Hello everyone,
and welcome to the second part of our look at what we all love on hot summer days:
Air Conditional
Badum tish.
#worstpunever
Conditional is that could, should, would-stuff that’s officially called Konjunktiv II or Subjunctive, but we’re using a different name because YOLO!
In part one, we learned that the core function of Conditional is to shift a statement away from reality and that the different uses are a result of that. Then, we got like a little overview over Conditional in German and then we learned how to build what we called würde-conditional; one of the two versions of the non-past conditional.
If you haven’t read it you really should start with that because it’s the foundation and you’d be a little confused without it. So here’s the link
Conditional in German – 1 – The beginning
Today, we’ll take a detailed look at the other version of the non-past conditional:
The Real Conditional
So let’s jump right in.
The würde-conditional uses a helper verb (werden) to express the “conditional-ness”. The real conditional on the other hand is made by making certain modifications to the verb itself.
Let me walk you through it:
We start with the written past form, and sometimes we don’t have to do anything because the two forms are identical.
But a fair number of times we have to add like an umlaut or something. It depends. Oh and then, the conjugation is a little bit different. Kinda like a mix of present and past endings or something.
And that’s it. Let’s look at a few examples. I’ll give you the written past so you can compare:
- kochen:
Du kochtest. (You cooked) – Du kochtest. (you’d cook) - schlafen:
Ich schlief. (I slept) – Ich schliefe. (I’d sleep) - lesen:
Sie las. (She read.) – Sie läse. (she would read.)
Now you’re probably screaming “Emanuel, this is super complicated and your explanation is AWFUL.”
And you’re right. It is awful.
But the thing… we don’t really need to deal with a complicated general “How to build it”-guide for the real conditional because we won’t be building the form for many verbs.
Take a look at the first example again – kochen. The real conditional is EXACTLY the same as the written past. The difference between I cooked and I would cook is pretty big, though. And we all know that the German likes precision, so it’s kind of natural that for all the verbs where the forms are identical, we use the würde-conditional.
But even if the real conditional is unique – either because of conjugation (see schlafen) or umlaut (see lesen) – even then that STILL doesn’t mean that they’re actually idiomatic in every day spoken German. On the contrary. Using the real conditional for schlafen and lesen sounds like a theater play.
There’s only a really small group of verbs that use the real conditional in daily talk. Little more than a dozen.
And the best thing is… we already know them.
Because it’s the same group tends to use the written past in spoken German – helper verbs, modal verbs and the most basic, common every day verbs. I’ll give you a little overview with the full conjugation at the end, but let’s go over them together now.
because there are lots of little bits to say and they’re not all 100% real conditional. For some, both versions sound okay and for some, the choice actually depends on the context. Or the phrasing. Or the weather. Or what you’re having for lunch.
I think I’ll have pasta with Anchovies and fresh onions and olive oil. Yummy.
Anyway… uh… let’s start with the two classics haben and sein.
Conditional – haben and sein
The written past stem for those is war and hatte and the real conditional just gets an umlaut – wäre and hätte.
Just to make sure though… technically, they do have a würde-conditional and at least for haben, you might hear it.
It’s not the most elegant thing under the sun but hey, neither are sandals with socks and still people rock it from time to time.
- Hättest du auch gerne weniger Bauchmuskeln?
Würdest du auch gerne weniger Bauchmuskeln haben? …. sounds clumsy, idiomatic-factor: 3/10 - Would you also like to have less abs?
- Wenn ich mehr Zeit hätte, würde ich mehr Sport machen.
Wenn ich mehr Zeit haben würde, …. this sounds quite clumsy; idiomatic factor: 2/10 - If I had more time, I would do more sports.
- Wärst du sauer, wenn ich nicht mit in die Oper komme?
Würdest du sauer sein, wenn…. quite clumsy, 2/10 - Would you be mad if I don’t go to the opera?
- Wenn das Wetter besser wäre, würde ich joggen gehen.
