I often have trouble with the pairs of verbs with and without a “be-” prefix. What is the difference between “schützen” and “beschützen”, and is there any reason “beschützen” is used here and not “schützen”? Is it part of some general pattern involving these other words?
3 Likes
“Schützen” seems to be used more impersonally (can be used for people or for objects/things), whereas “beschützen” stresses a more personal meaning (used for people). There’s an interesting discussion on this subject here: schützen versus beschützen - Language lab: English ⇔ German Forums - leo.org
4 Likes
I’d like to add that the meaning of the “be-” prefix is something like “to apply” or “to give”.
That means if you “beschützen” someone, it is an active, caring thing. You watch over someone and make sure nothing happens to them, and you go out of your way to protect them from any kind of threats.
That may also be the reason why it’s more personal. Objects cannot “beschützen” you, unless you personify them.
“schützen” on the other hand is kind of passive or static, like a shield.
4 Likes
Thanks for nailing down the mysterious arrival of the “be” prefix in verbs that sometimes don’t have them.
The funny thing is, english has a surprising amount of verbs that also feature the be- prefix:
be- - Wiktionary
For almost all of them it says “rare or no longer productive”, but the many different usages also appear in German, as it’s the same origin.
For “beschützen” I’d say it’s meaning #4.
2 Likes