# Nach dir, Herr, verlanget mich



## trigel

This bizarre syntagm appears in BWV 150/Psalm 25:1 in the Luther Bible. 

I realize that this language is archaic, but still, shouldn't _mich_ be the subject, _ich_? Was _verlangen_ a sort of weird impersonal verb back in Luther's time?

And more generally, does this happen in the Luther Bible a lot with verb arguments, e.g. where a verb makes the "logical" subject appear as the object, where it would be the reverse in the modern language? Or is this usage indeed very unusual?


----------



## perpend

Hi again, It would be helpful if you can provide up to four sentences of your text, trigel, to help with the context!


----------



## Demiurg

This usage of "verlangen" is elevated style and maybe a bit dated but not at all "archaic":

From a novel by Charlotte Link published in 2000:


> Ihn verlangte nach Ruhe, Wärme und Geborgenheit, nach dem Glanz der Abendsonne auf den Kiefern von Skollna, ...




Duden has also an example:


> *6.c.* (gehoben) sich nach jemandem, etwas sehnen
> ...
> <unpersönlich>: _es verlangt mich, ihn noch einmal zu sehen_


----------



## bearded

''Es verlangt mich nach Dir'' is therefore the complete dated impersonal phrase, in accordance with Demiurg's explanation.  It corresponds to ''ich sehne mich nach Dir''.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

bearded man said:


> ''Es verlangt mich nach Dir'' is therefore the complete dated impersonal phrase, in accordance with Demiurg's explanation.  It corresponds to ''ich sehne mich nach Dir''.


Why dated? It's elevated. It was probably elevated 200 years ago, too.


----------



## Kajjo

The title phrase is of course archaic or dated, because the old "verlanget" instead of "verlangt" ist used. This is not contemporary standard German.

In my ears, "Es verlangt mich nach dir" is fairly dated as well and not just elevated. It is extremely old-fashioned at best and does not sound "elevated" to me. It sounds biblical and archaic.


----------



## cuore romano

Dated or not - I think it's beautiful.


----------



## Shiratori99

I believe this sentence can be interpreted in two ways:

1. Nach Dir, Herr. <break> Verlanget mich. = Go ahead, My Lord. Desire me.

2. Nach Dir, Herr, verlanget mich. = The one I desire is you, My Lord.


Granted, the first interpretion is very unlikely, but I listed it for the sake of completeness.

"Es verlanget mich" is a somewhat archaic set phrase literally meaning "it makes me desire". What the "it" is, is not specified. This is just a wild guess, but I suppose the purpose of this construction is to shift the blame of "desiring something" away from oneself onto an unspecified entity. In the context of Christian folklore, maybe on a succubus or on Satan himself (if the desired thing was something bad).

Btw, I believe the "dir" in the original sentence should start with a capital letter.


----------



## perpend

Shiratori, If it can be interpreted that many ways, shouldn't we come to the conclusion that the question is moot? I appreciate your analysis, btw.


----------



## Shiratori99

perpend said:


> Shiratori, If it can be interpreted that many ways, shouldn't we come to the conclusion that the question is moot? I appreciate your analysis, btw.



It is not that ambiguous. There's just a theoretical possibility that it might be interpreted as #1 (mostly by people who are unfamiliar with the set phrase I mentioned above).


----------



## perpend

Shiratori99 said:


> It is not that ambiguous. There's just a theoretical possibility that it might be interpreted as #1 (mostly by people who are unfamiliar with the set phrase I mentioned above).



"It's not that ambiguous" are my new "favorite famous last words". Life is ambiguous.

Who are the people "unfamiliar"?


----------



## Demiurg

Shiratori99 said:


> I believe this sentence can be interpreted in two ways:
> 
> 1. Nach Dir, Herr. <break> Verlanget mich. = Go ahead, My Lord. Desire me.
> ...



That doesn't make sense, because "dir" is singular and "velanget" is plural.


----------



## Shiratori99

perpend said:


> Who are the people "unfamiliar"?



People who don't read books?


----------



## perpend

Erm. Sehr schwach (von dir).


----------



## Shiratori99

Demiurg said:


> That doesn't make sense, because "dir" is singular and "velanget" is plural.



Verlanget is not plural. It can be interpreted as an archaic imperative. E.g.: "Herr, tötet mich!"


----------



## perpend

How do you really *know *this with conviction, Shira?

You yourself above said that there a couple interpretations.


----------



## bearded

In no.1 I particularly appreciate the interpretation ''nach Dir, Herr = go ahead,Lord'' like you would say to a lady/a nobleman before a door (Ladies/Lords first)...


----------



## Schimmelreiter

_Mich verlangt nach dir.
_is neither weird nor dated. Nor is there an impersonal _es _in the phrase. As is the case with any German main clause, the prefield must not be empty: _Heute ist Sonntag. > Es ist heute Sonntag._
_Mich verlangt nach dir. > Es verlangt mich nach dir.


_So _Mich verlangt nach dir _is subject-less, and so is _Es verlangt mich nach dir. _(cf. _Mich friert/gruselt._)



There's no alternative to _Mich verlangt nach dir _other than word order-wise: _Es verlangt mich nach dir./Nach dir verlangt mich.

