Difference between "wenn" and "als"
Michael Symonds
some threads above I've read the following examples:
> "Er oeffnete seinen Mund als er ass."
> He opened his mouth when/as he ate.
>
> "Er oeffnete seinen Mund, wenn er ass."
> He opened his mouth when(ever) he ate.
This is what a german speaker means when he depreciatory says
"Schulbeispiel" (verbatim: example of school). The German
"Schulbeispiel" means often a correct but not a nice or practical
usage.
It happened to me that I found a beautiful example for a correct usage
of "wenn" in the meaning above:
# Seine Fingernägel waren immer sauber und ordentlich gefeilt, und er
# hatte die haarigen, ausdruckvollen Hände eines Höhlenmalers. Wenn er
# uns etwas vorlas, folgten seine Augen dem Gedruckten, schauten
# langsam auf und sahen uns unmittelbar über dem Rand des Blattes an.
# His fingernails were always clean and filed, and he had the hairy,
# speaky hands of a cave-wall painter. He read to us, and when he read
# his eyes followed the print and then rose slowly up, looking just
# over the edge of the page at us.
[Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag, dtv zweisprachig, Amerikanische
Kurzgeschichten "Guys under their Fedoras - Die mit ihren Filzhüten"
Jane P. Hatley: Till Human Voices Wake Us, Seiten 68/69]
"Als er uns etwas vorlas ..." would be a definitely wrong translation
of the original English text. It would be mean "Als er uns etwas (an
einem bestimmten Abend!) vorlas...".
"Als er uns etwas vorlas..." is actually a notification of a concrete
interval of time. The question "Wann geschah es? / Zu welcher Zeit
geschah es?" would be answered by "Als er uns etwas vorlas."
with pleasure - Michael Symonds
PS: Please feel free to correct my english stuff...
ankerstein
Michael...@t-online.de (Michael Symonds) wrote:
> PS: Please feel free to correct my english stuff...
I feel free to correct both your English and your German, as
required.
GFH
--
To see what makes me tick, check out
www.ankerstein.org
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Michael Symonds
wrote:
>> PS: Please feel free to correct my english stuff...
>
>I feel free to correct both your English and your German, as
>required.
And why do you not so?
Michael Symonds
ankerstein
Sure. This time, your English. "As required" means "if and when
necessary". A correction was not necessary prior to your last post.
Michael Symonds
wrote:
>> And why do you not so?
>
>Sure. This time, your English. "As required" means "if and when
>necessary". A correction was not necessary prior to your last post.
Oh, I really can't believe it, neither my English teacher many years
ago would it believe :-) Thank you for your statement! (I hope you are
a native english speaker?)
I wish you and the entire news group a Happy New Year and a good start
in the third millenium!
- Michael Symonds
Marc Ruehlaender
: Dear audience
: some threads above I've read the following examples:
written by me...
: > "Er oeffnete seinen Mund als er ass."
: > He opened his mouth when/as he ate.
: >
: > "Er oeffnete seinen Mund, wenn er ass."
: > He opened his mouth when(ever) he ate.
: This is what a german speaker means when he depreciatory says
: "Schulbeispiel" (verbatim: example of school). The German
: "Schulbeispiel" means often a correct but not a nice or practical
: usage.
I'm sorry, I don't get your point. The example you quote
was from the original posters article.
I'm trying to say that when(!) you can replace the "when"
by "as", "als" is usually the correct translation and
when you can replace it with "whenever", "wenn" usually
is the correct translation.
It was noted somewhere else, I believe, that "als" is
only used with the past tense.
I fail to see in how far my examples qualify as
"not nice or practical usage"...
oh, and btw, I've never encountered the derogatory use
of "Schulbeispiel" you mention. To me, it just means
"the" example usually quoted to illustrate a certain
point...
--
Marc Ruehlaender
rue...@iastate.edu
ankerstein
Michael...@t-online.de (Michael Symonds) wrote:
> some threads above I've read the following examples:
>
> > "Er oeffnete seinen Mund als er ass."
> > He opened his mouth when/as he ate.
> >
> > "Er oeffnete seinen Mund, wenn er ass."
> > He opened his mouth when(ever) he ate.
I see nothing wrong with either of these sentences. I note,
to begin with, the use of the 'simple past' (Praetertium),
thus I am assuming that both are part of a narrative.
If I were describing a condemned prisoner eating his last
meal, I would use "als". If I were describing how a boy
eats his Big Mac, I would use "wenn".
Michael Symonds
wrote:
>> > "Er oeffnete seinen Mund als er ass."
>> > He opened his mouth when/as he ate.
>> >
>> > "Er oeffnete seinen Mund, wenn er ass."
>> > He opened his mouth when(ever) he ate.
>
>I see nothing wrong with either of these sentences.
You are right. There is nothing wrong with these sentences, at least
not in grammatical respect.
What I mean is the aesthetic aspect.
A good native german speaker (I think I am such one :-) would not says
"Er oeffnete seinen Mund, wenn er ass."
when he means "He opened his mouth whenever he ate."
He would say:
"Er oeffnete seinen Mund, wann immer er ass."
What I want to give was a aesthetic example in which the german "wenn"
means "whenever / every time".
- Michael Symonds
Please notice that I am writing my postings to help someone to use the
German language but also respectively more to exercise my English
usage. I think this circumstance is a source for a lot of
misunderstandings - but I do my very best.
That is why I say: Please feel free to correct my english stuff.
Michael Symonds
wrote:
>I'm sorry, I don't get your point. The example you quote
>was from the original posters article.
>
>I'm trying to say that when(!) you can replace the "when"
>by "as", "als" is usually the correct translation and
>when you can replace it with "whenever", "wenn" usually
>is the correct translation.
>
>It was noted somewhere else, I believe, that "als" is
>only used with the past tense.
You are right. There is nothing wrong with these sentences, at least
not in grammatical respect.
What I mean is the aesthetic aspect.
>I fail to see in how far my examples qualify as
>"not nice or practical usage"...
A good native german speaker (I think I am such one :-) would not says
"Er oeffnete seinen Mund, wenn er ass."
when he means "He opened his mouth whenever he ate."
He would say: "Er oeffnete seinen Mund, wann immer er ass."
or : "Wann immer er ass, oeffnete er seinen Mund."
or : "Immer wenn er ass, oeffnete er seinen Mund."
He also could say:
"Immer als er ass, oeffnete er seinen Mund."
That is not so good German usage, but a "normal" German listener would
not says that it is wrong German.
What I try to say: The German words "als" und "wenn" or not very
different for a German native speaker (Only in some cases)
If you ask a German native speaker without grammatical experiences he
would say: "No, there ist no difference between "wenn" and "als." (Of
course he is not right.)
