# Nun mit Gott



## brewzer

Can a native German speaker help me please? I have a letter written in German from the mid19th century. The writer is thanking the recipient for his loyalty to the writer. The writer signs off the letter, "Nun mit Gott, mein Freund." I don't understand "Nun mit Gott" in this context and I don't want to guess at the intended sentiment. Would someone post the closest English equivalent? The literal translation doesn't make sense to me in this context. Thanks!!


----------



## Frank78

I've never seen this one, literally it means "Now with god, my friend". But I'd rather expect someting like "Gott (sei) mit dir" (god be with you) at the end of a letter.

Is the letter handwritten and did you decipher all the letters correctly


----------



## brewzer

Thanks Frank78. That was the reaction I had, too. The letter was actually published in a newspaper, and so the legibility is perfect. Do you suppose it could have been a phrase unique to the 19th century, with a meaning other than the literal?


----------



## elroy

In Spanish you can say "Vaya con Dios," literally "Go with God," as a farewell.  Maybe something like that existed in older varieties of German?
I've always understood "Vaya con Dios" to mean something like "Go with God's protection," "May God be with you," etc.


----------



## Thersites

Hi

I too am thinking of common phrases like _Geh mit Gott _oder _Sei mit Gott _(meaning "Now walk with God" or "Now be with God").

_"Nun mit Gott, mein Freund" _seems to be a slightly happy and colloquial formula meant to abbreviate one of these or generally include them all.

I don't know if "And now with God, my friend" in English would have the same effect.


----------



## elroy

Thomas(CH) said:


> I don't know if "And now with God, my friend" in English would have the same effect.


I don't think that works.  The closest equivalent I can think of is "Godspeed."  That includes a reference to God and is also dated.


----------



## Thersites

Then I guess this is almost impossible to translate. Maybe if you constructed something similar out of two American sayings of that time.


----------



## elroy

Are you dissatisfied with "Godspeed" because it doesn't explicitly say "_with_ God"?


----------



## Thersites

No, but _Nun mit Gott, mein Freund _includes a creative omission


----------



## Demiurg

"Mit Gott für König und Vaterland" was the motto of the Prussian army.

Here's a patriotic poem from the Wars of Liberation against Napoleon:


> Nun mit Gott! Es ist beschlossen!
> Auf, Ihr wackern Streitgenossen,
> Endlich kommt der Ehrentag!
> Besser flugs und fröhlich sterben,
> Als so langsam hin verderben,
> Und versiechen in der Schmach.


----------



## brewzer

Guys, thank you all for kicking this around. I think Demiurg may be on to the answer. Both the writer and recipient of this letter (writtin in 1848) were revolutionaries, though from Baden, not Prussia. Still, all the revolutionaies of 1848-49 were considered comrades, especially those from the individual German states. The poem seems like a pretty good reason why the writer would choose that phrase. Do you all agree? I'm an amateur at the German language and need all the input I can get from seasoned German speakers. So, as to a good English translation, when I plug the poem line "Nun mit Gott! Es ist beschlossen!" into an online translator, suddenly I'm getting back "Well with Gott" (instead of Now with God) which sounds a bit more reasonable in english. More input would very welcome! Thanks again.


----------



## brewzer

If you translators out there were tasked with translating the poem posted by Demiurg from German to English, how you handle that line, "Nun mit Gott!"?


----------



## berndf

Beginning a sentence with _nun _is roughly like starting a sentence with _well _in English or _alors _in French. It is one of these famous "flavouring particles", which in this case expresses encouragement.


----------



## brewzer

berndf said:


> Beginning a sentence with _nun _is roughly like starting a sentence with _well _in English or _alors _in French. It is one of these famous "flavouring particles", which in this case expresses encouragement.


Aha. Thanks berndf. So, with that in mind, does the translation of "Well, be with God, my friend" seem to be an appropriate translation? Would "Be well with God, my friend" be straying too far?


----------



## elroy

brewzer said:


> does the translation of "Well, be with God, my friend" seem to be an appropriate translation? Would "Be well with God, my friend" be straying too far?


