# war sie sehr zuvorkommend behandelt WORDEN (tense)



## AnnaJDT

Hello, 

"Von seinen Schwestern war sie sehr zuvorkommend behandelt worden"
"By his sisters she was treated very curteously." (supposing "zuvorkommend" is also an adverb, which I don't see here: http://www.wordreference.com/deen/zuvorkommend)

Could you please let me know if my attempt at translation is correct? I am particularly puzzled by the presence of "worden" - I was expecting "sie *wurde *behandelt" (she was treated), where does *worden *come from? (What is its infinitive and its tense here?)

Many thanks!
Ana-Maria


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Past perfect tense:

_She had been treated very courteously by his sisters._


----------



## Perseas

AnnaJDT said:


> I am particularly puzzled by the presence of "worden" - I was expecting "sie *wurde *behandelt" (she was treated), where does *worden *come from? (What is its infinitive and its tense here?)


Hello,

they are different tenses.

wurde behandelt : Passiv Präteritum 
war behandelt worden : Passiv Plusquamperfekt
http://www.verbformen.de/konjugation/behandeln.htm?vorgangspassiv


----------



## berndf

AnnaJDT said:


> Could you please let me know if my attempt at translation is correct? I am particularly puzzled by the presence of "worden" - I was expecting "sie *wurde *behandelt" (she was treated), where does *worden *come from? (What is its infinitive and its tense here?)


_Worden _is a special form of _geworden_, the ppl of _werden _with the prefix _ge-_ stripped. It is used in complex tenses after another ppl., similar to the Ersatzinifintiv for some other verbs.


----------



## AnnaJDT

Thank you very much for your answers.

I must admit though, I'm slightly confused. In this thread http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2865467
we discussed that "she had been treated" is "sie war behandelt" (Präeteritum of SEIN + part participle of the verb)
                  (just like: _Sie *waren *getröstet = they *had been *consoled)
_So, you are saying that "she had been treated" can also be put as: "sie war behandelt worden" (Präeteritum of SEIN + part participle of the verb + "worden")

Except for worden, the two variants are the same. So, why "worden"? How does it change the meaning?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

The German past perfect translates to the English past perfect.

Generally, the German stative passive preterite _(Sie war getröstet; _cf. eventive passive preterite: _Sie wurde getröstet) _also translates to the English past perfect.


Simply avoid the stative passive voice!


----------



## AnnaJDT

I guess worden is a sort of past perfect form of werden, without the "ge" particle, used in the passive voice. 

But why avoid it, if it's correct?
Just because it's a difficult tense? I'm overwhelmed by so much kindness on here, with your help I feel motivated to try and "conquer" it and use it in speech.  You are definitely ginormously helpful.


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> Generally, the German stative passive preterite _(Sie war getröstet; _cf. eventive passive preterite: _Sie wurde getröstet) _also translates to the English past perfect.


What then is the difference between (a) _Sie war getröstet_ and (b) _Sie ist getröstet worden_?

As I understand it, (a) is simple preterite and (b) can be either simple preterite or equivalent to English present perfect.


----------



## manfy

AnnaJDT said:


> Except for worden, the two variants are the same. So, why "worden"? How does it change the meaning?


I think that the English progressive tenses (tenses that do not really exist in German) can be used very well to describe "Vorgangspassiv" (a construct that does not really exist in English):

*Präsens, Vorgangspassiv *"Sie wird behandelt" = present progressive "She is being treated"
*Präteritum, Vorgangspassiv *"Sie wurde behandelt" = past progressive "She was being treated" 

*Perfekt, Vorgangspassiv *"Sie ist behandelt worden" = present perfect progressive "She has been being treated" => unidiomatic, hence English uses present perfect instead, which equates to German Zustandspassiv, Perfekt "She has been treated" or past progressive "She was being treated"
*Plusquamperfekt, Vorgangspassiv *"Sie war behandelt worden" = past perfect progressive "She had been being treated" => unidiomatic, hence English uses past perfect instead, which equates to German Zustandspassiv, Plusquamperfekt "She had been treated" or past progressive "She was being treated"


----------



## wandle

The English past continuous (progressive) is not equivalent to the present perfect, since the former implies disconnection from the present (the state or action no longer continues or is in some respect irrelevant), while the latter implies connection of some sort to the present (the state or action still continues or is somehow specially relevant).

