# da sei er zuversichtlich



## Dupon

In dem Vorwort schreibt Strobe Talbott, Staatssekretär unter Clinton und Asmus’ Ziehvater, dass dieses Buch Georgien, Europa und, da sei er zuversichtlich, Obamas Regierung beeinflussen möge.

Is “da sei er zuversichtlich” a parenthesis here which is inserted in the object sub clause? How to use a parenthesis?

In the sub clause after “dass”, “diese Buch” is the subject, “Georgien, Europa” and “Obamas Regierung” are the objects, and the verb is “beeinflussen möge”. 
In the preface Strobe Talbott wrote, Secretary of State and the father of Asmus, this book will affect Georgia, Europe and Obama’s government.

Thanks!


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Dupon said:


> da sei er zuversichtlich


is an unintroduced reported-speech subordinate clause (hence the main-clause type word order). It's a parenthesis inside the introduced _(dass ...) _reported-speech subordinate clause.
_
Staatssekretär(in) - Under-Secretary (_here: _of State)
__Außenminister(in) - Secretary of State_


----------



## bearded

Grammatically, I find Schimmelreiter's explanation fully correct, of course.  I wonder, though, why the author has chosen the verb 'möge', which (although normal in reported speech) sounds as if he expressed a wish (like 'möge das Buch Georgien...beeinflussen!'), and the more so after the 'parenthesis' (da sei er zuversichtlich).  So I'd like to know from German natives whether my impression is completely wrong/far-fetched, or the 'Wortwahl' in this case somehow indicates the expression of a wish.  Why not use e.g. 'könne' instead?


----------



## Frieder

I agree: "Er schreibt, dass das Buch ... möge" is lacking something.
More sense: "Er schreibt, dass er wünscht/wünsche, das Buch möge ..."


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Frieder said:


> I agree: "Er schreibt, dass das Buch ... möge" is lacking something.
> More sense: "Er schreibt, dass er wünscht/wünsche, das Buch möge ..."


Why?

Direct speech, optative: _Möge dieses Buch ... beeinflussen!
_Reported speech: _​..., dass dieses Buch ... beeinflussen möge._


----------



## bearded

Can the present subjunctive in reported speech represent an optative?  I am inclined to share Frieder's view in this case.
I see that - be it this or the other way - my impression that 'möge' did indeed express a wish, was correct.  Thank you.

PS. I will explain my doubt more clearly now:  considering this 'möge', how can one distinguish the meaning ''möge es beeinflussen' from the meaning 'mag sein, dass es...beeinflusst'?  I was regarding the presence of a 'Wunsch' as more probable....


----------



## Frieder

Schimmelreiter said:


> Why?
> 
> Direct speech, optative: _Möge dieses Buch ... beeinflussen!
> _Reported speech: _​..., dass dieses Buch ... beeinflussen möge._



Er sagte: "Möge dieses Buch ... beinflussen!" 
Er sagte, dass dieses Buch ... beinflussen möge. 
Er verlieh seinem Wunsch Ausdruck, dass dieses Buch ... beinflussen möge.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Frieder said:


> Er sagte: "Möge dieses Buch ... beinflussen!"
> Er sagte, dass dieses Buch ... beinflussen möge.
> Er verlieh seinem Wunsch Ausdruck, dass dieses Buch ... beinflussen möge.


You mark as wrong the very form Dupon asked to be explained but don't tell him why. Why would it be wrong? On the basis of what grammatical reasoning?
_
Möge der Beste gewinnen! > Er rief, dass der Beste gewinnen möge. _(subjunctive unchanged in reported speech)

I don't doubt that the sentence can be paraphrased nicely, which does not, however, justify calling it wrong.


----------



## Frieder

Grammatically it is OK. 

But I would never say "Er *sagte*, dass der Beste gewinnen möge".

_Möge _works with _wünschen, hoffen, ersehnen_, anything that
implicates some form of a desire or hope.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

bearded man said:


> how can one distinguish the meaning ''möge es beeinflussen' from the meaning 'mag sein, dass es...beeinflusst'?


