Perhaps he merely confused the term "Präteritum" with "Perfekt"? It happened twice already in this thread (once to me, oops.) Präteritum used to be called Imperfekt since a few years back, so that's what most adults learned in school.
Usually simple past/Präteritum is just used in written texts and even here mostly in book (novels, poems,etc). Even newspapers and magazins tend to use the "Perfekt" (I dont use the English word perfect because there are too much differences)Hallo Leute! I'm new here.I apologize in advance if I do something wrong.
Now to the matter at hand: I've encountered a native German speaker who says he only uses simple past/Präteritum, even in conversation. He recognizes that it's unusual, and says he doesn't know why he does it. I'm wondering if anyone can elaborate on this quote a little? Is this "very dramatic" to the point of being ridiculous, or pretentious? ie, would people make fun of you for talking like this? Does it sound old-fashioned at all? I'm trying to grasp the nuances of this intriguing two-past-tenses thing (and gain some insight into this guy's personality) Danke!
Says who?(Thinking of spoken language. In written language, of course, it MUST be Ich wartete.)
Also wrong to me.So there's a connection to the present, and that's when you use German Perfekte,
Says everybody who doesn't only speak German but also knows how to speak it... of course it is mandatory in written texts - it's the German narrative time (Erzählzeit). This is clear even for Wikipedia - so there's no sophisticated research required: "Das Präteritum ist die Erzählform in schriftlichen Texten." - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_TempusformenSays who?
It´s a matter of style for sure, but Präteritum isn´t mandatory in written texts.
But not wrong in fact - your example sentences are wrong! "Ich war schon zweimal in Südafrika" has to be Präteritum, that's true - because it has NO connection to the present. "Ich bin (!) heute früh aus Südafrika zurückgekommen" would have. And "Ich brach mir vor zwei Wochen das Bein und es tut immer noch weh" is just plain wrong - it has a connection to the present and must therefore be "Ich habe mir das Bein gebrochen und es tut noch weh."Also wrong to me.
"Ich brach mir vor zwei Wochen mein Bein und es tut immer noch weh."
"Ich war schon zweimal in Südafrika"
Both sentences have a connection to the present.
I am afraid I cannot agree. The sentence is perfectly acceptable. "Brach" can always be understood to refer to the act or event of breaking and not to the beginning of the state of being broken.And "Ich brach mir vor zwei Wochen das Bein und es tut immer noch weh" is just plain wrong...
Umgekehrt wird ein Schuh 'draus! By explaining semantic differences which are not recognized by native speakers any more, you we would most likely add to non-native speakers' confusion and not reduce it.So it's really no miracle to use Imperfekt and Perfekt properly in German. But those who nonetheless don't know how to: please don't add to the confusion of our non-natives here!
Indeed it has a connection to the present.But not wrong in fact - your example sentences are wrong! "Ich war schon zweimal in Südafrika" has to be Präteritum, that's true - because it has NO connection to the present. ...
I wrote “information”, not “sense”. It suffices if a majority or even a sizable minority of speakers/writers uses Perfekt and Präteritum interchangeably to make it unwise for a listener/reader to allow the choice of tense to influence one’s understanding of a sentence. In this respect it does not convey any practically relevant information any more.But I disagree with you, Bernd, that the difference "conveys no practical sense anymore". I for one don't use them interchangeably, and same goes for all people I've dealt with in my - quite long - professional life (which has always been about writing, in various contexts, journalism, humanities, school and so on). But maybe that's a question of regional usage, once more? Of course, my professional contacts have typically been Austrian...
I agree with your example of "ich habe das Buch gelesen", just not with the example "ich brach mir das Bein". If you take the semantic distinction between Perfekt and Präteritum seriously "ich habe mir das Bein gebrochen" implies that the leg is still broken. But this might not be what you want to express. Of course, we all know that a leg doesn't heal within two weeks. But for the sake of the arguments let's replace two weeks by 2 months. It is quite possible that the leg still hurts though it isn't broken any more after that time.Edit: as far as the broken leg, Bernd, please re-read the quotation "ich habe das Buch gelesen" vs. "ich las das Buch" above.
