Hallo und wie geht’s German learners,
so guess whaaaaat: someone is having his birthday today (November 6th)! Your’s truly. The most bestest, beer drinkingest German ‘splainer on the web… uh, I mean radio. This is a radio show, don’t let all the reading deceive yo… oh god, this intro sucks.
Almost as much as prefix verbs – German’s acne. You think you got ’em all but then over night ‘popopopopop‘ and there they are. A whole bunch of new ones. So annoying.
The we’ll pop open
zustehen
By itself is pretty clear, but when you look at it back to back with its spin offs zuständig and der Zustand, it’s definitely rife for a quick squeeze.
So let’s wash our hands and get to work.
If you want to stop hitting the wall in German – Join as a member!
As a member, you can study as much as you want and find lots of information you won’t find anywhere else. Not in class, not in a textbook and not Duolingo or Youtube.
You’ll also get pdf-download, progress tracking, note taking, comment notifications and all practice tools.
Already a member?
Log in here:
I was wondering if zustehen is common in Alltagsgespräch, because I use that word in Spanish A LOT and I am happy that I found its equivalent but I also never heard it so I wonder….
Would people say something like that?
The sentence is perfect and people would definitely say that in a context like this. But it does sound a bit formal/high register.
What’s the word in Spanish?
Thanks for the answer :)
it´s “corresponder” (altough it has other meanings too)
“a él no le corresponde hablarme así” = “so mit mir zu reden steht ihm nicht zu”
“¿me corresponden días de vacaciones?” = Stehen Urlaubstage mir zu?
Dir einen schönen Tag :)
Hey Emanuel, I’m interested in the difference between ‘zustände’ and ‘bedingungen’. Is there one? Are they both synonyms for ‘conditions’? Are there certain contexts in which one doesn’t work and the other does? Any pointers gratefully received.
Great question!
So they are kind of synonyms but ONLY in the sense of “external conditions” that describe the environment and situation.
“Bedingungen” can also be “conditions” in the sense of “requirements to be met”. This is NOT “Zustände”
“Zustände” can also be the “conditions/states” of objects. That is NOT “Bedingungen.
Hope that helps.
Thanks for the reply. That makes sense, but possibly clashes slightly with a sentence example of yours elsewhere on the site:
Die Bedingungen im Stadtpark sind ideal für Einhörner.
Would Zustände not be the better choice here? Because the person is most likely talking about the physical condition of the park — whether the swings are clean, the grass good etc.
I get where you’re coming from, but the example says “die Bedingungen IM Park”, not “VOM Park”.
So it’s about the circumstances that you can find within the park. Of course that also talks about the state OF the park, but the phrasing matters here.
That said, “Zustände” would actually be the worse choice here, because it sounds a bit like the park is really run down. I Kind of forgot about this in my first comment, but Bedingugen is broader and more neutral, so they’re not really synonyms after all.
Ok. So Zustände has the connotation of negative when used in the plural?
So if I walk into the most amazing office space in the world, with huge windows, light and amazing desks, I would be better off saying:
‘die Bedingungen in diesem Büro sind out of this world’
if using zustände, people would think that i’m implying there’s something wrong in some way?
Yes, “Bedingungen” would be the word to go with. “Zustände” combined with such a positive message sounds weird.
Got it. Thanks for taking the time to clarify.
Ugh
So die Bedingungen im Park (in the area of the park)
Might be bad (rain,hail,tornados)
But
Die Zuestand / Verfassung) vom Park (of the park)
Might still be good (buildings intact and pretty, walkways nicely paved, and plants, though wet, still healthy)
And the phrase …in sehr gutem Zustand would seem to go against the word having a negative connotation
Vielen dank, wie immer
You really do deserve a paycheck for the “Der Tesla X..” recording. A+ :D
Too bad he spent all his money on running Twitter into the ground. :(
I completely forgot about that :D. Thanks for the reminder.
Also, that transition after REALLY threw me off hard. What was I thinking XD.
