Why is this 'machen' instead of 'tun'?
What is the sentence "Was soll ich mit den Inhalten machen?" is correct? Shouldn't machen be replaced with tun instead? What is the difference between tun and machen?
What is the approriate translation for 'been' in this sentence?
"I have been playing football for 3 years,"?
What is the difference between verhaften and festnehmen?
Why isn't hat in the last position in "Er erzählt ihm, warum sie das Bild im Haus hat sehen wollen,"?
You could use both. Tun is just used very rarely, but they work both in this sentence and when you want to not sound like a stupid person, then you just have to stick with machen here.
Ich spiele Fussball seit 3 Jahren.
In spoken german, they are usually interchangable. Festnahme is temporary (therefore the verb of it, also describes the temporary act). Like the police could you festnehmen to just check your identity at the police station and then lets you go. Verhaftung and verhaften require an order from a judge (or something similar), here the justice system is a step ahead.
This is a really hard question. UIm not sure if youre sentence is correct, I would have cheated and said instead warum sie das Bild im Haus sehen wollte. Ill try to edit a better answer soonish.
EDIT to 4) If a group of verbs includes a Ersatzinfinitv (a replacement infinitive for Partizip Perfekt) and the Ersatzinfinitve is dependant of haben (as Hilfsverb / auxillary), then the finite auxillary verb gets moved in front of the rest of the verb group within a Nebensatz. This is an exception to the general rule of the verb order in Nebensätzen.
So even when it was not asked, this also explains why your sentence has a perfekt form made by "hat [...] wollen" instead of "hat [...] gewollt".
Thank you very much for the explanation and canoo link for no.4! I encountered that rule today in the German translation for the 3rd Harry Potter book (The Prisoner of Askaban) and was just about to write to the translator informing him of his mistake (not really :P).
Not only did I not know about the position of „haben“ in an Ersatzinfinitiv relative clause, but I also learned that it isn't just the modal verbs that become Ersatzinfinitivs.
If I may ask you a question MortiBiRD; the relative clause from „der Gefangene von Askaban“ is „..., dass er sie nicht hatte kommen sehen.“ which, though close, is not identical in meaning to „dass er sie nicht kommen sah.“ (which would be equivalent to „dass er sie nicht hat kommen sehen“). So, my question is, if you were to translate the relative clause "that he hadn't seen her coming." into German, would you translate it "correctly"?
I put "correctly" in inverted commas and italicised it, not because I doubt the existence of the rule, but because such a rule in English would almost certainly be by and large ignored by the mass of native speakers. An example that springs to mind is "If I was you" instead of "If I were you", due to the general ignorance of the subjunctive. (I wouldn't say a majority of English speakers use was over were, but a significant proportion)
Many thanks again for the explanation and the link.
> If I may ask you a question MortiBiRD; the relative clause from „der Gefangene von Askaban“ is „..., dass er sie nicht hatte kommen sehen.“ which, though close, is not identical in meaning to „dass er sie nicht kommen sah.“ (which would be equivalent to „dass er sie nicht hat kommen sehen“). So, my question is, if you were to translate the relative clause "that he hadn't seen her coming." into German, would you translate it "correctly"?
„..., dass er sie nicht hatte kommen sehen.“ PQP
"that he hadn't seen her coming." SPP
"dass er sie nicht hat kommen sehen" Perfekt
"dass er sie nicht kommen sah..“ Präteritum
The english sentence part is in simple past perfect, so the regular way would be to use Plusquamperfekt (as the translator of your verison of The Prisoner of Askaban did). Now it would be important to know what was written earlier in this sentence, since these times are often used to connect different events in the past (like the other part of the sentence of is written in simple past). So the decision if you could swap the time without a "major shift" within the meaning depends heavily on the rest of the sentence (and maybe even the used times in the other sentence in this book).
Präteritum and Perfekt are also not the same. Depending on the context they might be interchangable or not. As in example, spoken german tends to replace the normal past with the Perfekt, so you could hear both to describe exactly the same. Now another example is the general time that is used in literary works, many of them use the Präteritum as the "main tense" and here you could not simply switch them.
so my cheating intention was relying on people (or a situation) that do not care for the difference in the used tense. Also this is not a relative clause, its either a Subjektsatz or an Objektsatz (depending on what was written in the main clause of the sentence).