No, sorry, that's not correct - this is English grammar, NOT German. In English, past perfect tense (especially with -ing) means it's still going on. In German just that it has causal relevance for the present, and the example about the broken leg is excellent to demonstrate the difference: If it's no longer broken, but still hurts, German will use Perfekt (causal relevance for the speaker's present). English will not, as far as I know, since the leg is no more broken, just hurting.If you take the semantic distinction between Perfekt and Präteritum seriously "ich habe mir das Bein gebrochen" implies that the leg is still broken.
Hi Tifoso, I do not understand this. But I try:In German just that it has causal relevance for the present, and the example about the broken leg is excellent to demonstrate the difference: If it's no longer broken, but still hurts, German will use Perfekt (causal relevance for the speaker's present). English will not, as far as I know, since the leg is no more broken, just hurting.
If you guys will allow me to add my two cents' worth to the discussion ... (as a non-native, I think I'm entitled to confuse myself!So it's really no miracle to use Imperfekt and Perfekt properly in German. But those who nonetheless don't know how to: please don't add to the confusion of our non-natives here!
Yes and no. When reporting recent events, the present perfect seems to me to be strongly favored. For example, it's commonplace to hear the Tagesschau begin with something like:On the general topic: There are simply too many speakers or writers who uses Perfekt and Präteritum interchangeably for it to make sense than listeners or readers pay attention to any semantic difference. Hence it has become impossible to convey any information by the choice of tense.
Yes, but there is some system to the style. It's not completely the case that everyone is choosing between the two alternatives independently, as they would do on deciding what is, say, their favourite color.I am not against explaining these rules to non-native speakers. But it should be made clear that they are today just matters of style ...
In this case you could never use Präteritum because every past event may have a causal relevance for the present.No, sorry, that's not correct - this is English grammar, NOT German. In English, past perfect tense (especially with -ing) means it's still going on. In German just that it has causal relevance for the present, and the example about the broken leg is excellent to demonstrate the difference: If it's no longer broken, but still hurts, German will use Perfekt (causal relevance for the speaker's present). English will not, as far as I know, since the leg is no more broken, just hurting.
Yes, same goes for the future, as well. Perfekt (in the case of formally/grammatically determined usage, as opposed to causally determined) is used to describe priority to present OR future tense.Even if the first part is perfect, the real time is future.
I would use these excamples usually this way, too."Ich habe gerade angefangen, ein Buch zu lesen"
vs.
"Ich fing gerade an, ein Buch zu lesen (als es an der Tür klingelte, for example)"
have TOTALLY different meanings
Dagegen stäubt sich meine Intuition vehement. Ich verstehe Dein Argument gegen das Präteritum, auch wenn ich es nicht für zwingend halte. Wahrscheinlich würde ich intuitiv Plusquamperfekt verwenden, um den perfektischen Aspekt auszudrücken, wenn das Bein jetzt nicht mehr gebrochen ist.Aber mit dem Zusatz "es tut noch immer weh" ist es meine Überzeugung, dass das Perfekt auch dann verwendet gehört, wenn das Bein inzwischen nicht mehr gebrochen ist.
This sound perfectly normal to me.Guten Abend meine Damen und Herren. Der Chef der Gewerkschaft Verdi kritisiertestarkdie neuen Pläne der Bundesregierung zum Thema XYZ stark.
In cases like this one where only one form ever exists, there is nothing to differentiate and hence no information conveyed. In cases where both are possible any you hear or read Perfekt you never know if the original meaning is really intended or if the speaker/writer always uses Perfekt. Hence you will start paying attention to context to differentiate and you end up with a situation where either only one of the two forms ever is "schriftsprachlich korrekt" or where the difference doesn't matter. And this means that the difference between the two tenses does not convey any information any more.Es hat sich erledigt.
On the other hand (and don't ask me why, it's just an observation), I've yet to hear someone say (in this context) the equivalent using the simple past:
Es erledigte sich.
I agree that this is the rule as some grammarians put it, and that indeed a significant, if small percentage of German native speakers uses tenses more or less consistently like this (of course I am too talking of standard language here, and mostly written standard language at that; if we were talking of spoken language - be it standard language or colloquial speech - probably only a very small percentage of native speakers would be consistent here).So to put it as briefly as possible (perhaps too briefly, but anyway):
Perfekt is not about the past. It's always about the present.