Would a normal person have made that transition? Probably not. But, in my experience, the best language teachers are not normal people. Keep up the good (and sometimes perplexing) work! :D
Given what you say about the meaning of Zuständig leads me to wonder if the definition I have for ständig, being freqently>continously, is right. Perhaps you could illucidate?
thanks.
Yes, your definition is right.
You can’t just add the prefix to an adjective and then compare the meanings. You have to go via the verb.
This is about the broad idea of “standing, being there”. So “ständig” makes sense as something that is “not going away, always there”.
“zustehen” is about being rightfully someone’s. Something “stands with” a person.
And from that idea it’s just a small shift toward “responsible”. The person who has to “stand with” an issue.
I hope that helps.
Superb thanks :)
Thanks for mentioning „Zustandspassiv“. I’ve seen this construction but was always confused, since I haven’t seen it in grammar books. Now that I know the name, a google search works …:-)
I’m still not sure why they do not call it “sein + Partizip II working as an adjective”.
A related question: Can any Partizip II serve as an adjective?
Can a Partizip 2 serve as adjective? Absolutely! In most languages I know of, that’s a staple. And that makes the distinction between Zustandspassiv and normal Adjektiv-Assignment very blurry.
– Der Lambo ist geliehen.
I don’t know if this would qualify as a Zustandspassiv, to be honest. I need to look into that a bit more. But it’s completely irrelevant in daily life and it’s good to understand the connection to adjectives.
Das Wasser ist kein Element. Es ist eine chemische Verbindung. :-)
Ha… challenge taken. Wasser ist kein Element im chemischen Sinne :). Aber im The Last Airbender-Sinn schon.
Has “bewerten” a negative connotation? If not, then maybe the translation should be “ … has no right to judge it”
No, “bewerten” is very neutral, that’s why I used “label” as a translation. “to judge” feels negative to me, but I might be wrong.
“label” is a better translation, but you translated it as “label it boring”.
So, I mean I don’t see “boring” in the German version.
Oh, I honestly didn’t see that. So without a specific judgement, I feel like “to judge” actually works okay as a translation.
Hey was für ein Zufall.. ich bin auch ein Skorpio, nur erst 15 Tage nach deinem Geburtstag. (also heute ^^). Glücklicher verspäteter Geburtstag!
Dir herzlichen Glückwunsch jetzt :). Unser Jahr!!
I’m THE MOST retarded learner so bear with my question: In one example you wrote “….gutem Zustand”, so I am guessing “Zustand” is the I.D object (because the ‘couch’ is the D.O.) and the ‘der’ changed to ‘dem’ and then someone decided to ‘compress’ the words from ‘gut dem Zustand” to gutem Zustand”. Is this correct or am I totally rewriting German?
Oh, and HBD!!!
Uhm… yeah, you’re kind of rewriting things ;).
Let’s break it down: the phrase is
– “in gutem Zustand”
It starts with a preposition (“in”) and so it has absolutely NOTHING to do with direct or indirect object. There’s this object stuff on one side, and the preposition stuff on the other. They both rule cases but it’s either or.
What made you trip up is the fact that there actually is no article. Pretty much like when I say “in good condition”.
It’s not “in the good/a condition”. The article is just missing.
“gutem” is an adjective and it gets adjective endings. And when the article is missing, the adjective usually gets to carry all the information load. And that’s why it is “gutem” and not “gute” or “guten”.
Does that help?
happy birthday! my wife and daughter were both born on Nov 6th ;) In fact my daughter was born last week ;)
Wow, what a birthday present :). Happy late birthday to my birthday siblings then and congratulations to you. Have fun with your two Scorpios :)
Greetings everyone!
My name is Balan and I am from Romania (yeah I know, not a great country to be from/in, but I will change that soon hopefully ^^ ). I began studying the German language a while ago and, just recently, I found your amazing website. It answers to the hardest questions about this enigmatic language which I was not able to find anywhere in a such compact and well structured form.
