Timeline for Scheinen used as an Auxiliary verb in the first verb position?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 22 at 22:42 | history | edited | BlauKakaPOW | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
tried to make the title more readable and better for search
|
| Jun 21 at 12:57 | answer | added | Alazon | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 21 at 12:44 | vote | accept | BlauKakaPOW | ||
| Jun 20 at 23:53 | comment | added | BlauKakaPOW | @Alazon I'm more "questioning" if it's used like an auxiliary. To me, V1 is "scheinen". V2 is "geworden". "zu sein" is basically "V1.1" to me. But I have never seen a construction for Perfekt without sein or haben in the "V1" space. So why is scheinen used here? As I asked Hubert below, does the "zu sein" in the "V1.1" position satisfy the Perfekt clause because that would come before the "gewesen/geworden"? | |
| Jun 20 at 16:00 | comment | added | Alazon | You missed the auxiliary, frankly. "verrückt geworden" combines with the auxiliary "sein" in your example (forming a Perfekt tense). Why do you say that "scheinen" is the auxiliary? It is parallel to the English translation in which "seem" embeds a perfect, except that the English perfect always uses a "have"-auxiliary. | |
| Jun 20 at 6:42 | answer | added | Hubert Schölnast | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jun 20 at 3:29 | history | edited | bakunin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
typos
|
| Jun 20 at 1:50 | history | asked | BlauKakaPOW | CC BY-SA 4.0 |