Hello everyone,
and welcome to a new episode of our Summer, Sun, Vocab Fun series, this time with a special summer edition of
False Friends Explained
In these types of posts, we explore infamous pairs of false friends and find out how to properly translate them, and
more importantly, who’s to blame for the mess!
Was it English or German? Or do they just look similar by coincidence? Or was it those politicians again?
Either way, someone has to get CANCELLED for the confusion.
And today, we’ll look at one of the most famous, most confusing pairs of false friends ever:
bekommen vs become
I actually had a segment about this in the article about “werden”, so if you’ve read that, you might already know what’s going on.
But as I was giving that article a much needed do-over the other day, I felt like this topic was a bit crammed and out of place there. This is just such an iconic couple of false friends, they deserve to have their own article. And they actually have a really surprising connection.
So if you’re ready, let’s jump right in.
bekommen and become – why are they so different
bekommen and to become are definitely brothers, so they’re not just two words that look alike by coincidence.
But while the English become is about the idea of evolving, the German bekommen is about the idea of receiving.
And mixing up the two is really really confusing.
I’m sure most of you have at some point instinctively translated to become as bekommen and said something like this:
“Mein Deutsch bekommt besser.”
Which to a German native speaker doesn’t really mean anything.
And it’s equally as weird the other way around.
So a German speaker might say this:
“I became a couch yesterday.
And now get to da choppa!”
Which will leave a native speaker of English wondering, what kind of a weird German idiom is “becoming a couch” ? And what chopper? And why should I get to it?
Seriously though, the natural question that comes to mind is of course how these two words ended up with two completely separate ideas.
But the question that’ll really help us is whether the two ideas actually ARE as different as they seem.
Because the answer to that is no, the ideas are not that different.
At least, they’re similar enough to be combined in one English verb: to get.
To get carries both ideas, becoming and receiving.
- My German is getting better.
- I got a couch yesterday.
To get works perfectly fine in both contexts, and the reason for that is that on an abstract level, the ideas of becoming and receiving are actually share a common concept:
“A attaining B”
And the only difference is which side is “moving”, A or B.
You see, if we become something, like fluent for example, then it’s us (A) moving toward the state of being fluent (B). (A —> B)
If we receive something, like a present for example, then it’s the present (B) moving toward us (A). (A <—- B)
But in both instances the end result is the same… we (A) have obtained B.
In linguistics, verbs and structures like this are called bidirectional. They’re not all really a big deal in English, but there are some examples besides to get. Like to taste, for instance…
| I taste the milk. | (I —- > milk’s taste) |
| The milk tastes sour to me. | (I <—– milk’s taste) |
And now comes the key point – the old Germanic ancestor of to become and bekommen, the old Germanic *bikweman, used to be such a bidirectional verb, as well. So just like to get, it could be about you “moving toward” something or something “moving toward” you. And both, German and English used the verb in both senses.
But then, for some reason, the English to become shifted entirely toward the idea of evolving (you moving toward something), while German bekommen focused on the other direction, the receiving.
I mean, in an ideal world they’d probably both moved in the same direction, but you can’t go against the third law of language learning:
Confusion of learners must always be achieved.
And achieved it is with this pair.
Seriously… I don’t think any English speaker who has ever learned German has not made the mistake at least once and used bekommen for to become, when the actual word we need is werden.
By the way, if you want to read more about that one, just check out my article about it. It’s a two part article actually and we explore why werden means to become and why it is also used for the future tense AND for the passive. I’ll leave the link to those below.
Cool!
So, now we know why become and bekommen don’t mean the same anymore and how their meanings connect.
But there’s another question lingering…
What does “become” have to do with “come”?
We’ve seen that become and bekommen were essentially about attaining/getting something. And in a way, kommen and to come are the same, only that they’re about attaining/reaching/getting to a location. So there’s definitely a shared theme.
But the connection becomes even more obvious once we know that the prefix be- originally was the same as by and bei, respectively – but it was the unstressed version.