*Ich verlange dich _and _*Ich verlange nach dir_, while valid constructions, express totally different concepts. 

If _Mich verlangt nach dir _is to be expressed and _verlangen _is to be the *verb* used,  there's no valid alternative. Nobody's forced to use it unless they like it, but if they do, there's no alternative to

_Mich verlangt nach dir./__Es verlangt mich nach dir./Nach dir verlangt mich._



PS





bearded man said:


> In no.1 I particularly appreciate the interpretation ''nach Dir, Herr = go ahead,Lord'' like you would say to a woman/lady before a door (Ladies first)...


The interpretation is impossible since it would have to be

either _Nach Euch, verlanget
_or _Nach Dir, verlang(e)_

We _duzen _the Lord rather than _ihrzen _Him, by the way.


----------



## bearded

Shiratori99 said:


> Verlanget is not plural. It can be interpreted as an archaic imperative. E.g.: "Herr, tötet mich!"


I agree with Demiurg.  If it were an imperative, the pronoun should read 'Euch', not 'Dir'.  In the phrase ''Herr, tötet mich''  'Herr' is of course singular, but then the Lord is addressed with ''Ihr''.


----------



## bearded

@ Schimmelreiter
I agree on the content of your PS in #18, of course.  My ''appreciation'' in #17 was only ironic.


----------



## Kajjo

Schimmelreiter said:


> _Mich verlangt nach dir. _is neither weird nor dated.


Nun, es scheint doch eine jeweils sehr persönliche Einschätzung der einzelnen Teilnehmer hier zu sein, ob man diese Phrase als altmodisch bis veraltet oder einfach nur seltsam oder gar normal empfindet. Ich persönlich verwende diesen Ausdruck nie und höre ihn auch in meiner Umgebung nie -- außer möglicherweise in biblischen Kontext.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/gra...=t1;,verlangt mich;,c0;.t1;,mich verlangt;,c0

Man erkennt im Google Ngram Viewer doch ziemlich klar, dass die Phrase nicht mehr üblich ist und früher mal wesentlich verbreiteter war. Die wenigen Hits aus den letzten 50 Jahren sind fast ausnahmslos Zitate oder Diskussionen älterer Literatur. 

Ich denke, dass ich zurecht diesen Ausdruck als veraltet bezeichnen kann. Es wäre nicht sinnvoll, einem Deutschschüler diesen Ausdruck als "normal und üblich" beizubringen, denn das wäre regelrecht Irreführung und er würde damit auffallen. Gleichwohl ist es natürlich korrektes Deutsch.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

bearded man said:


> @ Schimmelreiter
> I agree on the content of your PS in #18, of course.  My ''appreciation'' in #17 was only ironic.


Manners maketh man. So one had better know what to say when He awaits one for the Interview.


----------



## perpend

Schimmelreiter said:


> We _duzen _the Lord rather than _ihrzen _Him, by the way.



I think God might not care whether he/she is addressed in a formal or more colloquial way.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Kajjo said:


> Ich denke, dass ich zurecht diesen Ausdruck als veraltet bezeichnen kann. Es wäre nicht sinnvoll, einem Deutschschüler diesen Ausdruck als "normal und üblich" beizubringen, denn das wäre regelrecht Irreführung und er würde damit auffallen. Gleichwohl ist es natürlich korrektes Deutsch.


Ich habe weiter oben _gehoben/elevated _​vorgeschlagen. Damit ist klar, für welche Stufe des Zweitspracherwerbs das allenfalls in Betracht kommt.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

perpend said:


> Schimmelreiter said:
> 
> 
> 
> We _duzen _the Lord rather than _ihrzen _Him, by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> I think God might not care whether he/she is addressed in a formal or more colloquial way.
Click to expand...

And how is that relevant to language convention? The table doesn't care either whether we call it _chair _or _table_, and still we call it _​table._


----------



## Kajjo

Schimmelreiter said:


> Ich habe weiter oben _gehoben/elevated _​vorgeschlagen. Damit ist klar, für welche Stufe des Zweitspracherwerbs das allenfalls in Betracht kommt.


Na gut, das ist ein Kompromiss -- aber vielleicht habe ich auch bezüglich "gehobener Sprache" andere Vorstellungen... für mich ist die Titelphrase veraltet und nicht im engeren Sinne gehoben. Ich gebe aber zu, je feierlicher gehobene Sprache ist, desto altmodischer kommt sie oftmals daher.


----------



## Shiratori99

Schimmelreiter said:


> PSThe interpretation is impossible since it would have to be
> 
> either _Nach Euch, verlanget
> _or _Nach Dir, verlang(e)_
> 
> We _duzen _the Lord rather than _ihrzen _Him, by the way.



This might be grammatically correct, but I'm pretty sure I've seen "Dir" used with the plural imperative to get a result that is in between Euch + plural imperative and Dir + singular imperative in terms of politeness.

@perpend

I'm at a loss what you are arguing for here. Apparently everyone except me thinks this phrase is completely unambiguous.


----------

