
Hello everyone,
and welcome to our German Word of the Day. A very special one because….
it is number 200!!!! Wohooo! The 200th post.
And to celebrate that, let’s look at one of the most important words ever. A word you’ll need every day. Get ready to explore the meaning of
brauchen
When you look up brauchen in a dictionary, you’ll find that it means to need.
And it does mean to need, but there is one very crucial grammatical difference that leads to a LOT of mistakes.
But that’s not the only thing we’ll talk about.
We’ll also look at some really cool relatives like verbrauchen and der Gebrauch and we’ll explore the family ties that bind all the meanings together. And that’s actually what we’ll start with. So are you ready for a little trip in time?
Perfect, then let’s jump right in.
And we’ll start with the family, because there’s a reveal waiting for us that would make a soap opera author proud.
The origin of “brauchen”
Are you ready to get your mind blown?
Okay, so here it goes… brauchen is related to fruit.
Sounds crazy but it’s true. And we can see it a little better when we look at the German word for fruit: die Frucht. Brauchen – Frucht. I mean… they’re not exactly twins, but there is a resemblance.
Now, how did we get such a crazy relation?
Well, at the start of it all is the ancient Indo-European root *bhrūg which had a really interesting double meaning: fruit and enjoy. Makes a lot of sense, if you think about it. The hunt hasn’t been too successful. Only an old skinny rabbit and a few chewy roots for the whole cavemen family. Another meager dinner. But then young Grok comes back from collecting firewood and says: “Grok find many fruit!”.
And everyone is like: “Yeaaay. Fruit, fruit, fruit.”
Now you might be like “Ewww fruits are gross.” but that’s only because we are oversaturated with sugar… sodas, ice cream, chocolate, cake, BBQ-sauce. But our ancestors didn’t have that. For them, sugary food was something really special and so it makes sense that they used the same word for fruit and enjoy.
Now, this double meaning of fruit and joy completely carried over to Latin and it’s even still kind of visible in the English word fruition. Today, fruition means something like completion but it used to mean enjoyment a while ago… which is what you feel if you plan comes to fruition.
And what about brauchen?
Well, the evolution of the meaning of brauchen pretty much mirrors the development of an addiction.
At first you’re like “Man, I really enjoy a good piece of chocolate. As a special treat.”
But then comes a stressful situation, like… say… a lockdown and before you know it, you sound more like this:
“I eat (use) chocolate every day… don’t know why… because it’s there, I guess.“.
And then, after a while, you actually get nervous when there’s no chocolate
“I need chocolate… helps me relax.“And you buy more.
That’s roughly the path brauchen took.
From really enjoying, to using everyday, to needing.
And actually, the second step, the notion of using is at the core of most prefix versions.
But let’s look at brauchen itself first, which means to need.
How to use “brauchen” as to need
Here are a couple of examples:
- Ich brauche ein bisschen Zeit.
- I need a bit of time.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
- Wie lange brauchst du?
- How long do you need?
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
- Ich habe ein Jahr gebraucht um Deutsch zu lernen.
- I needed one year to learn German.
(It took me … )
In phrasings like this one, the two verbs are exactly the same. But there is a BIG difference when it comes to using them with other verbs (we’ll get to that later).
And they’re also different with regards to related words.
English has a noun the need, and German has a noun der Brauch. And they certainly are gonna be translations for each other. Right? RIGHT?
Well… nope!
- There is no need to worry about it.
- Das ist kein Grund, sich Sorgen zu machen.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
- For the time being, the bank is in no further need for cash.
- Die Bank hat vorerst keinen weiteren Bedarf an Bargeld.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
The translation for the need depends on context, but it’s definitely NOT der Brauch or any other word based on brauchen.
Because the relatives of brauchen – and there are quite a few of them – are about something different…
brauchen – related words
Do you remember the evolution of brauchen? From enjoying, to using to needing?
Well, the need-meaning is actually fairly “young” and the secret of to all the related words is that they kind of got stuck with the second stage… the using.
And that’s why der Brauch does NOT mean a need, but instead custom, in the sense of tradition. A habit or behavior people “use” regularly.
And while Brauch is not that useful in daily life, the word gebraucht is. Yes, it’s the ge-form of brauchen, so we do use it as to need.
- Thomas war nicht da, als Maria ihn gebraucht hat.
- Thomas wasn’t there when Maria needed him.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
But gebraucht is also used as an adjective in the older sense of used and it’s THE word for second hand in German.
- Das Fahrrad ist gebraucht.
- The bike is second hand. (lit.: used)
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
Now, to be really precise, this second-hand gebraucht is technically not the ge-form of brauchen but of gebrauchen. Yes, that’s a thing, as well. A while back, brauchen and gebrauchen both meant to use, and while brauchen went on, gebrauchen didn’t change. It’s not used as a verb that much, but the related words are REALLY common.