Like, take these two verbs:
- to bypass
- to become
A few hundred years back, they basically had the same prefix, but in bypass the emphasis is on the by, while in become the be- is unstressed and unstressed syllables tend to lose “character” simply because speakers put less effort into them.
Over time, also the meaning of be- has gradually moved away from its stressed sibling and became more and more opaque. But the original sense is still in there somewhere. And in become and bekommen we can actually kind of see it because with some mind yoga, we can think of both of them as “to come by“.
I mean, not literally of course, but to come by also has this idea of attaining and it can go “both ways”.
If you become 30 , you kind of sort of “come by” 30.
And if you bekommen an email, you kind of sort of “come by” an email.
Again, not literally :).
But I hope you can see how the ideas of coming to a place, becoming something and receiving something all share the theme of “attaining” something – be it an object, a state or a location.
If not, don’t worry about it. These things need to click intuitively, and sometimes our brain is just like “Nah… I don’t feel like it today.”
After all, you don’t need to know any of this to use bekommen properly. It’s fascinating, but it’s not helpful.
Wait… should I say that? That sounds so negative… anyway, you know what I mean :).
So yeah, that’s it for today.
This was our little look at bekommen and become and why they are the false friends that they are.
If you want to check out how to use the German word for to become check out my article on werden below.
And of course, if you have any questions about any of this, just leave me a comment.
I hope you liked it, have a great week and see you next time.
further reading:
super….vielen dank!
Yes
I was just reading the wikipedia article on “Partizip” (i know i should be at the lake or something) and read about something called bekommen-Passiv. I was just wondering how common this is in the spoken language?
Quite common actually, but more so with “kriegen”, which is “bekommen”‘s colloquial brother.
It’s a quite “intuitive” choice of phrasing because passive is basically taking the perspective of someone or something “receiving” an action.
What’s important to note is that this passive replaces the INDIRECT object, not the direct one, like the normal passive.
Might be worth an article, actually.
Thanks, and yes, article sounds cool!
“Confusion of the learner must always be achieved”
Gut gemacht Deutsche sprache, gut gemacht…
Ja, Deutsch ist sehr fleißig und nimmt die Aufgabe ernst :)
I feel like American English uses “get” to lazily replace every verb possible. Get fat, get a present, get the mail, get home on time. I try to use more precise verbs (become, receive, pick up, arrive), but I’m fighting a losing battle. You get what I mean.
British folks: reassure me! You still use precise verbs, right?
Honorable effort, but would you really use “receive” for a present?
Like
Hey, I’d say that, though normally only when specifying *from whom*(#) I received it ;-) “I received a really lovely cable-knit jumper from my great grandma for my birthday”.
(#) OK, OK, I admit it, I find it almost physically impossible to use the word “whom” any more, at least without a metric shit-ton of irony as overlay. But in a comment on yourdailygerman.com all bets are off.
Somehow, this made me really happy to read! One of my favorite compliments :)!
“Look what I received for my 30th birthday” This would indicate an overdue bill notice, or being served papers by a lawyer :)
I personally wouldn’t use it in spoken english for the context of the present. “Received” is definitely slightly more formal than “got”. But i don’t find it out of place in the sentence “Look what I received for my 30th birthday” either…
The english verb “to get” reconciles the german verb (bekommen__to receive) with the english verb (to become___to evolve into).
examples: “lucy, you’re getting (becoming) fat”
” Paul, you’ll get (receive) a package.
I love the Arnold Schwarzenegger humor. Laughed for about five minutes.
Yeay, I’m happy someone caught that!
another great article ! Emanuel is doing a wonderful job over here , thank you for signing me up for a year with the help of other members’ thoughtful gesture ! :)
If we look back at Harvey Wachtel’s comment, he raises an interesting point.
How *did* phrases such as “to be comely” and “that shirt really becomes you” or “it ill-becomes you to complain” come about? Any idea?
Actually, German bekommen has a similar meaning:
The English use is a little more about “suiting” while the German is about what effect something has on you, but the core idea in both cases can be phrased as “is it good for you?”.
