Hello everyone,
and welcome back to our mini series on Conditional in German. And if you thought you’re just gonna calmly sit there and read something then you’re gravely mistaken.
Because today, we’ll hit the gym and do this:
Non Past Conditional – XFit Full Body Workout
**intense** #flatabs
In part one and two we’ve learned about the non-past conditional and today we’ll put that into practice.
If you haven’t read part one and two, you can find them here (and no, part one isn’t “just” and overview. You need it!!)
Conditional Pt. 1 – An Overview
Conditional Pt. 2 – The Real Conditional
Of course you can also try this exercise, if you haven’t read the articles. But don’t whine if you fail.
Cool.
So here’s what we’ll do:
I’ll give you a “normal” statement in German and you’ll have to take it and make it into a statement with Conditional.
The main part of that is of course making the right choice between Real Conditional and würde-Conditional and putting it into the sentence correctly.
- Wenn ich Hunger habe, esse ich. (When I am hungry, I eat.)
- Wenn ich Hunger hätte, würde ich essen. (If I were hungry, I’d eat.)
But there are a few more difficulties in there.
Uhm… hooray :)
Just doing verb replacements is fine. And in some examples, that’s all you’ll have to do.
But there always a danger with these routine things that you switch to auto pilot and you get everything right but you have no clue what you’re actually saying.
So in quite a few of the examples you’ll need to make certain “adjustments” as an extra challenge.
Like changing a dass to a wenn.
- Ich freue mich, dass du mal abwäschst.
(I’m happy that you’re doing the dishes for once.) - Ich würde mich freuen, wenn du abwaschen würdest.
(I’d be happy if you did the dishes for once.)
And while this is pretty simple, the real challenge is changing a weil to a wenn and changing (or adding) a negation.
- Ich komme nicht zu deiner Party, weil ich keine Zeit habe.
(I’m not coming to your party, because I don’t have time.) - Ich würde zu deiner Party kommen, wenn ich Zeit hätte.
(I would come to your party if I had time.)
The idea in these kinds of examples is that the conditional statement describes an alternative to the original without changing the situation. We’re looking at the same reality from two perspectives.
Phew… I realize that actually sounds quite complicated :).
I think it’s best if we just jump in. You’ll figure it out on the go. Or the second time. And hey… even if you didn’t get the extra challenge right for a question… take a second to think what the meaning of the sentence is. And then take a second to check what the meaning of your sentence is. And if it makes sense, then perfect.
Anyway, let’s jump right in.
For the solution you can check the audio and if you need it written, then just click the little button.
That’s right, regular readers… I have a nice exercise setup now :).
So… viel Spaß!!
Wenn ich Zeit hätte, würde ich kommen.
Wenn ich sauer wäre, würde ich es dir sagen.
Ich wäre froh, wenn ich heute nicht arbeiten müsste.
Wenn mein Mitbewohner nicht Klavier üben würde, könnte ich schlafen.
Wenn ich noch Geld hätte, würde ich noch ein Bier nehmen.
Ich würde schwimmen gehen, wenn es warm wäre.
Ich würde mich freuen, wenn du kommst.
Würdest du mit nach Kopenhagen kommen, wenn ich dir den Zug bezahle?
Es wäre Quatsch jetzt noch anzurufen. Es ist fast um 8.
Ich fände es super, wenn der Sommer dieses Jahr nicht so schlecht wäre wie letztes Jahr.
Ich hätte nicht so oft Streit mit meinem Mitbewohner, wenn er abwaschen würde.
Wir könnten eine Schneeballschlacht machen, wenn der Schnee nicht schon schmelzen würde.
Thomas würde nicht wie 40 aussehen, wenn er sich rasieren würde.
Ich würde mit zum See kommen, wenn mein Fahrrad nicht kaputt wäre.
Ich könnte mit zum See kommen, wenn mein Fahrrad nicht kaputt wäre.
Ich würde nicht so viel Fastfood essen, wenn ich Zeit hätte, zu kochen.
Was würdest du machen, wenn ich deinen Jogurt essen würde/esse?
Maria würde ihren Termin nicht verpassen, wenn sie nicht im Stau stehen würde.
Ich wäre überrascht, wenn mein Fahrrad noch am Bahnhof steht.
Wenn er nicht zu schüchtern wäre, würde sich Max trauen, mit Carla zu tanzen.
Maria würde nicht so viel rauchen, wenn sie keinen Stress hätte.
Wenn ich frische Kräuter hätte, wäre die Suppe perfekt.
Wenn Maria groß genug wäre, wäre sie Model.
Maria würde Thomas eine Karte aus dem Urlaub schreiben, wenn sie seine Adresse auswendig wüsste/wissen würde.
