Answer Question
One More Question
OK. This subject is not addressed by Fluenz because I suspect the explanation might be a bit hazy.
It's the use of the past tense of 'sein" versus the past tense of "werden", assuming I tabbed this correctly.
"I was there, I was born". English makes no distinction but German does. "Ich war dort", "Ich wurde geboren".
Hmmmm. Then going through some drills I encounter "Das Licht war beschadigt", "das Licht wurden ersetzt".
The second example appears that the two words are interchangeable but certainly not in the first.. Is the literal
translation to "Ich wurde geboren" "I became born" as opposed to "I was born", "The light was damaged","The
light became replaced"? Sometimes interchangeable, sometimes not? Is this a satisfactory explanation?
Side note: I often think that a more literal translation can speed learning. Why translate (zum beispiel)
"Es tut mir leid"into "I am sorry" rather than the more correct "It does me sorrow"? I think I would prefer to
have these literal English constructions associated in my mind when I translate. You gain insight into how
words are used rather making a rote connection. In other words learn to think German in English construction
rather than associate non-literal "proper "English? I never understood why the simple "guten Tag" is almost
always translated into "hello" rather than what it really means. Germans say "good day" instead of "hello".
Why is that too hard to fathom? Imagine how easy it would be to place German words in the correct order if
one learned to reorder one's English in German form. If I learned Germans say "I became born"...(?) I would
not have needed an explanation. No one really takes this approach.
Just a thought. Probably a bad one...........smile.
It's the use of the past tense of 'sein" versus the past tense of "werden", assuming I tabbed this correctly.
"I was there, I was born". English makes no distinction but German does. "Ich war dort", "Ich wurde geboren".
Hmmmm. Then going through some drills I encounter "Das Licht war beschadigt", "das Licht wurden ersetzt".
The second example appears that the two words are interchangeable but certainly not in the first.. Is the literal
translation to "Ich wurde geboren" "I became born" as opposed to "I was born", "The light was damaged","The
light became replaced"? Sometimes interchangeable, sometimes not? Is this a satisfactory explanation?
Side note: I often think that a more literal translation can speed learning. Why translate (zum beispiel)
"Es tut mir leid"into "I am sorry" rather than the more correct "It does me sorrow"? I think I would prefer to
have these literal English constructions associated in my mind when I translate. You gain insight into how
words are used rather making a rote connection. In other words learn to think German in English construction
rather than associate non-literal "proper "English? I never understood why the simple "guten Tag" is almost
always translated into "hello" rather than what it really means. Germans say "good day" instead of "hello".
Why is that too hard to fathom? Imagine how easy it would be to place German words in the correct order if
one learned to reorder one's English in German form. If I learned Germans say "I became born"...(?) I would
not have needed an explanation. No one really takes this approach.
Just a thought. Probably a bad one...........smile.