Wenn das Wetter besser sein würde… sounds pretty much wrong - If the weather was better, I’d go running.
These examples are also a great reminder that we shouldn’t compare. You see, English has two versions of the “conditional” as well (would be vs were and would have vs had). But the usage is different.
Cool.
Next up, we have the modal verbs and we’ll start with können and müssen.
Conditional – können and müssen
Just like haben and sein, the two form their real conditional by adding a nice, sexy umlaut to their past form – so konnte becomes könnte and musste becomes müsste. And especially for those two, you really really need to make extra effort with the pronunciation. To your ear, konnte and könnte probably don’t sound all that different. And objectively, they’re not. Like… if you were to look at a sound spectra of them, they’d look similar.
But the meanings are SUPER different, and so to the brain of a native speaker there is no “in between”. The brain will always make a decision and commit. And if the brain came to the conclusion it heard konnte, the notion that it could have been könnte is quite far away and that might lead to misunderstandings. So yeah… if you find that people look at you with a blank face after you tried using könnte, you probably have to tweak your ö.
Anyway… examples. Again, I’ll keep giving you the würde-versions as well, so you can nerd out over the structure and compare but you won’t need it.
- In order to be on time, we would have to leave in five minutes.
- Um pünktlich zu sein, müssten wir in 5 Minuten losgehen.
… , würden wir in 5 Minuten losgehen müssen…. meeeeeehhhhhh, idiomatic level: 3/10
- I would do the dishes if I had to.
- Ich würde abwaschen, wenn ich müsste.
… wenn ich müssen würde. meven more meeeeeehhhhhh; 1/10
- Thomas could have less abs, if he weren’t working out so much.
- Thomas könnte weniger Bauchmuskeln haben, wenn er nicht so viel trainieren würde.
Thomas würde weniger Bauchmuskeln haben können,…. NOPE 0/10
- Could you help me real quick?
- Könntest du mir kurz helfen?
Würdest du mir kurz helfen können?… NOPE! 0/10
Apparently, the würde-conditional is especially unidiomatic for können, but there’s one exception. Of course :).
When you talk about that you’d like to be able to do something and you do that by using gern, then it’s the real-conditional that actually sounds wrong.
- Ich würde gerne Klavier spielen können.
Ich könntegerne Klavier spielen…not immediately understandable. - I’d like to be able to play the piano.
Cool. Next up, we ha… oh, hold on there’s a call…. erm… James from New Zealand, welcome to the show.
“Hey mate, may I ask a question real quick?”
Sure, go ahead.
“So this structure in the last sentence…. a modal verb, with a normal verb and würde… those confuse the hell out of me. Could you tell us how to build those?”
Oh, sure. Let me just put in a little headline real quick…
Structure interlude
So, I know that these structures are giving lots of people a hard time but they’re actually really simple. The basic system is you take the “old” verb and replace it with the “new” one and move the old one to the end – either in ge-form for spoken past and passive or in dictionary form for modals and conditional. Watch…
- Ich spiele sehr gut Klavier.
- Ich kann sehr gut Klavier spielen.
- Ich würde sehr gut Klavier spielen können.
“Oh wow, that’s… quite clear actually.”
Yeah, the reason many learners are struggling with this is that they kind of panic. Like… they don’t use a system but instead just move verbs all over the place.
“Haha… yeah, that sounds like me. Hey, but how is it for these verb-at-the-end-sentences?”
Well, it’s the same idea… you just take whatever verb there is in position number two and move it to the end. Come on, give it a try…
“Nah man, you do it. I can’t do it with the colors.”
Okay…
- Ich habe gesagt, dass ich [ —- ] sehr gut Klavier spielen können würde.
“Well wow… that is so logical now that I see it. Is it always like that?”
Well, no… it’s a bit different for the past conditional but we’ll talk about that in detail next time.
“Cool, cheers mate. Bye.”
