Why is “Ich wusste, dass aus dir mal was wird” grammatically correct?What does “Ich wusste, dass aus dir mal was wird” mean?Vorzeitigkeit im Konjunktiv FuturSpiegelbildliches Gegenstück zu Futur II?

Why would you put your input amplifier in front of your filtering for and ECG signal?

What dog breeds survive the apocalypse for generations?

Why can't I share a one use code with anyone else?

How does the Heat Metal spell interact with a follow-up Frostbite spell?

What kind of environment would favor hermaphroditism in a sentient species over regular, old sexes?

Do high-wing aircraft represent more difficult engineering challenges than low-wing aircraft?

Is it possible to pass a pointer to an operator as an argument like a pointer to a function?

Physically unpleasant work environment

Would life always name the light from their sun "white"

SHAKE-128/256 or SHA3-256/512

Find the area of the rectangle

How to handle professionally if colleagues has referred his relative and asking to take easy while taking interview

What are the effects of eating many berries from the Goodberry spell per day?

Assign the same string to multiple variables

Non-African Click Languages

What formula to chose a nonlinear formula?

Promotion comes with unexpected 24/7/365 on-call

Why are there five extra turns in tournament Magic?

Why didn't Daenerys' advisers suggest assassinating Cersei?

Can a person still be an Orthodox Jew and believe that the Torah contains narratives that are not scientifically correct?

Write electromagnetic field tensor in terms of four-vector potential

How to deal with the extreme reverberation in big cathedrals when playing the pipe organs?

Resistor Selection to retain same brightness in LED PWM circuit

Why is vowel phonology represented in a trapezoid instead of a square?



Why is “Ich wusste, dass aus dir mal was wird” grammatically correct?


What does “Ich wusste, dass aus dir mal was wird” mean?Vorzeitigkeit im Konjunktiv FuturSpiegelbildliches Gegenstück zu Futur II?













5















In the sentence Ich wusste, dass aus dir mal was wird (see this question), "wusste" is in past tense and "wird" is in present tense. Why is this grammatically correct? I thought it would be either:



  • Ich wusste, dass aus dir mal was wurde

where both parts are in past tense, or



  • Ich wusste, dass aus dir mal was würde

where it's Konjunktiv II, because we are talking about a hypothetical scenario irrealis, or even the same in futur



  • Ich wusste, dass aus dir mal was würde werden

compare English: I know, that something was going to develop out of you, which is sort of past future tense as well, although not a pretty sentence.










share|improve this question




























    5















    In the sentence Ich wusste, dass aus dir mal was wird (see this question), "wusste" is in past tense and "wird" is in present tense. Why is this grammatically correct? I thought it would be either:



    • Ich wusste, dass aus dir mal was wurde

    where both parts are in past tense, or



    • Ich wusste, dass aus dir mal was würde

    where it's Konjunktiv II, because we are talking about a hypothetical scenario irrealis, or even the same in futur



    • Ich wusste, dass aus dir mal was würde werden

    compare English: I know, that something was going to develop out of you, which is sort of past future tense as well, although not a pretty sentence.










    share|improve this question


























      5












      5








      5


      1






      In the sentence Ich wusste, dass aus dir mal was wird (see this question), "wusste" is in past tense and "wird" is in present tense. Why is this grammatically correct? I thought it would be either:



      • Ich wusste, dass aus dir mal was wurde

      where both parts are in past tense, or



      • Ich wusste, dass aus dir mal was würde

      where it's Konjunktiv II, because we are talking about a hypothetical scenario irrealis, or even the same in futur



      • Ich wusste, dass aus dir mal was würde werden

      compare English: I know, that something was going to develop out of you, which is sort of past future tense as well, although not a pretty sentence.










      share|improve this question
















      In the sentence Ich wusste, dass aus dir mal was wird (see this question), "wusste" is in past tense and "wird" is in present tense. Why is this grammatically correct? I thought it would be either:



      • Ich wusste, dass aus dir mal was wurde

      where both parts are in past tense, or



      • Ich wusste, dass aus dir mal was würde

      where it's Konjunktiv II, because we are talking about a hypothetical scenario irrealis, or even the same in futur



      • Ich wusste, dass aus dir mal was würde werden

      compare English: I know, that something was going to develop out of you, which is sort of past future tense as well, although not a pretty sentence.







      tenses






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited May 12 at 10:53









      Community

      1




      1










      asked May 11 at 17:16









      gerritgerrit

      297112




      297112




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          6














          In German, you don't have what is known as the Sequence of tenses. Sequence of tenses means that when you change the tense of the main verb of the main clause (wissen, in your example sentence), the tense of verbs in all subordinate clauses has to change, too (werden, in your example).



          Therefore, in English you get the following minimal pair:




          I know you'll be successful.



          I knew you'd be successful.




