Seit gestern habe ich einen Ohrwurm, weil die Kinder ein Lied singen, als ob sie in einer Band wären.

to be

Breakdown of Seit gestern habe ich einen Ohrwurm, weil die Kinder ein Lied singen, als ob sie in einer Band wären.

• das Kind: the child
• in: in
• ich: I
• haben: to have
• weil: because
• Gestern: yesterday
• singen: to sing
• sie: they
• das Lied: the song
• als ob: as if
• seit: since
• der Ohrwurm: the earworm
• die Band: the band

Questions & Answers about Seit gestern habe ich einen Ohrwurm, weil die Kinder ein Lied singen, als ob sie in einer Band wären.

Why is "Seit gestern habe ich ..." in the present tense, not in the past tense like English “Since yesterday I’ve had ...”?

In German, seit + time expression is usually combined with the present tense to talk about an action or state that started in the past and still continues now.

• Seit gestern habe ich einen Ohrwurm.
  = I got an earworm yesterday and I still have it now.

In English, you use the present perfect:

• “I’ve had an earworm since yesterday.”

But in German, this “ongoing since then” idea is normally expressed with seit + Präsens, not with the perfect tense.

You could say Seit gestern habe ich einen Ohrwurm gehabt, but that sounds more like it’s over now, or you’re focusing on the past period rather than the ongoing state. For the normal “since yesterday and still now” meaning, habe is correct.

What exactly does "Ohrwurm" mean here? Is it really a “worm in the ear”?

Literally, Ohrwurm is “ear worm”, but in modern German it is an idiom that means:

A tune/melody that is stuck in your head.

So einen Ohrwurm haben = “to have a song stuck in your head,” “to have an earworm.”

It does not mean a real worm in your ear in everyday usage; that would need to be described differently (and more explicitly) in German.

Why is it "einen Ohrwurm" and not "ein Ohrwurm" or "einem Ohrwurm"?

This is about gender and case:

• Ohrwurm is masculine: der Ohrwurm.
• It is the direct object of haben (I have what? → an earworm), so it takes the accusative case.

Masculine indefinite article:

• Nominative: ein Ohrwurm
• Accusative: einen Ohrwurm

So:

• Ein Ohrwurm nervt mich. (subject, nominative)
• Ich habe einen Ohrwurm. (object, accusative)

“Einem Ohrwurm” would be dative, which you’d use with verbs or prepositions that require dative (e.g. mit einem Ohrwurm), but not with haben in this sentence.

Why is the word order "weil die Kinder ein Lied singen" and not "weil die Kinder singen ein Lied"?

Because "weil" introduces a subordinate clause, and in German subordinate clauses the finite verb goes to the end.

• Main clause word order:
  Die Kinder singen ein Lied. (verb at position 2)
• Subordinate clause with weil:
  ..., weil die Kinder ein Lied singen. (verb at the end)

So the pattern is:

• [Weil] + subject + objects/other stuff + [verb at the end]

"weil die Kinder singen ein Lied" is incorrect standard German word order.

Why is there a comma before "weil" and also before "als ob"?

German uses commas to separate main clauses from subordinate clauses.

• ..., weil die Kinder ein Lied singen, ...
  → weil starts a subordinate clause of reason.

• ..., als ob sie in einer Band wären.
  → als ob starts a subordinate clause of comparison/irreality.

Each subordinate clause is set off by commas:

1. One comma introducing the weil-clause.
2. Another comma introducing the als ob-clause (which comes at the end).

So you get:

• Seit gestern habe ich einen Ohrwurm,
• weil die Kinder ein Lied singen,
• als ob sie in einer Band wären.

Why is it "ein Lied singen" and not "singen ein Lied" in that clause?

In the subordinate clause with weil, the verb has to be last. Everything else (subject, objects) goes before it.

The natural order there is:

• Subject: die Kinder
• Object: ein Lied
• Verb: singen (at the end because of weil)

So:

• ..., weil die Kinder ein Lied singen, ...