On the other hand, the past continuous is not equivalent to the past perfect, since the latter implies a double distancing in the past (action or state prior to a point already established as past).


----------



## berndf

AnnaJDT said:


> I guess worden is a sort of past perfect form of werden, without the "ge" particle, used in the passive voice.
> 
> But why avoid it, if it's correct?
> Just because it's a difficult tense? I'm overwhelmed by so much kindness on here, with your help I feel motivated to try and "conquer" it and use it in speech.  You are definitely ginormously helpful.


You got it the wrong way round. He told you to avoid the *stative *passive voice (_sie war getröstet_). There is a semantic difference between the simple tenses of the stative passive and the corresponding perfect tenses of the eventive passive voice. I explained it to you in the other thread here. But if this is to complex for you at your present stage of learing you can quite safely ignore it and use only the eventive passive (_sie wird getröstet werden_ (future), _sie wird getöstet _(present)_, sie wurde getröstet _(simple past)_, sie ist getöstet worden _(present perfect)_, sie war getröstet worden _(past perfect)).


----------



## Liam Lew's

wandle said:


> What then is the difference between (a) _Sie war getröstet_ and (b) _Sie ist getröstet worden_?
> 
> As I understand it, (a) is simple preterite and (b) can be either simple preterite or equivalent to English present perfect.


a) is stative passive and means = she was in the state of having been consoled
b) eventive passive and means = she was consoled (not the state but the action is meant = the passive of "someone consoled her") or she's been consoled
So you are right to assume that a) is simple preterite and b) can be either simple preterite or equivalent to the English present perfect.


----------



## wandle

Thanks. The picture is complicated by the fact that 'she was consoled' can be either stative or eventive, so it is not a straight equivalent of either German form.

'She has been consoled' can also be stative in English, though there is little occasion to use it in that sense.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> What then is the difference between (a) _Sie war getröstet_ and (b) _Sie ist getröstet worden_?


That is the wrong question. The semantic proximity is between (a) _Sie war getröstet_ and (b') _Sie *war* getröstet worden_.

Both imply completion of the act of consoling in the past. (a) completely abstracts from the causing action and express only the state in the past (i.e. she wasn't crying any more). (b') expresses both, a state in the past and an action at an antecedent time.


----------



## Liam Lew's

wandle said:


> Thanks. The picture is complicated by the fact that 'she was consoled' can be either stative or eventive, so it is not a straight equivalent of either German form.


That's why I added the information in brackets and needed additional words like "state". It's indeed not easy to explain it in English. Otherwise it would not have been 100% clear.



berndf said:


> The semantic proximity is between (a) _Sie war getröstet_ and (b') _Sie *war* getröstet worden_.
> 
> Both imply completion of the act of consoling in the past. (a) completely abstracts from the causing action and express only the state in the past (i.e. she wasn't crying any more). (b') expresses both, a state in the past and an action at an antecedent time.


 This is an excellent explanation for Anna to understand the difference, I think.


----------



## wandle

berndf said:


> That is the wrong question. The semantic proximity is between (a) _Sie war getröstet_ and (b') _Sie *war* getröstet worden_.


It was a supplementary question, hoping to shed a sidelight, given that the latter point had already been answered in post 6.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> It was a supplementary question, hoping to shed a sidelight, given that the latter point had already been answered in post 6.


Ok, then you have the two interpretations of (b) you mentioned:
(b1) _Sie ist getröstet worden = She has been consoled.
_(b2) _Sie ist getröstet worden = Sie wurde getröstet = She was consoled.
_
(b1) is almost identical in meaning to _Sie ist getröstet.
_(b2) evidently has no corresponding _sein-_passive form as it expresses the action itself any not the state.