          Since the main verb of the main clause is in the past tense, the main verb of the subordinate clause has to be as well.



          For German, talking about the future (from the point of view of a past verb) always goes with simple werden:




          Ich weiß, dass mal was aus dir wird.



          Ich wusste, dass mal was aus dir wird.




          For cases where the subordinate clause refers to events that happen at the same time as the main clause, things aren't always that clear:




          Er wünschte sich, dass es regnet. (Good)



          Er wünschte sich, dass es regnete. (Weird)




          But:




          Er wusste, dass es regnet. (Good, I think)



          Er wusste, dass es regnete. (Also good.)




          I can't tell you for sure why this is sometimes okay and sometimes not.






          share|improve this answer























          • a) Ich wusste, dass es regnen würd'. b) Ich wusste, dass aus dir noch was würd [werden]. These are pretty much homophone. Maybe that's the reason and we only stress the difference when it matters. I mean, if I became something good, there's reason to hoping that something more will come. There's a combination of tenses that means the action has finished, which is avoided in b).

            – vectory
            May 12 at 13:03


















          4














          It's a fact, so Konjunktiv II does not apply. Because it's not indirect speech neither does Konjunktiv I.



          But let's use a simpler example without the tricky werden. The main clause is in Präteritum, so this is story time. Let's also assume the story plays in the future, to avoid further misunderstanding.




          Rhodan wusste, dass das so nicht geht.




          "Rhodan knew it does not work that way." And that's a fact.




          Rhodan wusste, dass das so nicht gehen wird.




          "Rhodan knew it will not work that way." Anyone who tries will fail.






          share|improve this answer




















          • 1





            Interestingly, that construction ("Rhodan knew it will not work that way") is invalid in English, as far as I can tell.

            – Numeri
            May 11 at 20:26











          • I can't tell the opposite. English tenses don't come natural to me.

            – Janka
            May 11 at 21:35











          • @Numen. It's ok English. Similar to: Shakespeare knew that we will never be more than an intelligent animal. In my perspective Shakespeare is in the past so 'knew' but what we may or may not become is still in the future from my perspective, thus the 'will'. The grammar is fine. The meaning is a bit strange since how can i say that Shakespeare knew something which I cannot know yet myself since it's in the future.

            – S Conroy
            May 11 at 22:05











          • @SConroy The use of "never" makes that feel more normal (because it allows "will" to emphasize that at no point, past, present or future, will it happen), but it still feels contrived/unnatural. I think most native speakers would use "would", the standard future-in-past tense in English: Shakespeare knew that we would never... and if they wanted to place the same emphasis on it, they could follow up with: "... and we never will."

            – Numeri
            May 11 at 23:53







          • 1





            @Numen. I was just trying to explain that it wasn't always ungrammatical. 'X knew that we wouldn't' is, of course, in most cases the right choice.

            – S Conroy
            May 12 at 12:07



















          4















          I knew that you are becoming someone.




          In this sentence we are talking about two different time-zones:



          • In the past:

            I knew something.

            The thing I knew in those past days is an event in the relative future. Relative future means, that is was a future event from the past point of view.


          • Now:

            You are becoming someone now.

            This is happening now. This present is the future of the past.


          That you are becoming someone, is a fact now. So there is no reason to use a conjunctive form. Indicative is the right choice, at least when you want to express in German, that you are talking about a present fact.



          But is is allowed to use conjunctive. If you use conjunctive, you express, that it was a future possibility in the past.




          Correction (Thank you, Numeri, for your comment)



          Sorry, I missed the word "mal" in the original sentence. Everything I said above is true, when you omit the word "mal".



          German present tense (Präsens) is different to English present tense. You can use Präsens to express ...



          • something that happens right now


            Du liest diesen Satz.




          • something that happens often, at any time, even if it maybe doesn't happen right now


            Jürgen betrinkt sich an jedem seiner Geburtstage.




          • something that is fact, independent from time


            Kugeln sind rund.




          So far, so clear, but German Präsens also can do something you wouldn't expect from a present tense:



          • an historic event that happened in the past


            Als die Berliner Mauer fällt, sitzt Frau Merkel in der Sauna.




          • something that will happen in the future


            Ich gehe morgen zum Arzt.




          Because of this flexibility of Präsens it is often unclear, at which time something is happening when you use this tense. For example:




          Aus dir wird etwas.




          This can mean:




          present: You are becoming someone right now.
          future: You will become someone sometime in the future.




          But German has some temporal adverbs, that you can use to make it clearer, and mal is one of them. Mal is a colloquial short version of einmal. This means once, but line English once it does not always mean one times (in contrast to two times, three times, ...). It also can means sometimes.



          When you use the adverb einmal or mal together with Präsens it refers always to something that will happen in the future.



