
Hello everyone,
and welcome to a new episode of the epic YourDailyGerman grammar course. Today, with a grammar topic that is so hot, it’s might a better fit for German’s OF account. Yes, in my world, the German language has an OF.
But yeah, today, we’ll find out all about
German Two-Way-Prepositions
Prepositions are these little words like auf or vor or mit and a good portion of those can be followed by Dative AND Accusative, each having a different meaning.
If you’re more of a beginner, then you might be like “Huuhhhh?” and it might not be time for this topic yet.
But it’s definitely a very important thing if you want to sound idiomatic at all, and I have to say… most explanations out there, be it on Youtube or in more formal textbooks, are a little bit off.
Not wrong, but odd.
So yeah, that’s what we’ll look at today. First, I’ll give you the quick version and then I’ll elaborate a bit. And then we’ll wrap it up with an exercise.
Sounds good?
Then let’s go!
***
Two-Way Prepositions – The Core Rule
German has four cases. Why it has them? No one knows. Maybe it thinks its a lawyer or something.
But anyway, the four cases wouldn’t be a problem if German just had them on its desk somewhere. But nope, German really really likes its four cases and it rubs them in our faces all day. And prepositions offer no respite.
It’s not enough that there are several dozen of them and they don’t line up with their similar looking English counterparts. No. German is like “So just FYI… I want a specific case after each preposition.”
Oh, okay, will it be the same case always?
“Of course not, duhhhh.”
Now, for a good portion of the prepositions, the case they go with is fixed. Some go with Accusative, some with Dative and very few go with Genitive. Like, für for instance will ALWAYS be followed by Accusative, no matter what.
But there’s a group of prepositions which can be followed by either one of TWO cases – Accusative and Dative.
Here they are:
- auf – on, onto
- in – in, into
- vor – in front of, forward
- hinter – behind
- über – above, over
- unter – under, among
- an – to, at
- neben – next to
- zwischen – between
And this is an instance where cases actually carry a significant amount of meaning.
Dative talks about a fixed location. It answers to “At what place?”
Accusative talks about a destination. It answers to “Where is it headed?”
Some sources say that it’s about whether or not we have a movement, but this is NOT really the point. What matters is whether we’re talking about a destination or not.
Let’s do an example:
- Die Tasse steht auf dem Tisch.
- The cup is standing on the table.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
- Die Tasse fällt auf den Tisch.
- The cup falls on the table.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
In the first example, we’re talking about where the cup currently is; it is stationary and we’re marking that with Dative. In the second example, the current position of cup doesn’t really matter. It is somewhere mid air. What we want to talk about is where the cup is headed; it’s destination. And we’re marking that with Accusative.
Now, this example was pretty clear because to be is stationary in itself, while fallen is clearly a movement. And that’s how many sources frame it.
But that’s NOT the core of it.
In fact, if you make a mistake with these two way prepositions, it wasn’t about a mistake in grammar… it’s a mistake in “message”.
It’s not “wrong grammar” – It’s “wrong message”
Check out this example:
- Ich jogge im (in dem) Park.
- Ich jogge in den Park.
Here, we have the same verb in both examples and it is clearly a movement verb. And yet, we have used Dative in the first version? Isn’t that wrong then?
No, the Dative tells us that whatever happens in that sentence (the jogging) happens at a fixed location: in the park. So, I’m in the park at the beginning of my run, I’m in the park at the end of it. My location relative to park doesn’t change throughout my run.
The Accusative in the second example on the other hand, the park is the destination of my run. I’m not there before the run, I am there after.
So, just because the verb is a movement verb doesn’t mean the case is clear.
And same goes the other way around.
- Ich schreibe auf dem Tisch.
- Ich schreibe auf den Tisch.
