1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: German
  4. >
  5. "He remained in India."

"He remained in India."

Translation:Er blieb in Indien.

May 27, 2017



why akusitiv here? is it because through the course of time shows movement?


There is no accusative in this sentence.

er is in the nominative, and Indien is in the dative case. (But as with most nouns, you can't tell what case it's in because nouns don't usually change endings much.)


thanks for the great explanation. I thought it would be Im Indien but I guess because an article is not used for India the case is not visible.


That's right.

Most country names are neuter and are used without article; so you can only see the difference in masculine, feminine, or plural ones (e.g. der Irak, die Schweiz, die Niederlande).


Is it common to use "blieb" in everyday life? Or would you somehow say this in past perfect?


Er ist in Indien geblieben (present perfect, not past perfect) would be another way of saying this.

How often the simple past is used in German depends a bit not only the verb but also on where in Germany you're from (the simple past is generally used with more verbs in the north than in the south).


Mizinamo please explain to me why your sentence is " Er ist in Indien geblieben" Should it not be " ..........hat in Indien....."? I thought one used ist in the presnt perfect to indicate a change in location and haben for a change in condition. Also, why blieb and not bliebt in 3rd person past tense? German is still going to drive me to alcohol, bad women or suicide !!


I don't know what the rules are, I just know that it's ist geblieben :)

I think, though, that the rules have to do with (a) being intransitive (having no direct object) and (b) often involving a change of location or state.

But ist gewesen, ist geblieben, though they involve rest and no motion or change also take ist.

(Some German speakers, mostly in the south, also say ist gestanden, though I say hat gestanden.)

Also, why blieb and not bliebt in 3rd person past tense?

More or less for the same reasons that we don't say "he tooked, he gaved, he stoled" -- German has strong verbs which form their past tense mostly just by changing the vowel (take/took, give/gave, steal/stole; bleiben/blieb, nehmen/nahm, geben/gab, stehlen/stahl) and weak verbs which form their past tense mostly with a dental ending (-ed in English, -t in German, e.g. fill/filled, füllen/füllte).

Some verbs don't fit neatly into those, e.g. bring/brought, bringen/brachte since they both change their vowel and add a dental ending.

Those two main types generally also correspond to differences in past participle: -en for strong verbs, -ed (English)/-t (German) for weak ones, e.g. "have taken, have given, have stolen", hat genommen, hat gegeben, hat gestohlen versus "has filled", hat gefüllt.


Just to make sure - 'bleiben' (with the e before the i) means to take, and 'blieb' (with the i before the e) means took?


Just to make sure - 'bleiben' (with the e before the i) means to take, and 'blieb' (with the i before the e) means took?

No. bleiben is "stay" and blieb is "stayed".

"take, took, taken" is nehmen, nahm, genommen.


Damn son!

Learn German in just 5 minutes a day. For free.