# spitzen, zerschlissenen Türmen und Dächern (Trakl)



## Löwenfrau

What is the meaning of "zerschlissenen" here?

"Inmitten des schweigsamen Teiches ragt das Schloß zu den Wolken empor mit spitzen, zerschlissenen Türmen und Dächern." (Trakl)

"... with pointed/pointy, worn-out rooftops and towers"? 

I suspect it could also be "irregular"...

Obs.: I know that in English, instead of "sharp towers", it could be just "spire", but this solution doesn't exist in Portuguese, my target language.


----------



## Frank78

Löwenfrau said:


> What is the meaning of "zerschlissenen" here?
> 
> "Inmitten des schweigsamen Teiches ragt das Schloß zu den Wolken empor mit spitzen, zerschlissenen Türmen und Dächern." (Trakl)
> 
> "... with pointed/pointy, worn-out rooftops and towers"?
> 
> I suspect it could also be "irregular"...



You're on the right track. The roofs and towers are in a bad condition. I have found "tatty" (which seems to be used for buildings based on a google search) and "rattled". "Shabby" should do as well.



Löwenfrau said:


> Obs.: I know that in English, instead of "sharp towers", it could be just "spire", but this solution doesn't exist in Portuguese, my target language.



"Pointed" for "spitz" is fine in my opinion, i.e. the roof forms an acute angle (less than 90 degrees) at its top.


----------



## JClaudeK

Wie wär's mit "tatty rooftops and towers"? 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tatty


----------



## Löwenfrau

Frank78 said:


> I have found "tatty" (which seems to be used for buildings based on a google search) and "rattled". "Shabby" should do as well.





JClaudeK said:


> Wie wär's mit "tatty rooftops and towers"?


----------



## JClaudeK

Sorry, ich hatte "tatty" bei Frank78 übersehen.


----------



## luftig

Löwenfrau said:


> zerschlissenen Türmen



Shouldn't it be "zerschießenden"?


----------



## Kajjo

infinitive "zerschießen", participle "zerschossen" = to shoot apart
participle "zerschlissen" = worn-out, tatty

Nowadays you would use "verschlissen" rather than "zerschlissen". Usually this word is not used for buildings, but clothes. For old building close to ruins you would use "verfallen".


----------



## berndf

Kajjo said:


> infinitive "zerschießen", participle "zerschossen" = to shoot apart
> infinitive "zerschleißen" = to wear out, participle "zerschlissen" = worn-out, tatty


Just for completeness sake.


----------



## Löwenfrau

I don't know if it is already clear by now, but it is indeed about ruins:

"In den düsteren, dunklen Höfen fliegen Tauben umher und suchen sich in den Ritzen des Gemäuers ein Versteck."
"Und droben in einem rissigen Turmgemach sitzt der Graf."


----------



## luftig

Kajjo said:


> infinitive "zerschießen", participle "zerschossen" = to shoot apart
> participle "zerschlissen" = worn-out, tatty
> 
> Nowadays you would use "verschlissen" rather than "zerschlissen". Usually this word is not used for buildings, but clothes. For old building close to ruins you would use "verfallen".



Thank you.

Exactly because I have found no other usage of "zerschleißen" than for clothing have I thought that a figurative employment of "shot" would work better for the towers.
Just like "zerschlissen" in German, "tatty" or "ragged" are used in English for clothes, hair, etc.
But we do say of a thing (like machines, buildings, etc.) as being "shot", and not necessarily by a missile. It means "ruined", "in bad shape".
Since the towers were not "shot" by a weapon, I didn't use the participle but the adjective, just as in English.

I have no idea who the author is, and I suspected a typo.
Since it doesn't appear to be so, I am actually straying from that specific item, furrowing into stylistics.
In light of this, would my choice work? (humbly, along "verfallen")
Thanks again.


----------



## manfy

luftig said:


> In light of this, would my choice work? (humbly, along "verfallen")
> Thanks again.


