3

You are given a list of verbs, say: aufstehen, sich duschen, sich schminken, einsteigen, frühstücken, arbeiten, gehen, usw.

Forget momentarily that we are telling an everyday story. If that is the case, the order can be ignored and (I guess) the following phrase is correct:

Ich bin müde, weil ich aufgestanden, in den Zug eingestiegen, nach Hause gegangen bin und mich geduscht, mich geschminkt, gearbeitet und gefrühstückt habe.

If the order of the actions doesn't matter, then I can group the verbs by their auxiliars, and it sounds good. But what if (as is often the case) the order does matter!? You have alterned sein-past and haben-past verbs. Do you repeat an auxiliar for each verb?

Ich bin müde, weil ich aufgestanden bin, mich geduscht habe, mich geschminkt habe, in den Zug eingestiegen bin, gefrühstückt habe, gearbeitet habe und nach Hause gegangen bin.

or can I use an und to group them (see below, the und in italics)

Ich bin müde, weil ich aufgestanden bin, mich geduscht und mich geschminkt habe, in den Zug eingestiegen bin, gefrühstückt und gearbeitet habe und nach Hause gegangen bin.

Another question: should I write the mich from the reflexive verbs in bold (above) for each reflexive verb? or can I group them like

... weil ich aufgestanden bin, mich geduscht und geschminkt habe, ...

Improve this question
1
  • 1
    Note that einsteigen (unlike board) is an intransitive verb. What you are boarding is given with in +acc.: Wir sind in Hamburg in den Zug eingestiegen. If clear from context, it can also be left out: Ich bin gerade erst eingestiegen.
    – chirlu
    Jul 15, 2013 at 10:11

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3

Your sentences are fine. You're right that you have to repeat each sein and haben when you have an alternating use of those verbs. If you'd drop them the sentence not only sounds incomplete but also is grammatically incorrect.

Whenever possible try to reduce word redundancy. When you can group parts of the sentence, then do it and leave out words which appear in every part. But do not necessarily combine reflexive and non-reflexive verbs. Compare the following versions.
The first two sentences are both OK.
The fourth one is very ... well, my language feel tells me not to say it like that.
The third one is actually grammatically wrong. It's not obvious that mich does not belong to the last part of the enumeration.

I think, you'd hear the differences if you hear a native speaker saying these sentences out loud. It's the way of right emphasis and pauses.

Ich bin müde, weil ich aufgestanden bin, gefrühstückt habe, mich geduscht und geschminkt habe, in den Zug eingestiegen bin, gearbeitet habe und nach Hause gegangen bin.

Ich bin müde, weil ich aufgestanden bin, gefrühstückt, mich geduscht und geschminkt habe, in den Zug eingestiegen bin, gearbeitet habe und nach Hause gegangen bin.

*Ich bin müde, weil ich aufgestanden bin, mich geduscht und geschminkt und gefrühstückt habe, in den Zug eingestiegen bin, gearbeitet habe und nach Hause gegangen bin.

Ich bin müde, weil ich aufgestanden bin, mich geduscht und mich geschminkt und gefrühstückt habe, in den Zug eingestiegen bin, gearbeitet habe und nach Hause gegangen bin.

Improve this answer
5
  • To me, the second of the four versions sounds fine and even more natural than the first. (I agree that the third is wrong and the fourth is awkward.) Otherwise, good point.
    – chirlu
    Jul 15, 2013 at 11:07
  • @chirlu Well, reading the sentence again it doesn't sound as odd as it did before. Actually, I think there's another point. While all three actions are things you do first thing in the morning, taking a shower and put on make-up are somewhat considered as actions that belongs together and have a breakfast is a separate action. Probably this is the reason I felt this way when I created that answer. Would you agree that that could be another reason not to group parts of the sentence?
    – Em1
    Jul 15, 2013 at 12:14
  • I do agree, but they would have to be "more unrelated": Ich habe geduscht und neulich gelesen, daß ... This reminds me, duschen can be used non-reflexively, too.
    – chirlu
    Jul 15, 2013 at 12:46
  • @Em1 (it might seem a very obvious question, but) in the comments between you and chirlu, are you talking about the "first,..., fourth" sentences inside the question or inside your answer?
    – c.p.
    Jul 15, 2013 at 19:46
  • @c.p.: I referred to the examples in Em1’s answer. I think (hope) Em1 referred to them, too. ;-)
    – chirlu
    Jul 15, 2013 at 20:09
1

All versions are grammatically OK, but your last version (with one mich) does indeed sound the most natural.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

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