- Das kann ich nicht gebrauchen.
- I don’t need that/I have no use for that.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
- Jim ist Gebrauchtwagenhändler.
- Jim is a used car salesman.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
- Ich verstehe die Gebrauchsanweisung/-anleitung nicht.
- I don’t understand the user manual (lit.: “use-instruction”)
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
- Vor Gebrauch kräftig schütteln.
- Shake well before using.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
Cool.
Another really important one is verbrauchen. The ver-prefix adds its idea idea of away to the sense of using and boom… we got ourselves the German word for consume, use up.
- Dieser Tesla verbraucht viel Benzin.
- This Tesla uses a lot of gas.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
- “Hast du Maria mal gesehen?”
“Ja, die sieht voll verbraucht aus.” - “Have you seen Maria lately?”
“Yes, she looks totally depleted.” - Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
- Der Verbraucherschutz in Deutschland ist ziemlich gut.
- Consumer/customer protection in Germany is pretty good.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
- “Zu verbrauchen bis: 3. 4. 2018″
- “Use before: April 3rd 2018″
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
Besides verbrauchen, there is also aufbrauchen which is quite literally to use up and at least in context of food it puts a slight stress on using as opposed to throwing it away. But it’s not used all that much in daily life anyway.
So yeah, these are the most important related words for brauchen and you’ll definitely need those. There are some others related words out there, but with the idea of using in mind, you’ll be able to get them from context, I think.
So let’s rather turn back to brauchen and talk about the issue many many people are making mistakes with… to need in combination with activities.
Where we need to be careful – brauchen and verbs
In the examples that we had for the verb brauchen, we were talking about people or things.
- Ich brauche jemanden/etwas.
- I need someone/something.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
In that regard, brauchen and to need work exactly the same.
Now, to need can also be connected with activities.
- I need to sleep.
And this does NOT work with brauchen. Like… not at all!!
- Ich brauche zu schlafen…. is WRONG
People might understand you but it sounds really really really wrong.
The proper word here is the “standard” German word to express obligation… üssen.
- Ich muss schlafen.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
- I really need to start learning vocabulary.
- Ich muss wirklich anfangen, Vokabeln zu lernen.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
Many people are really used to this phrasing with to need and they kind of use brauchen automatically. But that’s only half the reason for why there are so many mistakes.
The other half is the fact that German is totally inconsistent.
Because while this doesn’t work…
- You need to hurry.
Du brauchst dich beeilen.… NOPE
… the following DOES work
- You don’t need to hurry.
- Du brauchst dich nicht (zu) beeilen.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
And to make it even more confusing, this also works.
- You just have to hurry.
- Du brauchst dich nur zu beeilen.
- You have but to hurry. (lit.)
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
So apparently, nicht and nur have magical grammar changing powers and when they’re in the sentence it’s suddenly okay to connect an activity. And honestly, I have no idea why…. it’s just how it is, in all its random, inconsistent beauty.
- You need to wait.
- Du brauchst (zu) warten… uber wrong :C
- You don’t need to wait.
- Du brauchst nicht (zu) warten... just fine :D
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
In writing, müssen is probably the better pick but in daily conversation people do use nicht/nur brauchen.
- “Ich kann Bier mitbringen.”
“Brauchst du nicht. Ich habe eine Kasten.” - “I can bring beer.”
“You don’t need to. I have a case.”
(this one is pretty common)
- Wenn du erst zwei Tage vor dem Test anfängst zu lernen, brauchst du dich nicht (zu) wundern, wenn du verkackst.
- If you start learning only two days before the test, you don’t need/have to be surprised if you screw up. (lit.)
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
- Wenn dir die Musik zu laut ist, brauchst du es nur (zu) sagen, dann mach’ ich sofort leiser.
- If the music is too loud for you you just have to say it and I’ll turn it down right away.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
And after looking at these examples, I think most of you are low key having the same question … what about the zu?
Does it have to be there or not?
Well, believe it or not but it’s actually up … us, the speakers. WE can decide. Our will matters. Power to the speakers, hooray.
No need for a stupid and complicated rule. Take note, Mr. Grammar and tremble, for if you can be beaten here you can be beaten anywhere. You shall bind us no more. We’ve tasted freedom of rules. A very sweet taste. Henceforth we’ll speak the way we want. And no one …. shall…. correct uuuuuuuus!!!!!!
To the barricades, comrad… oh… oh… I uh… I think I had too much coffee. I need it to function, but I think that last quadruple esperesso was too much.
But hey.. “I need coffee to function”… that sentence actually reminds me of another issue with translating to need.
If we see sentence…
- I need coffee to function.
…we’ll most likely understand that coffee is a prerequisite for us functioning.
