My Coming Book – Sample Chapter

Hi everyone,

And welcome to the third episode of our little summer special called Update August. And this time, I actually have an update on … drumroll..

My Book about Prefix Verbs

I know, I know, I have been talking about this since forever. In fact, it’s actually two different books that I have in the works.
One is about inseparable prefixes with explanations for all of them as well as a sort of mini dictionary of the most important verbs with each of them. But I ran into a serious case of writer’s block at some point so I had to put that “on ice” for a while.

And the other one is a fun illustrated guide to the world of separable prefix verbs, which I’m doing together with my friend Helen. I do the explanations and she draws the cartoons to go along with them.

Like this one which we made for ausziehen:

 

 

The big hold-up for this project was actually the layout, because the original plan was to make a nice looking printed book that gives the cartoons the space to shine.

But we’re both busy with work, neither of us is a professional typesetter or designer. And from the work on the prefix verb card game I recently launched I now know just how big a hassle (and also cost and time factor) it is to do a crowdfunding and then mail out physical items across the planet.

Basically, we realized that trying to do print probably means never actually finishing this thing. Which would be a pity, because it’s just too far advanced already and we think it’s a really cool and unique project.
So we’ve decided that we’ll do “just” an e-book version for now, to actually get the book out, and then we can still do a print later, if the book is successful.

Long story short – right now, I am slowly working my way through the script, adding the bits that were still missing and editing some things that are already there. In some cases that ends up being a MAJOR rewrite, and this is what happened in the past few days with the introductory chapter about inseparable prefix verbs.

Like… I was really struggling with how much information to include and how to include it and how to find the right balance between having some depth while still being digestible for beginners or more casual learners.

It took quite a while and moving things around and adding things and losing things, but yesterday I finally finished it and I feel like it was worth the strive.

And so I decided to actually share that chapter with you today as a little teaser for the book :).
In it, I’m touching in inseparable prefixes, the prefix ge- and its origin and how sometimes grammar is really just rhythm. If you’re a hardcore YourDailyGerman reader, you’ll recognize all of the concepts but I’ve never had them packed up this densely.

Anyways, without much further ado… let’s jump right in.

Get My Newsletter

I'll send an email whenever I post a new lesson (once per week usually).

*** Book Preview ***

Inseparable Prefix Verbs

Inseparable prefixes are what we see in most European languages and we could call them “normal” prefixes. Because they behave how you’d expect them to behave.
You take a prefix, stick it to the beginning of a verb and then that’s where it is – no matter whether the verb is in a dictionary, in a sentence, in past tense or completely drunk in a bar at 2 am on a Monday.

Here’s an example in English with the prefix under-.

  • to understand
  • I understand that.
  • I’m trying to understand that.
  • I have understood that.

And here’s the same example in German with the prefix ver-

  • verstehen
  • Ich verstehe das.
  • Ich versuche, das zu verstehen.
  • Ich habe das verstanden.

Why is it ver-in German but under- in English? And what the heck does this have to do with stehen and to stand?
Well, that’s a rabbit hole I don’t want to look into now, but it’s a great showcase for just how abstract these prefix verbs can be.
What matters for us is that the prefixes (under- and ver-) just stay where they are. Which sounds like nothing special, but in German it is, because as we’ll see later, the separable prefixes do not stay where they are. Like… at all.

And there’s something else that’s special about German inseparable prefixes, at least compared to other German verbs:

They don‘t need a ge-.

If you‘re familiar with the German past tense, you probably know what I mean by that, but let‘s take a second to go over it together.

Past Participle – To ge- or not to ge-

In many languages, there’s a verb form that in English is called past participle. Not all languages have that form, but most European languages do and it’s actually super useful because you can usually do a variety of things with it, including talking about what happened in the past.

  • I’ve learned/learnt German.
  • I’ve seen the movie.
  • I’ve said that.

learned/learnt, seen and said are past participles here.
In English, the past participle often looks the same as the simple past form (I learned, I said), but in most languages, the form is more distinct.
And in German, the form’s sort of iconic feature is the ge- at the start.

  • Ich habe Deutsch gelernt.
  • Ich habe den Film gesehen.
  • Ich habe das gesagt.

Actually, if you take off the these German forms are not looking so different from their English brothers anymore.

