# hinter ihm war die Attrappe einer Schlossruine zu sehen



## fabio407

Hi, 

"Es war ein Brustbild: er trug den Stahlhelm, und hinter ihm war deutlich die Attrappe einer Schlossruine *zu sehen*."

was translated (German Short Stories, Penguin Books) this way:

"It was a half-lenght portrait: he wore a steel helmet, and behind him *you could see* quite distinctly a dummy ruined castle.

But I've seen in this thread that "zu sehen" would mean "*worth seeing*".

Which meaning would be the correct one?

I wonder what does one call  in German this  "zu + infinitive" structure. I'd know what to look for in grammars.

Thanks!


----------



## Kajjo

fabio407 said:


> "It was a half-lenght portrait: he wore a steel helmet, and behind him *you could see* quite distinctly a dummy ruined castle.


The translation ist correct.

The version "was visible" would be closest, but not so idiomatic in English. The versions "one could see" or "you could see" are both possible, the latter a lot more common.

The cited thread gives a misleading answer in the firsts posts. It is corrected by later posts. Always read the entire thread.



fabio407 said:


> I wonder what does one call in German this "zu + infinitive" structure


it's called "Infinitiv mit zu" or "Infinitivsätze".

Infinitiv mit zu (Infinitivsätze) | Grammatik | Unkomplizierte Erklärung

Further notes

+ _Ruine _> engl. _ruin, castle ruins_
(ruined castle gives a wrong connotation)


----------



## JClaudeK

fabio407 said:


> I wonder what does one call in German this "zu + infinitive" structure.



From your link in #1:


Gernot Back said:


> Constructions like "_sein _+ _zu _+ infinitive" are alternatives for the passive voice with modal auxiliaries.
> 
> _Das Schloss ist zu sehen_
> means
> _Das Schloss kann gesehen werden_.


----------



## fabio407

I should have read the whole thread. Sorry for that. Thank you.

Regarding the grammar topic, it doesn't seem to be the one explained on the linked page.  For "zu sehen" is not a subordinate clause whose subject is the subject or an object of a main clause. As an alternative to the passive voice, the subject is indetermined, then not present in another clause. It seems that "zu sehen" modifies only the nominal phrase "die Attrappe einer Schlossruine", isn't it?


----------



## Demiurg

It's predicative use.  You can replace "zu sehen" with "sichtbar" (_visible_):

_Die Attrappe war zu sehen.
Die Attrappe war sichtbar._


----------



## elroy

fabio407 said:


> "Es war ein Brustbild: er trug den Stahlhelm, und hinter ihm war deutlich die Attrappe einer Schlossruine *zu sehen*."





fabio407 said:


> "It was a half-lenght portrait: he wore a steel helmet, and behind him *you could see* quite distinctly a dummy ruined castle.


Was this translation done by a native speaker of English?  It doesn’t scan right.  

_…and behind him, in clear sight, was a replica of the castle ruins.

…and behind him you/one could clearly see a replica of the castle ruins._


----------



## fabio407

elroy said:


> Was this translation done by a native speaker of English?


I think so. His name Christopher Middleton and Penguin Books is from the UK.  Thank you for the much better translations!


----------



## bearded

elroy said:


> a replica of the castle ruins


Is that a correct rendering of ''die Attrappe einer Schlossruine''?  Couldn't ''the'' be omitted - or replaced by ''some''?


----------



## JClaudeK

elroy said:


> was a replica of *the* castle ruins.


Dieses "the" will mir auch nicht einleuchten.

"die Attrappe* einer *Schlossruine zu sehen" - dabei handelt es sich doch um  die Attrape irgendeiner - nicht definierten - Schlossruine.


----------



## Kajjo

bearded said:


> Couldn't ''the'' be omitted - or replaced by ''some''?


Yes, I guess omission would be best. Very neutral then.

But otherwise I like Elroy's translation a lot.


----------



## Hutschi

fabio407 said:


> "It was a half-lenght portrait: he wore a steel helmet, and behind him *you could see* quite distinctly a dummy ruined castle.


I think, this is a good translation, too. (Considering that it is English in an idiomatic form - published by Penguine books)

For me it is difficult to state that theother translations are much better.

_…and behind him, in clear sight, was a replica of the castle ruins.
_
What is "clear sight"? - In my mind it says that the conditions were good. But "deutlich" implies* not far away* and *not hidden in structures*.

But it works, too.

I look up Duden:

deutlich

In our context:


> Bedeutung 1: gut wahrnehmbar, scharf umrissen, klar, genau




Deepl: well perceptible, sharply defined, clear, accurate



It is _clearly/clear _vs._ in clear sight_

Is this the same?


----------



## Demiurg

JClaudeK said:


> "die Attrappe* einer *Schlossruine zu sehen" - dabei handelt es sich doch die Attrape um irgendeiner - nicht definierten - Schlossruine.