- I need coffee (in order) to function
- Ich brauche Kaffee, um zu funktionieren.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
But the phrasing actually has a second meaning. It can also express that we want to the coffee to function.
- I need coffee to function… so go away with all that decaf-crap.
The coffee example might not be the best so here’s a more practical one…
- I need you all to be quiet.
This is a request, a demand toward the people. Kind of a mix between
- You all must/have to be quiet. and
- I want you to be quiet.
This phrasing does NOT work with brauchen, neither in the positive or the negative. The best match is again müssen.
- Ich brauche euch alle leise zu sein… is wrong
- Ihr müsst bitte alle leise sein… is correct.
So yeah, maybe it’s best if you think of brauchen as JUST needing things or persons and stop using it with verbs completely until you have enough sprachgefühl.
And with that said, I think we can wrap this up :).
This was our German word of the Day brauchen. It comes from a word that meant fruit and joy. Then it changed to to use, a meaning which is still present in Gebrauch and verbrauchen, and then brauchen shifted again and became to need. Tune in in 300 years to find out what it’s gonna mean next.
If you want to recap and check how much you remember, just take the little quiz I have prepared for you. And of course, if you have any questions about brauchen or the prefix words or if you want to try out some examples just leave me a comment.
I hope you liked it and see you next time.

I’ve been looking everywhere for an explanation as to “need something TO HAPPEN” and I was sure I’d find it here, it’s right there at the ending and I HATE IT. How come such a language doesn’t have a proper way to say that you need someone to shut **** up? Thanks, anyways.
I thought I could say something like “ich brauche, dass du…”
Lol, yeah… du brauchst die Formulierung aber du kriegst sie nicht :)
Aufgebraucht is the main choice to refer to things that are finished (the milk, the toilet paper, etc.)? There are other options (Fertig is wrong,right?).
And I should say “die Tabletten sind aufgebraucht” oder auch “ich habe die Tabletten aufgebraucht”? Danke!
I never use “aufgebraucht” in this way. Sounds way too scripted for me. The word I would recommend is “alle”. And “alle machen” as a verb.
A native Austrian said this:
“ Kann jemand etwas von diesen Dingen brauchen?”
I would have thought the word should be gebrauchen or the more common benützen?
Was she being loose with the language or was regional colloquial?
As a side issue, it also raises the question about whether modals can be used with brauchen (in its standard meaning)?
Nah, a German might say that too, including me.
“gebrauchen” would be the better choice, but “brauchen” in this phrasing means the same.
“benutzen” is different and wouldn’t fit. It sounds like you’re asking if someone can use them ON THE SPOT or knows how to use them, not if someone has general use for them.
About the modal verbs – it does sound a bit odd, but I think that’s due to meaning, not grammar.
– You can need a car.
Nope, makes no sense.
– You could need a car.
Yes, works.
It’s pretty much the same in German.
Emanuel, first of all I want to express my gratitude and my admiration. Your site has been a decisive factor for my progress in German. You have answers to all of my questions which only goes to show how much of an amazing work you have put to build this site. Keep doing what you do! Paying for a membership is the least I can do! You are the MAN!
Now, on to the question :)
I am playing Pokemon Emerald in German and this example came up:
– Nein,warte. Sag jetzt nichts. Ich brauche dich nur anzuschauen.
I am just not sure how to translate it. My feel for the language says:
– I just need you to watch.
However, DeepL translates it as:
– I only need to look at you.
And I don’t know which one is the correct translation after all.
What is your take on this?
Thanks a lot for the amazing feedback. Made me really happy to read this.
DeepL is correct here. You can replace this “brauchen” with “müssen” and then it’ll be clear.
– All I have to do is look at you.
Your reading is heavily influenced by the English “I need you to look.” but this particular phrasing does not exist in German, or at least not with “brauchen”.
Hope that helps.
Thanks a lot, Manuel! Now I see the difference :)
Just out of curiosity though, how would you translate in German:
That’s a tricky one and you have various choices, and it depends on what tone and context we’re dealing with:
– du musst das für mich angucken
– es wäre schön/gut, wenn du das anguckst
– es ist wichtig (für mich), dass du dir das anguckst
– bitte guck dir das an
…
And “look at it” can also be several things. “gucken” for a thing that is present right there right then and that the person might be wanting to not look at (a pile of dirty dishes). “angucken” for a more “taking a look” kind of context. Like, looking at some file or server problem or whatever.
Not all heroes wear capes! Thank you very much!
Another great article for us struggling through, one word at a time! (And the discussion below about bräuchte I will have to revisit another day! All my books don’t even mention it).
In the article you say that brauchen can be used with nicht—ich brauche heute nicht zu arbeiten. In class we also learnt that the ‘negativness’ of brauchen also works with nichts and kein:
Ich brauche kein Beir zu trinken.