But anyway, the thing with inseparable prefix verbs is that they do NOT get this ge-.

stehen (to stand)
Ich stehe
Ich habe gestanden.

verstehen (to understand)
Ich verstehe.
Ich habe verstanden.

The reason for that is that the ge-actually used to be a normal inseparable prefix just like ver-or zer- or be-. In fact, you can still see it in verbs like gewinnen (to win) or gewöhnen (to get used to) or in nouns like das Gebirge (the mountain range).

Its original idea was a sense of “result” and people would use it if they wanted to shift the focus of a verb to the fact that the action was completed.
And little by little, Germans started using the ge- kind of habitually whenever they were just talking about what they’d got done during the day. Or in other words, when they were talking about the past tense.
And over time, the meaning of the prefix faded and it slowly changed into its final form – grammar.

But it was never added to verbs that already had an inseparable prefix. In the beginning, that was because people wouldn’t just “stack” two such prefixes on one verb. The purpose of the prefix was to give a sense of direction, after all, and why would you want to add two different kinds.

And even later, after ge- had completed its metamorphosis into grammar, people felt no urge to add it to inseparable prefix verbs.
Because the “urge” to add it with normal verbs was not “meaning”. No German can tell you what ge- “means”.
The real reason, or one of the big ones anyway, that makes native speakers learn and use the ge- when they’re a child is in fact: rhythm.

You see, the ge- adds a little unstressed syllable before the main emphasis of the verb.

  • ESS-en – ge-gESS-en
  • KAUF-en – ge-KAUF-t
  • SEH-en – ge-SEH-en

A bit like a pickup note in music. Like tadahhh instead of just dahhhhh.

And guess what else is an unstressed syllable? Exactly, other inseparable prefixes.

STEH-en : ge-STAND-en
verSTEH- en : ver-STAND-en

verstehen doesn’t get a ge- for its past participle, because it already has the specific rhythm that the ge- creates.

This of course applies to all German inseparable prefixes, but it in fact also goes for all those verbs that are of Latin origin.
Like addieren, operieren or manifestieren.
And the reason is once again rhythm. The main stress for these verbs in German is the second to last syllable. The -ier-part.
And the syllables before it are all unstressed in comparison.
So in other words, they too have that specific flow built in of having a little onset before the main syllable. And thus they don’t get a ge- either.

fotografieren – fotografiert

It’s not gefotografiert or fotogegrafiert or whatever. There is no need for the ge- here because the ge-rhythm pattern is already there.

Now you might be wondering what would happen if the inseparable prefix was in fact stressed.
Well, inseparable prefixes are generally unstressed but there is one exception that can actually answer this “what if?”: the verb antworten.

Ant- is inseparable and yet, it’s stressed, so it does carry the main emphasis of the word.

Ich ANTworte.
(I ANswer)

And here’s how the past participle looks:

Ich habe geANTwortet.

Tadah! We do have a ge- now, and the reason is simply that the form would not have the right rhythm without it.

Now, this was a lot of information but the good news is that you don’t really have to remember it. Or at least you don’t need it for the rest of this book. I just thought it’s interesting.

The two main takeaways are: inseparable prefix verbs don’t get a ge- for their past participle form. And they stay in one piece.
Both of these things would be kind of a “So what?” … if they weren’t completely different for the separable prefix verbs.

But before we get to those, let‘s actually take a little detour and talk about a simple concept you‘ve probably never heard of that is the key to a lot of questions about German sentence structure.

***

Tadah – that’s the chapter :).

I still feel like it does get a bit dense toward the end, but at the same time I don’t really want to cut any of this information, because I think it gives some really cool insights into German and grammar in general and the core purpose of the book is that you as the reader build up intuition, feel and curiosity for the language.

But yeah… I’m really curious what you think – did you like it? Was it easy to follow? Was it clear? Was it too much?
All feedback is welcome, and everything helps, so please let me know in the comments.

I’m not going to make the mistake again of saying when the book will be finished, but I am working on it now and the fact that we don’t have to worry about printing and shipping makes it feel “in reach”. It didn’t really feel like that before, to be honest :)

Anyway… can’t wait to read your feedback, I hope you enjoyed this, have a great week and see you next time.