Präteritum is never about the present. It's always about the past.
Well, descritivists argue as follows: Rules change over time and they change because people start to use grammatical forms differently. Grammar book do not lead this development them they are constantly running behind it. Grammar rules merely describe in a systematic way what native speakers do anyway. If native speaker's widely accepted usage contradicts grammar rules then the rules are wrong, not what native speakers say.Let me just say that it's funny for me to come across as the prescriptivist here. So far in my life, I've always been the one (not just, but particularly in the context of grammar) who said "rules are there in order to be violated". Actually, much of the quality of literature is due to the violation of grammatical rules. But it's my deep conviction that when you're learning a language (including your own native language), you first need to learn the rules thoroughly, theoretical as they may be. And THEN you are in a position to violate them. Deliberately.
It is the same in Austrian schools - German school teachers don't even bother trying to explain the difference (and I bet most of them don't even think there is any: and I'm talking of secondary and higher education too).In my daughter's school (she is attending the German school in Geneva), they don't even bother explaining the difference any more, they just call is "lange und kurze Vergangenheit".
I think this example just demonstrates that Tifoso's interpretation of "reference to the present" was too extensive.This change can´t be that new, can it?
"Die ich rief, die Geister
werd ich nun nicht los"
(Der Zauberlehrling)
A clear reference to the present and I wouldn´t call Goethe an intentional rules violator![]()
Yes. Proto-Germanic certeinly only distinguished these two tenses. Though rooted in OHG constructs the use of Perfekt as a tense in its own rights started in MHG. Also in OHG it was most likely an imitation of Late Latin usage (you might be interested in reading this thread) but we don't know this for sure.Since the tenses have been imposed artificially on the German language it´s a bit like back to the roots of ancient German(ic) which , as far as I know, just had two tenses (past and non past).
Well, these lines are forcing me back into this discussion. What you are saying here is that your daughter will not be able to read German literature, because she's simply not going to understand it properly. The whole treasure of literature is written - attention - of course not STRICTLY the way I explained the use of Perfekt and Imperfekt, but definitely in a way that makes - PROPER - understanding of those texts impossible if you've never learned those rules. Ten minutes ago, I went to my bookshelf and took out three books of which I know that they are written in what I think is exemplary language; I opened two of them on a random page and read random passages, and checked the third one whether there is any comment there on our topic. These are the results, Perfekt in green, Imperfekt in red:Your earlier statement that the Perfekt is about the present not about the past simply isn't reality any more. Some speakers, like you and me, still use it the old way but we are a rapidly shrinking minority. In my daughter's school (she is attending the German school in Geneva), they don't even bother explaining the difference any more, they just call it "lange und kurze Vergangenheit". She will probably learn the old rules when she gets a bit older (she is 11 now) but I bet it will be perceived by her generation as a "history lession" and nothing more.
So ist es für einen Norddeutschen meiner Generation idiomatisch. Ev. würde man das erste "genügte" durch Perfekt oder Präsens ersetzen. Ich weiß nicht, warum Du "dachte" rot hinterlegt hast. Hälst Du das für falsch? "Gedacht hat" statt "dachte" wäre unidiomatisch und würde als oberdeutscher Perfekt empfunden werden."Weil ihnen Wien genügte, sind sie nichts geworden zum Unterschied von denen, denen Wien nicht genügte und die im entscheidenden Augenblick aus Wien weg in das Ausland gegangen sind, dachte ich auf dem Ohrensessel."
Ganz einfach: weil ich in allen oben zitierten Beispielen das Perfekt grün und das Imperfekt rot gefärbt habe. Also nein, ich halte es nicht für falsch. (Hätte auch alle Imperfektformen blau färben können.Ich weiß nicht, warum Du "dachte" rot hinterlegt hast. Hälst Du das für falsch?
Ok, dann hatte ich das falsch verstanden.Ganz einfach: weil ich in allen oben zitierten Beispielen das Perfekt grün und das Imperfekt rot gefärbt habe. Also nein, ich halte es nicht für falsch. (Hätte auch alle Imperfektformen blau färben können.)