What I want to give was an aesthetic example in which the german
"wenn" (without other emphasizing words) means "whenever / every
time". I think this works in all those cases in which the emphasizing
comes through the context of the whole text. My given example shows
such one. Even if you replace "wenn" with "als" in my example, a
german native speaker would hear "wann immer", because the context
would dominate his understanding.
>oh, and btw, I've never encountered the derogatory use
>of "Schulbeispiel" you mention. To me, it just means
>"the" example usually quoted to illustrate a certain
>point...
Nun gut, ich spreche muttersprachlich Deutsch und wenn jemand
"Schulbeispiel" sagt, dann schwingt darin für mich auch haeufig ein
abwertender Ton mit. Ich bin mir allerdings ganz und gar nicht sicher,
ob ich mit der Formulierung "not nice or practical usage" diesen
Zwischenton angemessen wiedergegeben habe.
Statt einfach nur den Begriff "Beispiel" zu nennen, gibt es (unter
anderem) die Möglichkeit "Schulbeispiel" oder "praktisches Beispiel"
zu sagen. Mit einem "praktischen Beispiel" will man ja in der Regel
auch nur einen bestimmten Punkt belegen bzw. herausarbeiten, ebenso
wie beim "Schulbeispiel".
Wenn jemand behauptet, ein "praktisches Beispiel" zu geben, dann
behauptet er, näher an der tatsächlich geübten Praxis zu sein.
Was ich geben wollte, war eben ein praktisches (und ein "schönes")
Beispiel, wohingegen Dein Beispiel ein Schulbeispiel ist.
Natürlich hat ein Schulbeispiel gegenüber dem sogenannten praktischen
Beispiel den Vorteil, dass es das Wesentliche viel deutlicher
aufzeigt. Das kommt natürlich bei meinem Beispiel nicht so gut rüber.
In der Hoffnung, dass wir uns auf dem halben Weg getroffen haben
- Michael Symonds
PS: Please notice that I am writing my postings to help someone to use
the German language but also respectively more to exercise my English
usage. I think this circumstance is a source for a lot of
misunderstandings - but I do my very best.
Please feel free to correct my english stuff.
ankerstein
Michael...@t-online.de (Michael Symonds) wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Jan 2001 21:45:35 GMT, ankerstein <geo...@mail.rlc.net>
> wrote:
Basically, this is not an English usage board, but as a regular
poster (and IMHO a respected commentator) on a.u.e and a.e.u,
I will make corrections in the spirit you suggest.
> What I mean is the aesthetic aspect.
>
> A good native german speaker (I think I am such one :-) would
> not says
say. "would" is the inflected verb form; say it the infinitive,
exactly like 'kann sagen' (No, I do not mean that kann means would,
but for would I would use the subjunctive.)
> "Er oeffnete seinen Mund, wenn er ass."
> when he means "He opened his mouth whenever he ate."
>
> He would say:
> "Er oeffnete seinen Mund, wann immer er ass."
Is not "wann" used to introduce questions? I do not use "wann"
in non-question constructions. Should I?
> What I want to give was a aesthetic example in which the german
> "wenn" means "whenever / every time".
"When I go to bed, I change into pajamas." That requires, IMHO,
Thomas Schenk
ankerstein wrote:
> Is not "wann" used to introduce questions? I do not use "wann"
> in non-question constructions. Should I?
Yes, if you mean "whenever".
Tom
Thomas Schenk
Sorry, but what I meant to write was that you should use "wann
immer", if you mean "whenever".
Tom
Michael Symonds
wrote:
>Basically, this is not an English usage board, but as a regular
>poster (and IMHO a respected commentator) on a.u.e and a.e.u,
>I will make corrections in the spirit you suggest.
Lot of thanks :-)
>> A good native german speaker (I think I am such one :-) would
>> not says
>say. "would" is the inflected verb form; say it the infinitive,
>exactly like 'kann sagen' (No, I do not mean that kann means would,
>but for would I would use the subjunctive.)
I'm sure I understand.
I'm sure to understand. (??)
>> "Er oeffnete seinen Mund, wenn er ass."
>> when he means "He opened his mouth whenever he ate."
>>
>> He would say:
>> "Er oeffnete seinen Mund, wann immer er ass."
>
>Is not "wann" used to introduce questions? I do not use "wann"
>in non-question constructions. Should I?
Yes I think so. At least in the form "wann immer". It means exactly
"whenever" and is more better in some contextes as "wenn". Anyhow when
your sentence refers to the past (see below) and there is no other
emphasizing that you mean "whenever".
...and there is neither emphasizing that you mean "whenever". (?????)
More emphasized is: "wann auch immer"
(But I assume you cannot take a look at a dictionary to see what
"auch" in this context means. Take it as a saying [Redewendung].)
Google results 17,500 matches for the phrase "wann immer" and 625 for
"wann auch immer".
>> What I want to give was a aesthetic example in which the german
>> "wenn" means "whenever / every time".
>
>"When I go to bed, I change into pajamas." That requires, IMHO,
>"wenn".
Yes, you are right. But this sentence is in present tense. When you
want to limit the difference betwenn two sentences to(??) the
difference between "wenn" and "als" you must use the past tense.
Because you cannot build a sentence with "als" in the mentioned
meaning in the present tense (at least I cannot). "Als" requires a
clause which refers to the past, because it (begins /leads ?) a clause
which is a [Zeitangabe]. This [Zeitangabe] can only refer to the past.
I assume you have read my posting to Marc Ruehlaender? As the
difference between "wenn" and "als" is not large for a German native
speaker it is never a good idea to put together "wenn" and a reference
to the past without any other emphasizing what you mean. This
emphasizing could provided by another word "immer" or by the context
(what my example do).
"Wenn" is normally used in the present tense as it begins a kind of
"rule". And a rule is generally timeless.
"Als" is always used in a sentence which refers to the past.
This difference of the times is for a german nativ speaker a
distinction which is likewise powerful as the difference between "als"
and "wenn". That is why it is never a good idea to put together "wenn"
and a reference to the past without any other emphasizing what you
mean.
Sweat drops are running over my face - soooo many English usage by
- Michael Symonds
ankerstein
Michael...@t-online.de (Michael Symonds) wrote:
I hope that the others on this board will bear with us as
we cover these English language points.
> (1) I'm sure I understand.
> (2) I'm sure to understand. (??)
Both are correct, but (1) [I numbered them; please no comments
about how I changed a quote. [No, not you Michael, the person
addressed knows who he is.]) indicates that you understand now
while (2) indicates that you do not understand now but there is
some hope that you will in the near future.
> >Is not "wann" used to introduce questions? I do not use "wann"
> >in non-question constructions. Should I?
>
> Yes I think so. At least in the form "wann immer". It means exactly
> "whenever" and is more better in some contextes as "wenn".
"contexts than" German mixes "if", "as" and "when" (OK, and
"whenever") in a way different from English.
