Is the helping verb 'werden' mandatory in both passive clauses separated by an 'oder', or only at the very...
Where is this quote about overcoming the impossible said in "Interstellar"?
Is there a math equivalent to the conditional ternary operator?
What is better: yes / no radio, or simple checkbox?
Are small insurances worth it
Why would the IRS ask for birth certificates or even audit a small tax return?
How to disable or uninstall iTunes under High Sierra without disabling SIP
What is a term for a function that when called repeatedly, has the same effect as calling once?
Is there a full canon version of Tyrion's jackass/honeycomb joke?
Why doesn't "adolescent" take any articles in "listen to adolescent agonising"?
Is there any relevance to Thor getting his hair cut other than comedic value?
How can I handle a player who pre-plans arguments about my rulings on RAW?
GDAL GetGeoTransform Documentation -- Is there an oversight, or what am I misunderstanding?
Why do phishing e-mails use faked e-mail addresses instead of the real one?
Why are special aircraft used for the carriers in the United States Navy?
PTIJ: What dummy is the Gemara referring to?
How does signal strength relate to bandwidth?
How does insurance birth control work?
Quitting employee has privileged access to critical information
Should we avoid writing fiction about historical events without extensive research?
Is every open circuit a capacitor?
“I had a flat in the centre of town, but I didn’t like living there, so …”
Was it really inappropriate to write a pull request for the company I interviewed with?
Misplaced tyre lever - alternatives?
The need of reserving one's ability in job interviews
Is the helping verb 'werden' mandatory in both passive clauses separated by an 'oder', or only at the very the end?
What is the essential semantic difference between “sein” and “werden” for passive voice?Adjective or stative passive: how to differentiate the verb forms?Under which circumstances can »werden« stand at the end of a sentence?
I ran across the following sentence today:
Anschließend können die Unterlagen per Post an XXX (Musterallee 1, 10101 Berlin) versendet oder persönlich im Büro während der Sprechzeiten eingereicht werden.
I would have intuitively added werden after versendet, even if it's mostly clear from the context and from its presence at the end of the second clause. As I'm not a native speaker I'd like to confirm my inkling and find out whether the original sentence is correct as-is (meaning it's OK to omit werden in the first instance), or if it's mandatory that werden appears at the end of both clauses.
Thanks in advance!
passive clauses
asked yesterday
user19407user19407
466213
add a comment |
I ran across the following sentence today:
Anschließend können die Unterlagen per Post an XXX (Musterallee 1, 10101 Berlin) versendet oder persönlich im Büro während der Sprechzeiten eingereicht werden.
I would have intuitively added werden after versendet, even if it's mostly clear from the context and from its presence at the end of the second clause. As I'm not a native speaker I'd like to confirm my inkling and find out whether the original sentence is correct as-is (meaning it's OK to omit werden in the first instance), or if it's mandatory that werden appears at the end of both clauses.
Thanks in advance!
passive clauses
asked yesterday
user19407user19407
466213
add a comment |
I ran across the following sentence today:
Anschließend können die Unterlagen per Post an XXX (Musterallee 1, 10101 Berlin) versendet oder persönlich im Büro während der Sprechzeiten eingereicht werden.
I would have intuitively added werden after versendet, even if it's mostly clear from the context and from its presence at the end of the second clause. As I'm not a native speaker I'd like to confirm my inkling and find out whether the original sentence is correct as-is (meaning it's OK to omit werden in the first instance), or if it's mandatory that werden appears at the end of both clauses.
Thanks in advance!
passive clauses
asked yesterday
user19407user19407
466213
I ran across the following sentence today:
Anschließend können die Unterlagen per Post an XXX (Musterallee 1, 10101 Berlin) versendet oder persönlich im Büro während der Sprechzeiten eingereicht werden.
I would have intuitively added werden after versendet, even if it's mostly clear from the context and from its presence at the end of the second clause. As I'm not a native speaker I'd like to confirm my inkling and find out whether the original sentence is correct as-is (meaning it's OK to omit werden in the first instance), or if it's mandatory that werden appears at the end of both clauses.
Thanks in advance!
passive clauses
passive clauses
asked yesterday
user19407user19407
466213
asked yesterday
user19407user19407
466213
edited yesterday
user19407
asked yesterday
user19407user19407
466213
asked yesterday
user19407user19407
466213
asked yesterday
user19407user19407
466213
466213
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
It's not mandatory and in fact, dropping all occurences of the same words at the same positions inside complicated lists is considered good style.
The tricky part is, there are are two alternatives which item has all the words listed and which has omissions.
Er hat es kommen sehen können und (er hat (es (kommen (sehen)))) müssen.
Sie wollte erst nichts (darüber erfahren), dann doch aber alles darüber erfahren.
The former sentence must have the omitted parts in the second item because the predicate of the first part would be misleading otherwise – Er hat es können und (er hat es) kommen sehen müssen. is a valid sentence with a different meaning.