Das Beispiel ist eigentlich unpassend: denn der Satz in Perfekt entspricht einem Gedankengang während des im-Ohrensessel-sitzens - und entspricht somit, wenn man so will, einer direkten Rede."Weil ihnen Wien genügt hat, sind sie nichts geworden zum Unterschied von denen, denen Wien nicht genügt hat und die im entscheidenden Augenblick aus Wien weg in das Ausland gegangen sind, dachte ich auf dem Ohrensessel."
Na ja - ich habe aber tatsächlich einfach die erstbesten vier Bücher, die mir als "schön geschrieben" eingefallen sind, aus dem Regal genommen und keinerlei Recherche nach "passenden" Beispielen unternommen, ehrlich. Ich bezweifle also vehement, dass Dein "großer Teil" so groß ist, wie Du glaubst.Du vergisst, dass ein grosser Teil der deutschen Literatur überhaupt nie diese Regeln für Präteritum und Perfekt angewandt hat - oder nur inkonsistent, in manchen Fällen.
Das finde ich nicht - siehe das oben gebrachte Bamm-Zitat! Wenn Du Perfekt und Imperfekt nicht exakt so verstehst wie ich (und Bamm), dann kannst Du den Satz über das höchste Honorar (wenn wir jetzt von der Infomation, die im Folgesatz steckt, absehen - und bei entsprechender Recherche ließen natürlich unzählige Literatur-Beispiele OHNE Zusatzinformation finden!) einfach nicht interpretieren.Auch ist es eine etwas starke Behauptung zu sagen, man würde die deutsche Literatur nicht verstehen, wenn man Perfekt und Präteritum nicht so verstehen würde, wie von dir beschrieben (und wie heutzutage nur noch von einer Minderheit gebraucht).
Von den vier Autoren meines "Zufallstests" sind drei Österreicher: Bernhard, Weigel und Chargaff. Ich halte also, einmal mehr, Dein "viele andere österreichische Autoren" nicht für erwiesen.Viele andere österreichische Autoren haben jedoch niemals Perfekt und Präteritum konsequent als unterschiedliche Zeitformen behandelt; dasselbe gilt übrigens bestimmt auch für viele Autoren aus Deutschland (moderne ebenso wie ältere).
Dass ich mich nicht auf die gesprochene Sprache beziehe, habe ich deutlich klargemacht. Selbstverständlich verwende in gesprochener Sprache auch ich, als Wiener, als absolut einzige Imperfektform "war". Sonst habe ich bestimmt noch nie ein Imperfekt in den Mund genommen, außer beim Vorlesen oder im Grammatikunterricht. Aber was ändert das an der (und zwar auch an meiner!) Schriftsprache?Es will mir nicht in den Kopf, warum ausgerechnet ein Wiener wie du, der ohne Zweifel von Leuten umgeben ist, für die Perfekt und Präteritum lediglich stilistische Varianten derselben Zeitform sind, so vehement dafür eintritt, dass nur diese Norm die "Richtige" sein kann.
Dies erklärt natürlich einiges. Wir Deutschen unterscheiden nicht derart zwischen Schriftsprache und gesprochener Sprache wie Österreicher oder Schweizer. Ein sehr grosser Prozentsatz der Bevölkerung spricht auch im Alltag Standardsprache. Der Unterschied besteht für uns im Wesentlichen darin, dass wir schriftlich einige besonders hemdsärmelige Ausdrücke vermeiden. Der Versuch bestimmte Formen entgegen der Entwicklung der gesprochenen Sprache schriftlich auf Dauer aufrecht zu erhalten empfänden die meisten Deutschen als Don Quixoterie und wäre auf Dauer zum Scheitern verurteilt. Und dass ausgerechnet Österreicher und Schweizer das Fortdauern der Präteritum/Perfekt-Unterscheidung in der deutschen Schriftsprache auf Dauer sichern sollten, erscheint mir mehr als unwahrscheinlich.Dass ich mich nicht auf die gesprochene Sprache beziehe, habe ich deutlich klargemacht. Selbstverständlich verwende in gesprochener Sprache auch ich, als Wiener, als absolut einzige Imperfektform "war". Sonst habe ich bestimmt noch nie ein Imperfekt in den Mund genommen, außer beim Vorlesen oder im Grammatikunterricht. Aber was ändert das an der (und zwar auch an meiner!) Schriftsprache?