Cool. So now let’s get back to the verbs and the next pair is wollen and sollen.
Conditional – sollen and wollen
And these two actually do NOT use an umlaut, so their written past and real conditional forms are actually identical – wollte is wanted and would want and sollte is was supposed to and should. Now you might think like “Oh, okay so I guess we’re using würde-conditional here because German likes precision.”
But German also likes being a dick to learners and so sollen pretty much only uses the real conditional while the würde-version sounds so incredibly weird and alien, most people would call it wrong.
- I should drink another beer.
- Ich sollte noch ein Bier trinken.
Ich würde noch ein Bier trinken sollen. ... NOPE!!
- You shouldn’t do that.
- Du solltest das nicht machen.
Du würdest das nicht machen sollen… again, NOPE!!
So for sollen it’s actually all up to Captain Context.
For wollen on the other hand, the question which version is idiomatic actually depends on the phrasing.
Haha… yeah, I felt like I said “the phrasing” just now. That would be absolutely ridiculous tho… oh… oh no… it really does depend on the phrasing.
- If I wanted to I would do it.
- Wenn ich wollte, würde ich es machen.
Wenn ich wollen würde, würde ich es machen… sounds meeeeehhhhh, but not unheard of.
- You wouldn’t want it either, that someone drinks your beer.
- Du würdest auch nicht wollen, dass jemand dein Bier trinkt.
Du wolltest auch nicht, dass jemand dein Bier trinkt… (sounds like past tense… “You didn’t want…”)
I know, this must be a bit frustrating to read, but that’s the thing with choices that are based on “idiomatic-ness”.
Things aren’t always coherent.
The reason I am even mentioning all this is not so you get it right for each verb and every context. The goal is to make you aware that you can’t capture all this by a few rules and you just need to build some sprachgefühl over time. So please… don’t stress out about it.
Cool.
Moving on to the last couple of modals. And those are a bit particular, as well.
Conditional – dürfen and mögen
The forms are the classic – past stem with umlaut. So durfte becomes dürfte and mochte becomes möchte.
What makes them special is that they modify their meaning a bit in the Conditional.
Dürfen itself means to have permission and every now and then you might find that sense used in conditional… the real conditional usually.
- Ich würde in die Bar gehen, wenn man da rauchen dürfte.
…, wenn man da rauchendürfen würde…. nope! - I would go to the bar, if “one were allowed to smoke there.”
(I used a pretty literal translation here)
Anyway, what’s noteworthy about dürfen is that you’ll see its real conditional, dürfte, in contexts of making assumptions about reality…. where English would use should.
- Das dürfte reichen.
- That should be enough.
But we’ve actually talked about dürfen in detail in a separate article, so I’ll add the link below.
Now, dürfen apparently takes a bit of liberty with its meaning in conditional, but it doesn’t go as far as möchten.
Because that one has kind of become a verb of its own.
Technically, yes… möchten means would like. But it’s only used to express actual wanting, only in a more polite way and in fact, it doesn’t really feel like a conditional to a native speaker anymore.
- Maria möchte einen Wäschekorb aus Bambus kaufen.
- Maria wants/would like to buy a laundry basket out of bamboo.
- Möchtest du noch ein Bier?
- Do you want/Would you like another beer?
And it does NOT have the same meaning as the würde-version, which is about would like in a more literal sense…. you don’t like it now, but you would if it were different.
- Der Song ist gut, aber ich würde ihn ohne die Gitarren mehr mögen.
- The song is good but I’d like it better without the guitars.
And here, möchten would sound absolutely weird.
Cool.
Now I’d really like to have a good transition to the next part… but I don’t.
So… moving on.
All the rest
Besides the modal verbs and the helper verbs, there’s a bunch of basic everyday verbs that also tend to use their real conditional form in spoken German. It’s the same ones that tend to use their written past form in spoken German… wissen, gehen, sehen, geben, nehmen, kommen, liegen and finden and a few others… it depends a bit on the speaker. Actually, most of them use both versions in daily and there is a general trend:
For literal sense of the verb, the würde-conditional is probably the more idiomatic choice.