Neither of these seems idiomatic in English.


----------



## brewzer

Yeah, I understand. But what then? That's the issue. Trying to find the balance between original word choice and an English translation that makes sense.


----------



## elroy

You have to decide what elements of the original wording are crucial.  Is it crucial that you literally say something with “with”?  Does “Godspeed” entail an unacceptable loss?


----------



## brewzer

Well, Godspeed is not an option. That is a phrase that is meant specifically for when someone is starting off on a journey. There's no journey here. "Go with God" is more general, and seems to be the probable sentiment (and an easily-understood english phrase), but why, then, didn't the writer say that? I guess I'm hunting for some kind of historical precedent or example that I can use to justify one translation over another. It sounds like maybe that doesn't exist. Though, I'm still curious how you pro translators out there would translate the first line of the Prussian poem, "Nun mit Gott! Es ist beschlossen!"


----------



## elroy

brewzer said:


> That is a phrase that is meant specifically for when someone is starting off on a journey.


This is not true.


----------



## Thersites

If this was indeed a common fixed saying as Demiurge suggested, why not just look up how it was translated in the past?


----------



## berndf

brewzer said:


> Well, Godspeed is not an option. That is a phrase that is meant specifically for when someone is starting off on a journey.


Not only but mainly. But that fits. _Mit Gott _is also mainly used when parting company, as in your letter, or when embarking on an endeavour, as in the poem in #10.


----------



## Thersites

"On with God, my friend" (as in "On to Richmond) ? Just brainstorming.


----------



## elroy

If you really want something with “with,” “God be with you” is an option.  The syntax is different, but the meaning is the same.


----------



## brewzer

Thomas(CH) said:


> why not just look up how it was translated in the past?



Where can I do that?


----------



## brewzer

elroy said:


> If you really want something with “with,” “God be with you” is an option.  The syntax is different, but the meaning is the same.



Yeah, "God be with you" seems pretty good. After hearing all the input, and since there doesn't seem to be a "perfect" English equivalent, I'm leaning toward "God be with you" or "Go with God." But as a nervous novice, I'd still be grateful to have any input on one versus the other. Voting is open! Thanks everyone for your help!!


----------



## elroy

If it's between those two, I vote for "God be with you," because I don't think "Go with God" is/was used in English.

By the way, I haven't seen your text and I don't know the purpose of this translation, but more than likely the precise translation of "Nun mit Gott" is the least of your worries.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> If it's between those two, I vote for "God be with you," because I don't think "Go with God" is/was used in English.


I still prefer your suggestion _Godspeed_. And so still precisely for the reason @brewzer does _not _like it (see #21).


----------



## brewzer

elroy said:


> least of your worries.


why do you say that??? Haven't all these posts demonstrated that its an unusual phrase? The rest of the translation was a breeze, even for this novice.


----------



## Thersites

brewzer said:


> Yeah, "God be with you" seems pretty good. After hearing all the input, and since there doesn't seem to be a "perfect" English equivalent, I'm leaning toward "God be with you" or "Go with God." But as a nervous novice, I'd still be grateful to have any input on one versus the other. Voting is open! Thanks everyone for your help!


If what Demiurg says is true and this was indeed a common expression among the Prussians of that age, then there must be older translations of this around, and I suggest you try to locate some of them.

From the two you specified, the second one is better (if you think that it works in English which I can't tell). Still it misses the"Nun" (and now, on from now).


----------



## elroy

Thomas(CH) said:


> the second one is better.


On what basis?
It matches the German literally, but it’s not idiomatic in English (to my knowledge).  Translation would be really easy if we could just copy syntax without having to worry about idiomaticity.


----------



## elroy

Thomas(CH) said:


> if you think that it works in English


I don’t think it does.


----------



## Thersites

elroy said:


> On what basis?
> It matches the German literally, but it’s not idiomatic in English (to my knowledge).  Translation would be really easy if we could just copy syntax without having to worry about idiomaticity.