Easily, because _mag _(modal verb expressing potentiality) is *never* put into the subjunctive - be it the present subjunctive _möge_, be it the past subjunctive _möchte__ - _for use in the reported speech:

_"Sie mag kommen"_ _(="Vielleicht kommt sie") _*does not*, in reported speech, become _*Er sagte, sie möge/möchte kommen/*Er sagte, dass sie kommen möge/möchte. _The expression of potentiality is blocked by the fact that

_möge _expresses optativity, i.e. a wish on the part of the subject of the main clause _(er)_ (which appears in Dupon's sentence) and
_möchte_ expresses a wish on the part of the subject of the reported-speech subordinate clause _(sie)_.

In obsolescent usage, there's also the optative use of _möchte (Sie möchte [, bitte,] eintreten!)_, which renders the sentence _Er sagte, sie möchte eintreten_ ambiguous for a handful of people, myself included: _Er sagte, sie möchte eintreten _may express


optativity, i.e. _his _wish that _she_ enter, or
_her _wish to enter.


----------



## berndf

bearded man said:


> Can the present subjunctive in reported  speech represent an optative?


If the optative use of KI is already present in the reported utterance itself, yes. In this case, the KI as reported speech marker is lost but that can't be helped (_möchte _also isn't an really an option because of the special semantics of the KII of _mögen_).


Frieder said:


> But I would never say "Er *sagte*, dass der Beste gewinnen möge".


It the original speaker said it *exactly *like that ("Der bessere möge gewinnen") why not?


----------



## Frieder

berndf said:


> If the original speaker said it *exactly *like that ("Der bessere möge gewinnen") why not?



Es widerspricht meinem Sprachgefühl (siehe #4, #7, #9).

Er sagte: "Der Bessere wird gewinnen" -> Er sagte, der Bessere werde gewinnen. - Kein Problem.
Er sagte: "Der Bessere soll gewinnen" -> Er sagte, der Bessere solle gewinnen. - Kein Problem.
Er sagte: "Der Bessere möge gewinnen" -> Er sagte, der Bessere möge gewinnen. -  . 

Vielleicht liegt es auch daran, dass in der wörtlichen Rede _mögen _bereits im Konjunktiv, bzw.
 Imperativ steht. Ich glaube aber eher, dass es an dem Konflikt zwischen _sagen _und _mögen _liegt,
dass mir der Satz hier widerstrebt.


----------



## bearded

> Frieder:
> Sprachgefühl


To me, it makes a difference - in sentences like these - whether there is 'dass' introducing the reported speech, or there is not such a 'dass':

Direct speech:  Er sagte: der Bessere möge gewinnen!
Reported speech 1) ohne 'dass':  er sagte, es möge der Bessere gewinnen (sounds right)
Reported speech 2) with 'dass':  er sagte, dass der Bessere gewinnen möge (sound wrong).

Although I find SR's and bernd's explanations grammatically convincing, the above reported speech no.2 nevertheless does not sound good in my ears because after 'sagen, dass' normally an indicative mood is expected, or some opinion or description of facts, and not a wish. But then of course my 'Sprachgefühl' is that of a non-native speaker.


----------



## berndf

bearded man said:


> Reported speech 1) ohne 'dass':  er sagte, es möge der Bessere gewinnen (sounds right)


In standard language this is frowned upon (subordinate clause with main clause word order). To be standard-complient you had to write_ Er sagte: "Es möge der Bessere gewinnen"._


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> In standard language this is frowned upon (subordinate clause with main clause word order). To be standard-complient you had to write_ Er sagte: "Es möge der Bessere gewinnen"._


But if, instead of 'sagte', you said ''er äußerte den Wunsch'', then I figure that my sentence would become fully correct:
_Er äußerte den Wunsch, es möge der Bessere gewinnen._
If that is true, then it is not so much a question of 'main-clause order'.  Ich muss Frieder Recht geben (#9).


