das Perfekt mit haben oder sein - You're Doing It WRONG!

How do you know if you should use haben or sein with the perfect (present perfect, spoken past, das Perfekt) in German? Is it about motion verbs and non-motion verbs? Are you supposed to guess? How can you choose between haben and sein in the Perfekt in German? Your German teacher probably taught you the wrong rule and I am here to set them straight. It is time you learned the real rule for choosing haben or sein in the Perfekt.
Wann benutzt man haben und wann benutzt man sein im Perfekt? Wie sollte man wissen, ob man haben oder sein im Perfekt benutzt? Euer Deutschlehrer hat euch das Perfekt wahrscheinlich falsch unterrichtet. Ich werde die Sache wieder ins rechte Lot bringen.
Buy Herr Antrim's Books on germanwithantrim.com: www.germanwith...
Buy Herr Antrim's Books on Amazon: www.germanwith...
❤️ If you find Herr Antrim's lessons helpful, become a channel member to get access to extra German learning materials - / @mrlantrim
🔔 Subscribe for more FREE German lessons: www.youtube.co...
🚀 Recommended German Learning Resources!
📖 Herr Antrim's Books on Amazon: www.germanwith...
📖 Herr Antrim's Books on germanwithantrim.com: www.germanwith...
👍 Learn German with books, movies, and more: www.amazon.com...
✅ Recommended Playlists
🅰️1️⃣-🅰️2️⃣ Courses: • Learn German FAST! 20 ...
👨🏫 German Grammar Master Classes: • German Present Tense M...
🚶♂️ Herr Antrim's Step-by-Step Guide to Starting Your German Learning Journey: • How to Learn German in...
🛠️ Language Learning Resource Reviews: • The Best KZbin Chann...
💁♂️ German Learning Tips: • 5 German Learning Tips...
Follow Herr Antrim on his social networks.
Twitter: / mrlantrim
Facebook: / mrlantrim
Instagram: / germanwithantrim
#learngerman #deutschlernen #germanwithantrim
Disclaimer: Some of these links go to my website and some are affiliate links where I'll earn a small commission, if you make a purchase at no additional cost to you.

[@leopaul4331]

Motion/movement chaos in German In case of wechsal Präpositionen, Its not only about Motion and No Motion, but also Change of Location and No change of Location. In case of sein/haben usage in Perfekt, Its not only about motion or no motion but Transitive or Intransitive... Out of these many channels its you alone Herr Antrim. But even to be a student to ur lecture , demands a class and minimum std. I am not sure my aforesaid perception based on ur classes are 100 percent correct or not but now finally when i stumbled upon ur channel after numerous others i know something far better than before. Once again, thanks a lot Lehrer Antrim.

[@MrLAntrim]

Without knowing grammar, German seems like chaos. Der? Den? Dem? Des? I am a firm believer that sometimes a learner just needs the concept explained in detail so they can move on knowing what patterns they are looking for.

[@bernhardstork6929]

Good rule, but you should know the exception from the rule: everything you do with your body like "husten", "niesen", "lachen", "grinsen", "stöhnen", "furzen", "kichern". No direct object but haben-Perfekt.

[@LiborSupcik]

schlafen?

[@oyakkus]

Direct object is your body, he said that.

[@aleandrade3564]

Teacher! You save my life! Thank you!

[@BruceWayne_87]

This is what makes german language so complicated. That‘s why after i passed all the exam i decided to rest and just listen or copy what other people used to say here. Reading children’s book might also help. Smh!

[@myaseena]

i like this approach of explaining grammar using grammatical concepts rather than inventing "movable/immovable".

[@nematjonrajabov]

Thank you so much! This is just a perfect explanation🔥

[@narayanthapa3727]

what about 'tanzen' verb?

[@pedrocavalcante5822]

I have two sentences. Ich bin nach Hause gefahren und Ich habe dich nach Hause gefahren. Why in both cases does the verb remain at the end, even though the first one has the auxiliary verb in sein?

[@MrLAntrim]

The main verb is still to drive. The difference is whether or not there is a direct object (i.e. someone or some thing being driven). In the first one, there is only a destination held within the prepositional phrase "nach Hause". The second one includes the direct object "dich", which makes it use "haben" instead of "sein".

[@kendrauzumaki7182]

Thanks! but what about Seil springen? yeah, ich bin Seil gesprungen, aber warum? Seil ist ein Objekt, oder? warum mit sein?