Er erzählte, "dass er sie nicht hatte kommen sehen." Objektsatz
Es war überraschend, "dass er sie nicht hatte kommen sehen." Subjektsatz
Thanks. I'd hoped you wouldn't ask for what came before :P because unfortunately it isn't just something like „Ich wusste nicht, dass ...“, but maybe it can give some insight, so here it is:
Zweimal hätte Harry ein Klatscher fast vom Besen gerissen; wegen der Regentropfen auf seiner Brille war alles so verschwommen, dass er sie nicht hatte kommen sehen.
Übrigens the reason I asked was just to find out if this is the way you would automatically write/say it. Before finding out about this rule I would have said:
„dass er sie nicht kommen gesehen hatte.“
and I guess I just want to know if it is only learners that would make such a mistake.
Its a common mistake (at least I consider it common). You will encounter enough natives that will do it. Specially when they create long sentence and it gets lost if its main clause or something else.
Why isn't it "Er erzählt ihm, warum sie das Bild im Haus nicht sehen wollen hat,"? I thought that the conjugated verb always comes to the very last(?)
If it's "..., dass er sie nicht kommen sah,", which the conjugated verb sah is in the last position why is "dass er sie nicht hat kommen sehen," not in the last position? Therefore it becomes "..., dass er sie nicht kommen sehen hatte,"?
Please have a look at the article, I mentioned before:
It is simply a certain grammar structure in German, we have to use (or better most of Germans use it, so it has become a rule). The construction is 'hat (verb) wollen'
No, in this case it should be: "Er war überrascht, dass er sie nicht hatte kommen sehen."
„,dass er sie nicht hatte kommen sehen.“
is actually correct. It seems that „sehen“ acts like „wollen“ in this regard. Before reading MortiBiRD's post I thought it would be:
„,dass er sie nicht kommen gesehen hatte.“
Though I learned from his link that:
1 - The Ersatzinfinitivs extend beyond the modal verbs (the list they give is heißen, lassen, helfen, sehen, fühlen hören); so then I would expect it to be:
„,dass er sie nicht kommen sehen hatte.“
2 - But also, that there is an Ersatzinfitiv-Nebensatz rule that moves the conjugated form of „haben“ to the front of the verb group; therefore making:
„, dass er sie nicht hatte kommen sehen.“
Most of the points are already said. You CAN say "tun" and it does not sound "very" stupid to me, but it seems, that the word disapears slowly from German. Stupid would sound "machen tun" or something like that, which you may hear sometimes in certain social environments. Interestingly my age is about some decades now and already in my schooldays, there were a dictum, that we shouldn´t use "tun" in sentences.
I found an article about that in the German dictionary "Duden"
BEDEUTUNGEN, BEISPIELE UND WENDUNGEN
1. dient zur Betonung des Vollverbs
There are some examples with VERB+tun and most of them sound weird to me, but they are grammatically ok. Only "Das täte mich schon interessieren." sounds familiar to me, but for younger Germans, this sentence may also sound a bit weird. They would rather say "Das würde mich schon interessieren."
So we can see, that languages changes over time.
The last question about "Er erzählt ihm, warum sie das Bild im Haus hat sehen wollen,": It is common sentence structure in German, I would construct these sentences in exactly this way.
I searched a bit and I found again in the German dictionary "Duden" an information about this structure under
BEDEUTUNGEN, BEISPIELE UND WENDUNGEN
1. a. die Absicht, den Wunsch, den Willen haben, etwas Bestimmtes zu tun
Grammatik mit Infinitiv als Modalverb; wollte, hat ... wollen
But the article is in German, so you may not understand it at all.
So I tried to find some information about that in English and the following article may help you a bit to understand this structure:
At nearly the end of the article, there is a box with 'Perfect (Perfekt) - Structure' for the modal verb, which shows exactly the structure you asked for.
I think we use "machen" more than tun in colloquial speech, in this context it certainly sounds right, with "tun" it would sound a bit stilted.
Ich spiele seit 3 Jahren Fußball.
I don't know why, but it's like that: "hat" + infinitive + auxiliary verb (können, wollen).
Normally "hat" is in the last place, e.g. "warum sie den Brief geschrieben hat".