PS. Apart from that, is in the reported speech (ohne 'dass') the word order not always the same as in a main clause?
Der Knabe sagt, seine Mutter sei noch nicht nach Hause gekommen...


----------



## berndf

Forget what I said. I was in error about the standard/colloquial status of this construction. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Frieder said:


> But I would never say "Er *sagte*, dass der Beste gewinnen möge".
> 
> _Möge _works with _wünschen, hoffen, ersehnen_, anything that
> implicates some form of a desire or hope.





bearded man said:


> But if, instead of 'sagte', you said ''er äußerte den Wunsch'', then I figure that my sentence would become fully correct:
> _Er äußerte den Wunsch, es möge der Bessere gewinnen._
> If that is true, then it is not so much a question of 'main-clause order'.  Ich muss Frieder Recht geben (#9).


Gentlemen,
I believe you misinterpret the role of the reported speech. If somebody says something, it's always admissible - not only formally and grammatically, but also idiomatically - to quote him or her by saying, _Er/Sie sagte_, followed by either the introduced _(dass) _or the unintroduced reported speech. That's no different if _möge _is part of the quotation. (That's exactly what it is: _a quotation without quotation marks._​)


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> I believe you misinterpret the role of the reported speech. If somebody says something, it's always admissible - not only formally and grammatically, but also idiomatically - to quote him or her by saying, _Er/Sie sagte_, followed by either the introduced _(dass) _or the unintroduced reported speech. That's no different if _möge _is part of the quotation. (That's exactly what it is: _a quotation without quotation marks._​)




If you are reporting what he said *exactly *the way he said it, "er sagte" can't be wrong or unidiomatic.


----------



## bearded

@ Schimmelreiter
Thank you for your remarks, of which I have taken good note.
In your post #10 you have explained the situation with 'möge' und 'möchte' , so now I have one last question concerning the presence of a different verb in reported speech.
If we find a sentence like _Der Priester sagte, dieses Brot sei/werde gesegnet, _is it possible to distinguish whether it refers to a direct speech
_Der Priester sagte: ''Dieses Brot ist/wird gesegnet''
_or to a direct speech
_Der Priester sagte: ''Es sei/werde dieses Brot gesegnet!''
?
_(If I had to transform direct into reported speech, I would say that the latter corresponds to a reported speech
_...sagte, dieses Brot müsse gesegnet werden/sein, 
_but, based on your last remark, you do not seem to follow this line of thought, since apparently you talk about an (unchanged) quotation....
- see also berndf: ''reporting what he said exactly the way he said it'' -
Thank you in advance for your kind reply.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Brilliant point! The reported speech _dieses Brot sei/werde gesegnet_ may either flow from the direct speech _dieses Brot sei/werde gesegnet _or from the direct speech _dieses Brot ist/wird gesegnet._




PS
So please stick with the direct speech _Der Herr sprach: _„_Es werde Licht" _since the reported speech _Der Herr sprach, es werde Licht _is ambiguous, leaving it open whether He spake _Es werde Licht _or _Es wird Licht. _


----------



## berndf

bearded man said:


> @ Schimmelreiter
> Thank you for your remarks, of which I have taken good note.
> In your post #10 you have explained the situation with 'möge' und 'möchte' , so now I have one last question concerning the presence of a different verb in reported speech.
> If we find a sentence like _Der Priester sagte, dieses Brot sei/werde gesegnet, _is it possible to distinguish whether it refers to a direct speech
> _Der Priester sagte: ''Dieses Brot ist/wird gesegnet''
> _or to a direct speech
> _Der Priester sagte: ''Es sei/werde dieses Brot gesegnet!''
> ?
> _(If I had to transform direct into reported speech, I would say that the latter corresponds to a reported speech
> _...sagte, dieses Brot müsse gesegnet werden/sein,
> _but, based on your last remark, you do not seem to follow this line of thought, since apparently you talk about an (unchanged) quotation....
> - see also berndf: ''reporting what he said exactly the way he said it'' -
> Thank you in advance for your kind reply.


