Hello everyone,
and welcome to our German word of the Day. Summer is over. Finally!
It is autumn. Or as I liked to call it Awesumn.
Because I love it.
Days are becoming shorter and it is getting cold and rainy. Which is great by itself already, but there’s another great aspect of autumn, captured perfectly in the poem “Autumn” by Goethe**:
Colds will be caught,
Jackets will be worn,
Sheep will be shorn.
German will be taught.
(**might not actually be by Goethe)
Fall is awesome and it is the season in which we tackle the BIG things.
No more humpdy dumpty like in summer.
Fall is the time to step up the game.
It’s simple math: fall + game = stepped up.
And for my enginneeer out there: f ( fall ) = stepped up (game).
And for my computer science people out there:
if (season==fall)
{while (game<stepped_up)
{game++;}
}
Yeah… if you’re new here on this site, you’re probably pretty confused now.
But the explanations are usually pretty good.
And today, we’ll talk about something that really could use a good explanation.
We’ll take a look at the meanings and functions of
werden
And there’s actually three of them. First of, werden is the German word for to become.
But it’s also used as a helper to build the future tense. And as if that wasn’t enough, it’s also used to build the passive voice.
In this article, we’ll of course look at the grammar a bit. But our main focus will be exploring WHY German uses werden for those three things.
Like… why does it mean to become and what happened to the German bekommen?
Why does German use werden for future?
And why do we use it for passive when so many other languages use to be?
So… are you ready to dive in? Then let’s go!
werden, bekommen and become
So, we already mentioned, that werden is the German word for to become.
And for many learners, that raises the question, what about bekommen?
So let’s talk about that first.
Obviously, become and bekommen are brothers. But the translation of bekommen is to receive. Something clearly went wrong there. I mean, the translations clearly have nothing to do with one another.
Or do they?
When we look a little closer, we’ll find that the idea of receiving and the one of becoming are actually that crazy a pair. In fact, English has a word that expresses both: to get.
- I got an e-mail…. you receive something
- I got tired…. you become tired.
What those two share is an underlying notion of reaching. The only difference is the direction. The email reaches you.. you receive it. You reach the state of tired.. then you become. But in both instances, you and something move “toward” each other until you “meet”.
Back in the old Indo-European language, this phenomenon of bidirectional verbs was quite common. And there are still some verbs like this around. We already mentioned to get, which can mean to obtain, but also to become and even to reach places (get home). But there’s also to make. You can make a salad or you can make a bus. Same sentence structure, just a different object. And boom, the meanings are completely different. When you make a salad, you “bring” the salad toward you. When you make the bus, you move toward the bus.
Now, the ancestor of to become/bekommen is the Germanic *bikweman, and that used to be bidirectional verbs, too. But then, this happened…
“Fellow English men, we have this word bikweman
and it means two things… that is confusing. Let’s pick one.”
“Yay!”
“Which one should we pick then.”
“We have to get for to receive..”
“To get kicks ASS… best word ever.”
“But we also have weorðan for the other mea…”
“Whatever. weorðan sucks anyway. Let’s use bikweman instead.”
“Okay…so from now on bikweman shall be our new word
for weorðan.”
“I have a question… can we use to get for that too? Pleeeaase???”
“Uhg… fine.”
Shortly after that, in Germany…
“Fellow Germans. We have this bikweman and it means two
things. Brits just picked one. Let’s pick one, too.”
“Jaaaa.”
“Brits picked to become. Should we do the same?”
“No way! We’ll look like weak copycats!!
“And we have werden and werden is awesome… best word ever. WE can NOT replace that.”
“So, the from now on we shall use bekommen only for to receive.”
“Hooray!“
Well… not really sure if that’s how it went down. I wasn’t there at the time because I was on vacation.
Anyway, so both languages used their version of to become for different things, and to us now they seem completely different.
And while English git rid of its version of werden, German kept it and uses it as to become to this day.
Time for examples.
- Wie kann ich in wenigen Tagen fließend werden?
- How can I become fluent in just a matter of days?
(the answer: you can’t unless you’re a snowman)
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
- Maria erklärt, warum sie Vegetarierin wurde.
- Maria explains why she became a vegetarian.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
- Thomas wird immer arroganter.
- Thomas becomes more and more arrogant.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
Now, English actually has a whole bunch of words for the idea of development. But they are all translated with werden.
- Maria wird müde.
- Maria is getting tired.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
- Sarah wird diesen November 24.
- Sarah becomes/turns 24 this November.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
- Man, bist du groß geworden.