The real conditional is usually used with figurative, metaphorical meanings of the verb.
(And that actually also hold for the prefix versions of the verbs, to an extent. )
Let’s take finden as an example…
- “Ich finde gelb ist die perfekte Farbe für die Küche.”
“Ich fände pink besser.” (more elegant)
“Ich würde pink besser finden.” - “I find/think yellow is the perfect color for the kitchen.”
“I’d like pink better.”
- Maria hat so eine schlecht Orientierung, dass sie ohne GPS nicht mal den Weg zum Klo finden würde. (more common)
…, … Weg zum Klo fände. - Maria has such a bad sense of direction, that she wouldn’t even find the way to the toilet without a GPS.
The first one uses finden in an abstract sense of opinion and here, the real conditional sounds better, in the second one it’s the literal finden and the würde-version is the better choice. But it’s not super strict, so the other versions sounds okay, as well. In fact, in a question both sound equally fine.
- Ähhh…. Schatz, wie fändest du es, wenn wir morgen in die Oper gehen?
… wie würdest du es finden, wenn …. - Uhmm… honey, how would you like it, if we were to go to the opera tomorrow?
And for the verb wissen it really doesn’t matter… both versions sound okay and people use either one.
- I would like to know when you’re going to come.
- Ich würde gerne wissen, wann du kommst.
Ich wüsste gerne, wann du kommst.
(equally idiomatic)
It really depends on the verb. So now we could go over them one by one and see for each one when and how idiomatic which version is.
Or we could just look at a few examples and then chill.
And we’ll do the latter :). Because let’s be honest… no one is going to remember that anyway. Yes, you might take notes, yes, you might even try to study it, but it won’t work. These idiomatic things will come over time. Just know about the general trend I told you, be aware that it’s really just that – a TREND – not a rule. And then lean back and let it learn you, instead of learning it.
Wow, that made no sense :).
But yeah… here are some examples for the verbs in action. I’ll put the more idiomatic version first.
- “Kommst du zu meiner Party?”
“Ich würde kommen, wenn Thomas nicht kommt.”
“Ich käme, wenn Thomas nicht kommt.” … sounds a bit theatrical - “Are you going to come to my party?”
“I would come, if Thomas is not coming.”
- “Ich bin verwirrt. Mein Chef hat mir von alleine mehr Geld angeboten.”
“Echt?! Das käme mir auch komisch vor.”
“Echt?! Das würde mir auch komisch vorkommen.”… less elegant, but works, too - “I’m confused. My boss offered me a raise out of his own initiative.”
“Really?! That would seem odd/fishy to me as well.”
- Wenn ich dich nach deiner Nummer fragen würde, würdest du sie mir geben?
…. deiner Nummer fragen würde, gäbest du sie mir? … sounds Romeo and Juliet-ish - If I asked you for your number, would you give it to me?
- Es wäre so schön, wenn es im Park einen Bierspender gäbe.
…., wenn es im Park einen Bierspender geben würde. - It would be nice if there was a beer dispenser in the park.
- “Meinst du ich kann heimlich ein kleines Stück von Marias Kuchen essen?”
“Nee, das würde sie sehen.”
“Nee, das sähe sie…. sounds quite posh - “Do you think I can secretly eat a small slice of Maria’s cake?”
“Nah, she would see it.”
- “Wie findest du mein neues Regal?”
“Schick, aber es sähe besser aus, wenn es nicht so voll wäre.”
“Schick aber es würde beser aussehen, … “ - “How do you like my new shelf?”
“Nice, but it would look better if it weren’t so full. “
- “Kannst du mir morgen beim Umzug helfen?”