Elroy, as for how these work in English, I cannot tell, I need to leave that to the translator.

But the German original

Nun (sei/geh) mit Gott
(Now) (Omission) (With) (God)

to me seems to be better depicted in _Go with God_ than in _God be with you _(the two suggestions of the American translator).


----------



## elroy

The “American translator” is not the only person here who can speak to American English usage.


----------



## Thersites

elroy said:


> The “American translator” is not the only person here who can speak to American English usage.


Then why did he/she suggest it? 😅


----------



## elroy

Because he’s really concerned about matching the original literally. 🤷🏻‍♂️

I am a professional translator and a translation instructor.  I see my students do this all the time.  They get so caught up in the wording of the original that they produce unidiomatic things in the target language that they would never use otherwise.


----------



## Thersites

elroy said:


> I am a professional translator and a translation instructor.


OK sorry


----------



## elroy

Sorry for what?

I only said that to provide the background to what I was about to say.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> Because he’s really concerned about matching the original literally. 🤷🏻‍♂️


I don't think so. It is because he misunderstands the context in which the the expression is used:


brewzer said:


> Well, Godspeed is not an option. That is a phrase that is meant specifically for when someone is starting off on a journey.


This argument would be an argument to accept that translation and not to reject it. Both express encouragement for an upcoming endeavour.


----------



## Thersites

(My possible contribution to this ends with the above interlinear)


----------



## brewzer

elroy said:


> Because he’s really concerned about matching the original literally.



No I never said that. Actually, I agree with you 100% that translations should be, as much as possible, fluid in the target language. I've always felt that when the sentiment is clear, the translater should use his knowledge of the target language to create what you're calling idiomatic English. I have an aquaintence who teaches college level German whio has translated things for me, and we've fought like cats and dogs over that very issue -- she wants literal, while I want fluid English. Anyway, although i do beieve "Go with God" is a common english phrase today, your comment lead me to do some searching of English books and newspapers from 1820-1880, and it turns out you're correct: "Go with God" appears almost nowhere as a stand-alone phrase during that period. Whereas, "God be with you" shows up quite bit in published material. For that reason, I think I am landing on that option as my final choice, "God be with you." However, I've enjoyed having you pros kick this around, and I welcome any continued discussion or input.


----------



## berndf

_God be with_ _you _might have been a common phrase (as _Gott sei mit dir_ was in German) but the context is different. It is more consoling than encouraging and is therefore not a fitting translation.


----------



## Thersites

brewzer said:


> i do beieve "Go with God" is a common english phrase today


@berndf Sollte sie in diesem Fall nicht wirklich eher das wählen?


----------



## berndf

Thomas(CH) said:


> @berndf Sollte sie in diesem Fall nicht wirklich eher das wählen?


Das ist auch nicht gerade "encouraging", oder? Es gibt ja den dummen Spruch _Geh mit Gott aber geh!_


----------



## Thersites

Aber das 'Nun mit Gott" hat doch wegen der Weglassung des Verbs auch irgendwie was Vergnügtes und will die möglichen Verben "gesammelt" bringen?


----------



## berndf

Thomas(CH) said:


> Aber das 'Nun mit Gott" hat doch wegen der Weglassung des Verbs auch irgendwie was Vergnügtes und will die möglichen Verben "gesammelt" bringen?


Aber das weggelassene Verb ist doch nicht _geh!_ (Falls da überhaupt ein Verb fehlt.)


----------



## fdb

I think it is an allusion to the last verse of Psalm 108, in Luther's version: "Mit Gott wollen wir Taten tun; er wird unsre Feinde untertreten."


----------



## Thersites

Ich lese: Und nun mit Gott, mein Freund

Ich frage mich: Nanu, was mit Gott?

Ich denke: Ach, der meint "geh" oder "sei" oder "weile" usw.

Ich interpretiere: Ah, das ist eine künstlerische Formel, um alle diese Bedeutungen leicht verspielt zusammenzufassen.

