0

I try to say all I know on this issue, please mention my mistakes:

well, generally i know we can use participles are adjective:

1) participle 2 as adjective:

1a) it can make PASSIVE adjective with a transitive verb:

  • Er ist ein geschlagener Man. ( is correct) (he is kicked)

1b) it can not be used with intransitive verbs:

  • Er ist ein gegangener Man. ( would be wrong) (he is GONE???)

2) participle 1 as adjective:

2a) it can be used as active with a transitive verb:

  • Er ist ein schlagender Man. (is correct) (he is kicking something or somebody)

2b) it can be used as active with intransitive verb:

  • Er ist ein gehender Man. (is correct, at least grammatically) (he is going)

3) participle 1 with ZU as adjective:

3a) it can be used with transitive verbs as passive:

  • Er ist ein zu schlagender Man. (correct) ( he should be kicked, or he is to be kicked)

3b) it can not be used with intransitive verbs

  • ER ist ein zu gehender Man. (would be wrong) (he is going to go ...)

4) participle 2 with ZU as adjective:

4a) it does not exist

  • Er is ein zu geschlagener Man. (would be wrong) ( he should be kicked, or he is to be kicked)

now my points:

1- it is strange in my eyes that in case number 3a, verb is active and participle 1 but Noun is passive (he is kicked, he does not kick)

2- why can not we make adjective with ZU plus participle 2? it could be more meaningful than participle 1 plus zu !

orodeous
  • 553
  • 3
  • 11
  • 2
    The word is "Mann". – Carsten S Dec 17 '19 at 23:33
  • 2
    Schlagen means to beat or to punch - to kick would be treten, or, if the kick is meant figuratively as in to kick someone out : rauswerfen. – Volker Landgraf Dec 18 '19 at 01:27
  • 1b) and 3b) are fine, colloquially. They would mean that he is a man who was shown the door or a man who needs to be shown the door, respectively. There is also the corresponding simple dynamic passive Er wird gegangen. – Jan Dec 18 '19 at 12:22
  • I think the question asks for a clear grammar concept and it could be easily tuned to be acceptable and useful. – peterh Dec 18 '19 at 15:22
  • 2
    Half of the question seems irrelevant but the rest is a question about gerundive constructions in German, so I don't see why it should be closed. There is no way the information can be found in a "dictionary, thesaurus, or conjugation table". – johnl Dec 18 '19 at 15:36

2 Answers2

2

Questions about why something happens in a language are difficult to answer. In this case, the simplest why I can think of is that the constructions in question have been modelled after Latin.

vir laudans – ein lobender Mann (present participle)
vir laudatus – ein gelobter Mann (past participle)
vir laudandus – ein zu lobender Mann (gerundive)

If you feel that the passive meaning for zu lobend- is strange or unexpected, note that German has a so-called modal passive (again modelled after Latin), which has two interpretations (passive with müssen or können).

Der Mann ist zu loben.
Der Mann muß gelobt werden.

Die Enttäuschung ist zu verstehen.
Die Enttäuschung kann verstanden werden.

Since this is already passive, there is no place for zu combined with the past participle and 4a does indeed not exist.

The impossibility of 3b is easy to explain: Since intransitive verbs have no subject in the passive, the noun the adjective modifies cannot be interpreted in relation to the adjective.

eine (von jedem) zu beantwortende Frage
eine Frage, die jeder beantworten kann/muß

ein zu antwortender XXX

What is XXX supposed to be, given that it cannot be the subject of the intransitive verb antworten?

Finally, note that 1b is possible with so-called unaccusative verbs.

ein gestorbener Mann, ein eingestürztes Haus, eine zerbrochene Vase …

Community
  • 1
David Vogt
  • 26,425
  • 2
  • 42
  • 91
0

All your statements are correct, no mistakes.

Answer: The construction zu <verb>-d takes a verb and transforms it to something that can be used as an adjective and expresses what should be done to the corresponding noun. It sounds strange to anglophone people because English has no such construction (to be beaten is the closest translation, but that phrase can not be used in place of an adjective).

Yes, in case 3a the verb is active, but the subject is not anymore the man but some unspecified third person. You can best understand this construction by mentally opening a little video clip in which someone does (actively) something to the man and then attach the video clip as an adjective to the man. This should also illustrate why your proposed construction 4a doesn't make any sense for native speakers.

It is an anglophone bias, that the verb should be passive. Any direct translation to english must use a passive form.

Note: The construction zu <verb>-d is somewhat outdated. It is still used in formal texts. In colloquial speech you'd rather use a relative clause.

Max Kubierschky
  • 21
  • 1
  • ‘Er wird gegangen’ -> ‘Er ist ein gegangener Mann’ sounds grammatical albeit colloquial to me. – Jan Dec 18 '19 at 12:23