- Man, you’ve grown tall.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
- Thomas is going crazy.
- Thomas wird verrückt.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
So, whenever the core is self development or changing from one state to another state… werden is probably the word you need because the concept is the very core of that verb. But where did it actually get that idea? Where does the verb actually come from?
Well, let’s find out. Because that’ll be the key to the other uses of the verb.
The origin of “werden”
Werden comes from the implausably ancient Indo-European a root that meant to turn, to wind. Looks like a rather specific activity… but man oh man… there are a LOT of words coming from that root.
Here are some examples from English…
- vortex, vertical, warp, versus,
worth, ergonomic or worm
and in German…
- Wert (worth, value), werfen (throw),
werden, Werft (shipyard) and many many more…
What does werden have to do with turning then?
Well, it is actually not that big of a distance. If you want to become something you kind of have to turn/bend your life in that direction. In fact, the verb to turn is actually often used in a sense of evolving.
- In fall the leaves turn red and yellow.
We could also use to become here. To turn is used with that exact meaning. And that is exactly what happened with werden. The only difference is that werden lost all connection to bending and turning while to turn still has it.
Cool.
So now that we know what werden means and where it comes from, let’s look at its other two function and see if those uses actually make sense.
“werden – Why its used for the future
In English, there are a couple of ways to express that something is in the future. But the main one is using the verb will. German, especially in spoken, doesn’t always bother with the future, but when it does, then it uses werden.
- Ich werde morgen ins Ballet gehen… Spaß, natürlich nicht.
- I will go to a ballet tomorrow… kidding, of course not.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
- Ich frage mich ob die Menschen in der Zukunft mal auf dem Mars leben werden.
- I ask myself whether people will be living on Mars in the future.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
Now, that’s kind of weird. German and English are really close when it comes to helper verbs usually. So why would they use different words to build the future, to begin with? The answer to that is that …oh wait… Steve, my producer, wants something… … … what?… I….. I don’t understand, what do you mean “out of time?!”… … but… but… I can’t just stop here. We just started intensive-season man! How intensive is it to just stop right when we got going… ….. oh… … … oh yeah? well tell the network executives to go hang themselves off a cliff if that is so cool… … … … fine.
So guys… as it seems we have to stop here, because the network thinks the show is “too long”. I know it sucks but so does Kanye West.
That didn’t even make sense.
So… if you have any questions about werden so far or you want to complain about the sudden stop, just leave me a comment. I hope you liked it and see you next time.
If you’re curious you continue with part two right away here:
.

I’m glad I got 7/7 responses correct, however I noticed it didn’t give me the explanations after each answer. Maybe it’s because I got them correct- the site didn’t feel I needed a response to explain. :-)
No, this is just an older quiz where I didn’t use this method of feedback on the answers yet.
Guten Morgen
“Für all jene, die das Leben verstehen, würde das viel richtiger klingen.”
Is this “würde” an equivalent to would?
Yes.
Danke
“Wie kann ich in wenigen Tagen fließend werden?
(not the most idiomatic German sentence ever)”
What would you change about it?
Also, you used “I ask myself” as a translation for “Ich frage mich ob..”. Would “I wonder whether..” be more suitable here?
“Wie kann ich in wenigen Tagen lernen, fließend zu sprechen.”
The other question is for an English native speaker to answer :)
Danke!
A while back I found “to wonder” as a translation for “sich fragen”. I looked it up, even though I know what it literally means, because I found this combination a little weird. That’s why I commented about it :)
I went to an automatic teller to get cash but the teller indicated my account was empty. Since it’s an unforgiving machine, I mentally asked myself, “How can this be? My wife perhaps?” To wonder is “to think about things in a questioning and sometimes doubting way.”
That “Goethe” verse is insufficiently German in its soul. For a true appreciation of Autumn, find Klaus Groth’s “Ernst ist der Herbst” and Brahms’s gorgeous setting of it, “Im Herbst”.
On that somber note, I appreciated the possibly unintended depth of your “on vacation” joke. It reminded me of Mark Twain’s remark, “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”
I did not know that Mark Twain remark, but I can say that this joke was indeed intentional and I am happy to hear that someone caught it.
I mean, I’m sure many readers do, but I’m also sure many people read “over” it simply because it’s absurd and you’d usually not expect that in learning material.
Do you know Christian Morgenstern, by the way? He was a German poet and I think you might appreciate his work (if you can read it or find good translations).
Thanks
Super job – thank you!