The German etymological dictionary that I use (DWDS.de) says that the Old High German ancestor of “bekommen” could mean “to come by, to encounter” but also “to suit, to be of benefit”. English Etymonline.com doesn’t mention this specifically, but it does mention “to happen” as one of the ideas of the Old English version.
Something “happening to you” or “coming to you” can indeed be a good or bad fit, so there’s the connection.
I am not sure if these really are “transitive” uses though, as I am pretty sure the object is indirect. It is a Dative in German and I feel like the English version, being the same in spirit, will have the same grammar.
I think that makes sense, but it’s impossible to say for sure because English lost the distinction between accusative and dative for good around 1400 (thanks to the Norman invasion). The case system had already been weakening for hundreds of years, probably at least in part because of the Viking invasions starting in the 700s.
But in the original Old English case system, you would have said
I see hine (Akk.) (modern: him)
I gave him (Dat.) present (Akk. and no indefinite articles)
The pronoun for “you” (equivalent of “du”) would have been the same in both cases. “Thee” with modernized spelling.
German “bekommen” is transitive and English “become” is isually copulative. But where does the English transitive meaning, “to enhance the appearance of” come from? My dictionary offers no clue.
BTW, I note that if x becomes y, then y comes from x. That may help with the relationship between “come” and “become”.
Wow, I love this little mnemonic. Really helpful!
Actually, I am not so sure if that is “transitive”. I feel like these uses are an indirect object and if I remember correctly, the English definition of “transitive” wants a direct object.
I have written a longer comment about this just now, you can find it above yours, if you’re interested.
Is there a reason why you identify German verbs by their base forms and English verbs by their full infinitives? I dropped the “to” when I realized that the English modal auxiliaries don’t have infinitives. I suspect German never uses the full infinitive to name a verb, so this is a convenient way to clarify which language you’re referring to. Is that right?
P.S. I loved this article. I’ll probably never be fluent in German, but I’ve learned so much about English, and about language in general, from knowing something about it.
Actually, the form I am using for German verbs is the infinitive. So in a dictionary, it’ll say “geben” and then “to give” as a translation.
I have decided to stick with that, even though typing the “to” sometimes feels pointless, especially when I am making entries to my dictionary.
But I felt like, English has decided to add “to” to its infinitives so I’ll just respect that even though I find it superfluous :).
Just to make sure… it’s not like German has a form like that and just doesn’t use it. It really doesn’t have it.
I think it’s just that English conjugations are so bare-bones it’s the only way to demonstrate a reference to the infinitive, when it’s otherwise hard to detect..
Might be, yeah.
etwas bekommen = come by something. Mind blown. Again.
Hi,
The Bulgarian air must be doing you some good, because you “bekommst” no corrections today!
(apart from a very, very picky one you may want to ignore – two-part has a hyphen)
Talking about false friends, why can’t other languages just use verbs like “get” and “put”? (sigh…) Ok, it makes them richer, I suppose :)
I recently found out that “gift” (another infamous false friend) means “married” in Swedish. How fun is that? Maybe being married there is both a present and a poison ;)
Hope you enjoy the rest of your holiday!
Bis bald!
No typos, wohooo :)!
That Swedish “gift” reminds me of the German “vergeben” which translates to English “taken” in the sense of “in a relationship”.
The bride’s father “gives away” the bride. After which you could say she has been given away – i.e. married.
I wonder if the Swedish version only applies to the bride.
That used to be common in American ceremonies too. Arrrggghh! Thankfully it is, if you’ll excuse the word, becoming less common.
My wife had been sole proprietor of herself for 22 years when she married me at age 40, and she still is 34 years later.
Sun? Summer? its freezing in Australia right now. But in 10 days I will be-coming to Berlin where i hope to come by some better weather!
By freezing you probably mean like 18 degrees Celsius or something :D.
Are you going to go to the Easy German course thing in September?
Vielen Dank Emanuel! Das ist sehr interessant.