Schreiben means to write, so the verb itself is not really a movement verb, this time. But there’s nothing wrong with giving writing a direction either. In the first example, the Dative marks the table as the location where my writing happens. Maybe I sit there and write a letter to someone. In the second example, I’m also at the table writing, but the Accusative marks that the main message this time is that the table is the destination of my writing. I am literally writing onto the table.
Cool.
Now, one more example, again with twist.
- Thomas schläft auf der Couch.
- Thomas schläft auf die Couch.
Did you have a hard time figuring out the meaning of the second one? Well… that’s because
The second version doesn’t work.
And the crucial part is that it’s not because the grammar is wrong or anything but simply because it makes absolutely no sense.
You can give sleeping a direction in time …
- Ich schlafe ins neue Jahr.
- I sleep into the new year.
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
Here, the Accusative is fine. The new year is the destination of our sleeping.
But unless you’re a poet or something you CAN’T give sleeping a direction in space…
- Traumversunken schlafe ich nach Berlin.
- Sunk in dreams, I sleep to Berlin… meeeeeehhhhhhh, maybe
- Practice pronunciation – click once to start recording and again to stop
- “I was sleeping.”
“Cool, where to?”
“From the kitchen onto the couch.”… uh.. NOPE
That doesn’t work in English either. In fact, I’d be curious, if there’s any language at all on the planet where you can give sleeping a direction in space (let me know in the comments if you can in your language).
But yeah… so the crossed out example with the Accusative would be called wrong by your teacher. The crucial thing to understand here, is that it’s NOT wrong because of grammar. It’s NOT wrong, because sleeping is not a movement verb, it’s NOT wrong because it’s intransiblahblah… it is wrong because it sounds wrong and it sounds wrong because it is nonsense.
So, the bottom line of all of this is that the case choice we do for the two-way prepositions is not just some annoying bit of grammar. Two-Way Prepositions are a way to get our message across. Using Accusative answers to “where’s it headed”, using Dative to “where is it (happening)” . And making this distinction explicit is a common theme of the German language. German is really anal about spatial information.
The proper choice depends on what you want to say and if something doesn’t work then it doesn’t work because it’s nonsense. And it’s most likely nonsense in other languages, too.
Cool.
Now some of you are probably on the edge of their seat now asking the following: “But, but Emanuel, EMAAAANUELLL… what about stuff like warten auf? How do I know which case to use for those?”
That’s a very good question.
German has loads of sort of fixed combos between verbs and prepositions that don’t really have anything to do with space or time. And if a verb comes with a two-way preposition, many learners get confused about which case to pick.
We’ll talk about those combos a lot in the individual articles for the prepositions but I can give you a trend right away:
Fixed, abstract verb-preposition combos with two-way preps
tend to take accusative
The local notion of the Dative is very very strong and in many instances, it will sound like you’re actually talking about a location. Here’s the obligatory unicorn example
- Ich warte auf dem Einhorn.
- I’m waiting on top of the unicorn.
- Ich warte auf das Einhorn.
- I’m waiting for the unicorn.
When you think about it, the anticipation that is at the heart of warten is in some way like a directed movement. My waiting has a goal, a target. But this is the stuff that we’ll do in the series, so lots of theory fun ahead of us :).
Cool.
So now that we know the how and what about two-way prepositions, all that’s missing are the prepositions themselves. Here they are
vor, hinter, in, auf, unter, über, neben, an, zwischen

There’s really cool, simple way to quickly check if a preposition is two-way or not. If you can “arrange” a cup and a lighter so they “show” the preposition without moving, then it’s two-way.
It doesn’t really work for zwischen, to be honest, but let’s just think of that as poetic license. The lighter can be zwischen the table and the cup.
Cool.
Now theory is all well and good, but practice makes perfect. So to wrap this up, let’s do a little work out.
Exercise for Two-Way Prepositions
I’ll give you a few sentences and mark the case and you have to decide whether it is a correct sounding sentence and what it means. And if you want, you can also think about whether the other choice would work, too. Here’s an example:
- Ich lege das Buch auf dem Tisch.
