any case that you would use "Wo" instead of "Wohin" for this sentence?

To rest of you who posted on German, I'm sorry but I haven't got that far yet to be able to understand what you wrote.

Thank you.


----------



## ablativ

'Wann werdet ihr *in die Berge *fahren?' Right now they are still at home and later they will move/go to the mountains.

This is (Schimmelreiter explained it already) *Accusative* of direction: The question is not _Wo? but Wohin?

_When those people have arrived there, they are *'in den Bergen'* (Dativ), because the trip to the mountains is done, and now they are only moving within/inside the area - not travelling from outside any more. (No direction from ouside)
'Wann werdet ihr in den Bergen fahren' means to drive around in the mountains but not to drive to the mountains from somewhere else.


----------



## ablativ

ParlezSieEspañol said:


> To rest of you who posted on German, I'm sorry but I haven't got that far yet to be able to understand what you wrote.



That's what I meant. The rest refers to _fahren _and _gehen.

_For you as a beginner I would like to give you *as a rule of thumb *(there are indeed some exceptions from that rule which you can learn when you are more advanced) this advice:

_gehen ---> to walk, to go for a walk, etc.
_
_fahren ---> to go, to drive, to go by some kind of vehicle_


----------



## ParlezSieEspañol

ablativ said:


> 'Wann werdet ihr in die Berge fahren?' Right now they are still at home and later they will move/go to the mountains.
> 
> This is (Schimmelreiter explained it already) Accusative of direction: The question is not Wo? but Wohin?



So it indeed is like answering an implicit question in the sentence, right? I don't remember how is this called or if it even exists but what that is, is an analysis of the phrase with different questions like Where? When? With whom? How? etc., isn't it?



ablativ said:


> That's what I meant. The rest refers to fahren and gehen.
> 
> For you as a beginner I would like to give you as a rule of thumb (there are indeed some exceptions from that rule which you can learn when you are more advanced) this advice:
> 
> gehen ---> to walk, to go for a walk, etc.
> 
> fahren ---> to go, to drive, to go by some kind of vehicle



Thank you. I've been somewhat familiarized with such rule and by trying to discern what the previous posts were about someone mentioned something like: fahren is also more about going to a specific place, and that gehen is about going a place:


Schimmelreiter said:


> *
> Aber:*
> _Am Sonntag *fahre*_ _ich in die Berge.
> Am Sonntag *gehe* ich *auf einen Berg*_.


----------



## ablativ

ParlezSieEspañol said:


> So it indeed is like answering an implicit question in the sentence, right? I don't remember how is this called or if it even exists but what that is, is an analysis of the phrase with different questions like Where? When? With whom? How? etc., isn't it?



I addition to what I've already explained, when it's *into *in English, it's nearly always (German) *in + accusative
*when it's *in *in English, it's nearly always (German) *in + dative*.


> I've been somewhat familiarized with such rule and by trying to discern what the previous posts were about someone mentioned something like: fahren is also more about going to a specific place, and that gehen is about going a place:


You can't say that. You can climb one particular mountain, you can walk through the mountains in general, you can also walk into the mountains when you are surrounded by them. "gehen" means using your feet in this context. Schimmelreiter's examples are confusing you.

"fahren" means to go by car/bus/bike/boat and so on to whatever place you want to go.


----------



## Hutschi

Hi,
"in die Berge" is an idiom. It does not really mean that you are in some mountains then.
It just means that mountains will be around you. You will be in the mountain region. Accussative indicates that you mean the destination.

In "Ich fahre in den Bergen" the case implies another meaning. It means that you are really inside of mountains and drive there. It does not show the goal (destination) but the place.


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

Hutschi said:


> Hi,
> "in die Berge" is an idiom. It does not really mean that you are in some mountains then.
> It just means that mountains will be around you. You will be in the mountain region. Accussative indicates that you mean the destination.
> 
> In "Ich fahre in den Bergen" the case implies another meaning. It means that you are really inside of mountains and drive there. It does not show the goal (destination) but the place.



What happens with "sein" in this case?