See also here:


berndf said:


> bearded man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can the present subjunctive in reported  speech represent an optative?
> 
> 
> 
> If the optative use of KI is already present in  the reported utterance itself, yes. In this case, *the KI as reported  speech marker is lost but that can't be helped *(_möchte _also isn't an really an option because of the special semantics of the KII of _mögen_).
Click to expand...


----------



## bearded

Schimmelreiter said:


> Brilliant point! The reported speech _dieses Brot sei/werde gesegnet_ may either flow from the direct speech _dieses Brot sei/werde gesegnet _or from the direct speech _dieses Brot ist/wird gesegnet._


Many thanks for appreciating my point.  Are we now entitled to conclude that the identical situation exists with any verb different from möge/möchte, e.g.
_Der Mann sagte, die untreue Frau gehe heute aus dem Haus
_may flow either from
_Der Mann sagte: ''Die untreue Frau geht heute aus dem Haus''
_or from
_Der Mann sagte: ''Die untreue Frau gehe heute aus dem Haus!''.
_Can there really be such a remarkable ambiguity in German?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

bearded man said:


> Can there really be such a remarkable ambiguity in German?


There is. 

There are only minor real-world issues, though, given the infrequency of the optative in present-day German.





English-wise, isn't _The man said that the unfaithful wife might leave the house_ ambiguous, too?

_The man said, "The unfaithful wife may leave the house." _(potential)
vs.
_The man said, "May the unfaithful wife leave the house!" _(optative)


----------



## manfy

bearded man said:


> _Der Mann sagte, die untreue Frau gehe heute aus dem Haus
> _may flow either from
> _Der Mann sagte: ''Die untreue Frau geht heute aus dem Haus''
> _or from
> _Der Mann sagte: ''Die untreue Frau gehe heute aus dem Haus!''.
> _Can there really be such a remarkable ambiguity in German?



Yes, this is grammatically possible. However, in real-world usage the ambiguity normally does not exist or it's simply irrelevant (from the reporter's viewpoint!)
Reported speech is not intended to reproduce direct speech literally but it's supposed to convey the gist of it.

So, if this optative in direct speech is important and crucial to the statement then the reporter would have to convey this connotation:
direct speech: _Der Mann sagte: ''Die untreue Frau gehe heute aus dem Haus!''._
reported speech: _Der Mann sagte, dass die untreue Frau heute aus dem Haus gehen *solle*!''.
_Alternatively, the reporter can change the introductory clause to convey this optative:
_Der Mann *forderte/verlangte/bestand darauf*, dass die untreue Frau heute aus dem Haus gehe." _(personally, I might still use 'gehen sollte' in this sentence if I wanted to exclude any ambiguity. But we shouldn't forget that there are those uses where such type of ambiguity is actually intended!) 

Bottom line, whenever you read "_Der Mann sagte, die untreue Frau gehe heute aus dem Haus_" you can safely assume that the direct speech was in indicative "_Der Mann sagte: ''Die untreue Frau geht heute aus dem Haus''_". (unless extended context hints the contrary!)

-----------------
After finally reading the whole thread, I have to disagree with this: (I'm not referring to details on 'möge' but '_quotation without quotation marks_' and the distinction between direct and reported speech!)


Schimmelreiter said:


> Gentlemen,
> I believe you misinterpret the role of the reported speech. If somebody says something, it's always admissible - not only formally and grammatically, but also idiomatically - to quote him or her by saying, _Er/Sie sagte_, followed by either the introduced _(dass) _or the unintroduced reported speech. That's no different if _möge _is part of the quotation. (That's exactly what it is: _*a quotation without quotation marks*._​)



