1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: German
  4. >
  5. "Alles was er sagte, war rich…

"Alles was er sagte, war richtig."

Translation:Everything he said was right.

July 29, 2013



Warum ist 'was' im Satz? Ist "Alles er sagte, war richtig" auch ok?


I think it's an implied "that", like everything that he said. However, I am not German, and I don't know if it's necessary.


Yes, the "was" is grammatically necessary. While relative pronouns can sometimes be omitted in English (e.g. "the voice I heard" = "the voice that I heard"; "the man I saw" = "the man whom I saw"), they can not be omitted in German.

An example: "The man (whom) I saw wore a white shirt." = "Der Mann, den ich sah, trägt ein weißes Hemd."

See this page for more details and examples: https://www.lsa.umich.edu/german/hmr/Grammatik/Relativsaetze/relative.html (especially section VII. The relative pronouns wer, wo & was - this sentence is use (ii) of "was")


This is a good example of how a clause or phrase in itself can become the first 'element' of a sentence, making the verb 'war' as the second element to preserve grammatical correctness.


"everything which he said was correct" this is not the informal/typical way to speak but i think the grammar is correct. can anyone weight in?


Technically, it's grammatically wrong, though most people don't distinguish between "which" and "that" in everyday speech. "That" is used for restrictive clauses (aka essential clauses); "which" is used for nonessential (or nonrestrictive) clauses.

This page explains the difference: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/using-that-and-which-is-all-about-restrictive-and-non-restrictive-clauses/

(A quick summary: nonrestrictive modifying phrases are always set off from the rest of the sentence with punctuation and add unnecessary/extra details about the thing being described, while restrictive modifying phrases provide necessary/specifying information about the thing being described and are not set apart from the rest of the sentence by punctuation.)

"A restrictive clause acts as an adjective to modify the subject of the sentence. The restrictive clause is essential to the sentence because it provides information that, if taken out, changes the subject of the sentence completely. A restrictive clause is always preceded by that. Here are a few examples:

The ring that she had custom-made was stolen from the vault. Circus animals that aren’t in cages scare me. Personal computers that utilize retina displays are great for graphic designers.

A restrictive clause is never placed between punctuation.

A nonrestrictive clause typically contains optional information on the subject that isn’t entirely necessary to the sentence. In other words, if you remove a nonrestrictive clause from a sentence, the subject of the sentence remains unaffected. A nonrestrictive clause is usually preceded by which (if a pronoun is used at all). Here are a few examples:

The ring, which was part of a custom jewelry set, was stolen from the vault. Circus animals, which sometimes make cute pets, are rather expensive. Personal computers, which were actually invented in 1964, have come quite a long way.

A nonrestrictive clause is usually placed between commas, dashes, or parentheses."


Diese Grammatik ist richtig, ja :)


why the comma? is it necessary?


Yes, they are required.


Everything what he said, was right. is this also correct?


No, if you wanted to use a demonstrator, you would need to use "that", not "what".


Why is there a comma in this sentence????


If you're asking about the English translation, there shouldn't be a comma. It should either be "Everything he said was right." or "Everything that he said was right."


It seemed to me that there should be two commas "Alles, was er sagt, war richtig." It reminds me of U.K. (historically) lower-class sentence structures I've heard . . . "Everything what he said was right!" (Think back to Monty Python sketches, or cockney accents from My Fair Lady or Mary Poppins. "Or there's them what can't make up their minds." from the song "I love to laugh.")


@hechap: According to this page (see section (ii) of the "Was" section), there should indeed be another comma after "alles":

A: Alles, was ich mache, ist falsch. [alles ==> was]

A: Everything (that) I do is wrong.


Do Germans literally pause after sucha comma in spoken language?


A different point to take away - as a native British speaker, if I was asked to translate into German "All that he said was right" (the closest literal equivalent), I would have used 'dass', not 'was', so good to know how to construct this idea in German


Why isn't it "Alles was sagte er, war richtig."


Why sagte and not sagtet, Duo does nothing to explain these and just punishes me for getting them wrong having never provided me any information to know otherwise


That's just the way that past verb form gets conjugated: ich sagte, du sagtest, er/sie/es sagte, wir sagten, ihr sagtet, sie/Sie sagten


I just can't seem to understand why this sentence is written the way that it is. Why is the verb not in second position? Why is there a comma?


The subject of the sentence is a noun phrase consisting of a relative clause: "alles, was er sagte" ("everything (that) he said"). Then the main verb follows in second position, immediately after it.

See this article about relative clauses: http://www.lsa.umich.edu/german/hmr/grammatik/relativsaetze/relative.html


Why is "Whatever he said was right" incorrect?


der nebensatz ist ' alles was er sagter,stimmt oder nicht ?


Could I replace "Richtig" on "Wahrheit or "stimmt"?


Someone help me understand why we use "was" in this sentence. Could you say Alles er sagte, war richtig?


No you can't. We need the "was", otherwise the sentence doesn't make sense.


Just curious why the suggested translation is "Everything he said, was true." and NOT "Everything he said, was CORRECT." Vielen Dank im Voraus


Alles was hat er gesagt ist richtig gewesen

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