We’re using Dative, so auf dem Tisch is marked as the location where the rest of the sentence takes place. That means, that I am laying the book while being on the table. And that doesn’t make too much sense, right. So this one would be “wrong” and Accusative would be the proper choice here, because it would mark the table as destination of my laying.
So here you go… and be warned, these are pretty tricky :)
- Ich trinke in meinen Geburtstag.
- Ich setze mich in der U-Bahn.
- Die Fliege schwimmt in die Suppe.
- Maria fährt neben dem Jogger.
- Ich lese in das Buch.
- Ich tanze auf der Brücke.
- Ich trinke in die Küche.
- Ich werfe im Wasser.
- Ich lese etwas in die E-Mail.
- Der Bus fährt im Winter nicht.
- Das Team liegt hinter den Zeitplan.
- Die Werbung kommt vor dem Video.
- Marias Haar hängt in die Suppe.
- Thomas kotzt vor der Bar.
And here are the solutions – with a little explanation, so you actually know what’s going on :)
- Correct. Dative wouldn’t work because the idiomatic preposition would be “an” for a expressing that something happens on a fixed day
- Textbook explanations suggest that it’s wrong but it isn’t. You can sit down while being in the subway. Accusative would work, too.
- Unless there’s a canal leading into the soup that the fly could swim along, making the soup the destination of the fly’s swimming makes little to no sense :)
- It’s correct and Accusative would work as well.
- It’s weird sounding, to say the least. You could understand it as giving the book a little probe reading, but reading in the book would be done with Dative.
- Correct, and Accusative would work as well.
- This doesn’t make any sense. You can’t give drinking a location in space. Dative would be correct here.
- Correct, and Accusative would work as well.
- It’s similar to number 5 but this time, it works because you’re reading something into the mail that isn’t there.
- It’s completely correct. Accusative would only make sense if it’s a lyrical way to say that the bus drives to the far north (where it is winter)
- This is nonsense. Lying is one of those verbs that you cannot give a direction to. When you’re lying, you’re 100% stationary.
- It’s fine. We’re told where the ad is. With accusative it would mean that we’re talking about where to put the ad.
- It’s fine and Dative would work as well. The two are almost the same. The accusative just puts a little focus on the hair reaching into the soup, while Dative is just a plain description of where it is.
- It’s fine and Accusative would work as well.
So how’d you do? How many did you get correct? Was it difficult? I bet you’re having a lot of questions about this now so let’s talk about it in the comments.
And of course, if you have other questions about any of this or if you want to try out some more examples leave a comment too.
So that’s it for today. This was our look at two-way prepositions and I hope the whole thing is a little clearer now. The case choice is a way to mark something as either destination or location for an event and the difference between right and wrong is mainly what makes sense. And with this we’re now well prepared for the upcoming series on prepositions :). It’s not gonna start next week, but it is coming and it is going to be epic.
I hope you liked it today, I wish you a schöne Woche und bis nächstes Mal.

Thank you for this incredible article. I got basically only the first sentence wrong and I did not understand it quite well.
The tip about the cup and the lighter, I did not understand it sadly.
Maybe “ball and bowl” are better as a mental image. Imagine you sit on a desk and you have a small ball and a bowl. You can put them in the table in various ways – the ball on the bown, in the bowl, behind the bowl, in front of the bowl, under the bowl, above the bowl and so on.
Those (and “zwischen”) are the two-way prepositions.
You cannot really repict “zu” or “aus” or “nach” that way, without actually showing a motion.
I just used “lighter” and “cup” because those might be items you actually have.
Does that help?
Thanks for the amazing article, I often come back to it when in doubt…
One case I am struggling with is the following sentence: “Das Flugzeug fliegt über die Stadt.” …
This is given in Wiktionary (https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/über) as a textbook example, but I do not grasp the accusative there, my reasoning being the following:
So yeah, any idea what the implied context and meaning of “Das Flugzeug fliegt über die Stadt.” are?