Ich brauche nichts zu trinken.
I may be just banging my head on the wall about this, but I really just can’t get my head around why:
Ich brauche nichts zu trinken. is OK, but
Ich brauche etwas zu trinken. is not.
grammatically nichts and etwas serve exactly the same function.
(But now when I put ‘I need something to drink” into both google and DeepL they give me ‘ich brauche etwas zu trinken’ as the translation. Now I’m crying.)
Hi Paul, I am about to roll back my database (long story) so this comment will disappear. Can you please ask in two hours again? Please confirm, so I know you know what’s going on.
Okay, seems like I could actually avoid the database rollback :).
So about your question:
These two can be kind of fixed phrases. So they are NOT always a normal zu-construct per se.
The more general phrasing that they then belong to is this:
But for some basic verbs like essen and trinken, there’s just “zu +verb”.
It’s confusing with “brauchen”, but maybe less so when you see it with haben
This is absolutely not the same as a zu-construct, feeling-wise.
Now, “etwas zu trinken” CAN be a zu-construct as well
But the difference is that here it the activity “essen” with the object “etwas” and in the former examples “etwas zu essen” just a thing.
You can test it by adding a different object
This already sounds awkward because it’s not clear if the zu connects a verb or in fact a noun “the act of eating”.
Now about brauchen:
This is simply a statement like
On the other hand, the negated version is more of a zu-construct.
The two combinations “nicht einen” and “nicht etwas” are then drawn together by the forces that usually exist and we get “keinen Apfen zu essen” and “nichts zu essen”.
Technically, the last one is not clear in terms of structure:
This can mean
Context will clear that up.
I hope this helps a bit, although it’s quite a bit chew on.
Let me know if you have follow up questions.
Oh, I have hundreds of follow up questions, but I can’t process too much at once! Thanks for the time to reply – it is very helpful.
You left out the polite form of bräuchten
I left that out because I felt it would be a bit too much. But you’re right, it’s a thing.
Do you have any specific questions about it? I’m happy to answer them here.
Ever since embarking on my German journey, I’ve enjoyed noticing how archaic, idiomatic phrasings in English often end up feeling extra German:
“You need not go” (Du brauchst nicht
zugehen)“I think not!” (Often used when preventing someone from DOING something, not just disagreeing with them. I highly doubt a literal translation like “Ich glaube/denke (doch) nicht!” works at all, but the sentence structure of [Subject] [verb] [negation] is very rare in English and very common in German)
“Such is life” ([ ] [verb] [subject])
It’s almost like the languages are related…
hahaha, yeah, seems like they are :). Seriously though, German is indeed kind of a “way back machine” for English. What’s really interesting is Frisian dialect. It’s hard for a German to read without a dedicated dictionary, but it’s really right in the middle between German and English, particularly with regards to sounds.
And just like that, I suddenly find myself watching Youtube videos about Frisian. Very cool!
Hallo
Ich weiß, dass Sie gesagt haben, dass “brauchen” nicht mit “zu” verwendet werden kann (außer mit nicht oder nur). Aber ich habe das Folgende gelesen:
Ich brauche die Sonne zum Fotografieren.
Kann man “brauchen” und “zu” mit einem nominalisierten Verb verwenden?
Danke im Voraus
Ja, das ist total idiomatisch :)!
Another great post as always. It has actually cleared up several mysterious brauchen meanings for me. As for the brauchen ohne nicht oder nur, i think i already knew that, but just kind of implied. Ive not tried an example on here for ages and i’m feeling one today so here goes.
Wie hast du es machen, so schön zu funktionieren?
Das brauchst du nicht zu wissen. Es funktioniert ganz gut. Du musst doch nicht mehr wissen!
How did you make that work so well?
You don’t need to know that. It works really well. That’s all you need to know.
In my imagination it is 2 programmers looking at the operation of a machine, and 1 keeping his cards close to his chest.
Wie wäre das?
The good news: the brauchen-sentence is perfect :). The bad news: the rest isn’t really. Let’s see
– Wie hast du es gemacht…
The first part is in spoken past so you need a ge-form… but I think you know that :). As for “to make something work” you can actually not use “machen” for once. One option is “zu etwas bringen”
– Ich bringe das zum Funktionieren.
but I think in this case I would go with two sentences
– Wie hast du es gemacht, dass es so gut funktioniert?
– How’d you do it that it works so well (lit)
Next we have
– Es funktioniert ganz gut.
That is not wrong but it is not what the English sentence says because in combination with a few words “ganz” does NOT mean “really” but rather “kind of” (don’t know if you’ve read the post on “ganz”, it’s a really weird word)
“Es funktioniert ganz gut” sound like
– It works, all right.
but not like “really well”.