----------



## AnnaJDT

Wow. Impressive. I keep on asking questions that I initially think will generate short trenchant answers and can't express my delight when instead I see this impressive amount of interpretations and hues and what not. Who could help but love this forum!!

Not sure why to avoid *stative passive voice (sie war getröstet)
*For me, having enocuntered this tense quite a fair bit of times, I feel already used to it and can build it much, much easier than the one in the title ("sie war behandelt worden"). I will bookmark this thread and carefully read it a few more times, post by post, until everything rings clearer. Really thankful for all your input, grammar fairies and uncles!


----------



## berndf

AnnaJDT said:


> I feel already used to it and can build it much, much easier than the one in the title ("sie war behandelt worden").


The problem is not how to build it but how to employ it. The cases where it is appropriate are comparatively few and it you are in doubt which passive form to employ, your preference should be for the eventive passive. In the fast majority of cases, it is that right choice. But if you feel confident, you can tell the meanings reliably apart, so much the better.


----------



## Liam Lew's

berndf said:


> The problem is not how to build it but how to employ it.


In my experience and *opinion *there are even some native German speakers who employ it inappropriately at times.
If used when not appropriate, it sounds stylistically bad.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Liam Lew's said:


> If used when not appropriate, it sounds stylistically bad.


Such as in the present case. Look at what length we've been discussing _Sie ist getröstet/Sie war getröstet. _​Who on earth has ever said either one?


----------



## Liam Lew's

Schimmelreiter said:


> Such as in the present case. Look at what length we've been discussing _Sie ist getröstet/Sie war getröstet. _​Who on earth has ever said either one?


----------



## berndf

Liam Lew's said:


> In my experience and *opinion *there are even some native German speakers who employ it inappropriately at times.
> If used when not appropriate, it sounds stylistically bad.


That is exactly the problem.


----------



## manfy

wandle said:


> The English past continuous (progressive) is not equivalent to the present perfect, since the former implies disconnection from the present (the state or action no longer continues or is in some respect irrelevant), while the latter implies connection of some sort to the present (the state or action still continues or is somehow specially relevant).


Exactly! And since you cannot use perfect continuous in passive voice ("She has been being treated") you're using the nearest normal tense that fits this connect/disconnect aspect to the present, e.g.
"She has been treated with chemotherapy for good 2 years now; but now she wants to stop due to the side-effects." -> connected to present
"She was being treated with chemotherapy for good 2 years but last summer she suddenly stopped." -> disconnected from present

In German we don't really use this aspect in preterite vs. perfect tense. If necessary, we use contextual means to connect these past tenses to the present.
However, German grammar very clearly does differentiate between eventive passive (Vorgangspassiv) and stative passive (Zustandspassiv) - in English you don't. If you have the need to bring the difference across, you'll use contextual means, i.e. different choice of words or phrases to accentuate the stative or eventive nature.

Even though the perceived difference between eventive passive and stative passive can change in different sentences depending on the action verb, in general the difference is the "day vs night kind" for a native speaker. So, it's well worth the effort to develop a feeling for the difference.


----------



## wandle

manfy said:


> you cannot use perfect continuous in passive voice ("She has been being treated")


I would not say it is impossible, but there are not many contexts where it is necessary.
The ordinary present perfect passive 'she has been treated', since it involves a link to the present, will, if used with a past reference, automatically imply continuity of action from that point on.

The main problem with the combination 'been being' is the similarity of the sound, which, coupled with the narrowness of the semantic distinction, makes the expression potentially baffling. Hence, even if we feel it appropriate, we avoid inflicting it on the listener. 

If we want to emphasise continuity, we usually express it differently: 'She has been under treatment' or 'undergoing treatment'.


> you're using the nearest normal tense that fits this connect/disconnect aspect to the present, e.g.
> "She has been treated with chemotherapy for good 2 years now; but now she wants to stop due to the side-effects." -> connected to present
> "She was being treated with chemotherapy for good 2 years but last summer she suddenly stopped." -> disconnected from present.


That distinction is correct and it means that the two forms 'has been treated' and 'was being treated' are not interchangeable, even though the former can express a continuous meaning.


----------