          So:




          Aus dir wird mal etwas.



          wrong (present): You are becoming someone right now.
          correct (future): You will become someone sometime in the future.







          share|improve this answer

























          • Diese Auslegung des Satzes passt nicht so ganz, vor allem wegen des Wortes „mal“ im Originalsatz. Wenn „mal etwas aus dir wird“, dann ist das ausschließlich zukünftig, finde ich.

            – Numeri
            May 11 at 20:31











          • Thank you, Numeri, I corrected my posting.

            – Hubert Schölnast
            May 12 at 5:50











          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
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fgerman.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f52160%2fwhy-is-ich-wusste-dass-aus-dir-mal-was-wird-grammatically-correct%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes








          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          6














          In German, you don't have what is known as the Sequence of tenses. Sequence of tenses means that when you change the tense of the main verb of the main clause (wissen, in your example sentence), the tense of verbs in all subordinate clauses has to change, too (werden, in your example).



          Therefore, in English you get the following minimal pair:




          I know you'll be successful.



          I knew you'd be successful.




          Since the main verb of the main clause is in the past tense, the main verb of the subordinate clause has to be as well.



          For German, talking about the future (from the point of view of a past verb) always goes with simple werden:




          Ich weiß, dass mal was aus dir wird.



          Ich wusste, dass mal was aus dir wird.




          For cases where the subordinate clause refers to events that happen at the same time as the main clause, things aren't always that clear:




          Er wünschte sich, dass es regnet. (Good)



          Er wünschte sich, dass es regnete. (Weird)




          But:




          Er wusste, dass es regnet. (Good, I think)



          Er wusste, dass es regnete. (Also good.)




          I can't tell you for sure why this is sometimes okay and sometimes not.






          share|improve this answer























          • a) Ich wusste, dass es regnen würd'. b) Ich wusste, dass aus dir noch was würd [werden]. These are pretty much homophone. Maybe that's the reason and we only stress the difference when it matters. I mean, if I became something good, there's reason to hoping that something more will come. There's a combination of tenses that means the action has finished, which is avoided in b).

            – vectory
            May 12 at 13:03















          6














          In German, you don't have what is known as the Sequence of tenses. Sequence of tenses means that when you change the tense of the main verb of the main clause (wissen, in your example sentence), the tense of verbs in all subordinate clauses has to change, too (werden, in your example).



          Therefore, in English you get the following minimal pair:




          I know you'll be successful.



          I knew you'd be successful.




          Since the main verb of the main clause is in the past tense, the main verb of the subordinate clause has to be as well.



          For German, talking about the future (from the point of view of a past verb) always goes with simple werden:




          Ich weiß, dass mal was aus dir wird.



          Ich wusste, dass mal was aus dir wird.




          For cases where the subordinate clause refers to events that happen at the same time as the main clause, things aren't always that clear:




          Er wünschte sich, dass es regnet. (Good)



          Er wünschte sich, dass es regnete. (Weird)




          But:




          Er wusste, dass es regnet. (Good, I think)



          Er wusste, dass es regnete. (Also good.)




          I can't tell you for sure why this is sometimes okay and sometimes not.






          share|improve this answer























          • a) Ich wusste, dass es regnen würd'. b) Ich wusste, dass aus dir noch was würd [werden]. These are pretty much homophone. Maybe that's the reason and we only stress the difference when it matters. I mean, if I became something good, there's reason to hoping that something more will come. There's a combination of tenses that means the action has finished, which is avoided in b).

            – vectory
            May 12 at 13:03













          6












          6








          6







          In German, you don't have what is known as the Sequence of tenses. Sequence of tenses means that when you change the tense of the main verb of the main clause (wissen, in your example sentence), the tense of verbs in all subordinate clauses has to change, too (werden, in your example).



          Therefore, in English you get the following minimal pair:




          I know you'll be successful.



          I knew you'd be successful.




          Since the main verb of the main clause is in the past tense, the main verb of the subordinate clause has to be as well.



          For German, talking about the future (from the point of view of a past verb) always goes with simple werden:




          Ich weiß, dass mal was aus dir wird.



          Ich wusste, dass mal was aus dir wird.




          For cases where the subordinate clause refers to events that happen at the same time as the main clause, things aren't always that clear:




          Er wünschte sich, dass es regnet. (Good)



          Er wünschte sich, dass es regnete. (Weird)




          But:




          Er wusste, dass es regnet. (Good, I think)



          Er wusste, dass es regnete. (Also good.)




          I can't tell you for sure why this is sometimes okay and sometimes not.






          share|improve this answer













          In German, you don't have what is known as the Sequence of tenses. Sequence of tenses means that when you change the tense of the main verb of the main clause (wissen, in your example sentence), the tense of verbs in all subordinate clauses has to change, too (werden, in your example).



          Therefore, in English you get the following minimal pair:




          I know you'll be successful.



          I knew you'd be successful.