Due to the fact that I do not have a bank card yet, I had no immediate way of paying for membership and I sent the site’s admin an e-mail asking for a free account.
I want to thank you all who contribute to this community and made this possible for everyone to have access to this amazing study material. I already learned a lot from the few posts I was able to read before and I am sure that from now on, I will learn so much more.
Thank you all!
Aw… come on man, “not a great country to be from”?! Don’t say that!
People like you come from Romania, so how bad can it be. You’re from Romania, yeah!! :) Willkommen hier!
Hehe, thank you!. :)
Hi, alles Gute nachträglich, Emanuel.
When I read about “zustehen”, I automatically thought about “Und da steh’ ich zu.” = “And I stand by that.” But that is, as it dawned to me. not the same verb but the construction “zu etwas/jemanden stehen” = “to stand by sth./someone”.
Connected to “Zustand”, I think “zustande kommen” is a noteworthy “little” verb. Or maybe they are not connected at all. It is used, if something is in the end finalized afterall. Like a contract, it might took long and wasn’t easy but in the end there was a result. “Der Vertrag ist zustande gekommen.” = “The contract was concluded.” (I cannot find a good word by word translation, sorry.) In the negated sense, it is used when something did not work out. It then has a very neutral tone as to refrain from blaming anybody.
The brother to this verb would be “zustande bringen” = “to make sth. work”. That is often used pejoratively. “Gut, dass du auch mal was zustande bringst.” = “Good, that you finally get your stuff together/do sth. of value.”
Quality titbits there! Thanks :-)
Indeed!
And man, “titbits” what a word.
Better tidbits than tits bid.
Yeah, technically “zu etwas stehen” is not connected to “zustehen” but it’s great that you mentioned it because your example sentence is quite common in daily life and “Da steh ich zu” must confuse the hell out of learner :).
And also thanks for “zustande kommen/bringen”. I missed that one but it is totally related. Taken literally, it is “comes/bring to stand” and that’s really not that far from the idea of become/making a reality.
I don’t think there’s a direct translation in English, but the idea is pretty clear.
Haha dass ist ja lustig – ich hab gerade die Titelseite der ADAC Zeitschrift gelesen, darauf steht „Was tun nach einen Unfall? Wie Sie Ärger vermieden und was Ihnen zusteht‟ und hab mich gedacht: Hmm – How to avoid trouble and what’s your condition :-)
Danke dass du mich beigebracht hast
Timing :).
Kleine Korrektur:
– Danke, dass du mir das beigebracht hast.
Das, was gelehrt wird, ist Akkusativ, der, der lernt Dativ.
Feliz cumpleaños… atrasado…by the way I’m a chemist and H2O is NOT an element, but a chemical compound (Verbindung?)
H and O are elements. Just a little chemistry…
Happy Birthday!
and thank you for your sharing!
so, may i ask
if i turn this question to a sentence
Steht mir Weihnachtsgeld gesetzlich zu?－－－》
Weihnachtsgeld steht mir gesetzlich zu. or Mir steht Weihnachtsgeld gesetzlich zu ？
Danke
They’re both perfectly fine and there’s no difference in meaning. So it’s up to what you like better :)
No “answerable” is used in speech , for example : He is so arrogant, he thinks he is answerable to no-one.
Oh, nice example. The translation for “be answerable to” would be “jemandem (Dative) (gegenüber) verantwortlich sein” but it’s REALLY rarely used that way.
This would be way more idiomatic:
“sich jemandem gegenüber verantworten müssen”… really complicated :)
Answerable to is used quite commonly in English English.
…and answerable for. For example, ‘If something happens , I won’t be answerable for my actions’.
I think a good literal translation for verantwortlich that makes sense is “answerable”. That sounds a lot more formal than “responsible”, but I think if someone only thinks of verantwortlich as “answerable” then they won’t confuse it with zuständig.
