Difference between "ändern" and "verändern"

Question

I am aware that this same question has been asked here: What is the difference between “ändern” and “verändern”?, however the issue remains at large for me. Basically, from this post specifically, apparently "ändern" is used more for "casual" changes, in the sense of effecting a change onto something pre-existing, whereas "verändern" implies a more severe modification, even suggesting total replacement. HOWEVER, this seems to be a point of contention, as some posts on other forums suggest the complete opposite while even others back up the link's conclusion. So, my question is: what gives? What are their differences? Is this a regional thing? Are they really just interchangeable and some people grow fond of one more than the other? Thanks.

Links to the other posts:

https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/%C3%A4ndern-ver%C3%A4ndern.80337/ (opposite)

http://www.deutsch-als-fremdsprache.de/austausch/forum/read.php?4,49568,49580,quote=1 (this one talks about active/on purpose vs. passive)

http://www.grammatikfragen.de/showthread.php?480-Gibt-es-einen-Unterschied-zwischen-quot-%E4ndern-quot-und-quot-ver%E4ndern-quot-und-wie-lie%DFe-sich-dieser-erkl%E4ren (somewhat opposite, does say "ändern" can be used for full on exchanges/replacements)

http://deutschhappen.com/wann-verwendet-man-das-verb-andern-wann-verandern (complete opposite)

https://www.italki.com/question/88674 (apparently doesn't make much of a distinction, simply states that "verändern" is used less frequently).

Answer 1

The prefix ver- in a lot of cases is either an intensifier or a switch of perspective.

reisen (to travel) → verreisen (to go on a journey)

reißen (to tear) → verreißen (to slate something)

brauchen (to need) → verbrauchen (to consume)

lassen (to let) → loslassen (to let go) → verlassen (to leave a place, to leave someone)

mieten (to rent) → vermieten (to rent out)

tun (to do) → vertun (to do wrong)

(There are also cases where ver- changes the meaning completely as with mögen or machen and cases like verzeihen or verletzen where the unprefixed verb does not exist.)

Ändern is complicated. For example you could say:

Wir müssen etwas ändern.

We have to change something.

That one is neutral. However

Wir müssen etwas verändern.

We (really) have to change something.

puts some pressure into the sentence.

When your loved one says to you

Du hast dich geändert.

You have changed.

she usually means a neutral or positive change. While

Du hast dich verändert.

means your change puts stress on her.

Sometimes verändern belongs to fixed phrases as

Ich wollte mich verändern.

I wanted to switch. (usually a job, or move into a house instead of a flat)

You cannot use ändern in such phrases.

So, as a general rule, verändern means to change more than usual, change that needs some work, or change in an undesireable fashion (or in desireable fashion if the current condition is undesireable). Which is what ver- does to a lot of words. With ändern the difference is very subtle.

Answer 2

The one thing that rings true in your links is that you cannot use "verändern" to mean switch out:

• "Er hat seinen Therapeuten geändert." - This is ambiguous: He could have produced a change in his therapist or he could have exchanged his therapist for another.

• "Er hat seinen Therapeuten verändert." - This can, as far as I can tell, only mean that he brought about some change in his therapist.

Thus, you can only say "die Richtung ändern", because you cannot bring about a change in the direction - its only property is being that direction, so any change is going to exchange the direction for another. Same with "seine Adresse ändern", where "verändern" would sound like you stay in the same place but make a change to the address itself.

In examples where I mean to change a thing (without switching it out), I don't think that there is any semantic difference between the two. I would usually use "verändern", except in set phrases, and I think that that is the general tendency, but I'm not sure about it.

Answer 3

It's certainly true that "ändern" and "verändern" are close semantically, and are in some instances synonymous.

My understanding is that the context determines the word (ie. the collocation). That is, one of them is required when using certain other words. Check out, for instance, the detailed DWDS corpus entries for ändern vs. verändern. See also the comparison page here.

I do observe two tendencies from that data: first, ändern is the more commonly used word. Second, verändern takes on the meaning of "to modify" or "to change a detail" more often than does ändern, although both may. An example for this confusion is:

Wir haben den Plan geändert.

Literally, this means that "we" have changed our plan, but not entirely (I'd have used "wir haben den Plan gewechselt" or "wir haben einen anderen Plan verwendet") but also not only a detail (which would be "wir haben den (bestehenden) Plan verändert", note the clarifying "bestehend", ie. existing).

With the corpus data above, we (I, really) see that "ändern" is far more likely to occur with "Plan" than does "verändern", but that the latter is not uncommon. The example of "Grundriss" shows this more clearly: the footprint of a building, while a type of "Plan", is almost exclusively used with "verändern", owing perhaps to the difficulty of wholly altering one, making it easier to modify details in comparison.