Geht das wirklich nur mir so?


----------



## berndf

@fdbs Beispielsatz ist doch sehr gut. Das zeigt, was die Floskel ausdrücken soll: Einen Aufbruch zu neuen Ufern einleiten. Wenn ein Verb fehlt, dann _Lasst uns mit Gott..._


----------



## Alemanita

Wenn dieser Ausdruck damals als Grußfloskel verwendet wurde, kann es doch sein, dass er ursprünglich allgemein bekannt war aus Theodor Körners Gedicht, wo er - meiner Meinung nach - bedeuten soll: Nun, mit Gottes Hilfe wollen wir es wagen (nämlich: Leben und Blut in die Schanze zu schlagen). Dann verlor sich der ursprüngliche Sinn und er wurde in allen möglichen Kontexten verwendet.


Alles Große kommt uns wieder,
Alles Schoͤne kehrt zuruͤck.
Aber noch gilt es ein graͤßliches Wagen,
Leben und Blut in die Schanze zu ſchlagen;
Nur in dem Opfertod reift uns das Gluͤck.
Nun, mit Gott! wir wollens wagen,
Feſt vereint dem Schickſal ſtehn,
Unſer Herz zum Altar tragen,
Und dem Tod entgegen gehn.


----------



## Demiurg

Alemanita said:


> Wenn dieser Ausdruck damals als Grußfloskel verwendet wurde, kann es doch sein, dass er ursprünglich allgemein bekannt war aus Theodor Körners Gedicht ...



Die Strophe stammt aus Körners "Bundeslied vor der Schlacht" von 1813.  Theodor Körner kämpfte und fiel in den Befreiungskriegen.  Das passt zu dem in #10 zitierten Gedicht von Friedrich Gottlob Wetzel ("Nun mit Gott! Es ist beschlossen!"), das ebenfalls 1813 entstanden ist.

Körner diente im Lützowschen Freikorps.  Der Wahlspruch auf dessen Fahne lautete: "Mit Gott für's Vaterland!".


----------



## Hutschi

I see two possible meanings.
1. Gott sei bei dir. Writer is not included.
2. Nun, handeln wir mit Gott. Writer is included as in Körners text.


----------



## brewzer

How about some feedback on "Be well with God" as an option? The idea that "Nun" = "well" in some contexts is _not at all_ what leads me to this. In fact, the "well" in "Be well with God" is, of course, conveying "health" or "peace" or "happiness." I like this option because, to me, it seems to capture the root sentiment of the writer. And it fixes the concern that "God be with you" inappropriately shifts the onus onto God to be with the subject, instead of vice versa.

What "Be well with God" does not address is the hint of humor/playfulness that some posters here have identified. But so far, no one has suggested a solution to that, I don't think. If I must sacrifice something in the translation, I prefer exchanging the subtle humor/playfulness for a clear English representation of the root sentiment. 

I had also thought of "Be with God," but I don't like the subtle suggestion of impending death, as in "Grandpa is going to be with God."


----------



## elroy

brewzer said:


> i do beieve "Go with God" is a common english phrase today


I wonder what makes you think so.  Have you encountered it being used?  I haven’t (let alone commonly). 


berndf said:


> _God be with_ _you_ [...] is more consoling than encouraging and is therefore not a fitting translation.


I don’t see that nuance.  There’s a hymn called “God be with you till we meet again,” and it’s not about consolation.


brewzer said:


> "Be well with God"





brewzer said:


> "Be with God,"


Sorry, neither of these work for me, English-wise.  They feel like attempts to shoehorn the German “mit Gott” into the English translation.


brewzer said:


> it fixes the concern that "God be with you" inappropriately shifts the onus onto God to be with the subject, instead of vice versa.


I think you’re overanalyzing it.  I don’t see this as a concern at all.


----------



## brewzer

So, you're saying I'm off target regarding the writer's root sentiment? Cuz, honestly, I can't see an English reader of this translation, who never read the German, saying to himself "Hmm, 'Be well with God.' That sounds somehow shoe-horned to me."