Is "wenn immer" ever correct?
> Anyhow when your sentence refers to the past (see below) and
> there is no other emphasizing that you mean "whenever".
"emphasis"
> ...and there is neither emphasizing that you mean "whenever". (?????)
"emphasis" (I fear that the patience of others is getting thin.)
Marcel Bollmann
PMFJI,
>> >Is not "wann" used to introduce questions? I do not use "wann"
>> >in non-question constructions. Should I?
>> Yes I think so. At least in the form "wann immer". It means exactly
>> "whenever" and is more better in some contextes as "wenn".
I definitely agree.
>Is "wenn immer" ever correct?
I don't think so, to me it doesn't make sense at all.
bye,
Marcel
--
"Da fängt einer einen Thread über Lacrimosa an, im ersten Reply geht es
um Goth-Metal, im zweiten um Dimmu Borgir, im dritten um Pandabären."
-- usch über dssg
ankerstein
Michael...@t-online.de (Michael Symonds) wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 18:44:54 GMT, ankerstein <geo...@mail.rlc.net>
> wrote:
> >Is not "wann" used to introduce questions? I do not use "wann"
> >in non-question constructions. Should I?
>
> Yes I think so. At least in the form "wann immer". It means exactly
> "whenever" and is more better in some contextes as "wenn".
My German textbook explains the differences between "als", "wenn"
and "wann":
Als is used to introduce a clause concerned with a *single* event
in the *past*. or to refer to a *single* block of time in the
past (als ich jung war).
Wenn is used to introduce a clause concerned with *repeated*
events (whenever) or possibilities (if) in *past* time, or
with single or repeated events in present or future time.
Wann (at what time) is used to introduce direct and indirect
questions.
(end quote)
No mention of "wann immer" at all. "Wenn" is claimed to be
the correct translation of "whenever". My German teacher also
uses the textbook constructions. (OK, she is from Kiel, not
exactly central Germany.)
Is "Wann immer" regional? Do you accept "wenn" as a translation
for "whenever"? Do you use "als" for multiple events in the past?
I am hoping for comments from various regions of the German speaking
world.
Marc Ruehlaender
: You are right. There is nothing wrong with these sentences, at least
: not in grammatical respect.
: What I mean is the aesthetic aspect.
we're talking to someone who tries to understand the
basic differences. Aesthetics can be learned later,
although I agree that talking about it has its place.
: >I fail to see in how far my examples qualify as
: >"not nice or practical usage"...
: A good native german speaker (I think I am such one :-) would not says
: "Er oeffnete seinen Mund, wenn er ass."
: when he means "He opened his mouth whenever he ate."
: He would say: "Er oeffnete seinen Mund, wann immer er ass."
: or : "Wann immer er ass, oeffnete er seinen Mund."
I just hope to be a good native speaker :-), but I would never
*say* these, but usually write'em...
: or : "Immer wenn er ass, oeffnete er seinen Mund."
this is indeed the most likely spoken form, here I agree,
but it is of course not useful when(!) you want to oppose
"wenn" and "als"
: He also could say:
: "Immer als er ass, oeffnete er seinen Mund."
: That is not so good German usage, but a "normal" German listener would
: not says that it is wrong German.
but you shouldn't *teach* it to non-native speakers....
: What I try to say: The German words "als" und "wenn" or not very
: different for a German native speaker (Only in some cases)
: If you ask a German native speaker without grammatical experiences he
: would say: "No, there ist no difference between "wenn" and "als." (Of
: course he is not right.)
that's why they're not much help to the confused learner.
: What I want to give was an aesthetic example in which the german
: "wenn" (without other emphasizing words) means "whenever / every
: time". I think this works in all those cases in which the emphasizing
: comes through the context of the whole text. My given example shows
: such one. Even if you replace "wenn" with "als" in my example, a
: german native speaker would hear "wann immer", because the context
: would dominate his understanding.
you certainly succeeded :=)
: >oh, and btw, I've never encountered the derogatory use
: >of "Schulbeispiel" you mention. To me, it just means
: >"the" example usually quoted to illustrate a certain
: >point...
: Nun gut, ich spreche muttersprachlich Deutsch und wenn jemand
: "Schulbeispiel" sagt, dann schwingt darin für mich auch haeufig ein
: abwertender Ton mit. Ich bin mir allerdings ganz und gar nicht sicher,
: ob ich mit der Formulierung "not nice or practical usage" diesen
: Zwischenton angemessen wiedergegeben habe.
aha. ich muß nun einfach sagen, daß mir dieser Gebrauch eben
noch nicht untergekommen ist...
: Statt einfach nur den Begriff "Beispiel" zu nennen, gibt es (unter
: anderem) die Möglichkeit "Schulbeispiel" oder "praktisches Beispiel"
: zu sagen. Mit einem "praktischen Beispiel" will man ja in der Regel
: auch nur einen bestimmten Punkt belegen bzw. herausarbeiten, ebenso
: wie beim "Schulbeispiel".
gibt es für dich also einen Unterschied zwischeneinem "Schulbeispiel"
und "*dem* klassischen Beispiel", das man gewöhnlich zur Klarstellung
des in Frage stehenden Sachverhaltes heranzieht...
'tschuldige die geschwollenen Ausdrucksweise...
: Wenn jemand behauptet, ein "praktisches Beispiel" zu geben, dann
: behauptet er, näher an der tatsächlich geübten Praxis zu sein.
ein "praktisches Beispiel" gibt mir einer, der mir vormacht,
wie's geht. Ein theoretisches Beispiel zieht eine fiktive
Situation heran. IMHO.
: In der Hoffnung, dass wir uns auf dem halben Weg getroffen haben
: - Michael Symonds
wir haben einfach eine unterschiedliche Auffassung davon,
was ein "Schulbeispiel" ist. kommt vor.
--
Marc Ruehlaender
rue...@iastate.edu
Michael Symonds
wrote:
>>Is "wenn immer" ever correct?
>
>I don't think so, to me it doesn't make sense at all.
I definitely agree!
But http://dict.leo.org does'nt so! LEO gives "wenn immer" as a
translation of "whenever". I think it's not a good idea to recommend
such a translation to an English native speaker.
If you are reading in a German text "wenn immer" suspect the writer
means "whenever".
If you translate "whenever" use always "wann immer" or a similar
clause. Use never "wenn immer" instead of "wann immer" as the latter
is in 99,9% of all cases the better translation and never really
wrong.
- Michael Symonds
Michael Symonds
wrote:
>we're talking to someone who tries to understand the
>basic differences. Aesthetics can be learned later,
>although I agree that talking about it has its place.
Eigentlich wollte ich doch auch nur ein *praktisches* (I mean: ein
Beispiel aus der Praxis) und *gutes* Beispiel geben - es hatte mich
halt so begeistert, als ich es entdeckte.
