...and yours haven't!

[ilovecara_1991]

Hi there

Need some help with how to translate 'At least mysins have been forgiven and yours haven't' (with emphasis on italicised words)

Context: just some friendly banter with my german teacher because she didn't attend the school mass haha.

My attempt would be:

'Mindestens sind meine Sünden vergeben geworden und Ihre nein!'

Thanks in advance

 

[Derselbe]

Mindestens -> Zumindest, Wenigstens
nein! -> nicht!

that's it

 

[Derselbe]

ah, sorry:
geworden -> worden

 

[ilovecara_1991]

Thanks a lot, mate!

Also warum sagt man 'worden' und nicht 'geworden'?

Please reply in English haha

 

[Derselbe]

I think thats the regular passive conjugation, but I'm not 100% sure on that right now.
Just an example:
Das Essen wird gekocht.
Das Essen wurde gekocht.
Das Essen ist gekocht worden.
Das Essen war gekocht worden.

 

[brian]

Right, and when werden means become then the past participle is geworden, yes?

Das Essen ist kalt geworden.

 

[Toadie]

It's because when you used modal verbs and lassen in the Perfekt with another verb, you keep it in the infinitive, generally, though werden for some reason seems to be a little bit irregular in this case, using "worden" instead of "werden" for its Perfekt conjugation.

Das habe ich gekonnt. - I used to be able to do that.
Ich habe schwimmen können. - I used to be able to swim.

Das hättest du machen sollen. - You should have done that.

Werden is trickier for some reason...

If you pay close attention, you use "worden" when the "adjective" is actually a verb form, almost always a past participle.

Der Baum ist sehr groß geworden. - The tree got very big. Big is a normal adjective. It is not any participle. Because of that, you use geworden.

Der Baum ist gebrannt worden. - The tree got burnt. Burnt is the past participle of to burn, so you use worden. (By the way, I know this is definitely not the most idiomatic way to say this, for any nit-pickers out there. I couldn't think of another example off the top of my head--it's just to illustrate the grammatical concept!)

Another note on these, when you have a situation like this in a subordinate clause, haben is always the first verb in the final string of verbs when there are 3 or more. For example:

Er hätte ein Kuchen backen sollen. - He should have baked a cake

But:
Wir wissen alle, dass er einen Kuchen hätte backen sollen -and NOT- dass er einen Kuchen backen sollen hätte.


Hope that helped.

 

[Derselbe]

It's because when you used modal verbs and lassen in the Perfekt with another verb, you keep it in the infinitive, generally, though werden for some reason seems to be a little bit irregular in this case, using "worden" instead of "werden" for its Perfekt conjugation.

Correct me if I'm wrong but "werden" is by no means a modal verb. If I'm not completely mistaken it is an auxiliary verb and therefore it makes perfect sense that it doesn't follow the conjugation rules for modal verbs.

The essential difference between modal verbs and auxiliary verbs is that the former are used with infinitive only whilst the latter are used with participle or infinitive depending on the tense.
So it is absolutely in accordance with the rules that participle is used here. The question of interest is more why it is "worden" and not "geworden" which one could expect. I have to think about that for a while.

 

[Derselbe]

Okay got it!
"werden" has two past participles as it has two functions. "geworden" and "worden".

When being used as a main verb, i.e. "Ich werde alt" the past participle is "geworden", i.e. "Ich bin alt geworden".
When being used as an auxiliary verb which is the case here, the past participle is "worden". So everything makes sense.

1) The principal reason why "werden" must be used in past participle here is because its tense is past perfect, i.e. aux. verb + past participle. In the case of "werden" this means "ist geworden" or "ist worden".
2) The irritating issue here is that passiv forms are constructed with the auxiliary verb "werden", but the past perfect is again constructed with the past participle.
So what we have here is:
a) Gott vergibt die Sünden.
b) Die Sünden werden vergeben. (Passive: Aux. verb werden + main verb(past participle))
c) Die Sünden sind vergeben worden. (Past tense passive: Aux. verb sein + aux. verb werden(past part.) + main verb(past part.) )

I hope this is understandable.

 

[Toadie]

Yeah, you're definitely right about that haha. Disregard the modal verb thing (although I believe my post was right regarding them, even if it was not relevant). It does behave very similarly though.

What I'm saying is that often times past participles are turned into adjectives. When you are working with "werden" in the Perfekt, if you have an adjective based on a verb participle (or indeed if it's treated as a verb altogether), you used "worden" and if it's an adjective in itself (e.g. big, small, happy, etc.), and not a participle in principle, you use "geworden". I can't think of any examples where that does not apply.

EDIT: Just read your more recent post, and it makes more sense than mine! I seem to have had a different notion of what an adjective was hahaha.

 

[Derselbe]

What I'm saying is that often times past participles are turned into adjectives. When you are working with "werden" in the Perfekt, if you have an adjective based on a verb participle (or indeed if it's treated as a verb altogether), you used "worden" and if it's an adjective in itself (e.g. big, small, happy, etc.), and not a participle in principle, you use "geworden". I can't think of any examples where that does not apply.

That is absolutly correct. What you are describing is the difference between the two functions of "werden". Sometimes it is an auxiliary verb (mostly used for passive) and sometimes a main verb (in english: "to become").

You can just think of them as two separate verbs.

What youare describing as an "adjective based on a verb participle" is actually a passive main verb and calls for "werden" as an auxiliary verb...