Thanks
Hi, Emmanuel, the article is great as always, but I got confused with the etymology part…
I couldn’t grasp the relation between “weave” and the “werden”-family. I’ll explain why, but It’ possible that I just misunderstood those paragraphs, so please tell me if it is so.
Since you didn’t mention “weave” among the words derived from the common PIE root, I was trying to understand how it fitted as a related word to “werden”. I mean, with a little mind bending I can understand that when one weaves, one “turns” the threads within each other. But to be sure I went to the only (sadly, only) source I know for Germanic etymology, which is Wiktionary – which I know is not 100% secure, and this is why I’m asking. It says there that the root for “weave” is PIE “webh” (meaning exactly “to weave, to braid”), while the root for “werden” is PIE “wert” (meaning “to turn”). I’ll add the links below. So, according to Wiktionary, they would be different roots… but they are still very similar words for me, “webh” and “wert”. Please keep in mind that I’m doubting Wiktionary, not you, at this point. Could you enlighten this matter a bit? In your research, did you find a common root for “webh” and “wert”, or “weave” and wert-derived words?
Thanks a lot! Your blog is a blessing for my German studies.
weave: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/weave#Etymology_1
webh: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/webʰ-
werden: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/werden#Etymology
werþaną: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/werþaną#Etymology
wert: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/wert-
You’re completely right, actually. I didn’t mean to imply that “weave” is related, but I did say that “Wand” and “wind” and “work” are related, and that is not true.
Indo-European has several roots that are about turning and winding, and I think I mixed them all up back when I wrote this (the article is a bit on the older side).
I have changed the section now, thanks for the heads-up.
Generally, you can trust Wiktionary, I would say, but I use dwds.de for German and etymonline.com for English.
I always cross-check and many times I find that they’re not saying the same. So sometimes I do use Wiktionary as a third “opinion”.
But yeah… what I said in this article about the etymology wasn’t really accurate.
Hi Emanuel, can you please kindly explain the Unterschied between “werden” and “werden zu”? That´s really confusing! Im voraus vielen Dank!
You mean as in
– Ich werde ein Lehrer.
– Ich werde zu einem Lehrer.
The second one is more about transformations, than evolution. Think of the Hulk, for example.
But a LOT comes down to what’s idiomatic in a phrasing, so don’t over-analyze that one.
Hi –
Ein weiteres interessantes Thema. Danke für das Teilen.
Es scheint, dass “bekommen” auch die Vorstellung haben kann, „to get something done“?
Zum Beispiel im folgenden Satz:
Andere wurden jedoch sehr sparsam erzogen und werden Probleme haben, den Krug leer zu bekommen. Deshalb gibt es die Regel, dass der Krug leer sein muss.
Wenn dies zutrifft, ist diese Konstruktion die bevorzugte Ausdrucksweise, um “etwas zu bekommen” auszudrücken.
Vielen Dank!!
Ja, das stimmt, und es muss nicht immer nur mit “zu” sein.
Ich habe das genauer in dem Artikel über “kriegen” beschrieben :)
Hallo, Emmanuel.
Meine Frage betrifft nicht das Hauptthema, sondern einen Beispielsatz und zwar: “Maria erklärt, warum sie Vegetarierin wurde.”
Nach meinem Verständniss (oder nach dem, was jeder Deutschlehrer sagt) braucht man vor “Vegetarierin” einen Artikel. Neulich habe ich jedoch einen ähnlichen Satz gehört (“Er ist Gast hier”), also auch ohne Artikel. Deshalb meine Frage: Was mit der eisernen Regel, dass man vor zälbaren Nomen einen Artikel braucht? Gibt es mindestens eine Daumenregel, die lässt beim Sprechen auf den Artikel verzichten?
Diese Regel habe ich noch nie gehört :).
Alle Berufe zum Beispiel sind ohne Artikel:
– Ich bin Lehrer. (not “ein”)
Auch viele andere “Personenbezeichnungen” sind ohne Artikel
– Ich bin Sportler/Buddhist/Moslem/Christ/Vegetarier.
Der Artikel ist nicht falsch, aber ohne geht halt auch :)
Hello, i have below two sentences and want to know the difference between the two. Which one is correct when and when its used ?
Ich wurde Arztin. und Ich bin arztin geworden.
They’re both correct and which one is used depends on context, register and form of language (written or spoken). Some textbooks may claim there’s a distinct difference in meaning but I (and the language reality on the streets) call bs on that. Hope that helps.
Hello there, just asking if there is a meaning for the structure ,, werde gesollt,, and the structure ,, werde sollen,,
Soooooo thankful to you.
Where did you find it? The second one looks like a simple future to me
– ich werde sollen.
