# antworten vs. beantworten



## Linni

Is there a difference between "beantworten" and "anteorten"?

E.g. 
Beantworten Sie die Fragen.  <= can I use both "antworten" in the sentence?


----------



## Jana337

Linni said:
			
		

> Is there a difference between "beantworten" and "anteorten"?
> 
> E.g.
> Beantworten Sie die Fragen.  <= can I use both "antworten" in the sentence?


Beantworten Sie die Fragen.
Antworten Sie *auf* die Fragen.



Jana


----------



## gaer

They are different grammatically, but the difference is very hard to explain.

(Jana was faster than I was.) I was going to add more!

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> They are different grammatically, but the difference is very hard to explain.


 
Correct, but I want to add that there's actually no difference between them in meaning. One could say that "beantworten" sounds a bit more formal, but most people wouldn't feel any difference.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Correct, but I want to add that there's actually no difference between them in meaning. One could say that "beantworten" sounds a bit more formal, but most people wouldn't feel any difference.


I think it's a bit complicated for us, Who. There is the problem of dative and accusative:

First of all, is this wrong?

"Tut mir leid, ich habe Deine E-mail nicht beantwortet."

Hilf mir, antworte mir. (takes dative).

But "beantworten" takes an accusative direct object:

*Das* könnte im Moment noch niemand *beantworten*. (Quelle: _Der Spiegel ONLINE_) 
*All diese Frage*n sollen jetzt die Verhafteten *beantworten*. (Quelle: _Der Spiegel ONLINE_) 

I know I picked a publication, but this usage seems pretty basic, and I don't think there is necessarily anything formal about it. The more important point is that "beantworten" uses accusative.

"Antworten" is also used much the way "answer" is used in English (she answered, he answered, they answered, etc.):

Sie *antwortete*: "Wenn du glaubst, dass er der Richtige ist, sage ich ja." (Quelle: _Der Spiegel ONLINE_) 

I'm sure you are aware of all these things but probably don't think about them. The use of these two verbs is so automatic and effortless for "Mutterspracher". 

Gaer


----------



## FloVi

Wenn man wirklich unterscheiden will, könnte man sagen, dass eine "Antwort" die Erwiderung selbst ist, während "Beantwortung" den Vorgang beschreibt.

Das kommt auch in der Verbform zum Tragen. Man "beantwortet eine Frage", oder "man antwortet auf eine Frage".

Keine Ahnung, wie ich das auf Englisch erklären soll. ;-)


----------



## gaer

FloVi said:
			
		

> Wenn man wirklich unterscheiden will, könnte man sagen, dass eine "Antwort" die Erwiderung selbst ist, während "Beantwortung" den Vorgang beschreibt.
> 
> Das kommt auch in der Verbform zum Tragen. Man "beantwortet eine Frage", oder "man antwortet auf eine Frage".
> 
> Keine Ahnung, wie ich das auf Englisch erklären soll. ;-)


There is some similarity here:

Answer a question, reply TO a question.

The best way to explain "antworte mir", which sounds very rude to me but "keeps it simple", is to explain it this way:

"Reply to me."

This is very stupid sounding English, but it shows (to some extent) the parallel grammar.

So literally:

Man "beantwortet eine Frage", oder "man antwortet auf eine Frage".

One "answers a question", or one "replies to a question". "Reply" is intransitive in this sense.

As in German, the meaning is much the same. It is the grammar that changes. 

Gaer


----------



## FloVi

gaer said:
			
		

> As in German, the meaning is much the same. It is the grammar that changes.



Mann, sind wir gut. Und wieder ein zufriedener Kunde.


----------



## gaer

FloVi said:
			
		

> Mann, sind wir gut. Und wieder ein zufriedener Kunde.


Which reminds me of a song: "We belong to a mutual, admiration society…" 

Isn't it amazing how often things that are so simple in our own languages are all but impossible to explain?

I see "I hope you can answer TO my question" from people in other countries. This is just about as common as people asking for "informations". 

Of course both are wrong, but they don't _look_ wrong if your native language is not English!

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> I think it's a bit complicated for us, Who. There is the problem of dative and accusative:
> 
> First of all, is this wrong?
> 
> "Tut mir leid, ich habe Deine E-mail nicht beantwortet."


 
It's completely correct; but I never said anything about wrongness. Your sentence sounds good, but a more informal way to express the same idea would be:

"Tut mir Leid, dass ich nicht auf deine Mail geantwortet hab."