>: A good native german speaker (I think I am such one :-) would not says
>: "Er oeffnete seinen Mund, wenn er ass."
>: when he means "He opened his mouth whenever he ate."
>
>: He would say: "Er oeffnete seinen Mund, wann immer er ass."
>: or : "Wann immer er ass, oeffnete er seinen Mund."
>
>I just hope to be a good native speaker :-), but I would never
>*say* these, but usually write'em...
Bitte nicht allzu streng mit mir sein, wenn ich im Englischen nicht
immer den richtigen Zwischenton finde <Dackelblick nach oben - blinzel
- blinzel>
Ich quetsche mir hier wirklich jeden englischen Satz aus dem Gehirn.
Mein alter Englischlehrer würde ohnehin schon glauben, ich hätte
zwischenzeitlich mein Geschlecht gewechselt :-)
>: or : "Immer wenn er ass, oeffnete er seinen Mund."
>this is indeed the most likely spoken form, here I agree,
>but it is of course not useful when(!) you want to oppose
>"wenn" and "als"
Ich denke, wir sind uns einig, dass man darüber geteilter Meinung sein
kann.
>: He also could say:
>: "Immer als er ass, oeffnete er seinen Mund."
>: That is not so good German usage, but a "normal" German listener would
>: not says that it is wrong German.
>but you shouldn't *teach* it to non-native speakers....
Ich hoffe, das habe ich auch nicht. Ich wollte nur aufzeigen, dass es
Fälle gibt, in denen der Unterschied zwischen "wenn" und "als" alleine
nicht trägt, um die Satzaussage klar und deutlich herüberzubringen.
>gibt es für dich also einen Unterschied zwischeneinem "Schulbeispiel"
>und "*dem* klassischen Beispiel", das man gewöhnlich zur Klarstellung
>des in Frage stehenden Sachverhaltes heranzieht...
>'tschuldige die geschwollenen Ausdrucksweise...
Können wir uns darauf einigen, dass man den Begriff "Schulbeispiel" in
neutraler, wie auch abwertender Weise verwenden kann? Wenn man z.B.
sagt: "Das ist doch nur ein Schulbeispiel!" dann ist das doch sicher
abwertend gemeint? Und so habe ich mich (hoffentlich) auch in meinem
englischen Text ausgedrückt:
> ... when he depreciatory says "Schulbeispiel" ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ich habe mal eine zeitlang Computerkurse gegeben. Da war ein etwas
älterer Herr (mit sehr viel praktischer, aber leider veralteter
Berufserfahrung), der hat stundenlang gegen meine Beispiele angemosert
und meinte in jedem zweiten Satz, dass in der Praxis sowieso alles
anders sei. Das ging solange, bis ihn endlich die eigenen Mitschüler
[gibt ein besseres Wort für erwachsene Schüler?] genervt zur Ordnung
gerufen haben. Wenn Du den fragen würdest, was er unter einem
"Schulbeispiel" versteht: Der würde Dir schon ein paar Takte erzählen.
>: In der Hoffnung, dass wir uns auf dem halben Weg getroffen haben
>: - Michael Symonds
>
>wir haben einfach eine unterschiedliche Auffassung davon,
>was ein "Schulbeispiel" ist. kommt vor.
Na, das wäre ja auch sonst ziemlich öde hier :-) Letztlich sprechen
wir ja alle unsere eigene Sprache - ein nie versiegender Quell
anregender Missverständisse.
- Michael Symonds
Michael Symonds
wrote:
>No mention of "wann immer" at all. "Wenn" is claimed to be
>the correct translation of "whenever". My German teacher also
>uses the textbook constructions. (OK, she is from Kiel, not
>exactly central Germany.)
I live in Luebeck. About 70km (44 miles) far from Kiel. Both are in
"Norddeutschland". Ask your German teacher for "Schleswig-Holstein -
das Land zwischen den Meeren" an she always get homesickness!
>Is "Wann immer" regional? Do you accept "wenn" as a translation
>for "whenever"? Do you use "als" for multiple events in the past?
>
>I am hoping for comments from various regions of the German speaking
>world.
I'm really sure "wann immer" is not regional speech.
>Wann (at what time) is used to introduce direct and indirect
>questions.
It's not wrong but only half the thruth.
You read this sentence in this way:
Wann ([which means:] at what time) is [only] used to introduce direct
and indirect questions.
I think you can read this sentence also in this way:
Wann ([in the meaning of:] at what time) is used to introduce direct
and indirect questions.
(Please excuse my effrontery to teach a english speaker how he can
understand an english sentence - probably I'm wrong :-)
Let's see what http://dict.leo.org (Do you know LEO? It's really
fantastic!) about "wann" says:
1.) when -- wann
2.) since when? -- seit wann?
3.) How long since? -- Seit wann?
4.) whenever -- wann immer
5.) now and then -- dann und wann
6.) whensoever -- einerlei wann
7.) whenever -- wann auch immer
8.) kindly let us know when you can deliver the goods
-- wann können Sie liefern
10.) any time you please -- wann immer es dir gefällt
11.) please say when the goods can be delivered
-- wann Sie die Ware liefern können
12.) when does the train reach London?
-- wann kommt der Zug in London an?
13.) please say when the goods can be expected
-- wann die Ware erwartet werden kann
There are some cases in which "wann" introduce a question but
sometimes it does other things. (But it's always time-referring -
isn't it?)
- Michael Symonds
Michael Symonds
wrote:
>Do you accept "wenn" as a translation for "whenever"?
Yes generally, but in some times with not enought ***emphasizing***
for a simple and certain understanding of the meaning "whenever".
(When this meaning is an important matter of your statement.)
>Do you use "als" for multiple events in the past?
No, I don`t.
- Michael Symonds
ankerstein
Consider:
Als ich in der DDR wohnte, besuchte ich Rudolstadt öfters. Wenn
(wann immer?) ich Rudolstadt besuchte, fuhr ich dorthin mit dem Bus.
IMHO, clearly not "als" as I visited Rudolstadt frequently. I would
use "wenn", but would you use "wann immer" or "wann auch immer" ot
what?
Feel free to correct both my German and my English. ;-)
Paul Schmitz-Josten
<3a559568...@news.btx.dtag.de>:
>Let's see what http://dict.leo.org (Do you know LEO? It's really
>fantastic!) about "wann" says:
<snip>
You have my full ACK to all phrases.
Paul
Paul Schmitz-Josten
<930rmg$d15$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>Consider:
>Als ich in der DDR wohnte, besuchte ich Rudolstadt öfters. Wenn
>(wann immer?) ich Rudolstadt besuchte, fuhr ich dorthin mit dem Bus.
>
>IMHO, clearly not "als" as I visited Rudolstadt frequently. I would
>use "wenn", but would you use "wann immer" or "wann auch immer" ot
>what?