          Since the main verb of the main clause is in the past tense, the main verb of the subordinate clause has to be as well.



          For German, talking about the future (from the point of view of a past verb) always goes with simple werden:




          Ich weiß, dass mal was aus dir wird.



          Ich wusste, dass mal was aus dir wird.




          For cases where the subordinate clause refers to events that happen at the same time as the main clause, things aren't always that clear:




          Er wünschte sich, dass es regnet. (Good)



          Er wünschte sich, dass es regnete. (Weird)




          But:




          Er wusste, dass es regnet. (Good, I think)



          Er wusste, dass es regnete. (Also good.)




          I can't tell you for sure why this is sometimes okay and sometimes not.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered May 11 at 21:51









          sgfsgf

          2,189523




          2,189523












          • a) Ich wusste, dass es regnen würd'. b) Ich wusste, dass aus dir noch was würd [werden]. These are pretty much homophone. Maybe that's the reason and we only stress the difference when it matters. I mean, if I became something good, there's reason to hoping that something more will come. There's a combination of tenses that means the action has finished, which is avoided in b).

            – vectory
            May 12 at 13:03

















          • a) Ich wusste, dass es regnen würd'. b) Ich wusste, dass aus dir noch was würd [werden]. These are pretty much homophone. Maybe that's the reason and we only stress the difference when it matters. I mean, if I became something good, there's reason to hoping that something more will come. There's a combination of tenses that means the action has finished, which is avoided in b).

            – vectory
            May 12 at 13:03
















          a) Ich wusste, dass es regnen würd'. b) Ich wusste, dass aus dir noch was würd [werden]. These are pretty much homophone. Maybe that's the reason and we only stress the difference when it matters. I mean, if I became something good, there's reason to hoping that something more will come. There's a combination of tenses that means the action has finished, which is avoided in b).

          – vectory
          May 12 at 13:03





          a) Ich wusste, dass es regnen würd'. b) Ich wusste, dass aus dir noch was würd [werden]. These are pretty much homophone. Maybe that's the reason and we only stress the difference when it matters. I mean, if I became something good, there's reason to hoping that something more will come. There's a combination of tenses that means the action has finished, which is avoided in b).

          – vectory
          May 12 at 13:03











          4














          It's a fact, so Konjunktiv II does not apply. Because it's not indirect speech neither does Konjunktiv I.



          But let's use a simpler example without the tricky werden. The main clause is in Präteritum, so this is story time. Let's also assume the story plays in the future, to avoid further misunderstanding.




          Rhodan wusste, dass das so nicht geht.




          "Rhodan knew it does not work that way." And that's a fact.




          Rhodan wusste, dass das so nicht gehen wird.




          "Rhodan knew it will not work that way." Anyone who tries will fail.






          share|improve this answer




















          • 1





            Interestingly, that construction ("Rhodan knew it will not work that way") is invalid in English, as far as I can tell.

            – Numeri
            May 11 at 20:26











          • I can't tell the opposite. English tenses don't come natural to me.

            – Janka
            May 11 at 21:35











          • @Numen. It's ok English. Similar to: Shakespeare knew that we will never be more than an intelligent animal. In my perspective Shakespeare is in the past so 'knew' but what we may or may not become is still in the future from my perspective, thus the 'will'. The grammar is fine. The meaning is a bit strange since how can i say that Shakespeare knew something which I cannot know yet myself since it's in the future.

            – S Conroy
            May 11 at 22:05











          • @SConroy The use of "never" makes that feel more normal (because it allows "will" to emphasize that at no point, past, present or future, will it happen), but it still feels contrived/unnatural. I think most native speakers would use "would", the standard future-in-past tense in English: Shakespeare knew that we would never... and if they wanted to place the same emphasis on it, they could follow up with: "... and we never will."

            – Numeri
            May 11 at 23:53







          • 1





            @Numen. I was just trying to explain that it wasn't always ungrammatical. 'X knew that we wouldn't' is, of course, in most cases the right choice.

            – S Conroy
            May 12 at 12:07
















          4














          It's a fact, so Konjunktiv II does not apply. Because it's not indirect speech neither does Konjunktiv I.



          But let's use a simpler example without the tricky werden. The main clause is in Präteritum, so this is story time. Let's also assume the story plays in the future, to avoid further misunderstanding.




          Rhodan wusste, dass das so nicht geht.




          "Rhodan knew it does not work that way." And that's a fact.




          Rhodan wusste, dass das so nicht gehen wird.




          "Rhodan knew it will not work that way." Anyone who tries will fail.






          share|improve this answer




















          • 1





            Interestingly, that construction ("Rhodan knew it will not work that way") is invalid in English, as far as I can tell.

            – Numeri
            May 11 at 20:26











          • I can't tell the opposite. English tenses don't come natural to me.