– Du musst doch nicht mehr wissen.
This is correct structure-wise but I would take out the “doch”. It makes it sound as if you’re in a debate about whether or not the person needs to know it but the English version comes across as more of a resolved statement.
– Du musst nicht mehr wissen.
That’s the generic form but in this context I (and many others) would then change the order to
– Mehr musst du nicht wissen.
The “mehr” kind of connects to what was said before.
Oh and then
– Wie wäre das?
This was perfect :)
So not so many real mistakes after all. Just the first sentence really didn’t work.
Ah man! did i leave out the ge- form again? Das kann doch nicht wahr sein! I thought the doch kind of added a snappy-ness to the reply. Like, even if you did need to know, i wouldn’t tell you anyway. Particles are a real pain in the ass. I think you just absorb them over time, well, a long time anyway. Even english ones are tricky at times. Take for example when you believe something to be true.
Is that true?
yes i do – fine
Yeah i think – wrong
Yeah i think so – correct but why?
The so just needs to be there, maybe it connects to the previous statement or something but it has to be there. Also it is super ueber wrong to use that in the german translation.
Ist das wahr?
ja – definitely ok
Ja, das denke ich. – i think is fine
ja, ich denke so – im sure this is wrong, like maybe the so is speaking about how the way you think is similar rather than about the actual question
Ja ,ich glaube es so – i think is maybe not wrong but a different angle on the reply. like “i believe it to be like that” or something.
Weisst du, was ich meine?
Ja, du hast es voll erfasst (you totally got it).
– Ich denke so.
is possible but it does sound as you described.
– That’s how I think.
Super :).
Oh…
– Ich glaube es so.
is wrong though. For the angle described you’d just say
– Ich glaube, es ist so.
Fröhlihche Weihnachten!
Du auch und ein glückliches neues Jahr! Heute habe ich schon 5 großen Teller Essen weggefressen und bin jetzt nicht fertig mit dem weinacht-essen. Oh Mann! Schlafflos sei ich nicht.
Oh wow, das klingt viel. Hoffentlich bist du nicht geplatzt :)
Hi Emanuel!! I hope you read my message. In this answer your bring this “zu etwas bringen” up. Do you have a post about this? I always translate “make something/someone do something” as “machen,” and it’s always wrong. Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with “zu etwas bringen.
Not sure which message you mean, but you can find more about this in the article about “bringen” :)
https://yourdailygerman.com/meaning-bringen/
The history of “fruit” and “enjoy/use/need” is very interesting, especially seeing how it influenced different Indo-European languages. For example, the Spanish verb for “to enjoy” is “disfrutar,” which makes sense when viewed in this context. I didn’t realize the extent to which Latin and other historic, non-Germanic languages influenced German itself!
Oh wow, “disfrutar”. What a great word. Like… there’s the tree with the fruits and you pick them off the tree to eat (and enjoy them)… like… “take it all in” :)
check this out German Rocket languages course!
highly professional
click here to see more [link removed]
I will delete URLs with “Clickbank” in them. If the course is really good, please post a “clear” link.
Please release the next article on the 17th
Why :)?
It was my birthday on the 17th))
Aw, that’s sweet. Sorry for that early birthday present then. For once I had it done on Tuesday and I couldn’t wait :). Herzlichen Glückwunsch nachträglich!
It’s OK) I didn’t check it on the 16th, only the 17th so I was still happy to see an article particularly useful to me. Thanks))
Es wird bald Weihnachten sein und ich brauche nicht (zu) sagen, wie schwer es ist, um ein passendes Weihnachtsgeschenk für meine Freundin herauszufinden. Nach dem stundenlangen erfolglosen Surfen im Internet habe ich mein Geduld endlich verbraucht und habe mich entscheidet, den ersten Artikel auf der Auflistung von Ebay zu kaufen. Hier ist die Artikelbeschreibung: Fallschirm, nur einmal gebraucht, nie geöffnet.
Drei kleine Korrekturen: 1. “um” muss weggelassen werden, 2. meine Geduld, 3. entschieden.
Nun ist die Frage eher an Emanuel: passen “herausfinden” und “vebrauchen” zu dem Zusammenhang? Das mit der Geduld – wenn, dann sollte es nicht eher “aufgebraucht” sein? Und herausfinden kann man ein Geschenk aus einem Geschenkehaufen. Abstrakt kann man sich einen solchen sogar vorstellen, aber ob das Verb trotzdem passt…
Dein Sprachgefühl täuscht dich nicht. Beide Verben passen nicht so wirklich. “Herausfinden” ist weitestgehend auf Fakten beschränkt, und “verbrauchen” mit “Geduld” klingt einfach irgendwie komisch… keine Ahnung wieso.
