# Gott, der du bist im Himmel



## Saedyan

Gott der du bist im Himmel

Is "der" being used to refer back to Gott? Anyhelp thanks!


----------



## Jana337

Saedyan said:
			
		

> Gott der du bist im Himmel
> 
> Is got being used to refer back to Gott? Anyhelp thanks!


I might be too tired but I don't understand what you are after... The second word is quite puzzling. Could you please try it again? 

Jana


----------



## Saedyan

lol, I meant "der", perhaps I am also too tired


----------



## Jana337

OK. 
"Der" is the beginning of a relative clause, like in "Our Father, Who are in heaven, hallowed be Thy name."

The grammar of the sentence may be dated because according to the current rules, it should be "Gott, der du im Himmel bist".

But please wait for the natives because old grammar is too complex for me. 

Jana


----------



## Saedyan

Thanks again Jana!


----------



## sohc4

Saedyan said:
			
		

> Gott der du bist im Himmel
> 
> Is "der" being used to refer back to Gott?


Yes.  

As Jana said, it should be "Gott, der..." - I think even in old grammar there should be a comma.

Axl


----------



## elroy

sohc4 said:
			
		

> Yes.
> 
> As Jana said, it should be "Gott, der..." - I think even in old grammar there should be a comma.
> 
> Axl


 
I think Jana was referring to the position of "bist."


----------



## Brioche

Jana337 said:
			
		

> OK.
> "Der" is the beginning of a relative clause, like in "Our Father, Who are in heaven, hallowed be Thy name."
> 
> The grammar of the sentence may be dated because according to the current rules, it should be "Gott, der du im Himmel bist".
> 
> But please wait for the natives because old grammar is too complex for me.
> 
> Jana


 
I often wondered about the word-order in
_Vater unser, der du bist im Himmel_
then I compared it with the Latin
_Pater noster, qui es in coelis_
It's word for word translation.


----------



## sohc4

elroy said:
			
		

> I think Jana was referring to the position of "bist."


You are right - I shouldn't start answering posts before having had my first cup of tea in the morning...


----------



## Whodunit

Brioche said:
			
		

> I often wondered about the word-order in
> _Vater unser, der du bist im Himmel_
> then I compared it with the Latin
> _Pater noster, qui es in coelis_
> It's word for word translation.


 
You're right. Another translation problem might have been "Pater noster", because no one would use a possessive pronoun after its noun, so itz's quite old-fashioned. 

And Jana, too, is right that "bist" should come to the end. However, everyone going to church is used to speaking the prayer like that, and you won't succeed in modernizing it anymore.


----------



## Phlegethon

Get used to it, it is early 16th century Luther German. 

As an old-fashioned Catholic I don't think Geman belongs into mass anyway.


----------



## Brioche

Phlegethon said:
			
		

> Get used to it, it is early 16th century Luther German.
> 
> As an old-fashioned Catholic I don't think Geman belongs into in the *M*ass anyway.


 
Bring back Aramaic, I say. 
Or at least Koine Greek, the language of the New Testament, 
and of the first Christians in Rome.
The Vulgate is much too vulgar.


----------



## MrMagoo

Phlegethon said:
			
		

> Get used to it, it is early 16th century Luther German.
> 
> As an old-fashioned Catholic I don't think Geman belongs into mass anyway.


 
Why should German not belong into mass??!

Unless today's "Vater Unser" hasn't really been changed a lot since it was "fixed" by Martin Luther, the actual form traces back to the beginning of the German language in about the 8th century; here is the "Vater Unser" version of St. Gallen:


*Fater unsêr, thû pist in himile, 
uuîhi namun dînan, qhueme rîhhi dîn, 
uuerde uuillo diin, sô in himile sôsa in erdu. 
Prooth unsêr emezzihic kip uns hiutu, 
oblâz uns sculdi unsêro, sô uuir oblâzêm uns sculdîkêm, 
enti ni unsih firleiti in khorunka, ûzzer lôsi unsih fona ubile.*


----------



## Brioche

It is still almost exactly _word for word_ from the Vulgate Latin.
It's more like a gloss than a translation.
So is the St Gallen version really a reflexion of the syntax of German at that time?