 
Afraid not!
First of all, present participle "zerschießend" doesn't work here at all because rooftops and towers are rarely shooting by themselves. Past participle "zerschossen" can work - but in German it would always be taken literally when it comes to buildings, i.e. damaged by shots or any form of wartime artillery.

"Zerschlissen" in this context is somewhat vague, it could mean anything from 'not quite in pristine condition' to 'almost in ruins'. Only context can qualify this adjective further.


----------



## Löwenfrau

manfy said:


> "Zerschlissen" in this context is somewhat vague, it could mean anything from 'not quite in pristine condition' to 'almost in ruins'. Only context can qualify this adjective further.



It is damaged, and the reader can picture it by himself...


----------



## Hutschi

It can have following causes, for example:

corrosion (rain, sun, water)
mechanical (falling things, birds, beasts)
changes caused by temperature


----------



## berndf

manfy said:


> "Zerschlissen" in this context is somewhat vague, it could mean anything from 'not quite in pristine condition' to 'almost in ruins'. Only context can qualify this adjective further.


Are you confusing verschlissen and zerschlissen here? For me zerschlissen definitely means 'in ruins'.


----------



## Hutschi

I do not think it has to be actually a ruin. (if ruin=Ruine)
It is just in bad condition but it works yet or might be working yet.
The roof is defect, and it might be a ruin after short time, but at the moment it is there.
You can live there, and repair it provisionally.
A German sysnonyme from Duden is "abgebraucht".

I see the count is sitting in a room there. The room is defect, but it is a room yet.
It is not a ruin.

PS: It might be a room in a ruin, but there is not enough information to decide.


----------



## JClaudeK

berndf said:


> Are you confusing verschlissen and zerschlissen here?


Da gibt es meines Erachtens nichts zu verwechseln. _verschlissen_ und _zerschlissen _sind Synonyme.
_
"zerschlissen" _(das passt zu Trakls Stil !) ist nur etwas gehobener als_ "verschlissen".
_
Siehe Synonyme zu_ ver/zerschlissen_:
_https://www.openthesaurus.de/synonyme/andere+Bezeichnung
"zerschlissen" eintippen_


----------



## berndf

JClaudeK said:


> Da gibt es meines Erachtens nichts zu verwechseln. _verschlissen_ und _zerschlissen _sind Synonyme


Seh ich nicht so. 100% Synonyme gibt es ohnehin nicht. Die Präfixe zer- und ver- sind ähnlich aber haben doch unterschiedliche Konnotationen.


----------



## JClaudeK

berndf said:


> 100% Synonyme gibt es ohnehin nicht.


Stimmt, deshalb die Erklärung dazu:


> _"zerschlissen"_ ist nur etwas gehobener als_ "verschlissen"._



Was kann man da _"verwechseln"_?


----------



## berndf

JClaudeK said:


> deshalb die Erklärung dazu:





JClaudeK said:


> _"zerschlissen" _(das passt zu Trakls Stil !) ist nur etwas gehobener als_ "verschlissen"._


Und meine Behauptung ist nach wie vor, dass diese Erklärung falsch ist. Es gibt einen semantischen und nicht bloß einen stilistischen Unterschied.

Der Unterschied ist zugegeben etwas spitzfindisch und spielt in der Praxis selten eine Rolle. In Bezug auf Manfys Erklärung ist er aber bedeutsam: Verschlissen kann etwas graduell sein, es hat sich vom ursprünglichen Zustand "entfernt" (in ver- steckt derselbe Stamm wie Englisch far), zerschlissen bedeutet, dass etwas endgültig "hin" ist.


----------



## manfy

Ich persönlich unterscheide schon zwischen 'verschlissen' und 'zerschlissen', wie auch bei allen anderen ver-/zer-Verben, die trotz der unterschiedlichen Vorsilben keine eigenständige Bedeutung angenommen haben.
Die zer-Version ist dabei immer eine Verstärkung der ver-Version, also 'zerschlissen' ist 'stark verschlissen', 'zerstümmelt' ist 'exzessiv verstümmelt', usw.