            – Janka
            May 11 at 21:35











          • @Numen. It's ok English. Similar to: Shakespeare knew that we will never be more than an intelligent animal. In my perspective Shakespeare is in the past so 'knew' but what we may or may not become is still in the future from my perspective, thus the 'will'. The grammar is fine. The meaning is a bit strange since how can i say that Shakespeare knew something which I cannot know yet myself since it's in the future.

            – S Conroy
            May 11 at 22:05











          • @SConroy The use of "never" makes that feel more normal (because it allows "will" to emphasize that at no point, past, present or future, will it happen), but it still feels contrived/unnatural. I think most native speakers would use "would", the standard future-in-past tense in English: Shakespeare knew that we would never... and if they wanted to place the same emphasis on it, they could follow up with: "... and we never will."

            – Numeri
            May 11 at 23:53







          • 1





            @Numen. I was just trying to explain that it wasn't always ungrammatical. 'X knew that we wouldn't' is, of course, in most cases the right choice.

            – S Conroy
            May 12 at 12:07














          4












          4








          4







          It's a fact, so Konjunktiv II does not apply. Because it's not indirect speech neither does Konjunktiv I.



          But let's use a simpler example without the tricky werden. The main clause is in Präteritum, so this is story time. Let's also assume the story plays in the future, to avoid further misunderstanding.




          Rhodan wusste, dass das so nicht geht.




          "Rhodan knew it does not work that way." And that's a fact.




          Rhodan wusste, dass das so nicht gehen wird.




          "Rhodan knew it will not work that way." Anyone who tries will fail.






          share|improve this answer















          It's a fact, so Konjunktiv II does not apply. Because it's not indirect speech neither does Konjunktiv I.



          But let's use a simpler example without the tricky werden. The main clause is in Präteritum, so this is story time. Let's also assume the story plays in the future, to avoid further misunderstanding.




          Rhodan wusste, dass das so nicht geht.




          "Rhodan knew it does not work that way." And that's a fact.




          Rhodan wusste, dass das so nicht gehen wird.




          "Rhodan knew it will not work that way." Anyone who tries will fail.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited May 11 at 21:36

























          answered May 11 at 17:34









          JankaJanka

          34.8k23067




          34.8k23067







          • 1





            Interestingly, that construction ("Rhodan knew it will not work that way") is invalid in English, as far as I can tell.

            – Numeri
            May 11 at 20:26











          • I can't tell the opposite. English tenses don't come natural to me.

            – Janka
            May 11 at 21:35











          • @Numen. It's ok English. Similar to: Shakespeare knew that we will never be more than an intelligent animal. In my perspective Shakespeare is in the past so 'knew' but what we may or may not become is still in the future from my perspective, thus the 'will'. The grammar is fine. The meaning is a bit strange since how can i say that Shakespeare knew something which I cannot know yet myself since it's in the future.

            – S Conroy
            May 11 at 22:05











          • @SConroy The use of "never" makes that feel more normal (because it allows "will" to emphasize that at no point, past, present or future, will it happen), but it still feels contrived/unnatural. I think most native speakers would use "would", the standard future-in-past tense in English: Shakespeare knew that we would never... and if they wanted to place the same emphasis on it, they could follow up with: "... and we never will."

            – Numeri
            May 11 at 23:53







          • 1





            @Numen. I was just trying to explain that it wasn't always ungrammatical. 'X knew that we wouldn't' is, of course, in most cases the right choice.

            – S Conroy
            May 12 at 12:07













          • 1





            Interestingly, that construction ("Rhodan knew it will not work that way") is invalid in English, as far as I can tell.

            – Numeri
            May 11 at 20:26











          • I can't tell the opposite. English tenses don't come natural to me.

            – Janka
            May 11 at 21:35











          • @Numen. It's ok English. Similar to: Shakespeare knew that we will never be more than an intelligent animal. In my perspective Shakespeare is in the past so 'knew' but what we may or may not become is still in the future from my perspective, thus the 'will'. The grammar is fine. The meaning is a bit strange since how can i say that Shakespeare knew something which I cannot know yet myself since it's in the future.

            – S Conroy
            May 11 at 22:05











          • @SConroy The use of "never" makes that feel more normal (because it allows "will" to emphasize that at no point, past, present or future, will it happen), but it still feels contrived/unnatural. I think most native speakers would use "would", the standard future-in-past tense in English: Shakespeare knew that we would never... and if they wanted to place the same emphasis on it, they could follow up with: "... and we never will."

            – Numeri
            May 11 at 23:53







          • 1





            @Numen. I was just trying to explain that it wasn't always ungrammatical. 'X knew that we wouldn't' is, of course, in most cases the right choice.

            – S Conroy
            May 12 at 12:07








          1




          1





          Interestingly, that construction ("Rhodan knew it will not work that way") is invalid in English, as far as I can tell.