– [in the future someone will tell me to do this]
The other one is hard to tell without more surroundings.
Great explanation. Loved the imaginary dialog!
Can you please simplify this, without all the stories at the beginning? Just present the structures, and let’s get on with it!
It’s too long, that’s true. So just skip it. Or pay me.
Yeah, I think “go/went” and “be/was” are the only examples in English. I learned about “went” in Greek class – there are a few more of those in Greek (at least New Testament Koine Greek). The verb for “carry” is “phero” but its past (aorist, if that means anything to you) form is “ēnengka,” obviously from another older verb.
I guess that “get” in Genesis probably is basically “receive/acquire,” though as I recall the verb it translates (“qanah,” presented as the etymology for the son’s name, Cain or in Hebrew “Qayin”) can either mean “get” in that normal sense, usually applied to livestock or slaves, or “create” (some more contemporary translations reflect the latter meaning). Luther translated it with “gewinnen.” But then there’s also “beget” with the reproductive meaning…
“beget” is a really nice example for the “be-“-prefix by the way :). I just recently saw beget when I was looking for a translation for “Gewalt erzeugt Gegengewalt”.
There’s also English “worship,” which didn’t originally mean “anbeten/Anbetung” but was a noun meaning “honor/dignity/renown.” That’s why some officials still have “worshipful” or “Your Worship” as titles; classically it just meant “honorable.” I guess the “wer-/were-” in “werewolf” comes from that “turn” root too? And “weird.” Would make sense.
Apparently “went” as past tense for “go” actually came from “wenden”/”wend”; somehow “go” poached the past tense from “wend,” which still exists, usually to describe a river (“The Mississippi wends its way through the heart of the North American continent…”) but now, I’m fairly sure, has “wended” as its past form.
Also, yet another fun use for “get” can be found in Genesis (1. Mose) 4:1 in the good ol’ King James translation. (Hope my HTML works right…)
“Get” really is the best verb of all the verbs.
Oh wow, that does make a lot of sense. These instances of past tense poaching are really fascinating. I can’t think of a particular example in German except “sein”/”to be” which is really an amalgamate of various sources, and not only in Germanic languages as far as I know.
As for “to get”… isn’t that just the standard receiving-get? Or is there something I’m not … ahem… getting?
“Sarah wird diesen November 24.”
Is “diesen November” in the accusative case? That’s the only way I can see it fitting with “diesen”, but I don’t see how that makes any sense :S
Also, as a noun and adjective, Old English “weorþ” does still exist, as English “worth” (c.f. German Wert/wert). The verb “weorðan” survived into Middle English as “to worth”, and although it is effectively dead and gone now, there are still some archaic frozen phrases that apparently still exist (although I’ve never personally heard anyone say them) such as “Woe worth the day” (with “worth” in the present subjunctive and “the day” in the dative) i.e. “may woe happen to the day”.
“For, adds our erudite Friend, the Saxon weorthan equivalent to the German werden, means to grow, to become; traces of which old vocable are still found in the North-country dialects, as, ‘What is word of him?’ meaning ‘What is become of him?’ and the like. Nay we in modern English still say, ‘Woe worth the hour.’ {Woe befall the hour}”
– Thomas Carlyle, “Past and Present” (1843)
It is Accusative and it makes no sense :)… it just happened to be that way that time indications use Accusative. Actually there is a Gentitive way too…
Eines Tages….
I don’t know if it has ever been possible to say “dieses Tages” but I wouldn’t be surprised. Anyway… Accusative is the common way and there is no reason why. Oh… of course it couldn’t be Nominative because that would be confusing….
Dieser Januar habe ich..
That would mean subject reassessment for the brain :D
As for “werden” … I didn’t know that the old version carried over into “worth”. That’s interesting. But what’s also interesting is that “worth” as in value as well as the German group of words around “wert” come from the same root as “werden”.
Das wird teuer.
[That worth expansive.]fictional
That’s worth a lot.
I don’t know if the exposed chronology is right, but if “werden” came to be used for future, what would they use before? something like “will” or maybe the portuguese future conjugation?
ok, it was already answered in part 2, sorry
The answer is, they used nothing. They simply didn’t express it via grammar. Germanic languages originally only used present and past. Past for … well.. past, and present for all the rest. Future was indicated by giving time information or simply by context… so basically kind of like German works today.
– Bei Teutates, wir besiegen die Römer.