> I know I picked a publication, but this usage seems pretty basic, and I don't think there is necessarily anything formal about it.


 
The sentences you gave sound formal. I would not use "antworten auf" in your examples.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> The sentences you gave sound formal. I would not use "antworten auf" in your examples.


Well, *I* wouldn't use it in my examples either, since I don't write German. 

But of course I trust your intuition or language feel and would never debate what feels right in German with a "native". 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> But of course I trust your intuition or language feel and would never debate what feels right in German with a "native".


 
It might be a personal "feeling," so it would be great if others could confirm or object to it.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> It might be a personal "feeling," so it would be great if others could confirm or object to it.


Your search - "deine Mail beantwortet hab" - did not match any documents. 
Results 1 - 10 of about 30 for "auf deine Mail geantwortet hab".

So far usage seems to be on your side!

And this looks right to me, not right as in "correct" but "right" as in "what I am used to seeing from friends in very informal situations, which is much like this:

"Oh, sorry, dass ich nicht auf Deine mail geantwortet hab."

One thought or observation. Often when I get PMs, they are a LITTLE bit more formal than emails because not all PMs are from people I know really well. 

Gaer


----------



## heidita

Linni said:
			
		

> Is there a difference between "beantworten" and "anteorten"?
> 
> E.g.
> Beantworten Sie die Fragen. <= can I use both "antworten" in the sentence?


 
I think everythig has been said. Just wanted to mention that you don't use _beantworten_ with a person.

Ich antwortete meiner Mutter.

Ich beantwortete die Frage.


----------



## Linni

Thank you for your replies... I see it's just like in my mother language... I just didn't think of it before...

*z*odpovědět otázky - Fragen *be*antworten
odpovědět *na* otázky - *auf* die Fragen antworten


----------



## Apher

Linni said:


> Is there a difference between "beantworten" and "antworten"?
> 
> E.g.
> Beantworten Sie die Fragen. <= can I use both "antworten" in the sentence?


 
Wie ich hier in Spanien gelernt habe, "be-" Verben brauchen immer die Akkusativergänzung, während die Stamm-Verben wenden normalerweise eine Präposition auf, oder?. Zum Beispiel:

Ich _*kämpfe gegen*_ meine Feinde
Ich *bekämpfe* meine Feinde


----------



## Lykurg

> Wie ich hier in Spanien gelernt habe, brauchen "be-" Verben immer die Akkusativergänzung, während die Stamm-Verben normalerweise eine Präposition verwenden (/aufweisen), oder? Zum Beispiel:
> 
> Ich _*kämpfe gegen*_ meine Feinde
> Ich *bekämpfe* meine Feinde


----------



## Apher

Danke sehr, Lykurg!!  Ich vergesse Grammatik zu schnell!!


----------



## Linni

What about zahlen - bezahlen?

I suppose the difference between them is the same, anyway, it would be better if someone could confirm it...

*Ich muss dafür zahlen.*
*Ich muss es bezahlen.*

(btw, if I want to say "I have to pay for the drinks for my son." (I have to pay for him), is it right in German as: "Ich muss für die Getränke für meinen Sohn zahlen. (Ich muss die Getränke für meinen Sohn bezahlen." ?


----------



## Jana337

(Almost) all verbs with the prefix be- are followed by accusative without a preposition.
jemandem etwas liefern - jemanden mit etwas beliefern
auf etwas achten - etwas beachten
etwas bearbeiten
jemanden beautragen
etwas bevorzugen
etawas bewahren
etwas betreten
jemanden betrügen
.
.
.

Analogies with Czech usually work nicely. 

Jana


----------



## FloVi

Linni said:


> What about zahlen - bezahlen?
> 
> I suppose the difference between them is the same, anyway, it would be better if someone could confirm it...
> 
> *Ich muss dafür zahlen.*
> *Ich muss es bezahlen.*
> 
> (btw, if I want to say "I have to pay for the drinks for my son." (I have to pay for him), is it right in German as:
> 
> Ich muss für die Getränke für meinen Sohn zahlen.
> Ich muss die Getränke für meinen Sohn bezahlen.  *(better)*



confirmed ;-)


----------



## Linni

Thank you...


----------



## Whodunit

Jana337 said:


> (Almost) all verbs with the prefix be- are followed by accusative without a preposition.