----------



## brewzer

Yeah, elroy, I don;'t see the consolation aspect of "God be with you" either. Maybe in 19th century German, but absolutely not in modern English. It is used in Christian churches in AMerica ad nasueum. It is simply a general wish for one to be well using God's grace or by using one's faith in God. I'm not at all against "God be with you."


----------



## brewzer

It sounds like there will not be a consensus here. I will choose between "Be well with God" or "God be with you." Thanks all!!


----------



## elroy

What “root sentiment” do you see?  To me it just sounds like a farewell that makes a reference to God.  I doubt there’s more to it than that.  It’s pretty much this in my view:


brewzer said:


> It is simply a general wish for one to be well using God's grace or by using one's faith in God.


For “nun” I think you can use “and now,” which, like “nun,” is ambiguous between warm and dismissive.


brewzer said:


> I can't see an English reader of this translation, who never read the German, saying to himself "Hmm, 'Be well with God.' That sounds somehow shoe-horned to me."


“Be well” is used, and it’s idiomatic.  “Be well _with God_” is neither of those things, and, quite frankly, makes little sense to me.


brewzer said:


> I will choose between "Be well with God" or "God be with you."


I hope you make the right choice.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> I don’t see that nuance. There’s a hymn called “God be with you till we meet again,” and it’s not about consolation.


Or maybe soothing or reassuring or whatever. But not encouraging and that is the point.


----------



## elroy

I don’t see your point, sorry.  Can you elaborate?


----------



## brewzer

berndf said:


> not encouraging


I can't speak to the German subtleties, but "God be with you" is absolutely a declaration encouragement in Christian churches. That's preciusely tghe point: encouraging your fellow churchgoer to, oh, I don't know, "Be well with God," I'd say.


----------



## elroy

brewzer said:


> "Be well with God," I'd say.


Would you really?  I don't know anyone who would say this.


----------



## Schlabberlatz

brewzer said:


> The writer is thanking the recipient for his loyalty to the writer. The writer signs off the letter, "Nun mit Gott, mein Freund."





brewzer said:


> Both the writer and recipient of this letter (writtin in 1848) were revolutionaries, though from Baden, not Prussia. Still, all the revolutionaies of 1848-49 were considered comrades, especially those from the individual German states. The poem seems like a pretty good reason why the writer would choose that phrase. Do you all agree?


Could you post more context? Does the writer mention a struggle or a fight?



Alemanita said:


> Wenn dieser Ausdruck damals als Grußfloskel verwendet wurde, kann es doch sein, dass er ursprünglich allgemein bekannt war aus Theodor Körners Gedicht, wo er - meiner Meinung nach - bedeuten soll: Nun, mit Gottes Hilfe wollen wir es wagen (nämlich: Leben und Blut in die Schanze zu schlagen). Dann verlor sich der ursprüngliche Sinn und er wurde in allen möglichen Kontexten verwendet.



Yes, but I think it’s possible that the writer of the letter uses the phrase with its original meaning. "With God on our side" or "May God be on our side" or "With God’s help".

I think you might consider "God speed us" as a translation of "Nun mit Gott". Would "God will speed us" also be possible? Is it idiomatic?

Prussian belt buckle:





Koppelschloss Preussen feldgrau
Wayback Machine


----------



## berndf

Es geht hier aber um den Ausruf "Mit Gott". Ich sehe keine Verbindung zu "Gott mit uns". Die Ausrufe werden in komplett unterschiedlichen Kontexten gebraucht.


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Same context, if you ask me: fighting with God on one’s side.



Alemanita said:


> Nun, mit Gott! wir wollens wagen,
> Feſt vereint dem Schickſal ſtehn,
> Unſer Herz zum Altar tragen,
> Und dem Tod entgegen gehn.



The belt buckle was worn by Prussian soldiers.


----------



## berndf

In dem Kontext kann man sicher nicht _mit Gott_ durch _Gott mit uns_ ersetzen. Das würde dem Ausruf eine ganz andere Richtung geben.