Thanks a lot Immanuel for helping me out with the free subscription. Hoping to find a job soon. I love your articles. Helps me to laugh out loud and learn at the same time. Appreciate your sincere efforts. Thank God for this website.
Nice article, might wanna fix that bit at the start: “But while the English become is about the idea of evolving, the German bekommen is about the idea of receiving.
The German bekommen on the other hand is about receiving.”
Fixed it, danke :)
one mistake to avoid that i apparently made with “bekommen” was using it to describe getting an animal / new pet. “eine freundin von mir bekommt einen Hund” apparently sounds like the friend is giving birth to a dog… : /
Well, it can, but it depends on the context. People do use “bekommen” and especially its colloquial brother “kriegen” with pets.
Great article. I don’t remember having confused bekommen and become, but the etymology is very interesting – Vielen Dank!
Reminds of the time a German friend of mine had a birthday and told me “I’m getting 28.” Took me a second to realize she meant she was *turning* 28.
Wait, is “getting 28” not proper English?
you can “attain” 28. Get sounds a bit like a disease.
The matron attained the age of 92 before her efforts were recognised.
Attaining an age sounds very formal to me but it does seem like it gets used in certain contexts (literary /legal) . I personally wouldn’t use it in spoken english.
You are “getting older”, and I am “getting very old”, or even “getting long in the tooth”, but you’d never use “getting” with an actual age. So “I’m getting 28” would get you a very weird look from a native English speaker. As has been mentioned below you’d probably say “I’m turning 28 next week”, but you could also say “I’ll be 28 next week”, or slightly more colloquially “I’m about to hit 28”.
Wow, that’s a really interesting case of our brains having tunnel vision then.
Like… a neutral brain should be able to accept “I’m getting 28 years old” and it accepts “I’m getting older.”
But in language you can’t always tell how “close” something is just by reasoning.
Sometimes, even though it seems close, the native speaker brain is like “Nah, I don’t get it at all.”
This comes up a lot for me with pronunciation, particularly emphasis.
I might pronounce something with the emphasis slightly off in Italian, but in their brain it has ZERO to do with the actual word.
Yep, it really does sound super-strange, even if it would be relatively consistent logically. I’m not sure how I’d react upon hearing “I’m getting 28 years old”, but it’d probably involve a cock of the head, a slightly quizzical look, and a stare as I waited for you to specify *which/what* 28 year old thing you’re going to be getting. Single Malt Whisky (sounds yummy!)? Château d’Yquem (similarly!). You would, of course, “really” have to say “28 year old Château d’Yquem” without the extra “s”, but the “klang/clang” of that error would still be less than that of the raw expression “getting 28 years”.
Or “his wife just got a new baby.” It makes perfect sense in a way, but if I think about it a little longer, it sounds like she just ran out to the store and picked out a kid. Or someone delivered it to her doorstep for Christmas. An endearing mistranslation :)
What about “Maria just had a baby.”… that’s really strange as well. As if the baby is gone again.
Yes that is very common in spoken language or written in the tabloids and then the connecting sentence would be “and now she has run a marathon” or “lost all her baby weight”.
Maria just had a baby. How did it taste? :D
Hahaha, OMG, Maria is part of the lizzard elite. Someone call Alex Jones!
Welp, now that image is gonna be stuck in my head forever :)
It’s funny though, I was reading through the bazillionty definitions of “have” just now. It’s a synonym for “give birth” in that one specific context, but the thing I didn’t realize is it can also mean “get, acquire, obtain.” Like this:
“The best plastic chess set to be had anywhere”
Which is maybe kind of similar to “bekommen”, I think, but with a side flavor of “buy”.
I would have categorized that with
but purely for the structure. The meanings are fairly different (within the big cloud of “to have” of course)
The interesting thing is that in this example, as well as having a baby, “to have” is not a state but a process where you go from not having to having. Which makes no sense.
It’s less about the baby and more about the birth. If you had a baby the person is thinking of the labor you had.