16

The most direct equivalent to such constructions is an accusative-and-infinitive construction (AcI). It can be used with verbs of perception and similar and the subject of the action that is perceived is put into the accusative case while the verb is in the infinitive case. While you do not use it in your examples, there is an analogous English construction (...


15

Nein, sie haben nicht die gleiche Bedeutung. Der erste Satz nutzt den Konjunktiv II der Vergangenheit im Hauptsatz, der zweite nutzt den Konjunktiv II der Gegenwart. Im ersten Beispiel hat Mark den Bus verpasst und musste bereits den ganzen Weg laufen (und hat es wahrscheinlich auch getan). Im zweiten Beispiel hat Mark den Bus zwar bereits verpasst, aber ...


14

Most of the modal verbs are so-called preterite-presents (Präteritopräsentien). A demonstrative example is the German verb wissen (though commonly not counted as modal). "Regular" verbs have an -e ending in the first person singular present and a -t ending in the third person singular present. ich gehe, er geht. However, the verb wissen has ich weiß,...


14

This construction is the so called "Absentive", which is still disputed, but can be found in many European languages. Basically "Wir waren essen" means "We were off eating". The trick is the location referred to - "wir waren essen" always means that you were off from that place. Let's assume that a friend comes to your place and sees some tools, then asks ...


13

Neither sentence is wrong. German word order is rather flexible, and while there is a tendency to have the second part of a split verb at the end, it isn't always the case. Possible reasons for pulling it to the front include improved understandability (when the intervening part would be long) and putting emphasis on a specific part of the sentence. In this ...


13

The sentence is correct. While it is much more common to have the verb at the end, in this particular case there is an emphasis on the need to return, while the destination is rather a side information. This can be expressed by using this word order. You can find some background information on canoo.net. The technical term that applies here is that of a &...


12

That is exactly right. That is its use as a Modalverb. A better translation, in my opinion, would be may not maybe, which is actually what you used in your example translation. Quoting from the Duden's entry: zum Ausdruck der Vermutung; vielleicht, möglicherweise sein, geschehen, tun, denken Common phrases include Mag (gut) sein! Das mag wohl ...


10

Short answer: No, not in contemporary German. Slightly longer answer: "wollen" implies an intention, not a prediction. It literally translates to "want" in English - and works the same in every way I can think of right now. The translation for "will" (referring to the future) is "werden". That being said, the sentences you quote are written in outdated ...


10

The reason they put the sentence in this order is a pun with a very common German proverb of unknown origin: Was du heute kannst besorgen, das verschiebe nicht auf morgen. The word order was adapted to meet rhyme metrics, which is often found in poems.


10

"I want to swim" vs. "I want to go swimming" -- same thing. The difference is that strictly spoken in the first, you desire the action itself (as in, "I want to swim, not just only lie in the sun", whereas in the second, you want go somewhere and do it ("lets go to the Schwimmbad"). But there's more to it, really. The INF + gehen construction is used in ...


10

In general, being "just about to [do something]" means that the action is in the immediate future, not already ongoing. Possible translations would be "kurz davor sein, [etwas] zu [tun]" or "gerade [etwas tun] wollen" or "im Begriff sein, [etwas] zu [tun]". "I was just about to call you" => "Ich ...


9

It means the signal "that they claim to have located", i.e. it's unconfirmed.


9

If I understand you correctly you seem to be mainly confused by the start of the second sentence. So was doesn't mean so what. It is a short, rather colloquial form of so etwas and means something like that. It is the object of the sentence and the counterpart of "such things" in the first sentence. (I suppose you know that German sentences may start with ...


9

Both are correct, but they mean different things. Nicht always negates the part of the sentence that comes after it. So: Leider kann nicht ich kommen negates "ich": Unfortunately, it's not me who can come (but maybe someone else). Leider kann ich nicht kommen negates "kommen": Unfortuntaly, I cannot come. In normal situations, you'd would always use the ...


