0

I just read the following article: https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/afrika/niger-bazoum-sorge-100.html

If you ask me, everything is fine with it, except for this sentence in the last paragraph: "Die Westafrikanische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft ECOWAS forderte die Putschisten auf, Bazoum bis vergangenen Sonntagabend wieder einzusetzen, und ein militärisches Eingreifen angedroht."

It's either an aspect of the language I am not familiar with, or they simply should have said, for exapmle, "und drohten ein militärisches Eingreifen an." I'm pretty confident I have it figured out, but you never know...

1
  • 1
    ...and you're absolutely right.
    – tofro
    Aug 13, 2023 at 7:47

2 Answers 2

2

You are right. That's simply a mistake, the typical thing when people are making changes to a text in a hurry. You'd need "hat ... aufgefordert" first in order to use the participle alone after "und".

1
  • 1
    Actually there are older German texts in which the auxiliary verb of a perfect is omitted. But in the case at hand, it was surely a mistake.
    – RHa
    Aug 13, 2023 at 9:29
1

This is a mistake. I'm pretty sure the first half of the sentence had originally read

… ECOWAS hat die Putschisten aufgefordert, …

and in that case you can and should leave out the hat in the second half as it would feel like an unnecessary doubling.

But then the writer thought, wait, the style guide says that we should report calls for action in Präteritum because those aren't real-world facts you need witnesses for. And so Präteritum was introduced in the sentence but that hat in the second part was still dropped.

What I wonder about is why they didn't change the Perfekt to Präteritum in the second half. It's inconsistent.

Your Answer

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

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