1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: German
  4. >
  5. "Ich weiß nicht, was passiere…

"Ich weiß nicht, was passieren wird."

Translation:I do not know what will happen.

December 17, 2017



why it is not " was wird passieren "


Because indirect questions are subordinate clauses (‘Nebensätze’, sg.: ‘Nebensatz’), so subordinate clause word order (verb-last) is in effect.


But the sentence isn't a question, indirect or direct.


"what will happen" is an indirect question.


('I know not, what will happen' ). Is acceptable surely?


I would think it should. In English it's fine (minus the comma), if a bit flowery.


There is a very fine line between ‘flowery’ and ‘obsolete’. I don't think this sentence would even be considered correct in standard prose (in a period drama script or in poetry it would sound fine, I think).


English has not used this word order popularly in centuries. It's not wrong, it just sounds very poetic.


Translating it in terms of old English simply reflects poor translative skills. You're stuck on literal translations rather than understanding the sentence and translating it properly.


Yes. ""I don't know what's going to happen" is how I'd put it.


I tried it just out of pure want to be a poet and was very disappointed it wasn't accepted. It's not grammatically incorrect and therefore should be accepted imo. Regardless of how old that word order is in English.


I am not sure what the "Wird" is conjugated against. I know the verb comes at the end, but I was expecting the infinitive? Passieren is already infinitive.. I used "werden" instead. Obviously wrong, but why? Is it against the "what" that happened?


That's right -- it's inflected for the relative pronoun was.

Compare: Was wird passieren? to Ich weiß nicht, was passieren wird.

Or in English: "What is going to happen?" to "I do not know what is going to happen." -- no infinitive for "is going to"; it's third person singular, matching "what".


Someone can explain why wird is on end? All "relative clause" have verb on end? I dont know what is "relative clause" for english grama.


A relative clause is one that employs a relative pronoun or adverb, that is a pronoun or adverb that refers to an element in the previous sentence (antecedent) but is used instead of repeating that word. It may be clearer with examples:

  • in “everyone who knows you loves you”, “who knows you” is a relative clause where “who” is a relative pronoun referring to “everyone”;

  • in “I have a cat that never purs”, “that never purs” is a relative clause where “that” is a relative pronoun referring to “cat”;

  • finally in “I remember the place where we met”, “where we met” is a relative clause where “where” is a relative adverb referring to “the place”.

Relative clauses are by definition subordinate clauses (“Nebensatz”, pl.: “Nebensätze”) and as such follow verb-final word order.


Great explanation however a bit confused on what is the relative pronoun or adverb here?


was is the relative pronoun.

The thing it refers to is not explicitly mentioned -- "what will happen" is more or less equivalent to "the thing that will happen" but "the thing" is not mentioned.


Thank you so much!, I finally get it after trying for quite some lessons. Have a lingot!


Thank you for this explanation! Kept stumbling around trying to figure out why sometimes the verb got kicked and other times didn't.


Is the comma here mandatory? It feels clunky to say/read.


Yes, it's mandatory in German.


"I know not, what will happen" should be accepted!


That's archaic or poetic. It's not natural 21st-century English.


Can "kenne" be used instead of "weiss" here?


No. Knowing facts or information uses wissen, not kennen.


It's similar to conocer vs. saber in Spanish, if you speak that.


Why is wird at the end?


was passieren wird is a (headless) relative clause -- and relative clauses are subordinate clauses, and those have the verb at the end in German.


Why does it end wird instead of passieren as in all the previous examples?


It is a subordinate clause and so the typical second position verb is moved to the end.


Is that verb related to the English weird? As in, "fortune"?


Is that verb related to the English weird? As in, "fortune"?

Very, very indirectly. As in, about as closely, perhaps, as to Wurst (sausage) -- they all go back to a Proto-Indo-European root meaning "turn".


Why is this in the first section of future tense? This is an exception to the base rule and I got it as my first question about future tense. There is no reason that should be possible.


I know not what will happen, should be accepted.


Please see my response to Sarah134711 from 10 months ago instead of posting the same comment again.


Mizinamo, hi , i am Kasturi and your comments have been really GOLD in understanding Deutsch. As an änfanger who has just started and needs structure to make sense of the ad hoc placement of words especially prepositions, i almost drown in sooo much technical stuff thrown at me. I dont know if you understand my weird predicament, i want structure but not so much that it becomes to tedious. However u r doing a great job, keeping hopes of people like me alive. Blessings from an indian fan.


Hauptsatz : SVO (Subject, verb, object). (=^.^=) Nebensatz : SOV (Subject, object, verb)

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