Haha… super Text :D. Hier mal ein paar Korrekturen:
– Bald ist Weihnachten… (Gegenwart ist idiomatischer als Zukunft)
– … wie schwer es ist, ein passendes Geschenk zu finden.
Ohne “um”. “Herausfinden” ist “finding out facts”, funktioniert also nur für Wissen.
– Nach stundenlangem erfolglosen/m(not sure… for shame) Surfen….
Artikel weg. “dem” impliziert, dass man Fragen kann “welches Surfen”.
– … habe ich meine Geduld verbraucht…
Besser wäre “war meine Geduld aufgebraucht” oder einfach “hatte ich keine Geduld mehr”.
– … habe mich entschieden…
Wenn du Fragen dazu hast, dann immer her damit :)
From few series back, you told us that you are trying to publish a book (like a compendium of all of the contents written in this blog. I wonder whether you have an interest in publishing the contents for people who cannot speak English as well…? I am pretty confident that the approach you are taking would be effective to students from Asia as well.
That’s great to hear and I would definitely consider it… but for now I have to finish the one little book I have before I can think about different languages :)
Oh by the way… the book will not be a compendium… it’ll be a mix of old and new material and it might not be what most expect…
Where do you learn everything about the history of these words?
There are various etymological dictionaries. E.g. there is one at DWDS.de
I use DWDS.de and a printed etymology Duden. And for some tough nuts I check the Grimms Wörterbuch. For English I use etymonline.com… and then you just have to make sense of the facts :)
Oh wow, I didn’t know etymological dictionaries existed. I even found one for English. So interesting to read this stuff. Thank you!
Your posts brighten my day in those moments when I’m trudging through some German grammar, hopelessly confused. Luckily, laughing makes German grammar less painful and I find your humour well…quite humurous….so thank you for that, and I also think that you have a real gift for being able to explain things very clearly and succintly without losing precision. Can’t wait to keep learning through your posts!
Thanks a lot for th… warte mal… Deutsch… vielen Dank für die lieben Worte. Freut mich, dass es dir gefällt. Viel Spaß weiter und viel Erfolg mit Deutsch (und Geduld… die braucht man definitiv)
Besides paypal, which I dislike, is there another way to donate?
There’s a little Flattr-Button under each article but Flattr isn’t really widespread, I guess (it’s a pity, I like their concept). Other than the only way are my bank details but I don’t want to have them on the page :)
Oh, also, how would you describe the difference between “Bedarf” and “Bedürfnis”?
“Bedarf” is mostly objective and measurable/quantifiable. “Bedürfnis” is subjective, a soft inner drive.
– McDonalds hat einen hohen Bedarf an Fleisch.
– Ich habe kein Bedürfnis nach Fleisch.
One more thing that could be useful in an article like this is the mention of the colloquial subjunctive form of brauchen: bräuchten.
“Ich bräuchte mehr Geld, als ich habe, um das zu kaufen.”
The official form is, of course, “brauchte”, but since it coincides with the simple past form, it’s pretty useless, so instead of “ich würde brauchen” everyone says “ich bräuchte”. It’s built by applying the rule for many strong verbs (turning the root vowel of the simple past form into umlaut) to “brauchen”, which is a weak verb. I would even suppose that an average German sees this as the only true form.
Indeed :). What makes you think “brauchte” is the official form? Maybe it’s the logical form but logic shmogic. Also, I don’t think your example is colloquial as it is completely in line with the standard need-meaning.
– I would need more money…
What is indeed colloquial is the use the others brought up
– Ich bräuchte mal einen Hammer.
The line between using and needing really blurs here because in order to use it you need it. The actual meaning of a sentence like this is something along the lines of
– Could you hand me a hammer/Could you get a hammer from somewhere.
So in that regard it is different to the example with the money which really only states what would have to be the case for you to be able to buy the item. The sentence does not sound like
– Could you lend me the money
to my ears.
> What makes you think “brauchte” is the official form?
Like, every reference work :)
REALLY??? That is ridiculous. Seriously. I have never heard “brauchte” as a subjunctive ever. Not from friends, not on TV, not from colleagues. Nowhere. And I would not understand it, unless the context is on steroids.
> What makes you think “brauchte” is the official form?
Just for fun:
Duden: https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/brauchen (note however that they include bräuchte in their conjugations table without any problem, even as they always mark it as umgangssprachlich in the comments; Duden is therefore the most progressive of the standard works on this issue)
Wahrig: https://books.google.de/books?id=sZGwuIt2FEMC&lpg=PR7&pg=PA269#v=onepage&q&f=false (umgangssprachlich)
PONS: https://books.google.de/books?id=A4JlrVYewZcC&lpg=PA251&pg=PA252#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.de/books?id=JoNmAwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA30&pg=PA30#v=onepage&q&f=false (falsch, grammatisch nicht korrekt)
And online (but still fine! ;)
Canoo: https://www.canoo.net/inflection/brauchen:V:haben
Wiktionary: https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/brauchen
I suppose in 20 years it will also be an (or the) official form, but today it’s still not.