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Sorry for the confusion, but I never said they were interchangeable. I just wanted to give one more example of the concept I was talking about: Fighting with God on one’s side.


----------



## berndf

Das ist m.E. genau, wo dich der Vergleich auf eine falsche Fährte führt. "Fighting with God on one’s side" ist die Erklärung für "Gott mit uns" aber nicht für "Mit Gott". Der Ausruf "Mit Gott" hat erst einmal gar nichts mit Kampf oder Parteinahme zu tun, sondern drückt allgemein den Aufbruch zur etwas aus, wozu man die Unterstützung Gottes will. _Mit Gott! Lass uns das Werk beginnen!_


----------



## Thersites

Möglicherweise gibt es Sätze, vor denen man als Übersetzer kapitulieren und sie in Kursivschrift unübersetzt lassen sollte. Dies wäre vielleicht so ein Kandidat.


----------



## Schlabberlatz

berndf said:


> Das ist m.E. genau, wo dich der Vergleich auf eine falsche Fährte führt. "Fighting with God on one’s side" ist die Erklärung für "Gott mit uns" aber nicht für "Mit Gott". Der Ausruf "Mit Gott" hat erst einmal gar nichts mit Kampf oder Parteinahme zu tun, sondern drückt allgemein den Aufbruch zur etwas aus, wozu man die Unterstützung Gottes will. _Mit Gott! Lass uns das Werk beginnen!_


Yes, of course. That’s why I asked for more context:


Schlabberlatz said:


> Could you post more context? Does the writer mention a struggle or a fight?


----------



## berndf

Das verstehe ich nicht ganz. Der Kontext ist doch gegeben ("Mit Gott mein Freund" als Ende eines Briefes). Ich sehe da keinen Zusammenhang mit "Gott mit uns". Es muss schon sehr spezifisch sein, wie in dem Ausruf "Mit Gott für Kaiser und Vaterland" dass überhaupt eine Verbindung besteht, aber auch dort Hat der Ausdruck eine andere Zielrichtung. Nur weil in beiden Ausdrucken die Wörter "Gott" und "mit" vorkommen, sehe ich nicht, warum man die beiden Ausrufe in irgendeinen Zusammenhang stellen sollte.


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Once again, sorry for the confusion.


brewzer said:


> Guys, thank you all for kicking this around. I think Demiurg may be on to the answer. Both the writer and recipient of this letter (writtin in 1848) were revolutionaries, though from Baden, not Prussia. Still, all the revolutionaies of 1848-49 were considered comrades, especially those from the individual German states. The poem seems like a pretty good reason why the writer would choose that phrase.


One comrade is writing to another comrade. One fighter for the revolution is writing to another fighter.


Schlabberlatz said:


> Could you post more context? Does the writer mention a struggle or a fight?



Let’s wait for more context, please. It does not make any sense to prolong our discussion without more context. I do not know, though, if the OP is still interested in this thread. Sorry for having answered so late.

Edit:


Schlabberlatz said:


> Yes, but I think it’s possible that the writer of the letter uses the phrase with its original meaning. "With God on our side" or "May God be on our side" or "With God’s help".


I never said that it _is_ so. I only said that it’s _possibly_ so.


----------



## Hutschi

Hutschi said:


> I see two possible meanings.
> 1. Gott sei bei dir. Writer is not included.
> 2. Nun, handeln wir mit Gott. Writer is included as in Körners text.


I forgot an essential meaning: Nun, mit Gott! = Do as you like!

... in this case it is an idiom.


----------



## manfy

Hutschi said:


> I forgot an essential meaning: Nun, mit Gott! = Do as you like!


Do as you like?  Das hat doch irgendwie einen abwertenden "vibe", so wie "Ach, tu doch was du willst! [Ist mir doch egal...]"

Google zeigt doch einige gute Belege von "Mit Gott, mein xxx".