Da die Verben, bzw. Partizipien II als Adjektive keine definitiven Gradangaben beinhalten, kann vom Verb allein kein eindeutiger Rückschluss gemacht werden. Was von dem einen als 'leicht verschlissen' bezeichnet wird, kann für den anderen als 'stark zerschlissen' gelten.
Der anwendbare Spielraum ist für mich sehr groß - aber eine praktisch eingestürzte Burgruine als nur 'zerschlissen' zu bezeichnen, ginge stark in Richtung einer Untertreibung. Aber poetische Texte sind ja bekannt dafür, dass sie die Realität oft ein wenig verzerren...


----------



## luftig

manfy said:


> Afraid not!
> First of all, present participle "zerschießend" doesn't work here at all because rooftops and towers are rarely shooting by themselves. Past participle "zerschossen" can work - but in German it would always be taken literally when it comes to buildings, i.e. damaged by shots or any form of wartime artillery.
> 
> "Zerschlissen" in this context is somewhat vague, it could mean anything from 'not quite in pristine condition' to 'almost in ruins'. Only context can qualify this adjective further.



"zerschießenden" is what I used in my first post. Intended as an *Adjektiv* in Dativ Plural.
It was not meant as any kind of Partizip. (Would the ending "en" be used after "zerschienßend" in that case?)

Löwenfrau got the answer by now for sure.
Also, nobody in the thread seems to think they would have used the same word with that meaning. 
I am in no position to attempt guessing, especially in the company of Muttersprachler.

So, I have been going on a tangent to the initial issue.

My interest is stylistic, but I am hesitant as to the correct meaning of the Adjektiv. Only canoo.net has it, among the sites consulted. But no Bedeutung attached to it.
I functioned on the assumption that the adjective is derived from the verb, or somehow connected in meaning.
Is anyone willing to clarify what the meaning of the *Adjektiv "zerschießend" *(positive form) is?
Thank you.


----------



## manfy

Both participles can be used as an adjective.
The German Partizip I has the same function as present participle, e.g. "der schießende Mann" = "the shooting man" (the man who is shooting).
In this form, the present participle has the function of an adjective. An adjective describing the action of the man. The ending -e in the German version is just the conjugation according to case, gender, number of the noun.

The German Partizip II, similar to past participle can be used as adjective or as a verb form to create passive voice or complex tenses with auxiliaries.
In either case, the word still remains a participle, it just has different functions in the sentence.
But maybe the English grammar uses different terminology, or better same terminology used in a different way, to explain these concepts.

PS: I'm not a specialist in that field. I'm using standard school grammar terminology ... from quite a while ago...


----------



## luftig

Thank you, manfy!

I didn't expect canoo to list it as Adjektiv unless it was other than the Partizip - thinking that everyone knows that the Partizip can be used as Adjektiv.
That's what threw me off.

I greatly appreciate the time you put in this.


----------



## berndf

luftig said:


> Thank you, manfy!
> 
> I didn't expect canoo to list it as Adjektiv unless it was other than the Partizip - thinking that everyone knows that the Partizip can be used as Adjektiv.
> That's what threw me off.
> 
> I greatly appreciate the time you put in this.


That is not the point. The meaning of _verschleißend _is completely regular and there is nothing special about is. Your problem, as Manfy pointed out, was that you confused the two participles:
_zerschießend_ = _shooting into pieces _(active progressive)
_verschossen_ = _shot into pieces _(passive perfect)

Generally, grammar theory distinguishes between participles as _verbal adjectives_ and as _deverbal adjectives_. Verbal adjectives as regularly derived from the meaning of the base verb: present participle = _performing action xxx_, past participle = _having been subjected to action xxx_. A deverbal adjective is a participles that has developed a meaning in its own right that has become detached from the generic meaning of the participle. E.g. there is a verbal and a deverbal adjective derived from the verb _learn_: learned pronounced like _learnd _= verbal adjective and _learned _pronounced like _learnid _= deverbal adjective.