Wahrscheinlich war es einfach eine Kulisse bzw. ein bemalter Vorhang, wie man es aus den damaligen Fotostudios kennt.  Die dargestellte Schlossruine muss noch nicht mal existieren.


----------



## Kajjo

Hutschi said:


> I think, this is a good translation, too.


With regards to "you could see" I agree. See #2. This is not disputed.


----------



## fabio407

Well noted. "Ruine" is singular and in English one uses much more "ruins", in plural, than "ruin", as shown in NGram

I think "a replica of a castle in ruins" or "a replica of the ruins of a castle" would work.


----------



## Kajjo

I like "a replica of castle ruins" (similar to #6 Elroy).


----------



## fabio407

I think that a replica is necessarily of a specific, though imaginary, object.  Two replicas of castles will be different because each artist would have a different imaginary castle in their mind.  That's why a determiner (category in which I'm including articles) would be required, in my view. Isn't for that reason that "einer" was used in the original sentence in German? Instead of "Attrappe Schlossruinen"?


----------



## Demiurg

fabio407 said:


> "Ruine" is singular and in English one uses much more "ruins", in plural, than "ruin", as shown in NGram
> 
> I think "a replica of a castle in ruins" or "a replica of the ruins of a castle" would work.



In German, the singular "Ruine" usual means the building itself. A "Schlossruine" is a _'ruined' castle_  / _castle in ruins_ while the plural "Ruinen" denotes the parts of the building, hence "Ruinen eines Schlosses"  (_ruins of a castle_) as in English.


----------



## fabio407

Demiurg said:


> In German, the singular "Ruine" usual means the building itself. A "Schlossruine" is a _'ruined' castle_  / _castle in ruins_ while the plural "Ruinen" denotes the parts of the building, hence "Ruinen eines Schlosses"  (_ruins of a castle_) as in English.


Very interesting. Of course I didn't know that when I espontaneously wrote "a castle in ruins", but that's an exception to the rule that the right extreme part of a compound word is its primary word -- at least that's taught as a rule in lessons and in textbooks for German learners. Thanks.


----------



## elroy

Sorry, I misread "einer" as "der."



Demiurg said:


> Wahrscheinlich war es einfach eine Kulisse bzw. ein bemalter Vorhang, wie man es aus den damaligen Fotostudios kennt. Die dargestellte Schlossruine muss noch nicht mal existieren.


In that case, "replica" doesn't work.  A replica would be a 3-dimensional model of existing castle ruins.  That's what I thought this was referring to.

For your meaning, I suggest “a backdrop depicting castle ruins.”


----------



## JClaudeK

fabio407 said:


> Isn't for that reason that "einer" was used in the original sentence in German? Instead of "Attrappe Schlossruinen"?


"Attrappe Schlossruinen" ⇒ (at most) Attrappe von Schlossruinen

"einer Schlossruine" is the gentive object of _Attrappe ⇒ the replica of [_literally: _a castle ruin] castle ruins_




elroy said:


> A replica would be a 3-dimensional model of [existing] castle ruins.


So stelle ich mir die "Attrappe einer Schlossruine" auch vor, eines Schlosses, das aber nicht unbedingt existiert.


----------



## berndf

Demiurg said:


> Wahrscheinlich war es einfach eine Kulisse bzw. ein bemalter Vorhang, wie man es aus den damaligen Fotostudios kennt. Die dargestellte Schlossruine muss noch nicht mal existieren.


Das glaube ich nicht. Ich sehe das so wie @JClaudeK: Wenn es eine gemalte Kulisse wäre, dann passte die Bezeichnung _Attrappe _nicht.


----------



## fabio407

JClaudeK said:


> "Attrappe Schlossruinen" ⇒ (at most) Attrappe von Schlossruinen



Thank you, JClaudeK.

I was studying declination last week.  It's not so easy to find examples  in grammars of plural nouns in the genitive case in sentences, but  I found that one in the preface of The Picture of Dorian Gray:

Der Kunsltler ist der Schöpfer schöner Dinge.  / (original sentence in English =>) The artist is the creator of beautiful things.

Then if you don't have the adjective before the plural noun in genitive case you have to use "von"?

Der Kunsltler ist der Schöpfer Dinge. 
Der Kunsltler ist der Schöpfer von Dinge.    ?

I'm asking that question to complete my table of declinations. So far I've only found examples with determiners and/or adjectives, like "die Senkel der weißen Schuhe"


----------



## elroy

fabio407 said:


> Then if you don't have the adjective before a plural noun you have to use "von"?