Well, looking at some of the examples it does seem familiar now. I have to retract my previous comment a bit. But that is definitely “fancy speak”. I think I would use “müsste” in many occasions anyway. Especially in combination with a negative. But
– Ich brauchte mehr Geld….
I just can’t imagine that being said as a conditional.
Did you by any chance watch the “brauchen”-tutorial on Belle Lettre? I skimmed it and just as I suspected he hates on the “establishment”. As do I :)
But seriously… for all learners reading this, you will not do yourself a favor sticking with “brauchte” because it will not be understood correctly at least half of the time.
> But seriously… for all learners reading this, you will not do yourself a favor sticking with “brauchte” because it will not be understood correctly at least half of the time.
And moreover, they will be corrected by the Germans ;)
My personal choice is to use bräuchte in speech and in online conversations, like here, but whenever I need to use the subjunctive in more official contexts, I would use “würde brauchen”.
Almost the same with the genitive after “wegen” (except I would also use it here, but not in some other, even less formal online “watering holes”) :)
It’s a matter of style/speech mode.
PS: I suppose from various comments about “bräuchte” being South-German, that the subjunctive “brauchte” may still be used in, say, Northern Germany…
PPS: As for Belles Lettres, it’s true that he is sort of “anti-establishment”, but for me he’s not much different from, say, Sick. Like Sick, he tries to establish some “rules” for the German language (nothing wrong with that! I like rules :) ), it’s just that his preferred principles are different (for Sick it’s “Duden says so”, even as he so often misuses it; for the BL-guy it’s “it’s (not) in accordance with these and these and these sciency principles”). One of his last pieces, the one about gender in German, sort of coincided with my reading of Wustmann’s Allerhand Sprachdummheiten, and also reminded me of Sick. I would put all three into one category – that of the people, who complain about how other people speak or write, even if their reasons may be different. Though again, I don’t find anything wrong with it in principle. And anyway, time is the ultimate judge, which is why Wustmann’s book looks so comical now. So probably will our discussions in 100 years :D
I can see the Sick parallel .and I’m sure BL would hate it :). I don’t watch too many of his videos because I feel he too often states things as obvious or clear or self explanatory with very little reasoning. I just find myself being like “Wait. Where did that come from?”
I recently joined in a few discussions on the Belle Lettre Facebook Page and maaaan, he cannot take any criticism. At all. I had this question about the “ge” and I really had to muster all my diplomatic skill, ask 3 times and throw in a pinch of submission to get a moderately helpful answer, which still just breezed over the very point that irritated me. Then, a few days later, I posted a link to a paper that gave a good entry as it was collecting different approaches to the “ge” and in contrast to BL it does contain reference work. So I posted that just in case someone was interested and BL just couldn’t leave it there without remarking how much deeper and scientificererer his video was and that the paper is not as good.
But that’s not the worst thing. BL had said in one video something like “The verb “xyz” ONLY means “blah blah” in Icelandic, so it’s a false friend to German xyz.” Some other user corrected that and said that there are examples where the German and the Icelandic version do mean the exact same. BL wouldn’t have it. He really gave that guy an attitude, my god.
I don’t know if you’re in that group but if you want to immerse yourself in some weird mix of “know-it-all”, “we’re open minded” and “you criticize me, I’ll ungroup you” then check it out :).
Oh by the way… looking at that Facebook group I have an inkling why BL has comments turned off. That would have gotten nasty there :D
And off topic… I don’t know how much of a linguist you are but there is this book series called “Kurze Einführungen in die Germanische Linguistik” of “Universitätsverlag Winter Heidelberg” and those books are on the upper edge of what an interested amateur can handle but still readable. I’m particularly talking about the one called “Tempus” which analyzes the German tenses and tries to define them with a definition that fits for every single use case. Today I got “Satzmodell” from the library and that reminden me of “Tempus” and I thought that could be something for you. I particularly like the examples, which are so well chosen that you immediately see why something works or doesn’t work.
Nope, haven’t read the FB group. And yes, he sometimes writes that there is such and such rule without giving any reference, even though the alleged rule is the main point of the article.
All that said, his site is informative enough to overlook the problematic aspects (same with Sick). Everything can be useful when used critically and with a modicum of common sense.
No, I haven’t heard of KEGLI. Thanks for the tip. Whenever I google for some “linguistic” topic concerning German, I (almost) always find that there is a whole book (or several!) devoted to it. Like, the “non-standard weil”, the compound nouns of types adj+noun or verb+noun, brauchte vs. bräuchte ;) and so on. Unfortunately, most are not available online (even in the “pirate” libraries). Too obscure, I guess.