Do you still say "Wir sind in die Berge" to mean "We're in the mountains" in the sense of "We're surrounded by mountains" / "We're amongst the mountains" and then "Wir sind in den Bergen" would mean "We're inside the mountains," like for example, if we were on a caving excursion?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

estoy_lerniendo said:


> Wir sind in die Berge


This sentence is not grammatical because _in die Berge_ is the accusative. We need the dative here because the sentence is in reponse to a hypothetical question _Wo? - Where? (Where are we?)_

The accusative would be in response to the question _Wohin? - Where *to*?_




estoy_lerniendo said:


> Wir sind in den Bergen


is therefore grammatical and means _We are in the mountains/We are in a mountainous area._

It does not mean _We're inside the mountains._


----------



## Hutschi

In coll. language "Wir sind in die Berge" is possible. "Wohin seid ihr?" - "Wir sind in die Berge." This is not possible in formal standard language.  (Schimmelreiter wrote about standard language.)
But in coll. language 
"wir sind in die --- is rather often used.
Wir sind in die Stadt.
Wir sind in die Oper.
Wir sind in den Wald.

But this is also an idiom. It means "Wir sind in die Berge etc. gegangen/gefahren".

I agree that "Wir sind in den Bergen" means "We are in a mountaineous area.


----------



## Sowka

Hello 



Hutschi said:


> In coll. language "Wir sind in die Berge" is possible. "Wohin seid ihr?" - "Wir sind in die Berge." This is not possible in formal standard language.  (Schimmelreiter wrote about standard language.)
> 
> But this is also an idiom. It means "Wir sind in die Berge etc. gegangen/gefahren".



I agree that this shortened form (the standard form of which is "Wohin seid ihr *gegangen/gefahren*? Wir sind in die Berge *gegangen/gefahren*.") can be heard sometimes, but I think this is really colloquial and perhaps regional.

For a learner of German it is important to be aware of the distinction that has been explained before (accusative: direction; dative: location).


----------



## Hutschi

It is the same distinction here in the colloquial abbreviation.

Abbreviations are often used in coll. language. I think even a beginner should be aware of them.
Wohin seid ihr gegangen? In die Berge.  (Akk. - destination)
Wann werdet Ihr wieder in den Bergen sein? Bald. (Dative. - place)

But for active usage the complete forms are more important.


----------



## berndf

ParlezSieEspañol said:


> I'm not sure if I fully understand this. I see that the question is "*Wann* werdet ihr in die Berge fahren?", so why you mention "Wo" and "Wohin"?


For a native speaker, the question words used in a context is a hint as to which case is to be used. Many native speakers present this explanation also to foreigners ignoring that this is usually meaningless to them because as a non-native speaker you wouldn't know which question word to use unless you knew in advance which case to use. This is a regular source of confusion in this forum.

I strongly suggest to native speakers to be careful with this type of explanation. They are often useless at best and confusing at worst. It may make sense to teach students the question words together with the case to re-enforce the message but it can never be an "explanation".


----------



## berndf

Liam Lew's said:


> Ich würde "fahren" auch stark bevorzugen, habe die andere Variante in umgangssprachlichen Kontexten aber schon so oft gehört, dass ich nicht behaupten könnte, sie wäre falsch.


Der Satz _Ich gehe in die Berge_ ist auch tatsächlich sinnvoll aber er ist eben nicht synonym mit _Ich fahre in die Berge_.

Gemeint ist immer auch, dass man zu Fuß in die Berge geht, bezieht sich aber nicht auf die Anreise, sondern auf den Weg vom Ausgangspunkt (Quartier / Parkplatz) der Wanderung(en).


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

Regarding "in die" and "in den," I was just curious whether "in die Berge sein" had some kind of exceptional idiomatic value that violated the conventional form. It seems more than anything that it's just a shortening of an idea that would otherwise explicitly mention "(movement to a) destination." So, "wir sind in die Berge" just means "wir sind in die Berge gefahren" and not some poetic use of the accusative.


----------



## berndf

estoy_lerniendo said:


> It seems more than anything that it's just a shortening of an idea that would otherwise explicitly mention "(movement to a) destination."


That is hard to say. There are several, often regional, colloquialisms to express _being on a journey_, e.g. _Wir machen in die Berge_ (very typical for the Region around Frankfurt). Colloquialisms are often very hard to trace back because they lack literary records. But it is certainly not misleading to understand sentences like _Wir sind in die Berge, ich bin nach New York, Er ist zu Oma_ and _Sie ist in den Keller_ as abbreviations of _Wir sind in die Berge gefahren, ich bin nach New York geflogen, Er ist zu Oma gefahren_ and _Sie ist in den Keller gegangen_, respectively.