“Hmmm… morgen hab ich echt viel zu tun. Vormittags ginge vielleicht.” (sounds slightly better)
“…, vormittags würde vielleicht gehen.” - “Could you help me moving my things to the new apartment tomorrow?”
“Hmmm… I have a lot to do tomorrow. In the morning might be okay/work”
And this is where we’ll stop. Yes, right now.
I know this is anti climactic, I know you might feel a bit dissatisfied, a bit left hanging but trust me… that’s on purpose ;).
Seriously. It’s gonna make you wonder, ask questions, pay attention. And next time, when we’ll do a HUUUUUGE exercise about what we’ve learned so far, you’ll be surprised how well you do and how “at home” you feel in the Conditional.
As promised, here’s a little overview over all the verbs …
Real Conditional Verbs – Overview (pdf)
And as always, if you have any questions about any of this so far, just leave me a comment.
I hope you liked it and see you next time.
Further reading:
- When to use the written past
(details about when to use the written past for modals and so on) - Word of the Day – “dürfen”
Ah, so I think I’m getting the RC/WC distinction for some verbs! So, for example, I might say, “Ich würde gern joggen gehen, aber mit diesem Regen und meinen Schuhe, ginge das nicht.” Does that sound right?
Grammatically yes, though I’d just use “geht das nicht” because you said “diesem Wetter und meinen SchuheN” and those are real, so no real point in making the second “gehen” a conditional. It’s not wrong though and yes, this is a great use of “würde gehen” vs “ginge” then.
Hi Emmanuel and all,
Im getting confused in this topic, and i see these sentences in my head:
es wird schön
es wird schön sein
es wäre schön
es würde schön sein
es würde schön werden
they all seem correct but have different nuances.
lets say
do they mean the same thing? I know its not so related to this article, but this article arouse the confusion..
a. es wäre schön, wenn Deutsch einfacher wäre
b. es wäre schön, wenn Deutsch einfacher sein würde
c. es wäre schön, wenn Deutsch einfacher werden würde.
d. es wäre schön, wenn Deutsch einfacher einfacher werden könnten.
a and b means the same, and a is more common. but does c and d make sense too?
i am trying to take the advice to try to get used to the Sprachgefühl, but everytime when i try to make sentences in my head as practice, it seems like im making the same mistakes, so maybe it would be helpful to clear it up. thank you!
All right, let me try to clear this up.
Part 1:
1) Es wird schön.
Can mean two things:
– It’s getting nice.
– It’ll be nice.
2) Es wird schön sein.
Only means “It will be nice.” but Germans would typically NOT use this phrasing.
3) Es wäre schön
Means “It would be nice.”
4) Es würde schön sein.
Means the same as 3) but is not idiomatic.
5) Es würde schön werden.
Means “It would be getting nice./It would get nice.”
Part 2:
German does not say “besser werden” in the context of getting better while being sick, so I’ll ignore this part.
Part 3:
a. es wäre schön, wenn Deutsch einfacher wäre
b. es wäre schön, wenn Deutsch einfacher sein würde
c. es wäre schön, wenn Deutsch einfacher werden würde.
d. es wäre schön, wenn Deutsch einfacher einfacher werden könnten.
Like you said a) and b) mean the same, but a) is idiomatic and b) is not.
c) means is about German “getting easier”, not “being easier”
– It would be nice if German was getting easier.
d) means is about German “potentially getting easier”.
– It would be nice if German could become easier.
I’m not sure if that helps you but I’m also not sure what exactly you’re confused about.
When you look at all these back to back, you’re very likely to tangle up your brain. Pretty much everybody would.
The best way to analyze this is to revert things back to the most basic form, so removing the conditional.
– Es wäre schön, wenn Deutsch einfacher werden könnte.
– Es ist schön, wenn Deutsch einfacher werden kann.
thank you, yes i think my brain was simply in tangled. your suggestion of revert things back to the most basic form is in fact super helpful!
Have you done the exercise in this series yet?
If not, give it a try. I think most of what you think is confusing is just you overthinking things and second guessing your intuition.