Yes. As a support to Michael's statement: The emphasis grows from phrase to
phrase.
Ciao,
Paul
Alwyn
<boll...@gmx.de> wrote:
> ankerstein <geo...@mail.rlc.net> wrote:
>
> PMFJI,
>
> >> >Is not "wann" used to introduce questions? I do not use "wann"
> >> >in non-question constructions. Should I?
> >> Yes I think so. At least in the form "wann immer". It means exactly
> >> "whenever" and is more better in some contextes as "wenn".
>
> I definitely agree.
>
> >Is "wenn immer" ever correct?
>
> I don't think so, to me it doesn't make sense at all.
But you can use immer/jedesmal wenn, can't you?
Immer, wenn das Telefon klingelt...
Whenever the telephone rings...
Alwyn
Helmut Richter
>But you can use immer/jedesmal wenn, can't you?
>Immer, wenn das Telefon klingelt...
>Whenever the telephone rings...
Yes, and it is better like that.
"jedesmal" means "each (single) time" and emphasises the individual
occurrences:
Jedesmal, wenn das Telefon klingelt, bekomme ich einen Schreck.
Each time when the telephone rings I am startled.
whereas "immer, wenn" emphasises more the continuity of a policy:
Immer, wenn das Telefon klingelt, gehe ich dran.
Whenever the telephone rings I answer it.
"wenn/wann immer" is a bit less colloquial style and implies often a
lower frequency or probability:
Wenn immer das Telefon klingelt, gehe ich dran.
Whenever the telephone rings I answer it.
(with a connotation like:)
Should the telephone ring, I will answer it.
The longer I think about "wenn immer" vs. "wann immer", the less
certain am I which is right. I'd say "wenn immer" is safe to use, and
"wann immer" is an allowed synonym, but that may be influenced from my
South German context where "wenn" and "wann" are not always clearly
separated (but without "immer" I would certainly say that "wann das
Telefon ..." is wrong except in dialect).
Helmut Richter
Michael Symonds
wrote:
>Consider:
>Als ich in der DDR wohnte, besuchte ich Rudolstadt öfters. Wenn
>(wann immer?) ich Rudolstadt besuchte, fuhr ich dorthin mit dem Bus.
Not very wrong: ...fuhr ich dorthin mit dem Bus.
but better: ...fuhr ich mit dem Bus dorthin.
>IMHO, clearly not "als" as I visited Rudolstadt frequently.
Not the second clause of the sentence ("besuchte ich Rudolstadt
öfters") is authoritative to your use of "als" or "wenn".
The clause which is introduced by "als" is authoritative! ("ich in der
DDR wohnte")
Like your textbook explains you refer to a *single* block of time in
the past. Like "als ich jung war".
That is why
"Als ich in der DDR wohnte, besuchte ich Rudolstadt einmal."
is correct too.
...is also correct. (?)
>I would
>use "wenn", but would you use "wann immer" or "wann auch immer" or
>what?
"wann immer" is clearlier. (... more clearly (?)
Three meanings if you visited Rudolstadt 1000 times:
"Wenn" means you drove about 970 times with the bus. (You want not to
say that it's really important that you are driving really every time
with the bus.)
When you write "wann immer" you mean that you drove 1000 times with
the bus (and the second times you don't, as the bus drivers strikes,
you have forgotten or are not relevant).
When you write "wann auch immer" you mean that you drove 1000 times
with the bus, you are really sure that you don't forget one time and
for the period the bus drivers strikes you don't come to Rudolstadt.
>Feel free to correct both my German and my English. ;-)
Oh no - I cannot feel free to correct your English !!!! :-)
Hope this helps - Michael Symonds
Thomas Schenk
ankerstein wrote:
> My German textbook explains the differences between "als", "wenn"
> and "wann":
>
> Als is used to introduce a clause concerned with a *single* event
> in the *past*. or to refer to a *single* block of time in the
> past (als ich jung war).
>
> Wenn is used to introduce a clause concerned with *repeated*
> events (whenever) or possibilities (if) in *past* time, or
> with single or repeated events in present or future time.
>
> Wann (at what time) is used to introduce direct and indirect
> questions.
>
> (end quote)
That's all very well and good for the student of elementary German.
Your book is clearly intended to illustrate general and simplistic
priciples. The German language is, however, much more complex than
what your textbook suggests, and, just as in English, subtleties in
distinction and usage abound. If you wish to argue a point of
grammar with some semblance of credibility, I suggest that you
consult a more advanced source. A good reference work for
English-speakers is _Hammer's German Grammar and Usage_ 3rd ed.,
1997, edited by Martin Durrell. If you prefer an authoritative
grammar book intended for German speakers, then I would suggest the
_Duden Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache_ , 1995, Mannheim.
>
> No mention of "wann immer" at all.
And?
> "Wenn" is claimed to be
> the correct translation of "whenever". My German teacher also
> uses the textbook constructions. (OK, she is from Kiel, not
> exactly central Germany.)
>
> Is "Wann immer" regional? Do you accept "wenn" as a translation
> for "whenever"? Do you use "als" for multiple events in the past?
"Wann immer" is definitely _not_ regional. It is used and understood
throughout the German-speaking world.
Tom
Paul Schmitz-Josten
<931tkc$922$1...@wsc10.lrz-muenchen.de>:
> Wenn immer das Telefon klingelt, gehe ich dran.
> Whenever the telephone rings I answer it.
> (with a connotation like:)
> Should the telephone ring, I will answer it.
>
>The longer I think about "wenn immer" vs. "wann immer", the less
>certain am I which is right. I'd say "wenn immer" is safe to use, and
>"wann immer" is an allowed synonym, but that may be influenced from my
>South German context where "wenn" and "wann" are not always clearly
>separated
As a western German I am in opposition to you: I'd only use "wann immer".
Your example in the first quoted line sounds totally unfamiliar to me.
>(but without "immer" I would certainly say that "wann das
>Telefon ..." is wrong except in dialect).
ACK.
Paul
Andy
<Michael...@t-online.de> wrote
[]
>Three meanings if you visited Rudolstadt 1000 times:
>"Wenn" means you drove about 970 times with the bus. (You want not to
>say that it's really important that you are driving really every time
>with the bus.)
Only bus drivers drive buses [1]. The passengers travel, come, or go by
bus; or take or use the or a bus. Hence "I have visited Rudolstadt 1000
times, about 970 by bus".
However that emphasises the number of visits. If I wanted to put the
emphasis on the mode of transport I'd say something like "On 97% of my
thousand visits to Rudolstadt I went by bus". [The use of 'percent'
draws attention to the number; and the implication is that on the other
30 I used something else.]
Grammatically one could say "It was by bus that I made 970 of my
thousand visits to Rudolstadt" but that would immediately mark me as a
pedant and/or a non-native speaker. :)
Equally "On only 30 of my 1000 visits to Rudolstadt did I not use the
bus" is correct but bad, as it requires careful attention to all of the
words to obtain the desired meaning, which for speech is unlikely to be
given.