*Fater unsêr, thû pist in himile, *
Pater noster, qui es in caelis 

*uuîhi namun dînan, *
sanctificetur nomen tuum 

*qhueme rîhhi dîn, *
Adveniat regnum tuum

*uuerde uuillo diin, *
Fiat voluntas tua 

*sô in himile sôsa in erdu. *
sicut in caelo et in terra 

*Prooth unsêr emezzihic kip uns hiutu, *
Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie 

*oblâz uns sculdi unsêro, , *
Et dimitte nobis debita nostra 

*sô uuir oblâzêm uns sculdîkêm*
sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris

*enti ni unsih firleiti in khorunka, *
Et ne nos inducas in tentationem

*ûzzer lôsi unsih fona ubile.*

sed libera nos a malo


----------



## MrMagoo

Brioche said:
			
		

> It is still almost exactly _word for word_ from the Vulgate Latin.
> It's more like a gloss than a translation.
> So is the St Gallen version really a reflexion of the syntax of German at that time?


 
This is right: It does look like Latin! (Did I doubt that?!)

The German language grew up in church related stuff, so of course it was severely affected by Latin.
The St. Gallen version does reflect the syntax of German, yes - of a constructed, written German! 
In the 8th century, the German language was established (by Karl der Große among others) to become a language of its own beside the overregional Latin and the Germanic dialects.

As Karl der Große wanted to have a united kingdom, he also wanted to have just one religion for all the people living in his kingdom, beside just "one" language.
This new language had to be beaten into people's heads because they were still speaking their Germanic dialects, of course. And what could be a better way to get people learn this "German" than by mass?!


----------



## Brioche

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> As Karl der Große wanted to have a united kingdom, he also wanted to have just one religion for all the people living in his kingdom, beside just "one" language.
> 
> This new language had to be beaten into people's heads because they were still speaking their Germanic dialects, of course. And what could be a better way to get people learn this "German" than by mass?!


 
_Karl der Große_ is known in English history books by the French version of his name _Charlemagne _or occasionally as_ Charles the Great._

Charlemagne prescribed that _sermons_ should be in the popular tongue, but the rest of the liturgy was in Latin - which remained the case up to the late 1960s.


----------



## MrMagoo

Brioche said:
			
		

> _Karl der Große_ is known in English history books by the French version of his name _Charlemagne _or occasionally as_ Charles the Great_.


 
I hope everybody knows who I am talking about  
This still is the German section 



> Charlemagne prescribed that _sermons_ should be in the popular tongue, but the rest of the liturgy was in Latin - which remained the case up to the late 1960s.


 

Right, the _liturgy_ was held in Latin, but
all the important "little" prayers and sayings like the Vaterunser, the Taufgelöbnis, etc. have been translated into German very early already (8th century). The people were forced to learn them by heart, of course this was easier concerning the Taufgelöbnis as the only phrase they needed to know was "Ih fursahu!" because the priest had to preach the rest.

I can't remember my grandma or anybody else had to say the Vaterunser in Latin at any time... 


Here is the Fränkische Taufgelöbnis (9th or 10th century):

Forsahhistu unholdun? -Ih fursahu.
Forsahhistu unholdun uuerc indi uuillon? -Ih fursahhu.
Forsahhistu allem them bluostrum indi den gelton indi den gotum thie im heidene man zi bluostrum indi zi geldom enti zi gotum habent? -Ih fursahhu.
Gilaubistu in got fater almahtigan? -Ih gilaubu.
Gilaubistu in Christ gotes sun nerienton? -Ih gilaubu.
Gilaubistu in heilagan geist? -Ih gilaubu.
Gilaubistu einan got almahtigan in thrinisse inti in einisse? -Ih gilaubu.
Gilaubistu heilaga gotes chirichun? -Ih gilaubu.
Gilaubistu thuruh taufunga sunteono forlaznessi? -Ih gilaubu.
Gilaubistu lib after tode? -Ih gilaubu.


----------



## flame

Brioche said:
			
		

> It is still almost exactly _word for word_ from the Vulgate Latin.
> It's more like a gloss than a translation.


 
Aus Angst, man könnte die Bedeutung der heiligen Worte verändern (und sie kamen ja von Jesus selbst), war es meiner Meinung nach Pflicht, eine möglichst wortweise Übersetzung zu wählen.

Die heutige Form "Vater unser im Himmel, geheiligt ...." wäre wahrscheinlich noch vor 200 Jahren Ketzerei gewesen.