Wenn der Espresso nicht so ekelhaft wäre, würde ich in das Café gehen, .
Fändest du es schade, wenn wir uns heute nicht sehen würden?
Hättest du was dagegen, wenn ich in deinem Bett schlafe, wenn du nicht da bist?
Ich könnte mich konzentrieren, wenn ich keine Kopfschmerzen hätte.
Wenn ich Bier hätte , hätte ich gute Laune.
Wenn es kein Bier gäbe , wäre ich nicht glücklich.
Hooray, you made it :). Glückwunsch, you really deserve a beer now!!
How was it? Was that difficult? How many did you get correct? Did you like the format and the chaotic structure?
Let me know your thoughts and feedback in the comments. And of course also all the questions you might have. And I’m sure, you have some. I would, there are a few lose ends in here :). But we’ll clear it all up together.
I hope you found this helpful and enjoyed it. Schöne Woche euch, und bis nächstes Mal.
Thanks for the exercise, I’m pretty satisfied with the format and structure and the few mistakes I made were caused by lack of focus (or memory), so I’d say it’s doable based on Pt.1&2, and neither too difficult nor too easy :)
Just a couple of things:
26) I’m pretty sure “sehen” should have been bolded, based on the solution
29) Shouldn’t the whole solution be in negative? “Because I have a beer, I’m in a good mood -> If I didn’t have a beer, I wouldn’t be in a good mood” ? I imagine the beer is there, standing in front of me…
It also surprised me that in 8, 14 and 15 the verb is not “mitkommen” but simply “kommen” with a preposition. Because there is no object in the sentences, I feel that “mitkommen” would be the more logical choice. Is there a special reason why the preposition doesn’t need to go with an object? And would it be wrong to say “Würdest du nach Kopenhagen mitkommen, wenn ich dir den Zug bezahle”?
Ha… looks like I actually forgot to follow my own logic in 29. Yes, based on the rest there should be a negative in there. I now put the negative in the original so I don’t have to change the audio #lazy :)
As for “mit” … think of it as a free radical. I chose the phrasing that felt the most natural to me and that’s the one with “mit” kind of doing it’s own thing. Maybe we could call it a VERY separable prefix.
This “mit” is a nice showcase for how prepositions became prefixes.
But your version of the Kopenhagen sentence is also correct. It’s just not how I would say it (not implying it’s the same for every native speaker)
Just to say how helpful I find your comments and exercises. You are probably trying to write in “simple” German but I’m pleased to say that I can understand most of what you wrute without looking up many words. Well done and thank you.
Silvana from London
13. Thomas “sieht” wie 40 aus, oder?
Oh ja… ich hatte erst mit “du”aber das Real Conditional klingt mit der du-Form immer ein bisschen komisch für die meisten Verben (ausser Hilfsverben und Modalverben)
Danke! Ich habe alles richtig gemacht, nur der Nummer 30 klingt bei mir so “Wenn es Bier gaebe, waere ich gluecklich”.
Ich lerne gerne Deutsch mit Ihre Hilfe!
Das ist auch richtig. Ist nicht “meine” Antwort, aber es geht ja nur darum, dass man die Grammatik richtig macht :)
In the answers to examples #7, #8, #19 and #27, the subordinate clause is not in conditional (“Ich würde mich freuen, wenn du kommst”, “…wenn ich in deinem Bett schlafe…”, etc.). Any reason you can put your finger on?
In the sentence “Wenn mein Mitbewohner nicht Klavier übt…” shouldn’t the word order be “…Klavier nicht übt…”? My understanding was that “…nicht Klavier übt…” it implies something else being practised, rather than the activity not taking place (e.g. “Mein Mitbewohner übt nicht Klavier, sondern Geige” but “…übt Klavier nicht”.
I also would have expected a different word order in #11, from reading your wonderful articles on that topic. “Ich habe so oft Streit mit meinem Mitbewohner” – why not “Ich habe so oft mit meinem Mitbewohner Streit”, since the first logical question for “Ich habe…” is “was?” and this information should come at the end of the sentence?
Also on the ever-giving topic of word order, can a Finalsatz be nestled within a subordinate clause, i.e. in #16: “…weil ich keine Zeit, zu kochen, habe”? It does look a bit awkward when written, but could it be said this way? Or is a Finalsatz really just what it says on the tin with regard to sentence position? :)
The position of the reflexive pronouns is also something that still trips me up. I was expecting “…würde Max sich trauen…” in #20 rather than “…würde sich Max trauen…”. Is there any flexibility here? Your “reflections on reflexive” article didn’t go so much into pronoun placement in subordinate clauses, and I would have expected the subject to immediately follow the verb.