[1] It feels equally wrong to say "I drove to X by
car/train/tram/whatever" if I was a passenger. Drivers drive; however
this is English and passengers do not pass!
>
>>Feel free to correct both my German and my English. ;-)
>
Have.
--
Andy
For Austrian philately <URL: http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/austamps/>
For Lupus <URL: http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/lupus/>
For my other interests <URL: http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/>
Andy
<drsc...@home.com> wrote
>
[]
>If you wish to argue a point of
>grammar with some semblance of credibility, I suggest that you
>consult a more advanced source. A good reference work for
>English-speakers is _Hammer's German Grammar and Usage_ 3rd ed.,
>1997, edited by Martin Durrell.
I second that; if you wish to avoid reformed spelling then look for the
second edition, ISBN 0-340-50129-4 :)
ankerstein
Michael...@t-online.de (Michael Symonds) wrote:
> That is why "Als ich in der DDR wohnte, besuchte ich Rudolstadt
> einmal." is correct too. ...is also correct. (?)
I know, but I wanted to force the use of "whenever" in the next
sentence. I wanted it clear that 1) everything happened in the
past (Why I used DDR.) and that 2) I visited Rudolstadt many times.
> "wann immer" is clearlier. (... more clearly (?)
"Clearer"; "more clear" is odd, but might (though not by me) be
considered correct. The other two are "falsch".
> Three meanings if you visited Rudolstadt 1000 times:
> "Wenn" means you drove about 970 times with the bus. (You want not to
> say that it's really important that you are driving really every time
> with the bus.)
"riding every time on the bus"; "going by bus"
> When you write "wann immer" you mean that you drove 1000 times with
> the bus (and the second times you don't, as the bus drivers strikes,
> you have forgotten or are not relevant).
"the times you don't" Bus drivers' strikes"??? In the DDR??? Were
you ever in the DDR?
> When you write "wann auch immer" you mean that you drove 1000 times
> with the bus, you are really sure that you don't forget one time and
> for the period the bus drivers strikes you don't come to Rudolstadt.
You got it. That is what I mean.
> >Feel free to correct both my German and my English. ;-)
>
> Oh no - I cannot feel free to correct your English !!!! :-)
Hey, take a shot. I try to correct German posts. Often I am wrong,
but it is fun to try.
BTW, my dictionary (PONS) says that "wann immer" is correct, and
that "immer wenn" is correct, but not "wenn immer".
ankerstein
Germans use "mit dem Bus" when in English we would say "by
bus" or "on the bus". It is a normal error for a German to
say in English "with the bus", meaning what he would mean
in German with "mit dem Bus".
Prepositions are a real problem between German and English.
It seems to me that almost every time I use a preposition in
German I must work hard on which one to use. They are so seldom
the same as in English. Prepositions are harder to learn than
plurals, gender or irregular verbs.
Alwyn
<geo...@mail.rlc.net> wrote:
> Prepositions are a real problem between German and English.
> It seems to me that almost every time I use a preposition in
> German I must work hard on which one to use. They are so seldom
> the same as in English. Prepositions are harder to learn than
> plurals, gender or irregular verbs.
Whatever language you are learning, prepositions will present a
difficulty. They are even difficult when you go from one language to
another closely related, like Danish to Norwegian, Dutch to German.
Alwyn
Dietmar Kulsch
Marc Ruehlaender schrieb:
> It was noted somewhere else, I believe, that "als" is
> only used with the past tense.
Maybe it was noted somewhere, but this is certainly not true.
I read a statement in this group that 'als' is used if
you talk about a single event in the past. This may be
a valid rule of thumb for the non-native speaker.
However, you can use present tense while talking about events in
the past in many situations, for example the 'praesens historicum'.
Or, if you summarize or retell a story, the content of
a play, a movie or whatever, you would probably use
present tense.
Example:
"Als Julia erwacht und den leblosen Geliebten sieht,
folgt sie ihm in den Tod" (From a summary of "Romeo and Juliet")
Michael Symonds
<dk.n...@kulsch.de> wrote:
>Example:
>
>"Als Julia erwacht und den leblosen Geliebten sieht,
>folgt sie ihm in den Tod" (From a summary of "Romeo and Juliet")
Oh, what a very nice and interesting example - very good Dietmar.
Nevertheless you are not right.
I will answer the details this evenings.
At present I'm going to go to work.
- Dear ankerstein (or someone else) is the latter
sentence correct ? - thanks in advance.
- Michael Symonds
Michael Symonds.
> >"Als Julia erwacht und den leblosen Geliebten sieht,
> >folgt sie ihm in den Tod" (From a summary of "Romeo and Juliet")
>
> Oh, what a very nice and interesting example - very good Dietmar.
>
> Nevertheless you are not right.
Oh, Symonds, you are a very big fool. First read the post exactly! Then
think ones a time, twice and third and then write your answer !!!!!
Dietmar, please excuse many times my terrible answer. You say exactly
what I thought this morning. (At the moment I'm sitting at my "breakfast
table" [Prep.?? here] my breakfast break in the office.)
- Michael Symonds
Andy
>Germans use "mit dem Bus" when in English we would say "by
>bus" or "on the bus". It is a normal error for a German to
>say in English "with the bus", meaning what he would mean
>in German with "mit dem Bus".
Assuming this is in reply to me, my correction was mainly about the use
of the verb "to drive".
Actually, if I asked "How did you get here" and you replied "I came with
the bus" I wouldn't find that odd!
>
>Prepositions are a real problem between German and English.
>It seems to me that almost every time I use a preposition in
>German I must work hard on which one to use. They are so seldom
>the same as in English. Prepositions are harder to learn than
>plurals, gender or irregular verbs.
>
It works the same the other way too!
Dietmar Kulsch
Michael Symonds schrieb:
>
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 04:33:16 +0100, Dietmar Kulsch
> <dk.n...@kulsch.de> wrote:
>
> >Example:
> >
> >"Als Julia erwacht und den leblosen Geliebten sieht,
> >folgt sie ihm in den Tod" (From a summary of "Romeo and Juliet")
>
> Oh, what a very nice and interesting example - very good Dietmar.
>
> Nevertheless you are not right.
>
Well, I this case I would have to throw away half of
my library, including all my guide books about theatre,
opera, movies, as well as biographies, simply most of those
books that tell stories and use present tense.
It is a stylistic tool: If you talk about an event
in the past but use present tense, you generate suspense
by minimizing the feeling of temporal distance.
Alwyn
<dk.n...@kulsch.de> wrote:
> Marc Ruehlaender schrieb:
>
> > It was noted somewhere else, I believe, that "als" is
> > only used with the past tense.