[@fremejoker]

Because the actual past principle is seilgesprungen and not just gesprungen. German orthography is not precise here. Seil is not really a noun, but acts as a prefix in this case, orthographic rules say you need to separate it and write it as a noun, tho. A helping quick check is if you can say "Das noun-verb (e.g. Schachspielen/Seilspringen/Fußballspielen) macht mir Spaß." then it's not just the verb.

[@bernhardstork6929]

There are not many things a person or a thing can do without a direct object. You can move yourself or you can remain at the same place, you can grow or shrink, maybe burst or petrify...Germans use the sein-Perfect, when they are talking about movement or change/no change without a direct object. So there are intransitive verbs which use the haben-Perfekt, but they have nothing to do with movement or change/no change but with a special activity. It's weird, but that's why some Germans say: "Ich habe gejoggt" or "Ich habe geschwommen" (activity), but also "Ich bin von Köln nach Berlin gejoggt" or "Ich bin ans Ufer geschwommen". You must use the sein-Perfect in that case, even in North Germany.

[@TheBostonRedsock]

What was wrong with that statement about Konjunktiv II?

[@MrLAntrim]

Konjunktiv 2 does not express wishes, hopes, aspirations, or any of those things. It is used to express that something is contrary to reality. While it is often used with wishes and such, it is the verbs hoffen, wünschen, etc. that indicate the wishing part. Konjunktiv 2 simply shows that whatever is being expressed is not a reality. Ich wünsche, ich hätte einen Hund. - I wish I had a dog. Sure it is a wish, but the verb "wünschen" does that and it is in the indicative (normal speech). "Ich hätte einen Hund." just says "Ich habe keinen Hund." The fact that it is used with the wish phrase doesn't change that. It simply adds context to the phrase.

[@alvirarahman2690]

Hilarious 😂

[@MrLAntrim]

Danke, Alvira Rahman. Es freut mich, dass dir dieses Video gefällt.

[@akoska]

Learn German with Herr Antrim Hi Levi! Is it your house in the background please?

[@MrLAntrim]

@@akoska No. That is a photo I took in Austria from the balcony in my hotel room.

[@akoska]

Learn German with Herr Antrim N where n where you there? Austria is a wonderful country!

[@OdinMMA]

change of state - not 'motion' is a much better way of conceptualising this

[@MrLAntrim]

How does that explain "bleiben" and "sein"?

[@esmakartal7140]

@@MrLAntrim what about "to cry, to laugh, to dance". They don't take direct object but are used with "haben"

[@MrLAntrim]

As others in the comments have recommended, I would use a hybrid approach. Use the motion vs non-motion for simplicity sake, but when it comes to the exceptions, don't just say, "well it just is that way" give the real reason, transitive vs intransitive.

[@esmakartal7140]

@@MrLAntrim That makes sense. Thank you. :)

[@bamdadmasoudi4241]

Super. Endlich habe ich das verstanden. Vielen Dank.

[@wasabistreetfighter519]

Thank you so much! I was so confused, and this helped a ton! I seriously cannot thank you enough

[@WorldisArt]

Ack thank God I am not crazy for finding the "motion" criterion super confusing. "It just is that way" is the worst! Vielen dank!

[@MrLAntrim]

Sometimes "it just is that way" is the only real answer. Just not in this case.

[@JaySmith-pv2mw]

I learned that verbs expressing a change in location or a change in state take sein as a helping verb. That works well but THIS is the precise definition and now I understand better. Vielen Dank!

[@letrasconmawa]

thanks alot really

[@teacherconor9037]

Exceptions: Ich habe gut geschlafen. Ich habe schon gefrühstückt.

[@jasonlove8733]

Transitive vs intransitive 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻😃

[@teacherconor9037]

3:16 the real rule

[@TheBellamarley]

Meeeeee😂😂😂😂😂

[@legaleagle46]

I love this! And it explains why the rule isn't quite the same as the rule in French and Italian (French doesn't use "être" as its own auxiliary verb in the passé composé, although Italian requires "essere" for the passato prossimo, and both French and Italian require "être" and "essere," respectively, as the auxiliary verb for all reflexive verbs). German quite logically treats reflexive verbs as the transitive verbs that they really are.

[@fremejoker]

Technically, there are no reflexive verbs, but verbs used reflexively. There are verbs that are commonly used reflexively respectively with a reflexive pronoun and verbs which are not commonly used reflexively. Each verb can be used reflexively, some create a non-meaning, like "Ich schlafe mich". Reflexive usage of a verb is nothing else than one of the grammatical objects being semantically identical with the grammatical subject.