It means that it crosses the city, pretty much.
– Das Flugzeug darf nicht über das Atomkraftwerk fliegen.
This means that the plane has to fly around it, not across it.
“über der Stadt” sounds very stationary in this context, like it’s flying circles to wait for landing or it’s spying or something.
Technically, “fliegt über die Stadt” could also just mean that the plane wasn’t above the city before and then at the end it is above the city. But you’d need the right context for that.
Does that help?
Yes, that is very enlightening, thank you so much!
I wrote this poem to help me remember the 2-way’s. “Entlang” is here because it makes the poem rhyme, and because (right or wrong) it helps me if I think of it as a 2-way.
über-unter, hinter-vor.
…neben-an?
Auf! Zwischen!! In!!! Entlang!!!!
I have a doubt: Ich werfe im Wasser – does this mean something different? I thought it meant “I throw in the water” which also does not make sense to me. I could understand the meaning in German that while I’m in the water I throw something, but isn’t the something part necessary in German? Because in English it totally is. Danke.
– Ich werfe im Wasser.
This means that you’re in the water and you’re performing the act of throwing something, without indication what you throw or where you throw it to.
The sentence does sound weird in German too, but grammatically speaking it’s correct. There might be a context where you really want to express that exact thing.
Danke!
Hey there, can you help me with #9 Ich lese etwas in die email. Your explanation says that you are reading something that isn’t there. Are you ‘reading’ something like a voodoo priest would read the tea leaves? Like, “Even though she says she is happy, I’m am reading the verbiage like she really wants to give up”. Feeling/sensing the vibe??
Nah, it’s more like “reading something into it”.
Like… you get a message from your team lead and you THINK they’ll fire you because of this phrasing or that phrasing or the weird tone, but in fact, it’s just in your head and wasn’t really there.
If you were to use Dative “ich lese das in der Email” then that means that it’s in there. And then your friend might be like “No, it’s not in there. You’re putting that in while reading.”
Does that help?
Yes, thank you
“If you can “arrange” a cup and a lighter so they “show” the preposition without moving, then it’s two-way” – sorry, I did not understand this. Can you add an example using one of the prepositions please?
I mean arranging the two items on a table. You can put the lighter in front of the cup (vor), on the cup (auf), under the cup (unter), behind the cup (hinter), inside the cup (in), next to the cup (neben) and right next to (touching) the cup (an). And you can hold it so it’s above (über) the cup.
All these are two-way prepositions.
You cannot show the meaning of “von” (from, of) with these two items unless you include “moving the lighter” as part of the meaning.
Does that help?
Yes! Danke
Sure! Let’s dive into the mesmerizing world of… coffee beans!
Picture this: a bustling morning at a quaint coffee roastery nestled in the heart of a vibrant city. The aroma of freshly roasted coffee beans permeates the air, mingling with the gentle chatter of patrons and the rhythmic hum of the espresso machine.
As you step inside, you’re greeted by rows upon rows of burlap sacks brimming with coffee beans from exotic locales around the globe. Each sack tells a story of its origin — the sun-kissed plantations of Ethiopia, the misty highlands of Colombia, or the lush valleys of Guatemala.
Your eyes wander over to the roasting area, where a skilled artisan meticulously tends to a vintage roaster, coaxing out the nuanced flavors locked within each batch of beans. The beans dance and crackle as they undergo their transformation, turning from pale green to a rich mahogany hue.
The heady scent of roasting coffee intensifies, drawing you closer to the source of this sensory symphony. You watch in awe as the roasted beans spill out of the roaster, their glossy surfaces glistening with oils, promising a symphony of flavors and aromas.
After the roasting process is complete, the beans are carefully cooled and then meticulously sorted to ensure only the finest make it into the hands of discerning coffee lovers like yourself. Each bean is a testament to the dedication and craftsmanship of the people behind it, from the farmers who nurtured the plants to the roasters who brought them to life.