>
> Maybe it was noted somewhere, but this is certainly not true.
That's right, we must learn to distinguish between _past tense_ (a
grammatical form) and _past time_ (no longer present). There is no
necessary link betwwen 'als' and the past tense; nonetheless, its effect
is historical.
Incidentally, the German 'als' is a source of confusion for
Dutch-speakers, who regularly use 'als' for present or future time.
Alwyn
Michael Symonds.
> > Nevertheless you are not right.
>
> Well, I this case I would have to throw away half of
> my library, including all my guide books about theatre,
> opera, movies, as well as biographies, simply most of those
> books that tell stories and use present tense.
>
> It is a stylistic tool: If you talk about an event
> in the past but use present tense, you generate suspense
> by minimizing the feeling of temporal distance.
I hope you got already my one answer to my terrible posting?
To be absolutely safe, I repeat it:
#Oh, Symonds, you are a very big fool. First read the post exactly! Then
#think ones a time, twice and third and then write your answer !!!!!
#Dietmar, please excuse many times my terrible answer. You say exactly
#what I thought this morning. (At the moment I'm sitting at my
"breakfast
#table" [Prep.?? here] my breakfast break in the office.)
- Michael Symonds
ankerstein
The sentence "At present I'm going to go to work." is correct. But
better would be "At present I'm going to work."
BTW, the German sentence is correct. Native German speakers often
use the present when English speakers would use the present perfect
or the past. While written in the present, the past is implicit in
the sentence quoted. The whole summary could have been written in
the Präteritum, and that would have been correct. If written in
the Präteritum, you would not have objected to "als", so why object
when the Präsens?
Andy
<dk.n...@kulsch.de> wrote
>
>
and/or: it uses less words, and avoids upsetting those who prefer the
imperfect tense when you use the perfect to avoid upsetting those whose
dialect does not contain the imperfect!
Helmut Richter
>BTW, the German sentence is correct. Native German speakers often
>use the present when English speakers would use the present perfect
>or the past.
... or future.
The connexion between grammatical tense and time is generally looser
in German than in English. I could tell a story and use present tense
to demonstrate the thrill: "Heute morgen sitze ich im Zug, und rat
mal, wer reinkommt (This morning I sit in the train and now guess who
enters)". As to "wenn" vs. "als", "als" would be correct in this
case, just as in the Romeo and Juliet case. A sentence structure with
subordinate clauses is, however, not compatible with this "out of
breath" style to tell the story; so the problem will not really occur.
Now for the future. I might tell my wife: "Naechste Woche fliege ich
nach London (Next week I fly to London)". This is the normal way to
say it. Future tense is more prophetic: "Irgendwann einmal werde auch
ich nach London fliegen."
Helmut Richter
ankerstein
Helmut....@lrz-muenchen.de wrote:
> Now for the future. I might tell my wife: "Naechste Woche fliege ich
> nach London (Next week I fly to London)". This is the normal way to
> say it. Future tense is more prophetic: "Irgendwann einmal werde auch
> ich nach London fliegen."
Your example borders on the interesting issue of the "future" and
the "uncertain". Some Oriental languages, like Japanese, do not
have a "true" future tense; they have a "present", "past" and
"uncertain". Thus, "We will return your PoWs." means 'we may or
may not return your PoWs.' (Remember the Vietnam War negotiations?)
I would take your future tense example as having a good deal of
uncertainty in it. Your present tense example has 'an accusative
of definite time' which adds weight to the certainty. BTW, an
American might well say, "Next week I fly to London." Again,
eliminating any indication of uncertainty.
ankerstein
Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> and/or
"And/or" is very complex in English. Consider "red, white and/or
blue". Does red only fit within this phrase? There have been
major legal cases, and varying decisions, on this question. Some
claim that the phrase is limited to 'red and white', 'red and blue'
and 'red, white and blue'.
Michael Symonds
wrote:
>The sentence "At present I'm going to go to work." is correct. But
>better would be "At present I'm going to work."
Thanks
>> Nevertheless you are not right.
>
>BTW, the German sentence is correct. Native German speakers often
>use the present when English speakers would use the present perfect
>or the past. While written in the present, the past is implicit in
>the sentence quoted. The whole summary could have been written in
>the Präteritum, and that would have been correct. If written in
>the Präteritum, you would not have objected to "als", so why object
>when the Präsens?
I absolutely agree. As I already wrote, I'm very angry about my own
statement :-(
- Michael Symonds
Michael Symonds
wrote:
>Only bus drivers drive buses [1]. The passengers travel, come, or go by
>bus; or take or use the or a bus. Hence "I have visited Rudolstadt 1000
>times, about 970 by bus".
>
> [.....]
>
>>>Feel free to correct both my German and my English. ;-)
>>
>Have.
Thank you for your effort, I'm glad about every correction!
Danke für die Mühe, ich freue mich über jede Korrektur!
- Michael Symonds
Michael Symonds
wrote:
>It works the same the other way too!
Dear Andy, I don't understand these english sentence. Can you please
repeat it with other words? - Thank you in advance.
- Michael Symonds
ankerstein
Michael...@t-online.de (Michael Symonds) wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 10:53:36 +0000, Andy <an...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >It works the same the other way too!
>
> Dear Andy, I don't understand these english sentence. Can you please
> repeat it with other words?
I pointed out that, as a native English speaker, I found prepositions
the most challenging part of learning German. His statement means
that it is the same for German speakers learning English. "The other
way" means shift German ==> English and English ==> German and the
statement is true (too). "It works" ==> Es geht"
Michael Symonds
wrote:
>> "wann immer" is clearlier. (... more clearly (?)
>"Clearer"; "more clear" is odd, but might (though not by me) be
>considered correct. The other two are "falsch".
Never I were come to "clearer" because it matches the German way:
klar, klarer, am klarsten
>> When you write "wann immer" you mean that you drove 1000 times with
>> the bus (and the second times you don't, as the bus drivers strikes,
>> you have forgotten or are not relevant).
>
>"the times you don't" Bus drivers' strikes"??? In the DDR???
No, not really. I would say: There were not enough tires to drive all
busses at the same time :-)
>Were you ever in the DDR?
BTW:
Yes, but only one time. It was I bit difficult to come into the DDR as
I'm was not a really German. But that's a story at it's own...
>> When you write "wann auch immer" you mean that you drove 1000 times
>> with the bus, you are really sure that you don't forget one time and
>> for the period the bus drivers strikes you don't come to Rudolstadt.
>
>You got it. That is what I mean.
Then you never use "wenn" except the context makes this obviously:
"Wenn morgens die Sonne aufgeht, wird es hell."
>
>> >Feel free to correct both my German and my English. ;-)
>>
>> Oh no - I cannot feel free to correct your English !!!! :-)
>
>Hey, take a shot. I try to correct German posts. Often I am wrong,
>but it is fun to try.
