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.
Find out more
All lessons, tools and premium features (and there’s a LOT of them :).
Already a member?
Audio Speed
Dark Mode
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.”