As you take your first sip of freshly brewed coffee, you’re transported on a journey of taste and aroma, a journey that spans continents and cultures, a journey that begins with a humble coffee bean.
Are you sure you wanted to post this here? What’s the connection to the topic?
what the sigma
Doesn’t this lesson relate somehow to the basics involving wo and wohin? Or something?
Yes, “wo” and “wohin” are about the same distinction between “fixed, steady location” and “destination”.
I’m new. Please explain how to take the test. How and where do I answer the questions?
You have to use a piece of paper and write down your answers. Then, you can check them below.
I’ll have to put this into a more modern format, but I haven’t found the time yet.
What am I supposed to do with the arrow?
What arrow?
Sorry. Got it finally. The “arrow” you “click on” in order to hear the speaker. Didn’t know.
Thank you for the explanation. Is there any articles about um/in/am ? I found the “um” but can’t find the other two.
No, I haven’t written about these two yet. If you have specific questions, I’m happy to help.
No specific question, Thank you very much for this great website.
Danke :)!!
i dont get if let’s say i come and sit (when i am) in the u-bahn why can’t the fly swim when it IS in the suppe like why the accusative can’t work here it tells the change in location, but it does not tell you whether the activity had started before the destination or when you’re at the destination. what i just said does it make any sense? lol
maybe it could be flying and started swimming when it reached or i should say fell in the suppe
Please tell me what part of the post you’re referring to. Then I can try to clear up if I explained something in a weird way.
damn that was fast lol anyways im referring to the exercise you gave at the end specifically sentence no. 2 and 3.
correct me if im wrong but in the accusative, you’re doing some activity and you reach a destination while doing it or is it that you do the activity when you reach the destination.
in Dativ its simple the activity is happening when you are at the location it started when you were there, and it ended or is still going in that same location right?
So the Accusative says that you do the activity TO REACH the destination.
The activity is your means of getting there.
You’re not there – You do the activity – You’re there
Does that help?
I’m not sure what part of the article you’re referring to, but you CAN swim in the soup, both into or in it.
– Ich schwimme in der Suppe. (you swim inside the soup)
– Ich schwimme in die Suppe. (you’re starting in the mashed potatoes and you swim over into the soup)
Question. I got almost all of the answers correct in the quiz–yay me ;-) You may have noted this method, but I kept inserting the English word ‘while’ before the preposition to determine whether the answer was akkusativ or dativ. E.G., #6 “Ich tanze (while) auf der Brucke.” In English: “I dance (while) on the bridge.” So the bridge is the destination (I think). Would this be a reliable way to determine dativ, or was I just lucky?
Wow, this is AMAZING!!! I think that works pretty damn well, even for the abstract things like
– Ich warte auf den Bus.
– I’m waiting while on the bus… nope, so Accusative
Great stuff!!
I’ll definitely use that.
Very glad to have made a contribution. Now onto sentence structure.
Conversely, “Ich tanze auf die Bruecke” would mean “I’m dancing (my way) onto the bridge.” Frequently, such sentences are grammatically possible, if not too probable, right?
As posted prior, those two-way prepositions or Wechselpraepositionen can drive one to distraction (koennen jemanden zu schaffen machen).
They really must be learned in context in order to be learned effectively.
Almost as tricky as separable vs. inseprarable prefixed verbs:-)
I like the writing and table example. In English, we use separate words to denote the difference. I’m writing *at* the table for letter writing and I’m writing *on* the table for the literal act of writing on a table. Akkusativ and dativ seems like just a different way to do the same thing. It’s just more efficiently and precisely engineered in German–no surprise there ;-)
You’re spot on!
Cases and prepositions are indeed two ways to do the same thing, not just in this case, but in general.