In the cases of _zerschleißen _or _verschießen _I cannot detect any reason to understand any of the participles as deverbal.


----------



## berndf

manfy said:


> Ich persönlich unterscheide schon zwischen 'verschlissen' und 'zerschlissen', wie auch bei allen anderen ver-/zer-Verben, die trotz der unterschiedlichen Vorsilben keine eigenständige Bedeutung angenommen haben.
> Die zer-Version ist dabei immer eine Verstärkung der ver-Version, also 'zerschlissen' ist 'stark verschlissen', 'zerstümmelt' ist 'exzessiv verstümmelt', usw.


Als Zeugnis eines Muttersprachlers ("Ich persönlich...") respektiere ich Deine Aussage natürlich. Ich denke aber, dass die objektiv falsch ist. _Ver-_ und _zer-_ haben genuin unterschiedliche Semantik die je nach konkretem Kontext zu semantisch ähnlichen Verben führen kann aber nicht muss. In jedem Fall bleibt aber die generische Bedeutung transparent: _Ver-_ bedeutet _entfernt, weg_ und _zer-_ bedeutet _entzwei-, geteilt_.

Dies führt bei _verschleißen_ und _zerschleißen _zu ähnlichen aber nicht gleichen Bedeutungen: Ein _verschlissener _Meißel ist ein durch Verschleiß in seiner Effektivität in einem unbestimmten Maße beeinträchtigter; ein _zerschlissener_ Meißel ist ein durch Verschleiß unbrauchbar gewordener.

Bei anderen Verben kann dieser Unterschied zu vollständig anderen Bedeutungen führen, z.B. bei _verreißen_ und _zerreißen_. Diese unterschiedlichen Bedeutungen sind auf Grund er Eigenbedeutungen der Präfixe aber durchaus vorhersagbar. Und auch in einem Fall, wo es das Verb mit _zer- _nicht gibt, würde sich unschwer eine intuitive Bedeutung erschließen: Z.B. gibt es _verreisen_ (=_in die Ferne reisen_) aber nicht _*zerreisen_. Dennoch hätte wohl kaum ein Muttersprachler die geringste Schwierigkeit es als _durch Reisen zerstört_ zu verstehen.


----------



## Hutschi

> In jedem Fall bleibt aber die generische Bedeutung transparent: _Ver-_ bedeutet _entfernt, weg_ und _zer-_ bedeutet _entzwei-, geteilt_.


Das hat mir so klar gefehlt. Ich habe es gefühlt, ohne es ausdrücken zu können.

"Verschleißen" ist ein "normaler" und gemächlicher Prozess. (abnutzen)
"Zerschleißen" ist oft eher plötzlich (zerbrechen, zerschneiden, zerkratzen) - oder verschleißen.


----------



## Kajjo

berndf said:


> _Ver-_ bedeutet _entfernt, weg_ und _zer-_ bedeutet _entzwei-, geteilt_.


 Richtig, über Präfixe von Verben gab es vor einigen Wochen mal einen Thread: http://forum.wordreference.com/thre...ctually-mean-something.3001000/#post-15173680



> Dies führt bei _verschleißen_ und _zerschleißen _zu ähnlichen aber nicht gleichen Bedeutungen: Ein _verschlissener _Meißel ist ein durch Verschleiß in seiner Effektivität in einem unbestimmten Maße beeinträchtigter; ein _zerschlissener_ Meißel ist ein durch Verschleiß unbrauchbar gewordener.


 Genau so ist es.



> aber nicht _*zerreisen_. Dennoch hätte wohl kaum ein Muttersprachler die geringste Schwierigkeit es als _durch Reisen zerstört_ zu verstehen.


In der Tat. Richtig.