          – Numeri
          May 11 at 20:26





          Interestingly, that construction ("Rhodan knew it will not work that way") is invalid in English, as far as I can tell.

          – Numeri
          May 11 at 20:26













          I can't tell the opposite. English tenses don't come natural to me.

          – Janka
          May 11 at 21:35





          I can't tell the opposite. English tenses don't come natural to me.

          – Janka
          May 11 at 21:35













          @Numen. It's ok English. Similar to: Shakespeare knew that we will never be more than an intelligent animal. In my perspective Shakespeare is in the past so 'knew' but what we may or may not become is still in the future from my perspective, thus the 'will'. The grammar is fine. The meaning is a bit strange since how can i say that Shakespeare knew something which I cannot know yet myself since it's in the future.

          – S Conroy
          May 11 at 22:05





          @Numen. It's ok English. Similar to: Shakespeare knew that we will never be more than an intelligent animal. In my perspective Shakespeare is in the past so 'knew' but what we may or may not become is still in the future from my perspective, thus the 'will'. The grammar is fine. The meaning is a bit strange since how can i say that Shakespeare knew something which I cannot know yet myself since it's in the future.

          – S Conroy
          May 11 at 22:05













          @SConroy The use of "never" makes that feel more normal (because it allows "will" to emphasize that at no point, past, present or future, will it happen), but it still feels contrived/unnatural. I think most native speakers would use "would", the standard future-in-past tense in English: Shakespeare knew that we would never... and if they wanted to place the same emphasis on it, they could follow up with: "... and we never will."

          – Numeri
          May 11 at 23:53






          @SConroy The use of "never" makes that feel more normal (because it allows "will" to emphasize that at no point, past, present or future, will it happen), but it still feels contrived/unnatural. I think most native speakers would use "would", the standard future-in-past tense in English: Shakespeare knew that we would never... and if they wanted to place the same emphasis on it, they could follow up with: "... and we never will."

          – Numeri
          May 11 at 23:53





          1




          1





          @Numen. I was just trying to explain that it wasn't always ungrammatical. 'X knew that we wouldn't' is, of course, in most cases the right choice.

          – S Conroy
          May 12 at 12:07






          @Numen. I was just trying to explain that it wasn't always ungrammatical. 'X knew that we wouldn't' is, of course, in most cases the right choice.

          – S Conroy
          May 12 at 12:07












          4















          I knew that you are becoming someone.




          In this sentence we are talking about two different time-zones:



          • In the past:

            I knew something.

            The thing I knew in those past days is an event in the relative future. Relative future means, that is was a future event from the past point of view.


          • Now:

            You are becoming someone now.

            This is happening now. This present is the future of the past.


          That you are becoming someone, is a fact now. So there is no reason to use a conjunctive form. Indicative is the right choice, at least when you want to express in German, that you are talking about a present fact.



          But is is allowed to use conjunctive. If you use conjunctive, you express, that it was a future possibility in the past.




          Correction (Thank you, Numeri, for your comment)



          Sorry, I missed the word "mal" in the original sentence. Everything I said above is true, when you omit the word "mal".



          German present tense (Präsens) is different to English present tense. You can use Präsens to express ...



          • something that happens right now


            Du liest diesen Satz.




          • something that happens often, at any time, even if it maybe doesn't happen right now


            Jürgen betrinkt sich an jedem seiner Geburtstage.




          • something that is fact, independent from time


            Kugeln sind rund.




          So far, so clear, but German Präsens also can do something you wouldn't expect from a present tense:



          • an historic event that happened in the past


            Als die Berliner Mauer fällt, sitzt Frau Merkel in der Sauna.




          • something that will happen in the future


            Ich gehe morgen zum Arzt.




          Because of this flexibility of Präsens it is often unclear, at which time something is happening when you use this tense. For example:




          Aus dir wird etwas.




          This can mean:




          present: You are becoming someone right now.
          future: You will become someone sometime in the future.




          But German has some temporal adverbs, that you can use to make it clearer, and mal is one of them. Mal is a colloquial short version of einmal. This means once, but line English once it does not always mean one times (in contrast to two times, three times, ...). It also can means sometimes.



          When you use the adverb einmal or mal together with Präsens it refers always to something that will happen in the future.



          So:




          Aus dir wird mal etwas.



          wrong (present): You are becoming someone right now.
          correct (future): You will become someone sometime in the future.







          share|improve this answer

























          • Diese Auslegung des Satzes passt nicht so ganz, vor allem wegen des Wortes „mal“ im Originalsatz. Wenn „mal etwas aus dir wird“, dann ist das ausschließlich zukünftig, finde ich.

            – Numeri
            May 11 at 20:31











          • Thank you, Numeri, I corrected my posting.

            – Hubert Schölnast
            May 12 at 5:50















          4















          I knew that you are becoming someone.