[@legaleagle46]

@@fremejoker Verbs that use reflexive constructions are by definition reflexive verbs. And I'm aware that verbs that may take a reflexive construction in German (or Spanish, French, or Italian, for that matter) do not always take the reflexive construction in English, which is often a source of confusion for English-speakers who are learning German, Spanish, French, or Italian. For example, we say either "sit" or "sit down," with no reflexive pronoun, and the two verbs are pretty much interchangeable. But Germans have to choose between "sitzen" and "sich setzen." Each has a separate, distinct meaning, and the two verbs are NOT interchangeable: "sitzen" = "sit" and "sich setzen" = "to be seated, to sit down."

[@fremejoker]

@@legaleagle46 sit/set have the same history as sitzen/setzen, both the latter are the causative of the former, meaning you need to act out the latter to end up doing the action of the former. Same with dringen/drängen, stehen/stellen etc. (sit/set shifted in meaning, though) If verbs that use reflexive constructions are by definition reflexive verbs and all verbs can but used in reflexive construction, what does that tell you? Right, all verbs are reflexive verbs. The term "reflexive verbs" is useless, because learners think these are a special category of verbs and they must be used reflexively, while in reality it is just a feature of grammar, which can be applied to any verb. It's a grammatical systematic. Not all verbs do create a semantically meaning in a reflexive constructions. It's the same with prefixes. Technically you can assign any prefix to any verb, because that's the systematic. Not all verbs create a semantical meaning with all prefixes, but since it's a systematic and if necessity arises, they could.

[@legaleagle46]

@@fremejoker Not all verbs can be used in reflexive constructions. To use an example from Spanish, "to sleep" ("schlafen" in German) is "dormir," which DOES have a reflexive construction "dormirse" which means "to fall asleep," but neither English nor German can use "sleep/schlafen" the same way -- there is no such construction as "to sleep oneself" or "sich schlafen." In English, we have to say "fall asleep," and in German, we have to say "einschlafen." So while all reflexive verbs are verbs, not all verbs are reflexive verbs. Therefore, reflexive verbs ARE a separate sub-category of verb.

[@fremejoker]

@@legaleagle46 It's a useless categorisation. Reflexive constructions are a systematic in grammar, just like assigning prefixes to verbs, as I explained. The systematic is simple, you can put a prefix on a verb. The systematic itself doesn't require any verb to be compatible with any prefix, but the systematic is there. Those constructions which create no meaning, are free to be used in the future, when necessity arises. The systematic of reflexive usage does not create special verbs, they are normal verbs used in a construction where the grammatical object is semantically identical with the grammatical subject. Any grammatical subject can be reflected by a grammatical object. That's the systematic. It is not necessary that every verb must create a semantically meaning in such a construction. At the end, this is not about right or wrong, or if you agree or disagree. It's about perspective. If you want to throw certain verbs under a category, then so it shall be. At the end of the day, the category 'reflexive verbs' is useless.

[@michaelbigelow3384]

Interesting, but only if one really cares about an advanced degree in linguistics. verbs that take Haben or sein or in some cases, either, depend on context. Which is exactly the point you are making. but, you are also providing nothing more than a word defining the particular context, which is, it seems to me me, overkill. One a native speaker learns german, context is paramount. Whether a verb is transitive or intransitive and why is a lovely scholarly pursuit, but usually reserved for advanced classes, and unnecessary for reasonable fluency. That said, I still enjoy your stuff

[@khalilal-bukhari7042]

what are you talking about

[@TheAnanthdivakaruni]

The video is very helpful. However, I have a doubt regarding the verb "schlafen". As the perfekt form is usually "Ich habe geschlafen", Could you please explain how it is used as transitive verb and what would be the default direct object

[@MrLAntrim]

While I don't have a real answer for this, I can come up with a sentence that uses "schlafen" and a direct object. Er hat den Schlaf der Gerechten geschlafen. - He slept the sleep of the righteous. Honestly, you may have found an exception to my rule, which is very upsetting. I was expecting someone to use one of the usual arguments like "liegen" or "stehen". At least then I can point out that half of the German speaking world (southern Germany, Austria, & Switzerland) actually uses "sein" with those verbs in the Perfekt. www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/liegen_lehnen_ruhen www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/stehen

[@fremejoker]

The problem is about sein coming from the south and haben from the north. Both have battled for prevalence or domination. 'haben' has won the overall domination at this point, but not without losing certain ground to 'sein'. This battle is the reason, why the line between both is so unclear.