 
I'm glad you mentioned "almost." 

The verb "bezahlen" can be used with "für," too:

*Das/Dafür musst/wirst du mit dem Leben bezahlen!*

However, now I'm not quite sure. Is "dafür" a common mistake in this case or can "bezahlen" really require a preposition?


----------



## Jana337

Whodunit said:


> I'm glad you mentioned "almost."
> 
> The verb "bezahlen" can be used with "für," too:
> 
> *Das/Dafür musst/wirst du mit dem Leben bezahlen!*
> 
> However, now I'm not quite sure. Is "dafür" a common mistake in this case or can "bezahlen" really require a preposition?


I would use it without a preposition. But my almost actually meant begegnen and andere Krankenfälle. 

Jana


----------



## Zaphh

Let me try to provide a clear explanation:

In German (but also in English, which derives from German!) verbs prefixed by "be" are the transitive forms of the same verbs without the prefix (that are therefore intransitive).
_antworten_ is intransitive, _beantworten_ is transitive.
_Ich antworte auf Deinen Brief_   I reply to your letter      (intransitive, therefore calling for the dative)
_Ich beantworte _ Deine Frage_     I answer your question   (transitive, therefore calling for the accusative)

Interestingly enough, English being a germanic language, the same applies to English...:
_To befriend _ someone_ is to make friend _with_ someone.
To bereave _ someone from his fortune is to reave his fortune _from_ someone

All this is very well explained here: http://german.stackexchange.com/questions/5590/difference-between-antworten-and-beantworten

P.


----------



## Dan2

Great answer... too bad it's 9 years late...

Seriously, welcome to WRF, Zaphh.  Overlooking the date is something we all do from time to time.
EDIT: But your answer will remain in the archives, and may be helpful to the next person doing a search on these words.  So, no problem.

> in English, which derives from German
Better: "in English, which ultimately derives from the same proto-language that German does"
EDIT: You wouldn't like us saying "... French, which derives from Italian", would you? 

_> Ich antworte auf Deinen Brief_ I reply to your letter (intransitive, therefore calling for the dative)
I don't see any dative here.
EDIT: Often, when a verb (for ex., "danken") is intransitive, and thus doesn't take an accusative object, it takes a dative object instead ("ich danke dir").  But in your example you have an intransitive verb and a prepositional phrase (PP).  The PP, in turn, consists of a preposition and a noun phrase (NP).  German NP's inside of PP's can have a variety of cases; in this instance it's actually accusative.  So to mention "dative" at all is misleading.


----------



## Zaphh

Thanks to Internet, it never is too late... My daughter who is learning German came on this page by simply typing "antworten beantworten" in Google.

<...>
*Moderator note: I am sorry, but this is all off-topic in this thread which is about antworten and beantworten.*


----------



## Dan2

Zaphh said:


> In German (*but also in English,* which derives from German!) *verbs prefixed by "be" are the transitive forms of the same verbs without the prefix (that are therefore intransitive*).
> ...
> Interestingly enough, English being a germanic language, *the same applies to English*...:
> _To befriend _ someone_ is to make friend _with_ someone.
> To bereave _ someone from his fortune is to reave his fortune _from_ someone


Hi again Zaphh.  Since you are so admirably receptive to alternative views , let me comment on the above as well.

English verbs with the "be-" prefix do tend to be transitive and I didn't give your claim a lot of thought at first.  But I tried to think of some English intransitive/transitive pairs which differ in whether they have "be-" and had a very hard time!  W/r/t your examples:
"befriend" is built on a noun, not a verb.  Recently "to friend" has become a verb, but it's an extremely transitive one!
"bereave": this also is a "double failure" as an example.  The verb "to reave" is no longer in use, and was transitive!

In case after case of "be-" prefix verbs, the form without "be" is either a noun (_bedevil, behead, betoken_, etc) or a transitive verb (_becalm, bedazzle, befoul,_ etc), or both (_becloud, bedeck_, etc).  The best I could find was "bemoan", but it's not a very common word, and "moan", according to Webster's dictionary, can be transitive (although more common as intransitive).

Furthermore, the two most common verbs with the "be-" prefix are intransitive (_become, behave_)!

So while I don't doubt that English has a _history _of "be-" as a transitivizer of verbs, there seem to be few examples in current English, and maybe NONE in everyday use.


----------