I think you’d enjoy this article about the function of cases in general. In it, I talk about exactly that :)
https://yourdailygerman.com/function-of-cases/
Right on, Jamie! As posted earlier, English does allow the learner more leeway then German, and is often less precise. As with my example of putting/throwing the coat on vs. onto the bed. In English, both work just fine. Not so in German, where there is only one correct answer.
Dear Emanuel
I’ve read your blogs about 2-way prepositions. I really understand how you explained.
However, May I ask a question further about prepositions which require fixed cases?
for examples 1. für , ohne which require accusative cases 2. mith, zu which require dative cases.
I feel that I can’t utilize the principle of 2-way prepositions
(static location for dative cases and place-to-place movement for accusative cases) to explain for the reasons why für , ohne require accusative cases and why mith, zu require dative cases.
If it’s possible, could you kindly explain?
Thank you so much in advance
You’re completely right that none of what we talked about in this article has any effect on the prepositions that have a fixed case.
And there’s no logic there either. So there’s no good explanation why “für” is Accusative and “zu” is Dative. It’s really something you just have to learn :).
LOVE the graphic of the box with the prepositions.
However, right underneath it I think you did an edit and the text got odd. You have two of almost identical paragraphs but the first is awkward and has the sentence “…they “show” the preposition without moving or theater,”. I think that paragraph was supposed to be deleted.
Also, I like the colors used for Dative and Accusative. That really helps focus on the Dat/Acc difference without having to reverse engineer the noun back to its Nom case and build back up. It is consistent and is definitely a plus for the site.
Another issue – the number next to the questions have gone away. They are just bullet points after #1 •. •. •. •. Therefore, to check your answers back to the questions one must count down from the first question each time. May I suggest copying the questions to be next to the answers if this page is going to stay in this format. That would be easier for the user as opposed to looking up for #12 in both locations.
All fixed, thanks a lot for letting me know :)!
Gerade als ich dachte, ich hätte den Dreh mit den Präpositionen raus, kommt dieser Satz:
Ich habe ein Herz auf meinen Unterarm tätowiert, knapp über meinem Handgelenk.
Bedeutet “tätowiert werden” eine Bewegung in Richtung des Arms? Warum nicht „auf meinem Unterarm“?
Ich wünsche Ihnen alles Gute.
Ich verstehe den Satz so:
Es klingt so, als ob die Person das Tattoo selber gemacht hat, und der Satz hat den Fokus auf dem Akt des Tätowierens.
Das ist auch richtig. Jetzt heißt es:
Also es geht darum, was die Person hat: ein Herztattoo auf DEM (now stationary) Arm.
Hilft das?
Who learned Latin language can understand better, some prepositions are two-way as well… The difference there is that the two cases are accusative and ablative, not accusative and dative:
The four prepositions of this kind are:
– in (= into, onto / in, on);
– sub (= under);
– subter (= underneath);
– super (= over / upon).
In Latin language, in most situations, the dative forms are the same as the ablative forms. In the plural even in all declensions they are the same forms.
It is a pity that the ablative case has disappeared, but its main beneficiary was the accusative, not the dative.
As I learn German, I discover more and more similarities between this language and Latin.
As someone might say, the German language was the least subjected to the process of barbarization.
At least the German language still has something of the old declensions, even if the burden has passed from the shoulders of the substantive, to those of the article.
Ah, is it ok to say in English “substantive”? My teachers never called it that, but “noun”. In Romanian we only call it „substantiv”, They still remember from time to time that his name was „nume” (= “name”) many decades ago, but no student would understand what a “nume” would be nowadays in the context of grammar.
My instructor on Italki always tells me to pay attention to motion, i.e. if something is moving it generally needs accusative, if not then it’s generally dative. So in my head now I say “stay-tive” for dative, since the subject is staying, not moving, and “a-cruise-ative” for accusative, since the subject is moving (or cruising) somewhere. I’m not sure if this would help anyone else, but thought I’d share.
**** Awesome ****
One of the best mnemonics for German I have seen so far :D
Cute! And helpful!