[@mahdahoseini894]

Really really useful and you made it reasonable .I can't thank you enough

[@OfficiallyUnofficialKamala2024]

great video, Danke Ihnen

[@raschedmuhsen361]

thanks for the great explanation! Could you please explain why "übernachten" is built with "haben im Perfekt" even though it is an intransitive verb?

[@MrLAntrim]

As others in the comments have recommended, I would use a hybrid approach. Use the motion vs non-motion for simplicity sake, but when it comes to the exceptions, don't just say, "well it just is that way" give the real reason, transitive vs intransitive. One other commenter also pointed out that most of the things that you do with your body use "haben", but aren't transitive. I would include "übernachten" on that list.

[@fremejoker]

As a German I would understand "Ich bin übernachtet" instead of "Ich habe übernachtet" as if you are full of nights or you had too many nights, or in other words I understand it as an adjective. You can actually say "Ich bin übernächtigt.", which means you slept too short, which actually is the case when you had too much night instead of sleep.

[@NaaJeevitham500]

Die Papiere sind an einem geheimen Ort versteckt. Verstecken is a transitive verb, then shouldn't the sentence use haben as helping verb?

[@MrLAntrim]

That sentence uses the Zustandspassiv. It is a version of the passive voice that uses sein as a helper to describe the state of something. In your example, the state of the papers is "versteckt". It is less a past participle and more an adjective. Basically the answer is you did not use that verb as a transitive verb. The object is missing here because the object of the transitive (active voice) version of that sentence has been changed into the subject of a passive sentence. Ich habe die Papiere an einem geheimen Ort versteckt. This version requires haben as we use the verb verstecken in the active voice with an object making it transitive. Side Note: Passive voice can also only be used with transitive verbs.

[@xoxo00009]

This was really useful!

[@MrLAntrim]

Danke, D V. Es freut mich, dass dir dieses Video gefällt.

[@akoska]

Hi Levi! I have a bad news! I have to corrigate you! You were wrong at something. You said, that the SEIN auxilary verb used in german when people use MOTION verbs! You have confused, mixed with this word MOVING! MOTIONS ARE FOR EXAMPLE: LOVE, HATE, ANGRYING, SADNES, HAPINES. When someone goes, enters for example into a house or room or drives, rather (s)he went to home, entered the room, these r moVING verbs! This situation also stands for the latinic languages as well! So this rule is da same 4 example to the italian or spanish language. I dont know what about french, catalan, occitan, portuguese or romanian languages! Mainly romanian, because its only a half latinic or romance language! This is a half romamce, half slavic language! We can see it on the best way when people just startin to learn romanian and (s)he learns personal pronuns... like i am, you are etc! For example I AM IS EU SUNT... IN ITALIAN ÍO SONO AND SPANISH IS YO SOY... BUT WE HAVE 2 PRONUNCE AN "EE" SOUND, LETTER BEFORE THE LETTER E, SO IT IS IEU! LIKE PORTUGUESE AS WELL., EU.... BUT YOU ONLY ARE IS TU ESTI, SO TU IS DA SAME AS ITALIAN SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE N ALMOST FRENCH OR GERMAN! ESTI... SO IT'S MO COMPLICATED! AS I SAID WE HAVE 2 SAY AN "EE" OR IN GER IH SOUND BEFORE THE E, FOR EXAMPLE EU, EMINESCU, ESTE... S IS SH, IT IS THE Ş LETTER IN ROMANIAN. THE END, TI IS A HUNGARIAN TY SOUND! LIKE MÁTYÁS OR TYÚK (MÁTYÁS IS MATTHEW IN ENGLISH, IN GERMANMATIAS, N TYÚK IS HEN IN ENGLISH! ATTENTION! IT IS NOT CHICKEN, BUT HEN IN ENGLISH! BECAUDE WE HAVE TWO WORD FOR THESE SPECIES, CSIRKE AND TYÚK... BUT THESE ARE FEMALE! THE MALE IS KAKAS, KOKOSH, IF WE WRITE WITH "GERMAN LETRERS", KAKASCH) BUT WE R IN ROMANIAN IS NOI SUNTEM, YOU ALL ARE IS VOI SUNTETI IN ROMANIAN!)

[@fremejoker]

Do not correct someone, when you don't know what you are talking about for fucking sake. Motion is movement. You are talking about EMOTION with an E at the beginning. Levi is a native English speaker, you should be fucking damn sure to correct a native speaker.

[@TheBostonRedsock]

Motion: the action or process of moving or being moved

[@rosebuddear1]

haha You are a bit confused.

[@akoska]

Tob ias O shit! Really! I mixed it! It was Emotion! But Lewi spoke about Motion! Aha! I understand yet! Sorry!