Oh, by the way:

If you want to learn a bit more about the project and want to sign up for the newsletter about it, you can check out our info-page here:

German Prefix Verbs – The Book

And if you’re curious about the card game I mentioned in the intro, you can find more about that here:

German Prefix Verbs – The Card Game

5 8 votes
Article Rating
Emanuel

Emanuel Creator & Author

World's best teacher of German words and grammar. Full Bio →

German GrammarVocabulary • Etymology

Get My Newsletter

I'll send an email whenever I post a new lesson (once per week usually).

Your Comments and Questions

guest

64 Comments
Newest
Oldest

Ruth
Ruth

I am abut to give up on your posts (which I love to read and find really helpful) but I get a message that I have reached the limit even when I haven’t read anything for several weeks.

Tina
Tina

I’m a bit behind on my reading of your newsletters. But I always find they are worth reading, and the first chapter of your book is no exception. I love it! It does help with intuition and a feeling for the language. It is interesting and cool. And I’m amazed that you think about these things and share them. You are so clever! So thank you!

Rania
Rania

Hello everyone,
I want to say a very heartfelt thank you to the community and especially to those who paid extra. Thanks to your generosity, I now have a free one-year membership. I am so excited to learn German with all of you! Thank you so, so much!

Liebe Grüße
Rania

xenarose
xenarose

Informative and easy to understand! Vielen Danke

Adrian Wiliams
Adrian Wiliams

I’ve been reading the body of all your emails but haven’t had time to get to the lessons yet. I will definitely get around to doing the one about word order and the one about “naked” modal verbs.

I have a small question regarding a sentence in the Belles Lettres article about Präteritum & Perfekt:

Wie ist das Perfekt entstanden? Warum bildet man es einmal mit dem Hilfsverb haben, ein andermal mit sein?

The “ein” after the comma should be “und” right?

Adrian Wiliams
Adrian Wiliams
Reply to  Emanuel

Wow, thank-you. It always pays to ask.

Nada
Nada

That is actually quite easy to follow even for a beginner like me. And it was actually enjoyable to read I feel like rhythm and getting a feel for a language is really important in learning that language. I feel like it gives you a feel for how natives do some things unconsciously while speaking.
Funny enough i was just studying separable and inseparable verbs yesterday and i was really curious about the reasoning behind some shapes of the verb and I feel like that book would be a good help for that:)

I have to mention that I got my paid sponsorship just a few days ago runny enough on the day of my birthday, that was such a nice coincidence so thank you so much for anyone who paid extra for the unintentional birthday gift:))) what you do is really appreciated and I’m so grateful for it as a student:)

johnnybna
johnnybna

I don’t think it’s too dense at all. I think rhythm is an important explanation for inseparable prefixes, and many other German features (e.g. indef article before feminine nouns). “antworten” alone is worth the price of admission. Toward the middle you show example sentences with “lehrnen, sehen, sagen” then the past participles with “ge-”. Between those, you list “geben”, though it is not in the examples above or below. I think “ge-geben” contrasted with ”given” is a great example of your point and should be included in the examples (or deleted in the list following the first example sentences).

Last edited 11 months ago by johnnybna
pmccann
pmccann
Reply to  Emanuel

“I have given her the book” sounds perfectly fine, and tends to indicate that there’s some other relevant task or implication that follows from that action (eg, “Now it’s up to her to read it”, or “So stop asking me for it!”). So it’s part of some extended process, with something else as the end point. A bald “I gave her the book” tends, by contrast, to stand alone: that’s what happened, end of story, unless you embellish further.

Well, that’s my 60 second version of the difference!

Sukanya
Sukanya

I enjoyed the chapter! I think it’s really useful to think about Rhythm when learning any language because it is the je ne sais quoi that really helps with building sprachgefühl. In my opinion, its the main factor in developing the “mmm it doesnt sound right” feeling that one has in their native language.

Maryamma
Maryamma

Thank you so much Emanuel and to all the wonderful people who paid extra! Emanuel kindly gave me access to his fabulous articles, and the supporters made it possible by paying more for their subscriptions. I’m from Iran and this means so much to me. The teaching is excellent and I’m already learning so much. Thank you for this amazing generosity!

pmccann
pmccann

Sorry in advance for being such curmudgeon, and it seems I’m going a little against the grain of the other comments, but so be it ;-)  

I really enjoyed the chapter, but with one big caveat: I think the “antworten” section risks doing much more harm than good, at least for the sort of audience I’m imagining for the e-book. (That is, I’m assuming it’s broader than just YDG-level nerds!) 

