German Language Stack Exchange is a bilingual question and answer site for speakers of all levels who want to share and increase their knowledge of the German language. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is there a standard way to translate phrases like "a _ used for _".

Example: I'm trying to define 'Ohr' in German as "organ used for hearing". Based on what I've read, I've come up with a few possibilities, but I'm not sure which to prefer:

  1. Organ für Gehör benutzt

  2. Organ für das Gehör benutzt

  3. Organ zum Gehör benutzt

  4. Organ benutzt zu hören

Are any of the above correct "_ used for _" translations? Also, does a construction like that sound weird in German?

share|improve this question
related… – Takkat Oct 27 '13 at 18:59
1-3 sind falsch, denn das Gehör ist ja das Organ. Zum Hören und für das Hören geht. Ganze Sätze wären generell besser. Das Ohr ist ein Organ, benutzt zum Hören. – user unknown Oct 28 '13 at 17:19
up vote 5 down vote accepted

Wiktionary, for example, defines the ear as

Anatomie: Sinnesorgan zur Wahrnehmung von akustischen Signalen (Gehör)

This actually is already a good way to translated used for into German: zu + Substantiv.

Organ used for hearing, thus, could be translated as Organ zum Hören.

If you'd like to go with the verb benutzen, you should add the implicit "which is" into the English sentence: An organ which is used for hearing.

Ein Organ, das zum Wahrnehmen von akustischen Signalen benutzt wird.
Ein Organ, das zum Hören benutzt wird.

This sentence now follows the English phrasing most closely but it sounds less good than the other one.

Note, that "Wahrnehmen von akustischen Signalen" is the formal way of saying "Hören"

share|improve this answer
Incidentally, I wouldn’t use benutzen here at all. Perhaps dienen: ein Organ, das zum Hören dient. – chirlu Oct 27 '13 at 18:37
@chirlu I was about adding a note on this but didn't for not being relevant to this question. I think you don't use benutzen because you do not actively make an intentional use of the object. It just works for being a way how human beings are able to hear. You cannot really influence it. But this is rather an apart. – Em1 Oct 27 '13 at 18:54
@Em1: considering the other question:… "benutzt" may indeed be the word the OP struggles with. – Takkat Oct 27 '13 at 18:55
@Takkat Yep. Among many others:… – Mirov Oct 27 '13 at 19:30

Your versions are good starting points.

  1. Generally, you should use Hören instead of Gehör as aim of benutzen. Reason: Gehör refers to the sense as an abstract ability of the human body and not to the concrete happening Hören. In the German understanding, this abstract ability cannot be the result or aim of a usage (benutzen). So the possibilities here are
  1. das Gehör benutzen
  2. benutzen um zu hören
  3. zum Hören benutzen
  1. In definitions, the usage of relative clauses is prefered to infinitive or participal clauses. The usage of inifinitive and participal clauses is rather poetic.

  2. So, you can make the sentences better:

  1. Organ des Gehörs (shortcut)
  2. Organ, das zum Hören benutzt wird (most usual form)
  3. Organ zum Hören benutzt (rather poetic)
  4. Organ zum Hören (simplified form)
  5. Organ benutzt zum Hören (even more poetic)
share|improve this answer
Man kann ein Hörgerät zum Hören "benutzen", aber beim Ohr würde ich "benutzen" nicht benutzen. – Takkat Oct 27 '13 at 19:10
Das ist Standardsprech in Naturwissenschaften. – Toscho Oct 27 '13 at 19:32

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.