If that’s the case, try to stop that and just run with your intuition (based on the articles here). Even if you get things wrong, then you’ll at least know you have not grasped it yet, but when you second guess yourself you never know where the mistake actually comes from.
yes, the exercise actually works very fine. I did yesterday and tried again today.
I think one of the frustrations is that i easily mix up the meaning and usage of sein and werden, particularly when they are in its different shapes of time form.
and i need to learn stop thinking it in english too.
It’s totally normal to get tripped up with these two, because they do overlap a lot in certain tenses and they’re also helper verbs for all kinds of structures. But yeah, try to go back to the most basic present tense statement if you get confused while analyzing two of them.
Hi Emanuel,
You refer multiple times to the exercises, but I don’t see a link. Thanks to your new search function, I found it–I think! Is this what you’re referring to?
https://yourdailygerman.com/past-conditional-konjunktiv-exercise/
How about putting a link to the exercises in the “Further reading” section? And/or somewhere else logical… And maybe link to the whole 5-part series at the bottom and/or top of each section?
Thanks for all this. I’ve been learning and consolidating a lot from listening to the Advanced Michel Thomas CDs, which go over these patterns, and it helps to add your perspective. Especially since he doesn’t seem to include the “real conditional” for many of the verbs you cover.
Hey hey, I think I’m actually referring to this exercise:
https://yourdailygerman.com/conditional-in-german-work-out-1/
The conditional-module has two long exercises, and this is the first one.
The whole module should actually be available above and below the article. You can click previous or next and in the center, there’s the hamburger menu which will expand the list of lessons, including the two quizzes. But turns out the one on the bottom isn’t working, so I’ll fix that now :). Thanks for the heads-up!
EDIT: Fixed :)!
Wow, I’m still discovering basic navigation features on this site. Thanks for the heads-up on the hamburger menu, and for fixing the bottom one! I didn’t even know to look for it, so I wasn’t aware it hadn’t been working.
On some level that’s nice to have surprise new features like that, because I think I really need to improve my user experience :D. Maybe I should do a little overview post over all the features.
That would be great! Maybe pinned under “About” or somewhere else conspicuous.
Hi, Emmanuel!
I’m wondering about the difference (and correctness) of the below 2 sentences.
Cheers!
To me 1. sounds odd. Shouldn’t it be: “Es wäre gebaut.”?
As far as I understand, “würde” supports another verb that comes later. In this case “gebaut” is acting like an adjective so the “würde” would need another verb to make it complete.
But lets see what Emanuel says…
True. However, in this case, I meant ‘gebaut’ as a verb – Partizip II to be accurate. So, ‘Es würde gebaut’ being the Passiv Conditional of ‘Es werde gebaut’. Although, I don’t know if this is the correct way.
It does sound odd, but it is correct to my understanding. The thing is that “würde” is the “real conditional” form of “werden” and “würde werden” is the würde-conditional, so the two example CAN be exactly the same thing.
I’d need an example that’s a bit more specific. It’s too generic to tell because of the “es”.
Thanks, Emmanuel! Another example could be:
1. Das Projekt würde vom neuen Team durchgeführt
2. Das Projekt würde vom neuen Team durchgeführt werden
I really can’t say there’s a difference. Same to me. The second one just sounds more “future” because of the werden. That’s not structural though, that’s just by association.
I have a question about the example sentence.
that english translation sounds like prohibition sth for the future or present to me. Can it be also translated like ‘You shouldn’t have done that’ ? because then it would imply huge difference and meaning like you shouldn’t have done that but it’s already done. Thank you in advance :)
Nice question!
– Du solltest das nicht machen.
This can indeed be two things: a) a normal “sollten” in past tense and b) a present conditional.
– You were not supposed to do that.
– You shouldn’t do that (It’d be better to not do it)
If you want to translate “You shouldn’t have done that.” you need past conditional.