If the chief says that during the meeting of tribes, then obviously he is talking about the future and not the present…because in the present all they do is talk and eat wild pig:)
hi
stimme means voice or sound
and the be- prefix with a verb means to inflict something on another something
so bestimmen means to inflict sound on something as I understood from your be- article
how on earth could bestimmen means to accertain or to be right as in ( Das bestimmt= That’s right)
please explain
and thanks in advance
Good question, I was thinking about making “stimmen” a word of the Day. But anyway… first let me clear up a little misunderstanding:
the phrase that means :
– “That’s right”
is
– “Das stimmt”
in German so it is just the verb “stimmen” without the “be”.
As for “bestimmen”… you said that Stimme means voice and sound… and there is already kind of the solution… just think of “bestimmen” as “to inflict voice” and not “to inflict sound”.
If you “inflict voice on something” you kind of speak up for it. That is why “bestimmen” can mean “to make the decisions”, “to rule” or “to nominate”… all things where you go like “I want this and that” . Ascertain is definitely not the best tranlsation… my favorite is “to determine”.. hope hat helps a bit
Hi Emanuel,
I was just wondering if you knew why the conjugation of werden changed from the more regular “werden wirst ward geworfen”, like the verbs helfen and werfen, to changing the simple past to “wurde” which is irregular? I thought it was interesting cos people seem to like to form verbs by analogy to other verbs (like when people use bring brang and brung in English). :)
Oh that is a tough question and I have to say that I do not the answer… I have found one source online that claimed both form had been existing side by side for centuries but I don’t know how accurate this is and why people would go for “wurde” eventually… I have asked that in a forum and I’ll update you if I get an answer… here’s the adress if you want to check it out too:
german.stackexchange.com
All right so someone actually gave a really interesting answer in that forum… here’s the link:
https://german.stackexchange.com/questions/7989/warum-wurde-und-nicht-ward/7991?noredirect=1#7991
I don’t know how good your German but I’ll just summarize it real quick:
The Indo-European of the Germanic languages (Indo-European) was using one vowel more, one for the past singular and one for the past plural. This is still visible in mdern day islandic. There they say:
ich ward (I changed it to German)
wir wurden
And there are other verbs that used to work that way to. For instance helfen
– ich half
– wir hulfen
– ich fand
– wir funden
Also those are preserved in Islandic.
German (and English as well for that matter) has lost this distinction and picked one version for the past for each verb. For helfen, finden and others it happened to be the singular version, for werden, the plural. Why, is not known. However, the commentator in the forum speculates as to why wurde conjugates with an -e for first and third person singular which is different to verbs like finden or helfen. IT might be that it is because werden has benn used as a helper verb very early on. So the structures it was used in were similar to sentences with modal verb or sentences with haben or sein. That might be the reason why the 2-syllable past (wurd-e) was preferred… because of the rhythm.
So… it is still unclear why exactly they went for u instead of a but at least we have some background on that now :)
That makes a lot of sense to me, and it’s interesting the way Icelandic kept the archaic declination patterns. Ich fand den Schreibstil des Antwortenden nebenbei sehr wortgewandt, seine Sprache hat so eine Genauigkeit, die nett zu lesen war. Das ist was ich am meisten an Deutsch mag, glaube ich :) Das Wort “wurde” war also vielleicht wirklich eine Anologie, aber zu Hilfsverben und nicht dem Ablautmuster. Irgendwie wie das Wort “Antwort” weiblich ist obwohl “Wort” sächlich ist. Ich dachte vielleicht das liegt daran, dass die meisten Nomen, die mit einem T enden und aus Verben geformt sind, weiblich sind. Aber ich weiß nicht ob das wahr ist oder nicht, aber es ergibt Sinn möglicherweise :)
Danke für die Antwort :)
Haha… ja die Antwort in dem Forum war sprachlich sehr gut. Die Sätze hätten vielleicht einen Tick kürzer sein können, aber es lies sich gut lesen. Die “Schreibe” hat mich ein bisschen an eine Webseite erinnert, die dich auch interessieren könnte (dein Deutsch ist ja ziemlich gut):
https://www.belleslettres.eu/
Ich habe sie vor einiger Zeit entdeckt und dort schon einige Sachen gefunden, die ich noch nicht wusste und die auch in keiner der Standardgrammatiken stehen. Zum Beispiel alles über die bidirektionalen Verben. Der Mann spricht in den Videos etwas zu schnell für meinen Geschmack. Das geht mir dann nach 10 Minuten immer auf die Nerven. Aber was er sagt, ist fundiert und er ist turbosupermega-gründlich… ich glaube für dich könnte zum Beispiel alles zum Konjunktiv interessant sein…. also viel Spaß damit :)