In contrary, the latter sentence works either way and it's a matter of emphasis whether you omit the first or the second installment of darüber erfahren:
Sie wollte erst nichts darüber erfahren, dann doch aber alles.
puts emphasis on alles instead of erfahren and sounds much snappier.
answered yesterday
JankaJanka
31.8k22862
1
Interestingly, contrary to the original sentence, verbs are stated explicitly in the first clause in your example, and omitted in the second.
– user19407
yesterday
Often both variants are possible. I've edited my answer.
– Janka
yesterday
The brackets around "sehen" are incorrect, I believe ("... und er hat es kommen müssen" does not work). Otherwise excellent example.
– Peter A. Schneider
yesterday
@PeterA.Schneider I think it's the opposite, the parts could be added from the inner bracket outwards: ... und sehen müssen, .. und kommen sehen müssen, ... und es kommen sehen müssen -- all seem correct. Not sure how to best depict that.
– KWeiss
yesterday
... und ((((er) hat) es) ((kommen) sehen)) müssen. Perhaps. Probably we need a regular expression with alternatives.
– Peter A. Schneider
yesterday
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "253"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fgerman.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f49960%2fis-the-helping-verb-werden-mandatory-in-both-passive-clauses-separated-by-an%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It's not mandatory and in fact, dropping all occurences of the same words at the same positions inside complicated lists is considered good style.
The tricky part is, there are are two alternatives which item has all the words listed and which has omissions.
Er hat es kommen sehen können und (er hat (es (kommen (sehen)))) müssen.
Sie wollte erst nichts (darüber erfahren), dann doch aber alles darüber erfahren.
The former sentence must have the omitted parts in the second item because the predicate of the first part would be misleading otherwise – Er hat es können und (er hat es) kommen sehen müssen. is a valid sentence with a different meaning.
In contrary, the latter sentence works either way and it's a matter of emphasis whether you omit the first or the second installment of darüber erfahren:
Sie wollte erst nichts darüber erfahren, dann doch aber alles.
puts emphasis on alles instead of erfahren and sounds much snappier.
answered yesterday
JankaJanka
31.8k22862
1
Interestingly, contrary to the original sentence, verbs are stated explicitly in the first clause in your example, and omitted in the second.
– user19407
yesterday
Often both variants are possible. I've edited my answer.
– Janka
yesterday
The brackets around "sehen" are incorrect, I believe ("... und er hat es kommen müssen" does not work). Otherwise excellent example.
– Peter A. Schneider
yesterday
@PeterA.Schneider I think it's the opposite, the parts could be added from the inner bracket outwards: ... und sehen müssen, .. und kommen sehen müssen, ... und es kommen sehen müssen -- all seem correct. Not sure how to best depict that.
– KWeiss
yesterday
... und ((((er) hat) es) ((kommen) sehen)) müssen. Perhaps. Probably we need a regular expression with alternatives.
– Peter A. Schneider
yesterday
add a comment |
It's not mandatory and in fact, dropping all occurences of the same words at the same positions inside complicated lists is considered good style.
The tricky part is, there are are two alternatives which item has all the words listed and which has omissions.
Er hat es kommen sehen können und (er hat (es (kommen (sehen)))) müssen.
Sie wollte erst nichts (darüber erfahren), dann doch aber alles darüber erfahren.
The former sentence must have the omitted parts in the second item because the predicate of the first part would be misleading otherwise – Er hat es können und (er hat es) kommen sehen müssen. is a valid sentence with a different meaning.
In contrary, the latter sentence works either way and it's a matter of emphasis whether you omit the first or the second installment of darüber erfahren:
Sie wollte erst nichts darüber erfahren, dann doch aber alles.
puts emphasis on alles instead of erfahren and sounds much snappier.
answered yesterday
JankaJanka
31.8k22862
1
Interestingly, contrary to the original sentence, verbs are stated explicitly in the first clause in your example, and omitted in the second.
– user19407
yesterday
Often both variants are possible. I've edited my answer.
– Janka
yesterday
The brackets around "sehen" are incorrect, I believe ("... und er hat es kommen müssen" does not work). Otherwise excellent example.
– Peter A. Schneider
yesterday
@PeterA.Schneider I think it's the opposite, the parts could be added from the inner bracket outwards: ... und sehen müssen, .. und kommen sehen müssen, ... und es kommen sehen müssen -- all seem correct. Not sure how to best depict that.
– KWeiss
yesterday
... und ((((er) hat) es) ((kommen) sehen)) müssen. Perhaps. Probably we need a regular expression with alternatives.
– Peter A. Schneider
yesterday
add a comment |
It's not mandatory and in fact, dropping all occurences of the same words at the same positions inside complicated lists is considered good style.
The tricky part is, there are are two alternatives which item has all the words listed and which has omissions.
Er hat es kommen sehen können und (er hat (es (kommen (sehen)))) müssen.
Sie wollte erst nichts (darüber erfahren), dann doch aber alles darüber erfahren.