– Du hättest das nicht machen sollen.
Hope that helps!
Thanks for the explanations and for making it so much clearer. I’ve been so confused but it’s making sense now.
Awesome, I’m really happy to hear that :)!!
Es gibt ein kleines technisches Problem mit diesem Artikel–der Done Button geht nicht und also kann ich nicht meinen Fortschritt aufzeichnen :(
That’s weird, it does work for me. Could you try again tomorrow?
– Ich schliefe. (I’d sleep) the english translation does not make sense to me. Does it mean I was aseep?
Imagine you’re really tired but you have to work.
– I’d (I would) sleep if I didn’t have to work.
Does that make sense?
Thank you so much. This topic was killing me. Soooooo confusing You helped me make things clear. It’s midnight here and I won’t sleep till I finish all parts. I love your way.
Thanks for the great feedback!! Let me know how you did in the exercises here :)
It really is an art to be so funny by writing and at the same time explain things so clearly.
Danke :)!!!
Maybe this is a dopey question but, does the “würde” conditional always use würde as the helper verb?
This question came up in my mind today because I’ve been trying to learn which verbs use “sein” when creating the past tense e.g. “ich bin nach Hause gefahren”. Would I say “ich würde nach Hause fahren” or do these weird verbs also have weird conditionals?
What you’re looking for here is the past conditional.
The “würde” conditional is only for the “present” (or future).
So for the present/future, you have two options, but for the past, there is only one paradigm for each verb.
We’ll get to that later in this series.
Let me know if you have any questions about it.
Sorry I didn’t explain myself very well, but you somehow answered my question anyway.
So to check: “ich würde nach Hause fahren, aber/wenn…” is basically “I would drive home (now/tonight/tomorrow/etc, but/if *insert condition here*)” and no matter which verb it is you would use “würde” when using this type of conditional format? I.e. no verbs require some weird alternative to “würde”
Ah, no, not really.
The “paradigm” is roughly the same as for the spoken past vs real past.
So “sein”, “haben” and the modal verbs typically would use their real conditional form instead of the würde-version, and a few other verbs as well, like “wissen”, “finden”, “kommen” and so on (depending on the meaning they’re used for)
Oh, now I get the question… so YES, the würde conditional will always be with “würde” :D
Thanks! :D
Wow! Amazing article. Thank you, Emanuel. You are just perfect.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it :)
I realise the article is quite old so maybe you already know this, but just in case:
In the example sentence, “Maria has such a bad orientation, that she wouldn’t even find the way to the toilet without a GPS.” a better translation for “orientation” would be “sense of direction”.
A person’s “orientation” can refer to the physical direction they’re facing, or more commonly is used figuratively to refer to their sexual orientation. It wouldn’t normally be used to mean a person’s skill at finding their way.
As always, thank you for the great article!
Excuse me (cue triggered noise)?!?!
This article is a distinguished lady and ladies are lots of things but not OLD!
(Kidding of course, thanks for the fix. These grammar articles get read on the daily so fixes are always welcome because they improve the experience)
Apologies, I meant it’s “an article of a certain age” ;)
“An article in its best years.”
Hey Emanuel , thanks for the Great blog , can you check please if this sentence is totally correct ( In order to be on time, we would have to leave in five minutes.) I think it can be ( In order to be on time, we would have left in five minutes.)
Can you please tell me if it is correct? I mean my sentence!
Thanks
I’m NOT a native speaker of English, so you absolutely need to take this with a grain of salt, but … I think both are technically correct, but only the first one makes sense on its own and means what you think it means.
The second version only makes sense, if there comes a “but” explaining how and why you did not end up being able to leave in five minutes.
Hey you! To be on time, we need to leave in 5 minutes!
These two sentences are written using different forms of the conditional (there are 4 types of conditional in English)
“In order to be on time, we would have to leave in 5 minutes.”
Is a form which talks about future uncertainty, so at the moment of speaking, you have not yet left.