Maybe in a few years I take my first shot. You will be the firt
victim...
>BTW, my dictionary (PONS) says that "wann immer" is correct, and
>that "immer wenn" is correct, but not "wenn immer".
As I've already wrote it.
A few German speakers, and I assume a few English speakers too, like
to read a bit exotic. I call they boasters and bluffers. They often
use foreign words and sometimes a very little bit beside the common
usage.
I think to use "wenn immer" in every time "wann immer" would correct,
is such one option. (Maybe this is not correct but *my* feelings of
German suggested to me.)
- Michael Symonds
Michael Symonds
>> >It works the same the other way too!
>>
>> Dear Andy, I don't understand these english sentence. Can you please
>> repeat it with other words?
>
>I pointed out that, as a native English speaker, I found prepositions
>the most challenging part of learning German. His statement means
>that it is the same for German speakers learning English. "The other
>way" means shift German ==> English and English ==> German and the
>statement is true (too). "It works" ==> Es geht"
In German words: Andersherum ist es ebenso.
Now I understand. I think, if I've heard it with stresses I would have
understand it.
- Michael Symonds
Diedrich Ehlerding
>
> I read a statement in this group that 'als' is used if
> you talk about a single event in the past. This may be
> a valid rule of thumb for the non-native speaker.
Sorry for disappointing all non-native speakers - but this rule is
dangerous. Freely narrating a well-known episode about 2000 years in the
past might read "Als Kyrenios Verwaltungschef von Syrien war, erging ein
Erlass des Kaisers Augustus zur Volkszählung... ".
Well, Kyrenios was governor in Syria for several years (at least as far
as we know) , and I would nt call this a "single event", but
nevertheless the sentence could not formed with "wenn".
Other Example: "Als Adam grub und Eva spann - wo war denn da der
Edelmann?"
Diedrich
--
pgp-Key (RSA) 1024/09B8C0BD auf den üblichen Servern
fingerprint = 2C 49 FF B2 C4 66 2D 93 6F A1 FF 10 16 59 96 F3
Alwyn
Diedrich....@t-online.de (Diedrich Ehlerding) wrote:
> Dietmar Kulsch <dk.n...@kulsch.de> meinte:
> >
> > I read a statement in this group that 'als' is used if
> > you talk about a single event in the past. This may be
> > a valid rule of thumb for the non-native speaker.
>
> Sorry for disappointing all non-native speakers - but this rule is
> dangerous. Freely narrating a well-known episode about 2000 years in the
> past might read "Als Kyrenios Verwaltungschef von Syrien war, erging ein
> Erlass des Kaisers Augustus zur Volkszählung... ".
>
> Well, Kyrenios was governor in Syria for several years (at least as far
> as we know) , and I would nt call this a "single event", but
> nevertheless the sentence could not formed with "wenn".
A state of affairs, maybe? Quite simply put, 'als' is 'when, some time
in the past'.
> Other Example: "Als Adam grub und Eva spann - wo war denn da der
> Edelmann?"
When Adam dolve and Eve span,
Where was then the gentleman?
Alwyn
Dietmar Kulsch
Diedrich Ehlerding schrieb:
>
> Dietmar Kulsch <dk.n...@kulsch.de> meinte:
> >
> > I read a statement in this group that 'als' is used if
> > you talk about a single event in the past. This may be
> > a valid rule of thumb for the non-native speaker.
>
> Sorry for disappointing all non-native speakers - but this rule is
> dangerous. Freely narrating a well-known episode about 2000 years in the
> past might read "Als Kyrenios Verwaltungschef von Syrien war, erging ein
> Erlass des Kaisers Augustus zur Volkszählung... ".
Yes, but this is no contradiction to the above statement.
I did not say that 'als' is used if and only if it refers
to a single event in the past.
It can indeed refer to a period in the past as well.
My aim was to point out the difference between past
events and past tense.
Andy
Diedrich Ehlerding <Diedrich....@t-online.de> wrote
>Dietmar Kulsch <dk.n...@kulsch.de> meinte:
>>
>> I read a statement in this group that 'als' is used if
>> you talk about a single event in the past. This may be
>> a valid rule of thumb for the non-native speaker.
>
>Sorry for disappointing all non-native speakers - but this rule is
>dangerous. Freely narrating a well-known episode about 2000 years in the
>past might read "Als Kyrenios Verwaltungschef von Syrien war, erging ein
>Erlass des Kaisers Augustus zur Volkszählung... ".
>
>Well, Kyrenios was governor in Syria for several years (at least as far
>as we know) , and I would nt call this a "single event", but
>nevertheless the sentence could not formed with "wenn".
>
>Other Example: "Als Adam grub und Eva spann - wo war denn da der
>Edelmann?"
>
started, lasted for a time which could be long, stopped, and did not
restart"?
What would you say if the governorship of Syria was a 1-year
appointment, and Kyrenios held it for 3 consecutive years - is that a
single event?
And if he held it 3 times with intervening gaps?
[For what it's worth, my grammar book leads me to think that 'als' would
be OK for one event even of considerable length; might be OK for the
'contiguous appointment' case, and would not do for the 'gaps in
appointment' case.]
Andy
<Michael...@t-online.de> wrote
usage etc) from those in German [hence not straightforward for a native
German speaker]. I was sympathising, by observing that prepositions in
German are also different (in construction, usage etc) from those in
English [hence not straightforward for a native English speaker]!
Michael Symonds
(Diedrich Ehlerding) wrote:
>> I read a statement in this group that 'als' is used if
>> you talk about a single event in the past. This may be
>> a valid rule of thumb for the non-native speaker.
>
>Sorry for disappointing all non-native speakers - but this rule is
> [......]
>nevertheless the sentence could not formed with "wenn".
Let's have a look at ankerstein's textbook, quoted on this thread two
days before:
#My German textbook explains the differences between "als", "wenn"
#and "wann":
#Als is used to introduce a clause concerned with a *single* event
#in the *past*. or to refer to a *single* block of time in the
#past (als ich jung war).
#Wenn is used to introduce a clause concerned with *repeated*
#events (whenever) or possibilities (if) in *past* time, or
#with single or repeated events in present or future time.
- Michael Symonds
Alwyn
<an...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> [For what it's worth, my grammar book leads me to think that 'als' would
> be OK for one event even of considerable length; might be OK for the
> 'contiguous appointment' case, and would not do for the 'gaps in
> appointment' case.]
That's right. Cyrenius could have been governor of Syria a thousand
separate times, you could still use 'als' to refer to one of those
events, but not to the times in between. In those cases, you'd have to
say: 'Als Cyrenius nicht Gouverneur von Syrien war'. :-)
'Als' can always be paraphrased as: 'at some time in the past, when...'.
Alwyn