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

Hutschi said:


> In "Ich fahre in den Bergen" the case implies another meaning. It means that you are really inside of mountains and drive there. It does not show the goal (destination) but the place.



But I thought this could also be used (more practically perhaps) to mean "I am at the mountain range and I am driving on this mountain range," right?


----------



## berndf

estoy_lerniendo said:


> But I thought this could also be used (more practically perhaps) to mean "I am at the mountain range and I am driving on this mountain range," right?


Yes, that's certainly what he meant.

In German, like in English, you are _*on* a mountain_ but _*in* the mountain*s*_. There is a difference between the individual plural, a _group of mountains_, and the collective plural, a _mountainous region_. So, when he wrote _inside of mountains_ he must have meant _within a mountainous region_.

What he tried to emphasize by using the word _inside_ was that this is not a journey from outside of the mountainous region into that region but about a journey that takes place entirely _within_ the region.


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

Going back to the original question, would one (or how would one) re-word the sentence "Wann werdet ihr in _den Bergen_ fahren?" when meaning the idea "When will you be driving amongst the mountains?" ?

(you will have already gone to the mountain range by this time)


----------



## berndf

I don't quite understand your question. We just explained to you that "Wann werdet ihr in _den Bergen_ fahren?" does mean





estoy_lerniendo said:


> ... "When will you drive/be driving amongst the mountains?" ?
> 
> (you will have already gone to the mountain range by this time)


So, why would you want to re-phrase it?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

estoy_lerniendo said:


> re-word the sentence "Wann werdet ihr in _den Bergen_ fahren?"



Perhaps like this:

_Wann werdet ihr in den Bergen umherfahren?_


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

The original was "Wann werdet ihr in die Bergen fahren?", but I thought that "Wann werdet ihr in den Bergen fahren?" might call for the option of a different verb tense because those being addressed will have already done something (in die Berge fahren) before they do what is being asked about (in den Bergen fahren). Basically, I was wondering if "fahren" might be replaced by something else since the action of "fahren" had already commenced and been happening up to that point... but I probably made it too complicated.


For example, in English, if someone says "When will you drive in the mountains?" and "When will you be driving in the mountains?", to my ears, and maybe I'm different from others on this, the first one makes _drive in the mountains_ seem like an isolated concept in time, whereas the second one seems more like "When will your driving in the mountains happen after you've already been there?" I know that German doesn't use the present progressive, but I don't know what verb tense might provide this nuance.


----------



## berndf

No, it has nothing to do with tenses and aspects. It is just case, _directive _vs. _locative_. _Directive _talks about the target of an action and _locative _talks about where, when and under which circumstances an action takes place. If you want a comparison with English, _in _is locative (_he walked up and down in the hallway_) and _into _is directive (_he walked into the hallway_).

This is not peculiar to German. These prepositions that change their meanings with case where once common in European languages (directive accusative: _Caesar in Itali*am* venit - Caesar came (in)to Italy_ vs. locative ablative: _Anselmus Cantuariensis archiepiscopus ad papam in Itali*a* venit_ - _Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury came to the pope in Italy_).


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

berndf said:


> No, it has nothing to do with tenses and aspects. It is just case, _directive _vs. _locative_. _Directive _talks about the target of an action and _locative _talks about where, when and under which circumstances an action takes place. If you want a comparison with English, _in _is locative (_he walked up and down in the hallway_) and _into _is directive (_he walked into the hallway_).
> 
> This is not peculiar to German. These prepositions that change their meanings with case where once common in European languages (directive accusative: _Caesar in Itali*am* venit - Caesar came (in)to Italy_ vs. locative ablative: _Anselmus Cantuariensis archiepiscopus ad papam in Itali*a* venit_ - _Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury came to the pope in Italy_).



Sorry. I'm not really asking about the case distinction anymore. I'm asking about the meaning conveyed by the verb tense, but perhaps I'm getting too far off-topic with the question.


----------



## berndf

estoy_lerniendo said:


> Sorry. I'm not really asking about the case distinction anymore. I'm asking about the meaning conveyed by the verb tense, but perhaps I'm getting too far off-topic with the question.


Yes, that is getting off-topic.


----------



## Glockenblume

Hutschi said:


> In coll. language "Wir sind in die Berge" is possible.



I would prefer to say "in some dialects" it is normal use; but  it sounds strange to me in "coll. language".


----------