“In order to be on time, we would have left in 5 minutes.”
This is a form which is only used to talk about past events which did not happen. So, you would use this if you have already left the house, but you did not manage to leave within the 5 minute window in order to be on time.
Emanuel is right, it needs an explanation for why you didn’t leave in 5 minutes. Because you’re talking about the past, the listener will be expecting more to the story. It sounds unfinished without the explanation.
Something like “We would have left in 5 minutes but we couldn’t find the keys.” The “in order to be on time” part feels a little clumsy added on to it but is not incorrect :)
It’s a little confusing because the word “have” has multiple uses. Maybe it would be clearer if we switch out “have” for “need”. So…
“In order to be on time, we would need to leave in 5 mins.”
“We would have left in 5 minutes, but we couldn’t find the keys.”
In the first sentence, “need to leave” and “have to leave” are fairly interchangeable. In the second sentence, the word “have” is used to form the conditional itself. If we wanted to include the other “have/need”, it would become, “We would have needed to have left in 5 minutes…” Or “we would have had to have left in 5 minutes…”
I hope that makes sense!
I read this article thinking I got everything and then in the was für article there was this sentence.
what’s the point of Real Conditional here? What kind of film would you have Bock for? Is it an exaggeration or is the speaker being dramatic?
There’s no point, except that it sounds a little more “hypothetical”. You can replace it with “hast” and there wouldn’t really be a difference in meaning.
Maybe the decision to watch a movie is not made yet, or the person asking was thinking thus far that they themselves are the one to pick the flick.
A bit like the difference between
– “What do you want to watch”
and
– “What would you like to watch.”
Does that help?
In the “opera” examples, why do the subordinate clauses use “komme” and “gehen” instead of their conditional forms? Is it because the hypothetical events are in the future? Does one just use the present tense in cases like these?
No particular reason there. German is not that strict when it comes to the form to use in the “added” sentence. Sometimes people use conditional, sometimes they use present. In this situation, conditional would sound a bit too unrealistic and over the top.
Yeah, maybe let’s put it this way… me not going to opera is a very real possibility, so that’s why present feels natural.
The conditional in the first part is enough to make the whole thing sound hypothetical.
But don’t overthink this. There’s really not a fixed system for these cases, like there is in French or Spanish, where you HAVE to follow a certain form with another.
Great articles! They really cleared up the subject for me.
I wouldn’t say were and had are conditional. I think they are really leftovers from an English subjunctive. Interestingly though, American English uses a double conditional construction sometimes: “If you’d leave now, you’d get there.” Maybe a German influence?
If you were to use a double conditional in Spanish (“si te irías ahora, llegarías”) you’d sound like you missed a year or so of schooling. You definitely need a subjunctive clause to introduce the condition.
You’re probably right, but I’m really hesitant with the terminology. You see, the subjunctive (as far as I understand it) is a form, whereas conditional is more of a “use case”. So “were” for instance is a special form, but it’s also a use case. It’s really hard to compare those, unless you’re a linguist and I’m definitely not one :D
Hello Emanuel! Thanks for the great article.
I am a little confused about one of your examples:
“Ich würde kommen, wenn Thomas nicht kommt.”
Does it work this way too, as written below?:
“Ich würde kommen, wenn Thomas nicht kommen würde.”
Because I feel like his coming or not coming is also unclear and conditional.
Thanks!
Absolutely, both ways work and they mean the same. Double “würde” just sounds shitty here, which is why more people would use my version.
Don’t think too hard about a difference in meaning there. German is pretty lax about conditional over all.
“extent”
(let me know if you do not want corrections, and I will stop :) )
No, keep them coming :). It’s actually pretty helpful!!
Also the first “and” should be “an”
Minor typo: repeated word “modifications”
“The würde-conditional uses a helper verb (werden) to express the “conditional-ness”. The real conditional on the other hand is made by making certain modifications to the verb itself modifications.”