BTW, I found this article yesterday which reminded me of our discussion of möchten:
https://doc.rero.ch/record/30664/files/N_f_Anton_-_M_chten_ist_nicht_m_gen_ein_siebtes_Modalverb_im_Deutschen_20121121.pdf
Oh, and this one popped up just now:
https://www2.rz.hu-berlin.de/linguistik/institut/syntax/krakau2006/beitraege/reviczky_balogh.pdf
Cool, danke für die Links. I’m not surprised that there is a book about everything. Language, after all, is a very limited subject for science so I’m curious if one day they won’t have a topic left anymore :). Maybe they just depend on language changing fast enough so in 50 years from now there are new phenomena to study.
By the way… do you have a “scientific paper on German”-feedreader or something? Or how did it “just pop up” :D
I was searching for that first article and unexpectedly found this one as the first result :)
“I’ll need a hammer” has the same sort of nuance as “ich bräuchte mal einen Hammer”, I think. At least by implication – “If you want me to do the thing you want me to do, I’ll need a hammer…”
“I’d need…” sounds hypothetical. But “I could use…” also sounds like an implicit request, at least if you’re saying it to someone who’s in any position to provide what you could use.
I just figured that “I’ll need a hammer” taken at face value means that I don’t need it now. Would you use that when you sit right in front of the nail already? Because if yes, then we could argue that “need” actually means “use” here… like… “I’ll use it”. Hope that made sense :)
I guess it’s yet another highly context-driven thing. You could definitely say “I’ll need a hammer” if the nail is right there – that’s exactly when it would have the force of a request, assuming you’re supposed to do something about the nail. I don’t think you could draw a “need = use” equivalency, though. All you’re really saying is, “Unless you can get me a hammer, I can’t do anything about this.” So it’s probably the best all-around translation for “Ich bräuchte mal” – it would also work for the customer-service example in your other comment:
– “I’ll just need your 4-digit customer PIN.”
– “I can’t remember it.”
– “OK, then I’ll need your birthdate and address.”
“I could use” would sound lightly ironic, sort of admonishing – so it would work in the hammer example if it’s your friend asking you for help with a nail but not handing you a hammer, but it would be rude from a customer-service person.
“I’ll need X” can mean you don’t need it now, but only if in context you’re talking about a future task or situation. I think it takes a present meaning often because “I need X” tends toward sounding like a general reality in your life (“I need coffee to wake up in the morning”). “I need a hammer” just sounds like you don’t own one and that’s a problem. It could definitely mean you need one right now for this here nail, but the sentence doesn’t tell you that by itself. Similarly, “I could use a hammer” can of course mean “Using a hammer would be a possibility for me,” but the “I need” meaning is so common that you’d need more context to tell you it doesn’t mean that:
– “How are you going to get that beer bottle open?”
– “Hmm… I could use a hammer.”
Funnier:
– “How are you going to get that beer bottle open?”
– “I’ll need a hammer…”
Changing topics slightly, would you say the real/written past form is more common for “brauchen” when you’re talking about something you needed in the past? Since “gebrauchen” is a separate verb, “Ich habe gebraucht…” is ambiguous, isn’t it?
Tough call but I think the spoken past is more natural in many cases, especially with time
– Ich habe ewig/ein Jahr/2 Minuten dafür gebraucht.
I think, if you look really close, you might find that spoken past is more apt if you also got it while written past is only about your being in need at some point in the past… so essentially a leftover from back when German was more like English with its tense:
– “Danke, dass du mir zugehört hast. Ich hab’ wirklich mal jemanden zum Reden gebraucht”
– “Warum hast du denn gestern angerufen?”
– “Ach, ich brauchte mal jemanden zum Reden.”
It’s pretty subtle though and people might use one or the other for both examples, depending on personal preference.
Oh by the way… what I was thinking with the “need – use” is this:
– reality: I need it (now), I’ll use it (future)
– what you say is : “I’ll need it (future)”
So what I say kind of blends the two reality facts. It’s just in my mind though… another connection between needing and using :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWmH9ylqYYQ
:D
What movie is that from? Also: isn’t that the new boyfriend of Miley Cyrus?
I think I see what you mean there… but future “I’ll need” is just so broad and feels the same whether there’s any implication of use there or not:
– I’ll need the full cooperation of your staff.
– I’ll need total silence.
– I’ll need some assurance that you’re acting in good faith.
It’s really just setting a condition, like I said (assuming, again, that it’s not just predicting a future need). Honestly, the simple present version feels closer to your suggestion to me.
It’s snow? I thought I was having a stroke.
Hahaha :D