Zurück zum ursprünglichen Thema: Zerschlissen wie verschlissen sind keine typischen Adjektive im Kontext von Burgen und Gebäuden, ebenso wenig die korrespondieren Verben. Gemeint ist so etwas wie "verfallen", "wie eine Ruine", "stark mitgenommen", "in schlechtem Zustand".


----------



## JClaudeK

Kajjo said:


> Zerschlissen wie verschlissen sind keine typischen Adjektive im Kontext von Burgen und Gebäuden, ebenso wenig die korrespondieren Verben. Gemeint ist so etwas wie "verfallen", "wie eine Ruine", "stark mitgenommen", "in schlechtem Zustand".



Eben das meinte ich mit 


> Was kann man da _"verwechseln"_?


----------



## berndf

JClaudeK said:


> Eben das meinte ich mit
> 
> 
> 
> Was kann man da _"verwechseln"_?
Click to expand...

Also noch einmal, ganz explizit:

Manfy schrieb


manfy said:


> "Zerschlissen" in this context is somewhat vague, it could mean anything from 'not quite in pristine condition' to 'almost in ruins'. Only context can qualify this adjective further.


Diese Beschreibung ist nach übereinstimmender Meinung von Kajjo und mir für _verschlissen_ zutreffend, für _zerschlissen_ aber schlicht und einfach *falsch*. Darin liegt die offenbare Verwechslung: Manfy beschrieb das Adjektiv _verschlissen_ und nicht, wie von ihm behauptet, das Adjektiv _zerschlissen_.


----------



## Löwenfrau

@Hutschi


Hutschi said:


> I see the count is sitting in a room there. The room is defect, but it is a room yet.
> It is not a ruin.
> 
> PS: It might be a room in a ruin, but there is not enough information to decide.



You read it as a room _in *a* ruin_, but I'd say he actually means a room _*in ruin*_... The room itself is in ruin. And you can, in fact, sit in a room in ruin, given it is steady enough...


----------



## luftig

berndf said:


> That is not the point. The meaning of _verschleißend _is completely regular and there is nothing special about is. Your problem, as Manfy pointed out, was that you confused the two participles:
> _zerschießend_ = _shooting into pieces _(active progressive)
> _verschossen_ = _shot into pieces _(passive perfect)
> 
> Generally, grammar theory distinguishes between participles as _verbal adjectives_ and as _deverbal adjectives_. Verbal adjectives as regularly derived from the meaning of the base verb: present participle = _performing action xxx_, past participle = _having been subjected to action xxx_. A deverbal adjective is a participles that has developed a meaning in its own right that has become detached from the generic meaning of the participle. E.g. there is a verbal and a deverbal adjective derived from the verb _learn_: learned pronounced like _learnd _= verbal adjective and _learned _pronounced like _learnid _= deverbal adjective.
> 
> In the cases of _zerschleißen _or _verschießen _I cannot detect any reason to understand any of the participles as deverbal.



You seem to be addressing me, but I am not quite sure... with _verschossen_ (to which I was nowhere near) and all.
In case you are, you haven't understood my last reply to manfy, and obviously got confused by my English example of "shot" - which is a past participle - as a deverbal adjective.

In my reply to manfy, one finds a clear separation between Adjektiv (ordinary, as a deverbal is) and Partizip (of either kind). My thanks to him/her intimated that the inquiry is over, at least for that specific (obviously verbal) adjective. I hope they got the gist of it.

Since you appear to know about adjectives, that answer implied that my original question had been about the possibility of the Adjektiv to be deverbal.

In English, we have deverbals from present participle, and the inquiry on my part had been all along on whether the process is present in German as well.
Probably, maintaining the _zerschießend_ in view caused even more confusion for you. But it is exactly the fact that Trakl was a poet, known for his expressionistic contorsions/distortions of meaning, that suggested my inquiry.

As for your English example, _learnid _is not rooted in the same original verb that _learnd_ is. It is a linguistic fossil.