9

Your teacher isn't wrong per se, but this distinction isn't followed that strictly in everday life. The two words have a slightly different focus. You might say, "mögen" puts the focus more on the emotion of liking something or someone, while "gefallen" puts the focus more on something appealing to your tastes. Ich mag Anne sehr, aber ...


9

In der Umgangssprache sind beide Versionen mittlerweile möglich und gebräuchlich. Es gibt dennoch einen Unterschied. Strenggenommen fragt darf nach der Erlaubnis etwas zu tun, während kann danach fragt, ob man dazu in der Lage ist. Richtig ist in der Aufgabe also tatsächlich "darf", denn es wird nach der Erlaubnis gefragt. Dazu folgende Beispiele "Kann ...


9

The verb "lernen" is not a modal verb. German has 6 modal verbs, and they are: dürfen Ich darf schwimmen. - I may swim. können Ich kann schwimmen. - I can swim. mögen Ich mag schwimmen. - I want to swim. müssen Ich muss schwimmen. - I have to swim. sollen Ich soll schwimmen. - I'm supposed to swim. wollen Ich will ...


8

Diese Form hat meines Wissens keinen besonderen Namen. Es gibt die Konstruktion Modalverb + Infinitiv, mit der man Sätze bildet wie: Ich kann spielen. In die Figur rennen zu lassen liegt kein Modalverb(+Infinitiv) im konventionellen Sinne vor. "lassen" verlangt eine ähnliche Konstruktion, die AcI (accusativus cum infinitivo) genannt wird. Das spielt für ...


8

Modalverbe gehen nicht mit Perfekt. Ein Muttersprachler sagte mir einmal auf dem Beispielsatz »Er hat den Apfel essen können«, dass er es versteht, aber man spricht nicht so, und ich muss es immer mit Präteritum nützen (»Er konnte den Apfel essen.«). Das ist falsch. Vermutlich ist dein Muttersprachler Norddeutsch. Für mich (Bayern) ist »Er hat den Apfel ...


8

Like in English, there are similar modal verbs (Modalverben) in German. These are dürfen, können, mögen, müssen, sollen und wollen. Mostly, they are "modelling" the main verb but it is also possible to use them without main verb. In your example, Morgen muss ich zum Arzt the second word, muss, which is the conjugated version of the müssen, is the ...


7

Du sollst nicht töten. This is one of the ten commandments of the Bible. It is like an imperative. Arzt: Sie sollten nicht rauchen. Recommendations are given in this form.


7

It is a special case: The sentence contains an Ersatzinfinitiv of a modal verb (namely, können instead of gekonnt) and the auxiliary verb haben. Such a construction requires that the auxiliary is moved in front of the other verbs; version (2) is ungrammatical. (Machen hätte können sounds slightly less bad, but still odd.) See canoo on verb clusters in final ...


7

Maybe the difference is best explained by translating both sentences: Ich möchte etwas zu trinken: I would like something to drink. The person is stating, that he/she desires the object (or rather: liquid) he/she wants to drink. Note that you could also use etwas zum Trinken. Ich möchte etwas trinken: I would like to drink something. This case ...


7

»Mögen« is a verb: Ich mag Kaffee. I like coffee. Ich mag es, Kaffee zu trinken. I like to drink coffee. But »gern« is an adverb: Ich trinke gerne Kaffee Verbatim: I gladly drink coffee. (same pattern as in: I often drink coffee = Ich trinke oft Kaffee) But you don't have an adverb in english that means the same like the german adverb »...


7

Ah, Wiktionary, if only you were as accurate as you are confident when you say expresses a possibility, never a permission. DWDS says (and that entry is derived from WDG, a proper dictionary): 3. in Verbindung mit einem Infinitiv; nur im Präs.; der Sprecher ist nie grammatisches Subj. drückt aus, dass der Sprecher nicht gegen die Realisation des Inhaltes ...


7

The finite verb is muss, which is 3rd person singular present indicative. Like all modal verbs, it combines with a bare infinitive, sein, which in this example combines with a past participle gewesen to form the infinitive perfect of sein, gewesen sein. So no subjunctive in sight. But it is worth pointing out that the modal verb is used epistemically (...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible