4

I have seen the following sentences:

Es ist besser, nicht den Kopf zu verlieren.

Hör auf mich zu schlagen.

I would make the first sentence with simpler: Verlieren simply means to lose. So wouldn’t den Kopf verlieren already mean what I need? Why add zu here? The same goes for the second sentence.

What is the rule of thumb to decide when to enter/omit zu in these contexts?

Community
  • 1
Unrivalled confusion
  • 791
  • 5
  • 14
  • What is the question here? Do you want to know if "Es ist besser, nicht den Kopf verlieren" is a well-formed German sentence? No, it isn't. You need the zu. It is irrelevant that by convention you translate "verlieren" by "to lose" (as "to" is used in English as a marker for infinitive) – Christian Geiselmann Sep 26 '17 at 18:06
  • 1
    You can't omit the "to" in "It's better not to lose your head." either. As Christian said, it is only by convention that the "to" is part of the lexicon entry in English and the "zu" isn't in German. – Annatar Sep 27 '17 at 06:45

2 Answers2

8

There are many uses for the infinitive in German, sometimes with zu, sometimes without it. To keep it simple, I sum up the three cases with zu for someone who knows English:

First, sometimes when English uses its gerund, which German lacks:

Zu lesen fällt mir leicht.

Reading comes easy to me.

BUT as German speakers adore nouns, the alternative with a noun made from an infinitive is far more common. (Note the caps on Lesen.)

(Das) Lesen fällt mir leicht.

Second, anywhere English uses its to-infinitive:

Sie gab mir eine deutsche Zeitung zu lesen.

She gave me a German newspaper to read.

Third, in a special clause: the Infinitivsatz. That clause is a very common replacement for an Objektsatz if its subject is identical to that of the main clause.

Sie verbrachte den Nachmittag damit, dass sie die Zeitung las. (Objektsatz)

Sie verbrachte den Nachmittag damit, die Zeitung zu lesen. (Infinitivsatz)

She spent the afternoon reading the newspaper.

If you use the Objektsatz instead of the Infinitivsatz, German speakers would automatically assume the subject has changed and are puzzled if it hasn't.

This third case is uncommon to English speakers but you can easily spot it because it's used in a lot of cases where English uses its to-infinitive or its gerund. See the other two cases, remember you have to place a comma, and –unlike English– it's a clause of its own.

Community
  • 1
Janka
  • 60,148
  • 2
  • 63
  • 119
1

You need to add "zu" in order to complete your thought about losing.

That's because the "infinitive" is "to lose" only in English. German has an infinitive form that ends in "en," verlieren. There is no "to" in that version.

When the German uses zu in "zu verlieren," the context is "in order/not to lose." The italicized part is NOT the infinitive "to lose."

The reason is that "to" forms part of the infinitive in English but not in German. In English, you don't need a second "to" for (in order.not) to lose. But in German, you need a "zu" because it was never part of the infinitive.

Tom Au
  • 12,750
  • 4
  • 38
  • 78
  • I'm a little confused. If I said "I want something to (to = in order to) eat" then that would be "Ich will etwas zu essen". Zu makes sense here. But how is "in order to" any relevant in "It is better not to lose one's head"? – Unrivalled confusion Sep 26 '17 at 18:16
  • @user268569: I'd consider that the "gerund" form, not the infintive. The construction would be,Ich will etwas zuM Essen" – Tom Au Sep 26 '17 at 18:17
  • So in conclusion. to lose would be "verlieren" but once we introduce a object noun to go along with it, one must always add zu with it? To lose - verlieren To lose one's head - Den kopf ZU verlieren.

    The same way To kill - töten To kill someone - Jemanden ZU toten?

    Can you give me any reference be it a book or a website on how to decide on adding/omitting "zu"?

    Much appreciated

     – Unrivalled confusion Sep 26 '17 at 18:37
  • @user268569: In your examples, you need "zu" for all the phrases with purpose or direction or end result. (To lose one's head. To kill someone.) You don't need zu for the "standalone" verbs. (To kill. To lose.) – Tom Au Sep 27 '17 at 01:21
  • @user268569 No, one must not always add "zu" if there is an object noun. The standard translation of "to kill someone" is "jemanden töten". "I want to kill someone" = "Ich will jemanden töten". No "zu". "Zu" is only added in special cases (see Janka's answer). – Annatar Sep 27 '17 at 06:51
  • I see, thanks for the explanation. But had I said "Es ist besser, nicht jemanden zu töten" would that be correct? It seems to be the same structure of the original, doesn't it? – Unrivalled confusion Sep 27 '17 at 11:01
  • 1
    @user268569: That is what I would call a "purpose" clause that requires "zu." – Tom Au Sep 27 '17 at 11:14
  • 1
    @user268569 Replace "nicht jemanden" ("not someone") with "niemanden" ("noone") and then it is correct, yes. – Annatar Sep 27 '17 at 13:16
  • 1
    @user268569: May I ask you for an upvote, for the all work that I (and others) did on this thread? You seem to have learned something from it. – Tom Au Sep 29 '17 at 16:49
  • Sure. I appreciate your explanations – Unrivalled confusion Oct 24 '17 at 17:15
  • This answer is wrong. There is no final component (in order to) with zu plus infinitive in the above sentences (as can easily be seen by translating them into English); rather, zu plus infinitive is used for subject and object clauses. – David Vogt Mar 30 '20 at 15:01