Eine Kurzrecherche zeigt, dass das wohl eine Variante von _Adieu!, Adios! _(aus dem Lateinischen ad deum = zu Gott (hin)) und _Gott befohlen!_ war.
Ich interpretiere die Grussfloskel "(Nun [wieder]) mit Gott" in Sinne von "wir trennen uns hier und sind nun wieder "allein mit Gott", d.h. man bedauert, dass man sich von der gegrüßten Person trennen muss, aber man ist trotzdem nicht besorgt oder geängstigt, weil nicht  allein, da Gott mit dir, bzw. mit beiden weiterzieht."
Somit prinzipiell identisch mit _Adieu_.


----------



## Hutschi

manfy said:


> Do as you like?  Das hat doch irgendwie einen abwertenden "vibe", so wie "Ach, tu doch was du willst! [Ist mir doch egal...]"


Genau.

Und das ist das Problem: Es hängt vom genauen Kontext ab, im mündlichen auch vom Tonfall.

Es klingt in dieser Bedeutung etwas genervt.

Ähnlich: "Na gut, in Gottes Namen!" (auch Idiom, hat mit Gott nicht viel zu tun.)

Ohne "nun"  und mit "mein"


manfy said:


> "Mit Gott, mein xxx".



sehe ich diese leicht pejorative Bedeutung _nicht._


----------



## Thersites

Demiurg said:


> "Mit Gott für König und Vaterland" was the motto of the Prussian army.
> 
> Here's a patriotic poem from the Wars of Liberation against Napoleon:
> 
> Nun mit Gott! Es ist beschlossen!
> Auf, Ihr wackern Streitgenossen,
> Endlich kommt der Ehrentag!
> Besser flugs und fröhlich sterben,
> Als so langsam hin verderben,
> Und versiechen in der Schmach.


Zur Auffrischung aus ferner Vergangenheit (wenn der Thread schon gehijackt wird...)


----------



## Schlabberlatz

Hutschi said:


> Nun, mit Gott! = Do as you like!





manfy said:


> Do as you like?  Das hat doch irgendwie einen abwertenden "vibe", so wie "Ach, tu doch was du willst! [Ist mir doch egal...]"


There is a comma in "Nun, mit Gott", and there is no comma before "mit" in the version in the OP:


brewzer said:


> "Nun mit Gott, mein Freund."


… so I take Hutschi’s remark to be an aside.



Hutschi said:


> I see two possible meanings.
> 1. Gott sei bei dir. Writer is not included.
> 2. Nun, handeln wir mit Gott. Writer is included as in Körners text.




I think that 2) might be the correct reading, but I’m not sure:


Alemanita said:


> Wenn dieser Ausdruck damals als Grußfloskel verwendet wurde, kann es doch sein, dass er ursprünglich allgemein bekannt war aus Theodor Körners Gedicht, wo er - meiner Meinung nach - bedeuten soll: Nun, mit Gottes Hilfe wollen wir es wagen (nämlich: Leben und Blut in die Schanze zu schlagen). Dann verlor sich der ursprüngliche Sinn und er wurde in allen möglichen Kontexten verwendet.





Schlabberlatz said:


> Yes, but I think it’s possible that the writer of the letter uses the phrase with its original meaning. "With God on our side" or "May God be on our side" or "With God’s help".



To avoid further misunderstandings:


Schlabberlatz said:


> I never said that it _is_ so. I only said that it’s _possibly_ so.





Schlabberlatz said:


> Same context, if you ask me: fighting with God on one’s side.


That refers to Körner’s poem and the belt buckle saying "Gott mit uns". ("Gott mit _uns_".)

And I _think_ (like Hutschi) that the "Nun mit Gott" in the OP _could_ also have a "plural meaning", so to speak. The meaning _could_ be the same or at least comparable to the "Nun mit Gott" in Körner’s poem.


----------



## Hutschi

Schlabberlatz said:


> There is a comma in "Nun, mit Gott", and there is no comma before "mit" in the version in the OP:


Thanks, you are right, I misread it.
Without comma it has no pejorative meaning.


----------