The former sentence must have the omitted parts in the second item because the predicate of the first part would be misleading otherwise – Er hat es können und (er hat es) kommen sehen müssen. is a valid sentence with a different meaning.
In contrary, the latter sentence works either way and it's a matter of emphasis whether you omit the first or the second installment of darüber erfahren:
Sie wollte erst nichts darüber erfahren, dann doch aber alles.
puts emphasis on alles instead of erfahren and sounds much snappier.
answered yesterday
JankaJanka
31.8k22862
It's not mandatory and in fact, dropping all occurences of the same words at the same positions inside complicated lists is considered good style.
The tricky part is, there are are two alternatives which item has all the words listed and which has omissions.
Er hat es kommen sehen können und (er hat (es (kommen (sehen)))) müssen.
Sie wollte erst nichts (darüber erfahren), dann doch aber alles darüber erfahren.
The former sentence must have the omitted parts in the second item because the predicate of the first part would be misleading otherwise – Er hat es können und (er hat es) kommen sehen müssen. is a valid sentence with a different meaning.
In contrary, the latter sentence works either way and it's a matter of emphasis whether you omit the first or the second installment of darüber erfahren:
Sie wollte erst nichts darüber erfahren, dann doch aber alles.
puts emphasis on alles instead of erfahren and sounds much snappier.
answered yesterday
JankaJanka
31.8k22862
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
JankaJanka
31.8k22862
answered yesterday
JankaJanka
31.8k22862
answered yesterday
JankaJanka
31.8k22862
31.8k22862
1
Interestingly, contrary to the original sentence, verbs are stated explicitly in the first clause in your example, and omitted in the second.
– user19407
yesterday
Often both variants are possible. I've edited my answer.
– Janka
yesterday
The brackets around "sehen" are incorrect, I believe ("... und er hat es kommen müssen" does not work). Otherwise excellent example.
– Peter A. Schneider
yesterday
@PeterA.Schneider I think it's the opposite, the parts could be added from the inner bracket outwards: ... und sehen müssen, .. und kommen sehen müssen, ... und es kommen sehen müssen -- all seem correct. Not sure how to best depict that.
– KWeiss
yesterday
... und ((((er) hat) es) ((kommen) sehen)) müssen. Perhaps. Probably we need a regular expression with alternatives.
– Peter A. Schneider
yesterday
add a comment |
1
Interestingly, contrary to the original sentence, verbs are stated explicitly in the first clause in your example, and omitted in the second.
– user19407
yesterday
Often both variants are possible. I've edited my answer.
– Janka
yesterday
The brackets around "sehen" are incorrect, I believe ("... und er hat es kommen müssen" does not work). Otherwise excellent example.
– Peter A. Schneider
yesterday
@PeterA.Schneider I think it's the opposite, the parts could be added from the inner bracket outwards: ... und sehen müssen, .. und kommen sehen müssen, ... und es kommen sehen müssen -- all seem correct. Not sure how to best depict that.
– KWeiss
yesterday
... und ((((er) hat) es) ((kommen) sehen)) müssen. Perhaps. Probably we need a regular expression with alternatives.
– Peter A. Schneider
yesterday
1
1
Interestingly, contrary to the original sentence, verbs are stated explicitly in the first clause in your example, and omitted in the second.
– user19407
yesterday
Interestingly, contrary to the original sentence, verbs are stated explicitly in the first clause in your example, and omitted in the second.
– user19407
yesterday
Often both variants are possible. I've edited my answer.
– Janka
yesterday
Often both variants are possible. I've edited my answer.
– Janka
yesterday
The brackets around "sehen" are incorrect, I believe ("... und er hat es kommen müssen" does not work). Otherwise excellent example.
– Peter A. Schneider
yesterday
The brackets around "sehen" are incorrect, I believe ("... und er hat es kommen müssen" does not work). Otherwise excellent example.
– Peter A. Schneider
yesterday
@PeterA.Schneider I think it's the opposite, the parts could be added from the inner bracket outwards: ... und sehen müssen, .. und kommen sehen müssen, ... und es kommen sehen müssen -- all seem correct. Not sure how to best depict that.
– KWeiss
yesterday
@PeterA.Schneider I think it's the opposite, the parts could be added from the inner bracket outwards: ... und sehen müssen, .. und kommen sehen müssen, ... und es kommen sehen müssen -- all seem correct. Not sure how to best depict that.
– KWeiss
yesterday
... und ((((er) hat) es) ((kommen) sehen)) müssen. Perhaps. Probably we need a regular expression with alternatives.
– Peter A. Schneider
yesterday
... und ((((er) hat) es) ((kommen) sehen)) müssen. Perhaps. Probably we need a regular expression with alternatives.
– Peter A. Schneider
yesterday
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to German Language Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fgerman.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f49960%2fis-the-helping-verb-werden-mandatory-in-both-passive-clauses-separated-by-an%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