That sounds like a good strategy with these two words, Billkamm. “Answerable (for)” does sound to me too like it refers to an individual and their specific actions, rather than responsibilities.
I don’t think I have ever heard “answerable”. Is that used in speech or would that sounds stilted?
There’s a long list of other possibilities you would consider before resorting to “answerable”. Phrases like “to be held to account by (someone)” or “to answer to (someone)” colloquial phrases like “to carry the can for (something)” or just the word “accountable” would get more use. Still a good word though and the best translation of “verantwortlich” I would guess.
Hmm, not really the best translation, I’d say. “verantwortlich” is pretty common. And I think it was a bit unclear in my explanation but “verantwortlich” can mean the same as “zuständig”. You can replace any “zuständig” with verantwortlich and it would work. Just not the other way around.
It is used in reference to actions (He is answerable for his crimes.) and describing hierarchy (The special prosecutor is answerable only to the president. The committee heads are answerable to the CEO. The senator felt she was not answerable to anyone. ) Note the ‘to’ and ‘for’ differentiation.
I don’t think you would use it except in some public discourse, like a newspaper or a speech, in legalese, or perhaps in a book, especially one on civics. Mom and Dad wouldn’t normally use it with the kids to talk about household responsibilities.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/answerable
Herzlichen Gruss zum Geburtstag! Dir ist ein nette Tag zustaendig : )
Danke :). Eine kleine Korrektur:
– Dir ist ein netter Tag zuständig.
That doesn’t work. “zuständig” really only means “in charge/responsible” so your sentence sounds like “A nice day is tasked with you”.
You have to use the verb here:
– DIr steht ein netter Tag zu.
Na, Wünsche für einen echt tollen Geburtstag werden hier geschickt!!
.. und für die eventuelle Korrektur dazu noch :)
Angekommen :)
For your example, “Who only skim-read the book halfway has no right to label it boring,” I would say instead “Those who only skim-read the book halfway have no right to label it boring.”
Cool, thanks. I’m wondering though… is my version really wrong or just a bit weird? And what about skim-read… is that idiomatic for you?
“Who only skim-read…” is missing something. Although there is a very famous motto using this “who = general third person” phrasing, namely the motto of the Special Air Service (also the NZ and Australian SAS) – “Who dares wins”, it sounds syntactically wrong, as mottoes often do, as it appears to leave some words out. You could say “he who dares, wins” but this sounds very stilted and old fashioned so more contemporary would be “whoever dares, wins”.
Your sentence would read best as “Anyone who only skim read…”. I can’t explain why “whoever” works better for the SAS and “anyone who” works better for skim-readers though sorry!
Okay, thanks! But what about my tag line then… “for all who want to learn German..:”
I feel like that’s kind of the same problem, is it not?
I asked about this one on a English grammar site years ago and they said it was okay (though there was some debate).
“For all who…” is perfectly fine. “All” is the regular pronoun and “who” is the relative pronoun. I’ve never been taught the rule but maybe it’s that you can’t have a relative pronoun on it’s own (i.e. without anything to relate it to.)
Ah, I see… that makes sense :). In German, you actually can (“Wer was weiß, sagt es.”), so that’s where my mistake came from.
That’s an interesting difference between the languages, thanks. In English “who” is OK on its own as an interrogative pronoun but not as a relative pronoun but in German cool either way. I’d heard it like that in songs before but wasn’t sure if it was just poetic licence (which you need to do it in English à la SAS motto etc).
“Anyone who only skim-read the book halfway has no right to label it boring.” – It sounds a bit strange to me. I would have said “Anyone who has only skimmed the book halfway has no right to call it boring.” I don’t know why the tense makes such a difference – I couldn’t make it work until I surrendered and changed it. :-)
Agreed. Although to me, even “anyone” sounds a little awkward. I think I’d be more likely to use “someone,” or even phrase it differently:
– If you’ve only skimmed the book halfway, you have no right…
– No one who has only skimmed the book halfway has any right…