So what do I have against the “antworten” dissection? 

1. Putting the stress on the prefix when it’s separable, and not on an inseparable one, and how that plays out with past participles is a really, *really* strong correlation, and even if there are super-rare exceptions, such as this one, I really wonder whether it’s worthwhile undermining this lovely connection. Particularly, of course, for those readers for whom this isn’t yet second nature… 

2. Is “ant-” a prefix that you’ll examine at all in the book, other than for this aside? Indeed, are there any other common verbs that use it as a prefix? I couldn’t find any in a quick search on Pons.

3. Similarly, is it even helpful to think of “worten” as a stem here? It doesn’t seem to be viewed as an active verb. Admittedly that’s not necessarily a requirement, but maybe a little more tellingly: are there any other verbs built from it (directly)? That is, isn’t “antworten” itself –*en masse* –better thought of as a stem (cf beantworten/verantworten)?

In any case, I guess my recommendation isn’t “ditch the *antworten* section”, but more along the lines of “please consider burying it in a footnote or an endnote”. 

Last edited 11 months ago by pmccann
pmccann
pmccann
Reply to  Emanuel

That sounds 100% better to me: I don’t think anyone wants to rule out such fun insights, least of all me. It’s just a matter of how to demarcate them from the central flow somehow (which, again, points back to the need for a conscious choice of “base” audience, in order to have a strong notion of what belongs in this central flow). Visually? Via “callouts” (eg boxed asides)? With a shaded background as a signal? Or, as you’ve done above, by carefully casting them as revealing/reinforcing edge-cases (or –relative– esoterica)?

Sorry, this is all pretty much blather, but I guess my take can be reduced to the feeling that such insights are fantastic and great fun, but only insomuch as they can be used to reinforce the grand story of the prefixes, the grammatical “feels” that are going to being conveyed, usw. Slaves… to the rhythm. And all that!

Anne
Anne

Thanks, Emanuel. That was expressed beautifully. Can’t wait wait till the e book is available to buy.
I’m always impressed that, although English is not your first language, to this Englishwoman, you express yourself as though it were your mother tongue.

Tony
Tony

100%! Congratulations. Change nothing (except the typos – thanks, Elsa)

Bissell
Bissell

You know me, I fell in love with the rhythm thing a long time ago. So did I miss the gag with the title? “Inseparlittable Prefix Verbs” Your English modern slang is better than mine, but Inseparlittable? Clue me in!

stosselgg
stosselgg

I like the etymology you include with these verbs.

MikeM
MikeM

This is very well done. I’m in the neighborhood of B1/B2 and this is perfect for me. A2 should find this helpful as well.

I especially like the “reveal” on antworten – well placed.

There isn’t too much information since this is a book, so the reader can pace themselves. Your insights are where the value is – don’t skimp. We want it all!

kemple
kemple

Wonderful chapter, and not at all too dense at the end. For me the huge takeaway was RHYthm. Without a sense of how sentences flow reading German becomes an exercise in frustration, or at least more of a puzzle to solve rather than a way if making sense.

Deborah Knight
Deborah Knight

I thought it was fun to read and completely understandably and clearly written. I understood the whole thing, no problem.

Elsa
Elsa

Hello,

There are a few typos on the chapter itself:
“completely drunk in bar” (completely drunk in a bar)
verstehendoesn’t” (verstehen doesn’t)
“now. and the reason” (now. And the reason)

As you know, I’ve also been waiting loooong for this book ;)
I really enjoyed the chapter, it’s just right and you provided a really good explanation!

By the way, my proofreading offer still stands :)

Bis bald!

Deborah Knight
Deborah Knight
Reply to  Elsa

No, to Elsa above. You do NOT ever start a sentence in English with and, but or or. You do in German but not in English. You put a comma, then the word and and finish the sentence with your clause that follows. .
now, and the reason …
You could also end the sentence at the word “now.” then start a new sentence leaving out the and. ” The reason is… “

Last edited 11 months ago by Manes
Elsa
Elsa
Reply to  Emanuel

Correct! It’s an old-school myth, not a rule.
You can start a sentence with “And” (or “But”), and good writers do it all the time. The “rule” against it comes from 19th- and early 20th-century school grammars, where teachers discouraged kids from stringing together endless “And then… and then… and then…” sentences. Somewhere along the way, it got exaggerated into “never start a sentence with and.”