If this were true, it would void the concept of direct speech/reported speech.
I know that in spoken everyday language a direct quote is often unmarked, hence the listener doesn't know if it's direct or reported speech.
But for mass media and from a legal viewpoint this is absolutely not allowed because the statement could be misunderstood and it could lead to law suits.
Therefore I claim, direct speech always must be marked as such to be grammatically correct.
In written language by punctuation (and often with phrases like 'sagte wortwörtlich'):
Er sagte (wortwörtlich): "Ich bin zuversichtlich, ... möge."
and in spoken language with some marker like 'ich zitiere', 'sagte wortwörtlich', etc.
Er sagte, er sei zuversichtlich, dass dies, ich zitiere: "Obamas Regierung beeinflussen möge.", Zitat Ende.
or
Er sagte wortwörtlich: "Ich bin zuversichtlich, dass dies Obamas Regierung beeinflussen möge [, falls es bloß jemand liest]."

As you see, even partial quotes are allowed but they must be marked and separated from reported speech to make them grammatically correct.


----------



## djweaverbeaver

Schimmelreiter said:


> English-wise, isn't _The man said that the unfaithful wife might leave the house_ ambiguous, too?
> 
> _The man said, "The unfaithful wife may leave the house." _(potential)
> vs.
> _The man said, "May the unfaithful wife leave the house!" _(optative)



No, I don't think the optative is possible in your example.  The original was either "The man said: 'The unfaithful wife may leave the house.' ", or "The man said: 'The unfaithful might leave the house.' ". One would not deduce wishful thinking from such as statement without actually saying "wished" or "prayed".


----------



## Schimmelreiter

djweaverbeaver said:


> No, I don't think the optative is possible in your example.  The original was either "The man said: 'The unfaithful wife may leave the house.' ", or "The man said: 'The unfaithful might leave the house.' ". One would not deduce wishful thinking from such as statement without actually saying "wished" or "prayed".


Thank you.


----------



## bearded

> manfy:
> ..dass die untreue Frau aus dem Haus gehen *solle*


That corresponds exactly to my former point of view.  But apparently, SR has (good) reasons not to agree on this. In his view, no words should be added in reported speech with respect to direct speech.


----------



## manfy

bearded man said:


> In his view, no words should be added in reported speech with respect to direct speech.



No, I wouldn't go that far when it comes to normal everyday reported speech. 
Maybe in journalism with its potential legal implications one needs to be extra careful to ensure that the paraphrasing does not skew the actual meaning of the direct speech statement (and for that purpose, journalists usually keep a recording of their interviews).

Imagine that you and me had a short 10 minutes meeting yesterday, let's say about something important. I'm very certain, I'd remember today everything you said in terms of the information you conveyed to me, but I definitely would not be able to recite your exact phrasings. In fact, not even 1 minute after the meeting I would have been able to recite you. My brain stores the content of the meeting and not the packaging, i.e. the wording, and I guess for most people it works the same way.
So, if I have to fill somebody in after our meeting, I'd use a mix of my own thoughts and reported speech. This reported speech would convey the core information of the meeting the way I understood it and I'd definitely package it in my own wordings. Depending on the person I'm talking to, I might choose to spice it up or tone it down a bit. And I'd say that's the purpose of reported speech, as opposed to literal quotes or full-length recitals or recordings.


----------



## Frieder

So, going back to as far back as #7, why not:



			
				Frieder said:
			
		

> Er verlieh seinem Wunsch Ausdruck, dass dieses Buch ... beinflussen möge.



Leaves no room for interpretation, no ambiguity, just a bit of spice. 

(Sorry for bringing this up again).


----------



## manfy

Frieder said:


> Er verlieh seinem Wunsch Ausdruck, dass dieses Buch ... beinflussen möge.



Generally, I like it! But somehow the paranthesis 'da sei er zuversichtlich' does not quite fit in then.

Since Talbott surely wrote his book in English, it would be interesting to know the original wording in the foreword. 
My guess is it would be something like "... this book *may* impact the political landscape of Georgia, Europe, and - most decidely - Obama's administration ..." or something along those lines. 
Most translators have a tendency to translate 'may' as 'mögen', even though it's often not the most accurate rendition. Those modal verbs can be tricky, especially in conjunction with _Konjunktiv_ and its multiple connotations...


----------

