Danish: "Er du vaccineret" or "Er du blevet vaccineret"?

[Ludwig Lukasiewicz]

I have seen both. Is there any difference?

 

[serbianfan]

Well, in Norwegian, 'Er du vaksinert?' is more common, I would say. The version with 'blitt/blevet' seems more likely if it has recently happened: 'Han er nylig/akkurat blitt vaksinert'. Maybe it's the same in Danish.

 

[PoulBA]

Javist er der forskel. "At være vaccineret" er tilstanden. "At blive vaccineret" er handlingen. Fx: Han blev vaccineret som barn; han er altså vaccineret. Er du blevet vaccineret indebærer en forventning. Enten er det sket, eller også forventes det at skulle ske, svarende til engelsk: Have you been vaccinated? / Have you had your jab?

 

[PoulBA]

Ah, I should have answered in English. Certainly there is a difference. "At være vaccineret" is a state. "At blive vaccineret" is an action. Example: "Han blev vaccineret som barn; han er altså vaccineret". He was vaccinated as a child; so now is vaccinated. "Er du blevet vaccineret" entails an expectation. Either it already has happened or it is expected to happen.
Or: Er du blevet vaccineret? = have you been vaccinated? (action)
Er du vaccineret? = are you vaccinated? (state)

 

[myšlenka]

"Er du blevet vaccineret" entails an expectation.

Are you sure about this? Saying that X entails Y when talking about meaning in language is a very strong statement because the claim then is that Y is somehow inherent in X. Presumably, you can use the same construction in a way that does not express expectation, which would mean that there is no such entailment at all.

Er du blevet vaccineret? - directed to an anti-vaxxer, it would not express expectation at all. Rather surprise/misbelief.
Er du blevet opsagt? - I am not sure what the expectation would be here.

 

[serbianfan]

I don't honestly think there's much difference in practical terms, whether someone asks me "Er du blevet vaccineret?" or "Er du vaccineret?" If we replace "vaccineret" with most other words, we find a much clearer difference, e.g. "Han er lam" vs. "Han er blevet lam", not to mention "hun er katolik" vs. "hun er blevet katolik".

 

[bicontinental]

Old post, I know. I just wanted to add that I think a lot depends on the emphasis placed on certain word(s) or parts of the spoken sentence.

Er DU blevet vaccineret!? expresses surprise or disbelief as does, Er DU vaccineret!? Emphasis on YOU (of all people!). To me there's no real difference otherwise (er blevet vs. er)

Er du blevet VACCINERET?/Er du VACCINERET? Could also express some level of disbelief, ...or maybe the question is being asked of a person who's hard of hearing (emphasis on the vaccination process.)

ER du blevet vaccineret? /ER du vaccineret? The 'questioner' focuses on the finite verb... the emphasis is on the vaccination process being done/completed

And then there's body language, context etc. which may also influence the interpretation of the question.

Er du blevet vaccineret" entails an expectation. Either it already has happened or it is expected to happen.

Even with the emphasis placed on the finite verb, I still don't feel there's any implied expectation (just my personal opinion), e.g.
A: ER du blevet vaccineret/ER du vaccineret? [Have you been vaccinated/Are you vaccinated?]

B: Nej! [No!]

A: Så må du hellere bruge mundbind. [Then you may want to wear a face mask.]