This ends my appearance on this site.


----------



## berndf

luftig said:


> You seem to be addressing me, but I am not quite sure... with _verschossen_ (*to which I was nowhere near*) and all.


... which was the main thing that was wrong with your suggestion.

If _schießen _could possibly play a role here then only in the passive participle (_geschossen_) and not in the active participle (_schießend_) as no possible meaning of _schießen_ with a roof in the agent role could even remotely fit the context.


luftig said:


> As for your English example, _learnid _is not rooted in the same original verb that _learnd_ is


It is correct that the sense of _learn_ from which _learnid_ is derived originated from a different OE verb but _leornian _replaced _laeran _in the sense of _teach_ already in early Middle English, long before the de-verbalization of _learnid_.


luftig said:


> It is a linguistic fossil.


Fossilization is indeed one of the processes that produces de-verbal adjectives.


----------



## adebo

berndf said:


> It is correct that the sense of _learn_ from which _learnid_ is derived originated from a different OE verb but* leornian replaced laeran in the sense of teach already in early Middle English*, long before the de-verbalization of _learnid_.



@berndf,
Confusion!

_leornian_ never meant _teach_! It has always meant "to obtain knowledge", so it didn't replace _laeran_ for "teaching".
_leornian_ is cognate with the German _lernen.

laeran_ did mean _teach_, and only _learned [learnid] _is left of it.
_laeran_ is cognate with the German _lehren._

P.S. You don't seem to grasp the tenor of luftig's text.


----------



## berndf

adebo said:


> @berndf,
> Confusion!


Not at all.


adebo said:


> _leornian_ never meant _teach_! It has always meant "to obtain knowledge"


This is not correct. You have probably only looked for OE attestations. The shift happened, as I wrote, in ME.
See attestations under 4a. in the MED. Attestations under 4b. explain the derivation of the adjective _learned _from the ppl. of the verb in sense 4a.


adebo said:


> _laeran_ is cognate with the German _lehren._


The same shift in meaning that occurred in ME also happened in other West-Germanic dialects. Equivalent forms of
_Ich lerne dir Englisch (I teach you English)_
are correct in several German dialects, just not in standard German.
Dutch has taken the opposite route: there _leren_ means both _teach_ and _learn_.


----------



## Hutschi

That'll  larn 'im - here we discussed several aspects for etymology and usage of "learn".


----------



## Löwenfrau

Guys, hello, just a thing: a teacher has corrected my translation and suggested "pointed and closed/locked" for the pair "spitzen, zerschlissenen"...  Is that a possible meaning? I'm still waiting her answer, but I'd like to know what you think. Thanks.


----------



## berndf

He obviously misread _zerschlissenen_ as _verschlossenen_. Two letters Hemming distance.


----------



## Löwenfrau

berndf said:


> He obviously misread _zerschlissenen_ as _verschlossenen_. Two letters Hemming distance.


Yes, that's what happened: verschlissen X verschließen, she misread it.


----------



## Hutschi

Is her source black letter? (Fraktur)?

I checked a lot of internet ressources now. It is definitely "zerschlissen", so misreading explains it.


----------



## berndf

I can't see how this would matter. Confusing an i with o and z with v is equally unlikely in black letter and antiqua.


----------



## Hutschi

If you usually read black letter, you are right. When I was a child I guessed the words in the beginning when reading black letter ...

In doubt it is often the case that I read what I expect.

This allows you to correct mistakes, but in seldom cases it causes mistakes.


----------



## adebo

berndf said:


> This is not correct. You have probably only looked for OE attestations. The shift happened, as I wrote, in ME.



(I hope this exchange is not engendering any animosity.)

...

*Moderator note: Content of this post move here to the thread quoted by Hutschi. *


----------



## Löwenfrau

Guys, never mind, it was just a mistake, she read it thinking in the other word. It is a genuine mistake for a non-native.


----------