And yes, it’s part of your style :)

coleussanctus
coleussanctus
Reply to  Elsa

Oh, so that’s where it comes from. Interesting. I’ve even seen court opinions that used this here and there, and it sounded just fine. It’s pretty versatile.

Marko
Marko
Reply to  Emanuel

Deborah Knight should read Steven Pinker’s book on style (I will copy AI’s description below). Basically, English has a ton of rules that are widely ignored by good authors but still taught by some English teachers. This rule is part of the package of rules that deal with split infinitives and end-of-sentence prepositions (“it is the kind of rule up with which I will not put.”). Indeed you can start sentences with And (check the King James Bible), But and Or, but it needs to be for reasons of a thoughtful style / emphasis, and not for reasons of sloppy writing, which is what I think Deborah is rightfully objecting to.

Starting with a coordinating conjunction can add drama, intimacy, or emphasis. It breaks the expected flow and makes the sentence stand out, often echoing spoken rhythm.

Here are some examples:

And

  • “And so we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”
  • — F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby
  • “And miles to go before I sleep.”
  • — Robert Frost, Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening

But

  • “But, soft! what light through yonder window breaks?”
  • — William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet
  • “But the old man would not so much as look at it.”
  • — Ernest Hemingway, The Old Man and the Sea

Or

  • “Or, if you will, let’s say it this way: the world is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.”
  • — J. B. S. Haldane (often quoted in scientific and literary contexts)
  • “Or is it only the vastness of the desert that makes everything else seem small?”
  • — Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (in the spirit of Wind, Sand and Stars)

Still not convinced? Here are some more examples:

And

  • “And that is why clarity is the greatest virtue of prose.”
  • — Steven Pinker, The Sense of Style
  • “And suddenly the memory returns, sharp and clear as if it had been waiting.”
  • — Joan Didion, The Year of Magical Thinking

But

  • “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
  • — George Orwell, Politics and the English Language
  • “But the truth is, most of us live lives that are closer to fiction than fact.”
  • — Margaret Atwood, essay in The Guardian

Or

  • “Or maybe it was only the silence that gave it power.”
  • — Kazuo Ishiguro, The Remains of the Day
  • “Or we can choose instead to imagine a future that works.”
  • — Rebecca Solnit, Hope in the Dark

And if you claim that it is just in literature, here are some examples from modern print media:

And

  • “And then, almost overnight, the economy collapsed.”
  • The Economist (on the 2008 financial crisis)
  • “And for once, Washington listened.”
  • The New York Times

But

  • “But the reality is more complicated.”
  • The New Yorker
  • “But the deal may not be as generous as it seems.”
  • The Financial Times

Or

  • “Or consider what happens when a small change in law leads to a massive shift in behavior.”
  • The Atlantic
  • “Or was it simply a failure of imagination?”
  • The Guardian

The Pinker book:

Steven Pinker’s style guide is titled The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person’s Guide to Writing in the 21st Century. Published in 2014, this book offers a modern perspective on writing, blending linguistic science with practical advice to help readers craft clear, engaging prose.

In The Sense of Style, Pinker challenges traditional grammar rules and explores how cognitive science can inform writing practices. He introduces concepts like “classic style,” emphasizing clarity and coherence, and addresses common writing pitfalls such as jargon and convoluted syntax. The book is both informative and accessible, making it suitable for writers across various disciplines.

Harald
Harald
Reply to  Marko

Merely an aside, but Pinker’s a major researcher and author in the area of linguistics! He goes even beyond the eminent linguist Sausseur in positing the notion that speakers of different languages are, in his words, “circuited” differently from one another, responding to different mental stimuli practically from birth.

The book of his which I recall best is “The Language Instinct”.

Harald
Harald
Reply to  Marko

He challenges Chomsky above all.

Harald
Harald
Reply to  Emanuel

I’d tend to agree.

Renee
Renee

As a musician and language learner, I’m so grateful that you’re mentioning the importance of rhythm in language! Keep it going, I read e-books all the time and yours is off to a great start!

Payam
Payam

Loved the chapter, right level of detail, practical at the same time, and just sooo interesting.

This is my first article to read here after getting sponsored access and I am so happy. Thank you Emanuel and thanks to everyone who sponsors so that more people, who otherwise couldn’t, can enjoy this well-crafted content.