Worden, Rakken, Zijn

[rhino514]

I came across the following sentence.

"...om gekwetst te raken" (sorry, I don´t have the full sentence handy)

does raken have the same meaning as worden i.e. to become/becoming/being"? Are they interchangeable in such instances.

For example i often hear "ze zijn/waren gewoond geraakt" which means "they were/became injured"...I don´t quite understand why one cannot simply say "ze weden geraakt" or even "ze zijn geraakt"

I also wanted to know what would be the best way to say "that would be nice", for example, een stukkje aapeltaart zou lekker zijn"
Could one say "dat zou lekker/leuk/fijn zijn"? or would one say worden instead of zijn. Finally, Can one just say "dat zou lekker" and omit the last verb.

any help here would be appreciated

[andreengels]

I came across the following sentence.

"...om gekwetst te raken" (sorry, I don´t have the full sentence handy)

does raken have the same meaning as worden i.e. to become/becoming/being"? Are they interchangeable in such instances.

Yes, it has the same meaning.

For example i often hear "ze zijn/waren gewoond geraakt" which means "they were/became injured"...I don´t quite understand why one cannot simply say "ze weden geraakt" or even "ze zijn geraakt"

First two words: "gewoond" should be "gewond", "weden" should be "werden".

"Ze werden geraakt" is possible, but that would be a completely different meaning of "raken" - it means "they were hit". Apart from that, it would be the equivalent of the English "They got."

I also wanted to know what would be the best way to say "that would be nice", for example, een stukkje aapeltaart zou lekker zijn"
Could one say "dat zou lekker/leuk/fijn zijn"? or would one say worden instead of zijn. Finally, Can one just say "dat zou lekker" and omit the last verb.

You should use "zijn". It's really literal translation to English:

Dat zou fijn zijn = That would be nice
Dat zou fijn worden = That would become nice
Dat zou fijn = That would nice

[rhino514]

hi!

i made a couple of spelling mistakes, indeed.
Thank you for clearing up things for me.
Esxept I meant to say; why can´t you say "ze werden gewond" or "ze waren gewond" instead of "ze waren/werden gewond geraakt"...why does one actually need to add geraakt?

bedankt!

[Quetzal]

hi!

i made a couple of spelling mistakes, indeed.
Thank you for clearing up things for me.
Esxept I meant to say; why can´t you say "ze werden gewond" or "ze waren gewond" instead of "ze waren/werden gewond geraakt"...why does one actually need to add geraakt?

bedankt!

"Ze waren gewond" is possible of course, but then you're talking about people who are already injured.

"Ze werden gewond" is technically possible, but very bizarre. Note that that sentence can have two grammatical interpretations, either as a passive form of the (highly unusual) verb "wonden", or as simply the verb "worden" with the adjective "gewond" - but both are strange. The idiomatic verb to use with "gewond" is simply "raken", and not "worden".

"Ze werden gewond geraakt" is impossible, you're combining two verbs that mean essentially the same thing, and the result is nonsensical.

"Ze raakten gewond" is the most common phrasing, or in its past perfect tense, "ze waren gewond geraakt".

[ngonyama]

The big difference between raken and worden is that the latter usually has an agent and the former does not:

Ik werd door die man geslagen = passive voice of "die man sloeg mij": an action with a clear agent ("die man"). English would opt for "to be": I was beaten by that man.

Ik raakte gewond bij dat ongeluk = a description of a process, not an action: "dat ongeluk" is not an agent but just describes a circumstance. English would porbably opt for "to get" in this case: "I got wounded during that accident"

Like most process verbs, raken takes "zijn" in the perfect: ik ben gewond geraakt

Other process verbs:
de boter smelt - de boter is gesmolten
de melk bederft - de melk is bedorven
de auto's botsten - de auto's zijn gebotst

Such verbs can be called ergative. English has them too, but they are no longer conjugated with "to be": the butter melts -> the butter has melted (although I suppose "the butter is molten/melted" is not really wrong) The conjugation with to have makes them less recognizable than they are in Dutch.

In this terminology you could call "worden" an auxiliary verb for the passive and "raken" an auxiliary verb for the ergative, although few grammars do so.

[rhino514]

Thank you for that detailed explanation.
So if i understand correctly, any time one can use "to get" in english, raken is preferable to worden in Dutch.
So if I want to say "he got embarrassed (by something)" I could say "hij is gegeneerd geraakt"? Could one also use worden in such a case (I guess it would mean the subtle difference between saying "he became embarrassed" and "he got embarrassed"?

bedankt!

[ngonyama]

Thank you for that detailed explanation.
So if i understand correctly, any time one can use "to get" in english, raken is preferable to worden in Dutch.

Hmm, not in sentences like "he got beaten by him" because that implies an actor. English uses "to get" for a lot of purposes and is sloppier in this respect. Raken is strictly ergative: no actor please!

So if I want to say "he got embarrassed (by something)" I could say "hij is gegeneerd geraakt"? Could one also use worden in such a case (I guess it would mean the subtle difference between saying "he became embarrassed" and "he got embarrassed"?

Yes you could say "hij raakte gegeneerd"

The English verb "to become" is a different problem. Here English is more precise than Dutch because we use "worden" for "to become" even though "ik werd rood" is a process.. Notice though that "worden=to become" is a copula, not a passive voice auxiliary as "worden=to be" is in "hij werd geslagen". A copula is generally followed by a "naamwoord" either "bijvoeglijk" (adjective) or "zelfstandig" (noun) not by a verb or a past participle.

So, no, "hij werd gegeneerd" is not the same: it would feel like a passive not an ergative, because "gegeneerd" is the past participle of the verb "generen". People might ask you: "by whom?"

Of course some participles have evolved into adjectives

Sigh. Language is tricky, isn't it?

bedankt!

[rhino514]

....uh, ok. I think I understand those differences. So I cannot say "ik werd gegeneerd" to say "i got embarrassed".
so there is no option besides saying "ik raakte gegeneerd"? that´s odd?

bedankt!

[Bert]

so there is no option besides saying "ik raakte gegeneerd"?

You can say, "Ik voelde me gegeneerd" and if you're still in that condition: "Ik voel me gegeneerd".

[Bedtimestorynyc]

Somewhat related question:
Ik wil niet meer ziek worden (....ziek worden meer?)
or
Ik wil niet meer ziek zijn
?

Bedankt
M

[Joke]

Depends on what you want to say:
I don't want to get ill anymore (Ik wil niet meer ziek worden)
or
I don't want to be ill anymore (Ik wil niet meer ziek zijn).