1

When working with the Vorgangspassiv, would it be correct to view some potential general forms of the various tenses as follows (i know besides V2, word order is less strict in German, but nonetheless these could be considered correct, yes?)

Simple Present Passive:

Das Buch wird gelesen
[Subject] [conjugated present-tense of werden] [partizip II of main verb]

Present Perfekt Passive:

Das Buch ist gelesen worden
[Subject] [conjugated present tense of sein] [partizip II of main verb] worden.

Simple Past Passive:

Das Buch wurde gelesen
[subject] [conjugated simple past tense of werden] [partizip II of main verb]

Past Perfekt (plusquam perfekt) Passive:

Das Buch war gelesen worden
[Subject] [conjugated past tense of sein] [partizip II of main verb] worden.

Simple Future Passive (Future I):

Das Buch wird gelesen werden.
[subject] [conjugated present tense of werden] [partizip II of main verb] werden

Perfekt Future Passive (Future II):

Das Buch wird gelesen worden sein
[subject] [conjugated present tense of werden] [partizip II of main verb] worden sein


Question When a form of 'sein' is being used (for example, in the present perfekt passive example) is this just by coincidence that the verb takes sein and not haben? Or will such a construction always take sein? For example, in Future II active, the infinitive placed at the end of the sentence can be either haben/sein depending on which aux the verb takes in the present perfket tense.

so the question is, should the general form really be
[Subject] [conjugated present tense of sein/haben] [partizip II of main verb] worden.


Now, when working with Active Future I and Future II, is the following right?

Future I Active:

Ich werde das Buch lesen
[subject] [conjugated present tense of werden] [object if applicable] [inf. form of main verb]

Future II Active:

Ich werde das Buch gelesen haben
[subject] [conjugated present tense of werden] [object if applicable] [partizip II of main verb] haben/sein

Thanks

1

As far as I can see, all your "phrase plans" are correct.

Here's a more condensed version of the construction principle of the werden passive (see eg Helbig/Buscha, Deutsche Grammatik, 2001, 144; Hentschel/Weydt, Handbuch der deutschen Grammatik, 5th edn 2021, 118f; Engel, Deutsche Grammatik, Neunbearbeitung, 2nd edn 2009, 238): 1. The werden passive consists of the conjugated form of the passive auxiliary werden and the participle II of the full verb. 2. The participle II of werden is always used without leading ge-.

So, for example, the perfect of (er/sie/es) wird is ist geworden. Now combine it with the participle II of the full verb, you get: ist gelesen geworden, elide the ge- from geworden, and you get ist gelesen worden. Or preterite: The preterite of wird is wurde, add the participle II of lesen, and you get wurde gelesen. Future II: The future II of wird is wird geworden sein, add the participle II of lesen, elide the ge- from geworden, et voilà: wird gelesen worden sein.

You ask:

When a form of 'sein' is being used (for example, in the present perfekt passive example) is this just by coincidence that the verb takes sein and not haben? Or will such a construction always take sein?

Yes, it is always sein, and that's no coincidence. You get that information from the above rule, by the way: The sein in perfect tense comes in due the fact that the perfect auxiliary of werden is sein. It does not come from the full verb. Because the future II incorporates the perfect auxiliary as well, it too contains sein.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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