          In this sentence we are talking about two different time-zones:



          • In the past:

            I knew something.

            The thing I knew in those past days is an event in the relative future. Relative future means, that is was a future event from the past point of view.


          • Now:

            You are becoming someone now.

            This is happening now. This present is the future of the past.


          That you are becoming someone, is a fact now. So there is no reason to use a conjunctive form. Indicative is the right choice, at least when you want to express in German, that you are talking about a present fact.



          But is is allowed to use conjunctive. If you use conjunctive, you express, that it was a future possibility in the past.




          Correction (Thank you, Numeri, for your comment)



          Sorry, I missed the word "mal" in the original sentence. Everything I said above is true, when you omit the word "mal".



          German present tense (Präsens) is different to English present tense. You can use Präsens to express ...



          • something that happens right now


            Du liest diesen Satz.




          • something that happens often, at any time, even if it maybe doesn't happen right now


            Jürgen betrinkt sich an jedem seiner Geburtstage.




          • something that is fact, independent from time


            Kugeln sind rund.




          So far, so clear, but German Präsens also can do something you wouldn't expect from a present tense:



          • an historic event that happened in the past


            Als die Berliner Mauer fällt, sitzt Frau Merkel in der Sauna.




          • something that will happen in the future


            Ich gehe morgen zum Arzt.




          Because of this flexibility of Präsens it is often unclear, at which time something is happening when you use this tense. For example:




          Aus dir wird etwas.




          This can mean:




          present: You are becoming someone right now.
          future: You will become someone sometime in the future.




          But German has some temporal adverbs, that you can use to make it clearer, and mal is one of them. Mal is a colloquial short version of einmal. This means once, but line English once it does not always mean one times (in contrast to two times, three times, ...). It also can means sometimes.



          When you use the adverb einmal or mal together with Präsens it refers always to something that will happen in the future.



          So:




          Aus dir wird mal etwas.



          wrong (present): You are becoming someone right now.
          correct (future): You will become someone sometime in the future.







          share|improve this answer

























          • Diese Auslegung des Satzes passt nicht so ganz, vor allem wegen des Wortes „mal“ im Originalsatz. Wenn „mal etwas aus dir wird“, dann ist das ausschließlich zukünftig, finde ich.

            – Numeri
            May 11 at 20:31











          • Thank you, Numeri, I corrected my posting.

            – Hubert Schölnast
            May 12 at 5:50













          4












          4








          4








          I knew that you are becoming someone.




          In this sentence we are talking about two different time-zones:



          • In the past:

            I knew something.

            The thing I knew in those past days is an event in the relative future. Relative future means, that is was a future event from the past point of view.


          • Now:

            You are becoming someone now.

            This is happening now. This present is the future of the past.


          That you are becoming someone, is a fact now. So there is no reason to use a conjunctive form. Indicative is the right choice, at least when you want to express in German, that you are talking about a present fact.



          But is is allowed to use conjunctive. If you use conjunctive, you express, that it was a future possibility in the past.




          Correction (Thank you, Numeri, for your comment)



          Sorry, I missed the word "mal" in the original sentence. Everything I said above is true, when you omit the word "mal".



          German present tense (Präsens) is different to English present tense. You can use Präsens to express ...



          • something that happens right now


            Du liest diesen Satz.




          • something that happens often, at any time, even if it maybe doesn't happen right now


            Jürgen betrinkt sich an jedem seiner Geburtstage.




          • something that is fact, independent from time


            Kugeln sind rund.




          So far, so clear, but German Präsens also can do something you wouldn't expect from a present tense:



          • an historic event that happened in the past


            Als die Berliner Mauer fällt, sitzt Frau Merkel in der Sauna.




          • something that will happen in the future


            Ich gehe morgen zum Arzt.




          Because of this flexibility of Präsens it is often unclear, at which time something is happening when you use this tense. For example:




          Aus dir wird etwas.




          This can mean:




          present: You are becoming someone right now.
          future: You will become someone sometime in the future.




          But German has some temporal adverbs, that you can use to make it clearer, and mal is one of them. Mal is a colloquial short version of einmal. This means once, but line English once it does not always mean one times (in contrast to two times, three times, ...). It also can means sometimes.



          When you use the adverb einmal or mal together with Präsens it refers always to something that will happen in the future.



          So:




          Aus dir wird mal etwas.



          wrong (present): You are becoming someone right now.
          correct (future): You will become someone sometime in the future.







          share|improve this answer
















          I knew that you are becoming someone.




          In this sentence we are talking about two different time-zones:



          • In the past:

            I knew something.

            The thing I knew in those past days is an event in the relative future. Relative future means, that is was a future event from the past point of view.


          • Now:

            You are becoming someone now.

            This is happening now. This present is the future of the past.