And lastly, the phrase “Es ist fast um 8” is also unfamiliar to me. Is it different to “Es ist fast 8”?
Thanks for the satisfying finish to another in-depth article series!
Great questions!
So about the missing Conditionals, check out my answer to another comment:_
https://yourdailygerman.com/conditional-in-german-work-out-1/#comment-45245
Now for “Klavier”… I understand where you’re coming. YOu think “Klavier” is negated and the rest sort of isn’t so something is being played. However, a “nicht” can span over everything that comes after it, and it usually does that if the parts are very tightly connected to the verb. The thing you practice is an essential part of practicing, and Klavier üben and Klavier spielen are kind of each one unit.
If you put the “nicht” AFTER “Klavier” then you’re only negating the practice but not the piano, so you’re implying that SOMETHING is done with piano.
– …, Klavier nicht übt sondern spielt.
Next up, “Streit mit meinem Mitbewohner”…
Again, you think “Streit” should come final because it is what you’re having, the most significant piece of info you can give about the verb.
Well… it actually is at the end. Only that it comes with a closer description. “Streit mit meinem Mitbewohner” is the unit, that’s the thing you’re having. Like “ein gelbes Fahrrad” (bike with closer description).
You can detach the mit-part and treat it as a separate unit. Then it should come before “Streit” as you said, but that’s not as natural feeling.
Next up, “finalsatz”. Yes, you can nest it, and sometimes, it might be the better option, but in the example with “zeit haben” it is not. “Zeit habe” really wants to stay together.
Next up, the reflexive. Yes, there is some flexibility. Both versions sound fine and are equally correct. The reason has to do with my series on word order.
Max, the name, is a piece of new information. That’s why it gets drawn to the right a bit, while the self reference is referencing and already established protagonist (er). If “Max” was part of the first clause and the second were done with “er” then, you’d have to place the “sich” after “er”
– … , würde er sich trauen…
– … , würde sich er trauen… WRONG
Because now, both pronouns are equally uninteresting, and then the “protagonist first”-force wins again.
Before, it was “protagonist first” pulling Max one way, while “new information later”-force was pulling the other.
That’s how word order works :)
Last but not least… “fast 8” is very colloquial.
Hope that helps :)
Brilliant, thanks! That fills in a couple of gaps in my understanding for sure!
On 7, 8, 17, and 19, I would’ve used the würde conditional instead of the present tense. Ich wäre dankbar, wenn du mich aufklärst ;-).
I was waiting for that question :).
So German is kind of easy going when it comes to the usage. While some languages have certain triggers after which you MUST use a conditional (or similar) in German, it’s a question of what makes sense, and what you want to say.
We’ve established that the Conditional shifts a statement away from reality. Sometimes, the speakers feels like only shifting one half is already enough.
– Kommst du mit wenn ich bezahle?
– Würdest du mitkommen, wenn ich bezahlen würde?
– Würdest du mitkommen, wenn ich bezahle?
They’re all correct and they’re all asking the same thing. The question is by default not talking about reality, it’s trying to find out what the reality is. So by putting in a Conditional, you’re just making it sound more hypothetical. In this example, the speaker choses to have the “bezahle”-part sound “real” and only marks the other half as “hypothetical” to do the situation justice.
In number 19, I was really torn actually between using “steht” and “stehen würde”. But the former felt more idiomatic, simply because “stehen würde” is a bit clunky in this long sentence, and we’ve already put in enough “hypothetical” into the sentence.
But yeah, you could say “stehen würde” and no German would notice a difference.
Finally, in number 7, we’re expressing a wish basically. And there, it is common to the part you wish for NOT in the conditional and only the result of the wish coming true (it would be nice if, I would be happy if,… )
But you can say “kommen würdest”. It’s the same. It’s just a bit clunkier and that might actually be why the other one is more common.
So yeah, bottom line… you have a degree of freedom in German and it’s best not to search for fixed rules or patterns. Just go with the flow and check if it makes sense on a logical level.
Hope that helps.
TL:DR
Sometimes, Conditional is optional and left out in one half because it’s unnecessary and sounds clunky.
That helps, thanks. What about “am Bahnhof stände”?
If you reverse the order of the clauses, e.g., on 7, does it change which one sounds better?
To me “stünde” sounds better than “stände” but both are officially correct. “Stünde” is based on an older real past form “stunde”.
As for switching the order… WC (würde-conditional) sounds a bit better then but the difference is super small .
Thank you for the exercise. It was really interesting to check myself. But I doubt really understand why in some sentences you change only one verb to conditional and not both. I mean example 7, 8 and 19.
I would say this way, for example:
“Ich freue mich, dass du kommst.” —> ich würde mich freuen, wenn du kommen würdest.