Cheers


----------



## Brioche

flame said:
			
		

> Aus Angst, man könnte die Bedeutung der heiligen Worte verändern (und sie kamen ja von Jesus selbst), war es meiner Meinung nach Pflicht, eine möglichst wortweise Übersetzung zu wählen.
> 
> Cheers


 
Die lateinische Version scheint auch eine wortweise Übersetzung aus dem Koine zu sein.
Pater hmwn o en toiV ouranoiV 
agiosqhtw to onoma sou 
elqetw h basileia sou


----------



## drei_lengua

Why is God referred to with "du" instead of "Sie"?  Seems like a disrespect 
to me.

Warum hat man Gott geduzt anstatt gesiezt?

Thanks,
drei


----------



## Jana337

drei_lengua said:
			
		

> Why is God referred to with "du" instead of "Sie"?  Seems like a disrespect
> to me.
> 
> Warum hat man Gott geduzt anstatt gesiezt?
> 
> Thanks,
> drei


In all languages I speak, God is referred to with "du". 

If I am not mistaken, plural was only used to approach more than one person in earlier times. One would use singular to address one person, regardless of the degree of familiarity.

As the religious phraseology tends to be quite resistant to change, the "du" wasn't affected by any major grammar reforms.

Is it plausible? 

Jana


----------



## Brioche

drei_lengua said:
			
		

> Why is God referred to with "du" instead of "Sie"? Seems like a disrespect
> to me.
> 
> Warum hat man Gott geduzt anstatt gesiezt?
> 
> Thanks,
> drei


 
The whole point of the _Our Father_ prayer to to show that God is like a father to us.
A German child says "du" to his earthly father, and naturally says "du" to his heavenly father. 
The original Greek and Latin use _thou_ forms_._
Latin, Greek, Old English and Old German used _thou_ when speaking to one person, however important.

The use of Ihr (plural of du) as a polite form dates from the 14th century. You'll still find this usage in fairy tales. "Frau Königin, Ihr seid die schönste hier".

Later Er was used as the polite form

The modern use of Sie (with plural verb) came into fashion from the 17th century.

The Imperial German National Anthem
- sung to the same tune as _God Save the Queen_, or for Americans, _My Country tis of thee_ - 
is addressed to the Kaiser, and uses *du*.


Heil *dir* im Siegerkranz,
Herrscher des Vaterlands!
Heil, Kaiser *dir*.
Fühl´ in des Thrones Glanz
die hohe Wonne ganz:
Liebling des Volkes sein!
Heil Kaiser, *dir*!


Communists and Nazis in the 1930's addressed their crowds of listeners as "Deutsches Volk" and used the *du *form.

A quote from the KPD (German Communist Party), 1935:
_"Werktätiges deutsches Volk! Wir rufen dich zum Kampf!"_

A quote from Hitler, 1933
_"Deutsches Volk, gib uns vier Jahre Zeit, dann richte und urteile über uns."_


----------



## Vienna

Saedyan said:
			
		

> Gott der du bist im Himmel
> 
> Is "der" being used to refer back to Gott? Anyhelp thanks!


 
Yes it is. It's often used in poetic language (poems, bible verses, prayers, songs.... etc.)


----------



## Erick404

_...der du im Himmel bist_

Why is *du* explicit in this sentence? Would "_der im Himmel bist_" be wrong? 
Since the 3rd person pronoun doesn't need to appear in the sentence, I'd expect the same from a 2nd person pronoun. I mean, one doesn't say "_Gott, der er im Himmel ist_".


----------



## Baranxi

drei_lengua said:


> Why is God referred to with "du" instead of "Sie"?  Seems like a disrespect
> to me.


It shows closeness to God, a special relationship, if you will. Du/Sie are not only about respect, but also about (emotional) distance and familiarity.
A quick glance at various versions of the Pater Noster shows that most languages that make a T-V distinction use the t-form.

By the way, the English version (hallowed be *thy* name) also uses what corresponds to a t-form.



Erick404 said:


> Why is *du* explicit in this sentence? Would "_der im Himmel bist_" be wrong?
> Since the 3rd person pronoun doesn't need to appear in the sentence, I'd expect the same from a 2nd person pronoun. I mean, one doesn't say "_Gott, der er im Himmel ist_".


It would be wrong, yes. Dropping a pronoun in a relative clause is only possible if it's 3rd person.


----------