If you said "weil die Kinder singen ein Lied", you would be using main-clause word order, which is incorrect after weil in standard German.

Why do we say "ein Lied singen" instead of something like "ein Lied spielen" or just "singen"?

These are all possible, but they’re not identical:

• ein Lied singen
  → specifically: to sing a song (with your voice).

• ein Lied spielen
  → to play a song (on an instrument, or perform it as a band).

• singen (without object)
  → just “to sing,” without saying what.

In this sentence, we want to emphasize that:

• The children are singing a song (vocals),
• and they do it as if they were in a band.

So ein Lied singen is the natural way to express “to sing a (particular) song”.

What does "als ob" mean here, and why is it not just "wie"?

Als ob introduces a comparative clause that often expresses something unreal, imaginary, or exaggerated, similar to English “as if / as though”.

• ..., als ob sie in einer Band wären.
  → “..., as if they were in a band.”

If you used just wie, e.g. "wie in einer Band", it sounds more like a simple comparison (“like in a band”) and doesn’t clearly suggest this imagined scenario.

Als ob much more strongly suggests: they are not actually in a band, but they behave/sound as though they were.

Why is it "wären" and not "sind" in "als ob sie in einer Band wären"?

Wären is the Konjunktiv II (subjunctive II) form of sein.

In German, after als ob, you often use Konjunktiv II when the situation is:

• unreal
• hypothetical
• obviously not true
• or strongly doubtful

So:

• ..., als ob sie in einer Band wären.
  → suggests: they are not actually in a band, it’s just what it sounds/looks like.

If you said:

• ..., als ob sie in einer Band sind.

this sounds more like you’re not commenting on reality, just making a neutral comparison. Many native speakers do use als ob + Indikativ in everyday speech, but Konjunktiv II is more traditional and clearly marks the irreality.

Could I say "als ob sie in einer Band wären würden"? I’ve seen “würde” used with Konjunktiv II.

You should not say "wären würden". That doubles up the subjunctive:

• wären is already Konjunktiv II of sein.
• würden is the Konjunktiv II helper for many other verbs, but you don’t need it with sein.

Correct options:

• als ob sie in einer Band wären ✅ (standard, clear Konjunktiv II)
• als ob sie in einer Band sind ✅ (colloquial, Indikativ)
• als ob sie in einer Band seien ✅ (Konjunktiv I, more formal/literary)

"wären würden" ❌ is ungrammatical.

Why is it "in einer Band" and not "in eine Band"?

This is about case and the preposition in:

• in can take dative (location, “where?”)
  or accusative (direction, “where to?”).

Here the meaning is location/state (“in a band” as a status, not movement towards something), so we use dative:

• Feminine noun: die Band
• Dative singular: der Band
• With indefinite article: in einer Band

Examples:

• Sie sind in einer Band. (They are in a band – location/state → dative)
• Sie gehen in eine Band. (This is odd; you don’t usually “go into a band” like into a room.)

So in einer Band is correct dative for a static state.

Why does the verb "wären" go at the end of "als ob sie in einer Band wären"?

Because "als ob" introduces a subordinate clause, and in subordinate clauses the finite verb is placed at the end.

Pattern:

• als ob
  • subject + rest + verb (Konjunktiv II) at the end

So:

• ..., als ob sie in einer Band wären.

If it were a main clause, you’d say:

• Sie wären in einer Band. (verb in second position)

But since it’s subordinate, the finite verb (wären) must be final.

Why is "die Kinder" followed by "ein Lied singen" and not something like "die Kinder singt"?

This is about subject–verb agreement:

• die Kinder = they → 3rd person plural.
• The present tense of singen:
  • ich singe
  • du singst
  • er/sie/es singt
  • wir singen
  • ihr singt
  • sie/Sie singen

So after die Kinder, we need the third person plural form: singen.

• Die Kinder singen ein Lied. ✅
• Die Kinder singt ein Lied. ❌ (wrong person/number)

The same applies inside the weil-clause:

• ..., weil die Kinder ein Lied singen ... (verb agrees with plural subject).