          That you are becoming someone, is a fact now. So there is no reason to use a conjunctive form. Indicative is the right choice, at least when you want to express in German, that you are talking about a present fact.



          But is is allowed to use conjunctive. If you use conjunctive, you express, that it was a future possibility in the past.




          Correction (Thank you, Numeri, for your comment)



          Sorry, I missed the word "mal" in the original sentence. Everything I said above is true, when you omit the word "mal".



          German present tense (Präsens) is different to English present tense. You can use Präsens to express ...



          • something that happens right now


            Du liest diesen Satz.




          • something that happens often, at any time, even if it maybe doesn't happen right now


            Jürgen betrinkt sich an jedem seiner Geburtstage.




          • something that is fact, independent from time


            Kugeln sind rund.




          So far, so clear, but German Präsens also can do something you wouldn't expect from a present tense:



          • an historic event that happened in the past


            Als die Berliner Mauer fällt, sitzt Frau Merkel in der Sauna.




          • something that will happen in the future


            Ich gehe morgen zum Arzt.




          Because of this flexibility of Präsens it is often unclear, at which time something is happening when you use this tense. For example:




          Aus dir wird etwas.




          This can mean:




          present: You are becoming someone right now.
          future: You will become someone sometime in the future.




          But German has some temporal adverbs, that you can use to make it clearer, and mal is one of them. Mal is a colloquial short version of einmal. This means once, but line English once it does not always mean one times (in contrast to two times, three times, ...). It also can means sometimes.



          When you use the adverb einmal or mal together with Präsens it refers always to something that will happen in the future.



          So:




          Aus dir wird mal etwas.



          wrong (present): You are becoming someone right now.
          correct (future): You will become someone sometime in the future.








          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited May 12 at 5:50

























          answered May 11 at 17:47









          Hubert SchölnastHubert Schölnast

          75.4k7113250




          75.4k7113250












          • Diese Auslegung des Satzes passt nicht so ganz, vor allem wegen des Wortes „mal“ im Originalsatz. Wenn „mal etwas aus dir wird“, dann ist das ausschließlich zukünftig, finde ich.

            – Numeri
            May 11 at 20:31











          • Thank you, Numeri, I corrected my posting.

            – Hubert Schölnast
            May 12 at 5:50

















          • Diese Auslegung des Satzes passt nicht so ganz, vor allem wegen des Wortes „mal“ im Originalsatz. Wenn „mal etwas aus dir wird“, dann ist das ausschließlich zukünftig, finde ich.

            – Numeri
            May 11 at 20:31











          • Thank you, Numeri, I corrected my posting.

            – Hubert Schölnast
            May 12 at 5:50
















          Diese Auslegung des Satzes passt nicht so ganz, vor allem wegen des Wortes „mal“ im Originalsatz. Wenn „mal etwas aus dir wird“, dann ist das ausschließlich zukünftig, finde ich.

          – Numeri
          May 11 at 20:31





          Diese Auslegung des Satzes passt nicht so ganz, vor allem wegen des Wortes „mal“ im Originalsatz. Wenn „mal etwas aus dir wird“, dann ist das ausschließlich zukünftig, finde ich.

          – Numeri
          May 11 at 20:31













          Thank you, Numeri, I corrected my posting.

          – Hubert Schölnast
          May 12 at 5:50





          Thank you, Numeri, I corrected my posting.

          – Hubert Schölnast
          May 12 at 5:50

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fgerman.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f52160%2fwhy-is-ich-wusste-dass-aus-dir-mal-was-wird-grammatically-correct%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          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







          Popular posts from this blog

          Category:9 (number) SubcategoriesMedia in category "9 (number)"Navigation menuUpload mediaGND ID: 4485639-8Library of Congress authority ID: sh85091979ReasonatorScholiaStatistics

          Circuit construction for execution of conditional statements using least significant bitHow are two different registers being used as “control”?How exactly is the stated composite state of the two registers being produced using the $R_zz$ controlled rotations?Efficiently performing controlled rotations in HHLWould this quantum algorithm implementation work?How to prepare a superposed states of odd integers from $1$ to $sqrtN$?Why is this implementation of the order finding algorithm not working?Circuit construction for Hamiltonian simulationHow can I invert the least significant bit of a certain term of a superposed state?Implementing an oracleImplementing a controlled sum operation

          Magento 2 “No Payment Methods” in Admin New OrderHow to integrate Paypal Express Checkout with the Magento APIMagento 1.5 - Sales > Order > edit order and shipping methods disappearAuto Invoice Check/Money Order Payment methodAdd more simple payment methods?Shipping methods not showingWhat should I do to change payment methods if changing the configuration has no effects?1.9 - No Payment Methods showing upMy Payment Methods not Showing for downloadable/virtual product when checkout?Magento2 API to access internal payment methodHow to call an existing payment methods in the registration form?