"Ohne Regen, würde das Holz brennen."
Translation:Without rain, the wood would burn.
They messed up...in the sentence above the comma needs to go, and then the translation would be correct.
Without rain, the wood would burn = Ohne Regen würde das Holz brennen.
Without the rain would the wood burn? = Ohne Regen, würde das Holz brennen?
So, this is a case of how messed up punctuation gives a different meaning to a sentence. In real life speech, you can tell by appropriate pauses and inflection.
"Ohne Regen, würde das Holz brennen." "Sie sagte, es würde die Welt verändern."
Two sentences, with würde in different places, both taken from this lesson. Why is this? Both seem to be separate clauses?
The two statements are different kinds of sentences.
"Ohne Regen, würde das Holz brennen." is a statement contrary to fact. (Subjunctive II)
"Sie sagte, es würde die Welt verändern." is an indirect statement. (Subjunctive I).
"Sie sagte, dass es die Welt verändern würde." would be correct. But without the "dass" the second clause is in normal (verb second) word order (according to Sparks & Vail, "German in Review").
I'd also like to know this. Would, "Sie sagte, würde es die Welt verändern," be acceptable?
Just seeing it retrospectively... I guess if it was a question (maybe that's what I'd seen tired), then it's alright? "Would the wood burn?" "Without rain, would the wood burn?" Am I right?
"Without rain, would the wood burn?" is a question but the German sentence is not. In German the conjugated verb must be the second element of the sentence. If something else comes first then the verb moves ahead of the subject. "Ohne Regen" is the first element. " würde" is the second. Then "das Holz" , the subject is the third. Sounds like a question to our English ears but it is not.