You can’t have a genitive plural noun without an adjective _or a determiner_.  In that case, you have to add “von,” which puts it in the *dative* case:


fabio407 said:


> der Schöpfer von Dinge


von Dinge 
von Dinge*n*


----------



## elroy

@Kajjo, you agreed with both readings! 😱


----------



## bearded

fabio407 said:


> der Schöpfer von Dinge



You might say ''der Schöpfer der Dinge''.
As elroy mentioned, the preposition ''von'' governs the dative case (Dinge*n*).
''Creator of things'' sounds somewhat odd, however.


----------



## Kajjo

fabio407 said:


> Es war ein Brustbild: er trug den Stahlhelm, und hinter ihm war deutlich die Attrappe einer Schlossruine *zu sehen*."


Also zum deutschen Satz:

Hier würde ich mir zeitgenössisch vorstellen, dass es ein Portrait ist, bei dem im Hintergrund eine maßstäblich verkleinerte Papp-Attrappe einer Burgruine zu sehen ist.

Andererseits weiß man nie, wie wörtlich "Attrappe" früher genommen wurde. Es war damals wohl durchaus üblich, benmalte Wände in den Hintergrund zu stellen.


----------



## Hutschi

Es gab da mehrere Epochen.
Das hing auch von den verwendeten Objektiven und vom Filmmaterial ab.
Zunächst wurde der Hintergund eher eintönig gestaltet. Der Tiefenschärfenbereich war sehr klein. Die Randschärfe war eher gering.
Später wurden Gemälde oder Ähnliches mit verwendet. Ob auch Plastiken oder andere Kunstobjekte dabei waren, das war sicher verschieden. (siehe #12 (Demiurg).

Auch Rückprojektionen wurden verwendet, als leistungsfähige Projektoren vorhanden waren.

Zu den Atrappen im Fotostudio zählen eher drei- oder zweidimensionale Nachbildungen als Fotos oder Gemälde.

Aber: Viele Schlossruinen waren Atrappen. Sie wurden aus romantischen Gründen in "echt" als Ruinen gebaut.

Eine Quelle: Künstliche Ruine – Wikipedia

Aus dem beschriebenen Kontext geht hier nicht hervor, ob es eine Attrappe im Studio ist oder eine draußen.

Ich hatte zunächst an eine künstliche Ruine in freier Natur gedacht, als ich #1 gelesen habe.

--

*English *
(With using DeepL and adapting the translation)


There were several eras.

It also depended on the lenses and film stock used.

At first, the background was rather monotonous. The depth of field was very small. The edge sharpness was rather low.

Later, paintings or similar things were used. See #12 (Demiurg)
Whether there were also sculptures or other art objects, that was certainly another question.



Rear projections were also used when powerful projectors were available.



Among the dummies in the photo studio are three- or two-dimensional replicas rather than photos or paintings.



However: many castle ruins were really dummies. They were built as ruins in "ruine form" for romantic reasons.



A source: Artificial ruins - Wikipedia



From the context described here, it is not clear whether it is a dummy in the studio or one outside.



I had first thought of an artificial ruin in the wild when I read #1.

---

Das Bild der Schlossruine war zu sehen.


----------



## Hutschi

fabio407 said:


> "Es war ein Brustbild: er trug den Stahlhelm, und hinter ihm war deutlich die Attrappe einer Schlossruine *zu sehen*."


It is not clear without context whether the portrait was a photo or a painting. But this has not influence to "war zu sehen". Even a picture in a picture  could be described with "war zu sehen".



Kajjo said:


> The version "was visible" would be closest, but not so idiomatic in English. The versions "one could see" or "you could see" are both possible, the latter a lot more common.


----------



## Alemanita

Hutschi said:


> Aus dem beschriebenen Kontext geht hier nicht hervor, ob es eine Attrappe im Studio ist oder eine draußen.



Heinrich Böll:
(...) musste ich das Bild ihres Sohnes betrachten, ein Buntphoto, das über dem Sofa hing. Er war ein lachender blonder Junge gewesen, und auf dem Buntphoto trug er eine Infanterie-Ausgehuniform. «Es ist in der Garnison gemacht worden», sagte meine Wirtin, «bevor sie ausrückten.» Es war ein Brustbild: Er trug den Stahlhelm, und hinter ihm war deutlich die Attrappe einer Schlossruine zu sehen, die von künstlichen Reben umrankt war.
https://www.mittelschulvorbereitung.ch/contentLD/DE/T82cBlasseAnna.pdf

War einfach zu finden - hätte vielleicht manche Spekulation erspart.
Demiurg # 12 : genau so sehe ich es auch vor mir.


----------



## berndf

Alemanita said:


> War einfach zu finden - hätte vielleicht manche Spekulation erspart.
> Demiurg # 12 : genau so sehe ich es auch vor mir


Dieser Schluss wundert jetzt doch: Aus deinem erweiterten Zitat wird klar, dass es eben *nicht*


Demiurg said:


> eine Kulisse bzw. ein bemalter Vorhang


Ist.


----------