Great question (one of those I basically planted into the work out :).
Double conditional is also correct.
I gave a detailed “explanation” in this comment :
https://yourdailygerman.com/conditional-in-german-work-out-1/#comment-45245
In 17 you’ve offered the WC “essen würde” as one alternative as well as “esse” for the RC, which I believe is Konjunktiv I. Would I be right in thinking Konkunktiv II “äße” is also OK?
Actually, “esse” is meant as an indicative here. You can use “äße” and be understood but it sounds a tad bit high brow :).
Good to know! Thanks.
wow it was really helpful i just found your blog through google when i was searching for a blg to learn about german i think i liked your blog i am gonna totally spend my time in your blog from the beginning have a good day
You too :)
Halo Manuel guten Tag :) Ich habe einige Fragen:
1. For the Part 3 workout, you said ”the idea in these kinds of examples is that the conditional statement describes an alternative to the original without changing the situation’’. But I think some sentence the meaning is changed. for example,
Ich freue mich, dass du kommst. >Ich würde mich freuen, wenn du kommst.
(I am happy that you come- means you already came) (I would be happy if you come- you didn’t come yet right??)
Ich finde es super, dass der Sommer dieses Jahr nicht so schlecht ist wie letztes Jahr. -> Ich fände es super, wenn der Sommer dieses Jahr nicht so schlecht wäre wie letztes Jahr.
(I find it good that this summer is not bad as last year – I would find it is good if this summer is not as shit as last year – I don’t know yet if this summer is good or not isn’t it??)
2. I have some error and I don’t know why mein is wrong when I make a exercise for example,
Kommst du mit nach Kopenhagen, wenn ich dir den Zug bezahle?
-> Würdest du mit nach Kopenhagen kommen, wenn ich dir den Zug bezahlen würde? (rather than ‘bezahle’, can I say bezahlen würde?)
Ich bin überrascht, dass mein Fahrrad noch am Bahnhof steht.
-> Ich wäre überrascht, wenn mein Fahrrad noch am Bahnhof stehen würde (rather than ‘steht’ can I say ‘stehen würde?)
Ich freue mich, dass du kommst.
->Ich würde mich freuen, wenn du kommen würdest. (rather than kommst, can I say ‘kommen würdest’?)
3. Can I say ‘ware’ and ‘würde’ both?
Ich gehe schwimmen, wenn es warm ist.
->Ich würde schwimmen gehen, wenn es warm wäre würde. (Is it wrong? if I say or warm sein würde? ist es richtig?)
Danke schön!!
Hey, hey, sorry for the delay :).
So here we go:
1) You’re totally right. My exercise is not consistent here. Originally, I had this “flip” only for the negatives but then (at a very late point) I realized that you could “flip” positives as well. So yeah… super inconsistent on my part.
However, the only thing that matters is that your try is grammatically correct. If it is different to my solution and you’re not sure, just post it here and I’ll check it :)
2. Yes, you’re versions are possible, too. German leave the speaker some room here. Check out this comment for more details:
https://yourdailygerman.com/conditional-in-german-work-out-1/#comment-45245
3.
Let me answer with a question… why would you think that mixing the two versions is possible ;)
Hallo Leute, ich bin Nicolas und neu Hier. Ich Danke euch für diese Gelegenheit zu Deutsch lernen.
I’ve been granted yesterday (08/13/2018) with a wonderful gift from all of you who do contribute to allow others join in and start learning German. Thank you so much.
Truly, Nick.
Awesome Blogs. Thanks for posting.
Thank you everyone who supported my membership, otherwise I wouldn’t be able to pay for it. Jetz kann ich Deutch lernen fangen an. Ich bin wirklich Glücklich für seine Hilfe! [Can somebody check if these sentences are correct? :)]
Willkommen Fazil :)
– Jetzt kann ich anfangen, Deutsch zu lernen.
– … für seine Hilfe! (It’s grammatically correct but maybe you meant “eure” instead of “seine”… for “your”?
Hallo!
Ist dieser Satz grammatikalisch korrekt? Soll das Verb nicht am Ende des Nebensatzes stehen? “wie letztes Jahr ist”.
10) Ich finde es super, dass der Sommer dieses Jahr nicht so schlecht ist wie letztes Jahr.
Ja, der Satz ist korrekt. Deine Version geht auch, aber sie ist nicht so idiomatisch.
Es macht auch Sinn, denn man kann es auch als zwei Nebensätze sehen, wo in einem ein bisschen was weggelassen wird.
– …, dass der Sommer nicht so schlecht ist, wie [er] letztes Jahr [war].
I couldn’t transfer money for subscribing. I wrote an email about this issue and they said , they will give me free access . Thanks alot