# angekommen wäre/ es...auf etw. angekommen wäre



## sedmont

*Have I correctly translated to English *
*es...auf etw. angekommen wäre*
*?*
_____________________________________________

Enttäuscht äußerte sich auch Carl von Ossietzky, der im Juni 1919 darauf hinwies, daß *es* in den ersten Monaten nach dem Umsturz *auf* einen dreifachen Neubeginn *angekommen wäre.*

Carl von Ossietzky also expressed disappointment. In June 1919 he pointed out that in the first months after the revolution, a threefold new beginning *was what would have mattered.*
_____________________________________________

Thanks very much for any help.


----------



## Kajjo

Yes, the phrase in red is translated fine.


----------



## sedmont

Kajjo, thanks very much.


----------



## bearded

Kajjo said:


> Yes, the phrase in red is translated fine


Couldn't it just mean ''a threefold new beginning was what had mattered'' with 'wäre' in Konjunktiv II just because of the indirect speech (in direct speech 'war')?
I figure that ''was what would have mattered'' would read ''auf einen dreifachen Neubeginn ankommen würde''. Am I mistaken? Thank you in advance for solving this doubt of mine.


----------



## sedmont

Hi bearded,

if it was indirect speech, why not use Konjunktive 1: sei angekommen? I guess that would be indirect speech for "had mattered"

Also, doesn't "würde ankommen" mean "would matter," not, "would have mattered"?

For what it's worth, that's what I piece together by combining various sources:
Conjugate "ankommen" - German conjugation - bab.la verb conjugator
and 
Konjunktiv II
Konjunktiv I [Subjunctive I]


----------



## bearded

You might be right, Sedmont.   However, I understand that Kon.II _also may _be used in such an indirect speech. In order to be quite sure, I hope to read opinions from native grammarians.


----------



## anahiseri

it's not clear to me if the speaker's original words were
*Es ist auf . . . . . angekommen, *and the Konj II is used for indirect speech (I consider this is not really correct, but it is often used) OR
*Es wäre auf. . . . . .angekommen,* and in this case you must leave the same tense in indirect speech.

i don't know about the historical context, but it seems to me that the speaker's disappointment points to the fact that the "threefold beginning" did not happen, so this would favor the second option.
Besides, I'm not very happy with "matter", but I don't know if I'll be able to come up with a better translation.


----------



## ayuda?

anahiseri said:


> it's not clear to me if the speaker's original words were
> *Es ist auf . . . . . angekommen, *and the Konj II is used for indirect speech (I consider this is not really correct, but it is often used) OR
> *Es wäre auf. . . . . .angekommen,* and in this case you must leave the same tense in indirect speech.
> [Additional context would help to clear this up, but i agree with your perspective here.
> 
> i don't know about the historical context* [illegal German rearmament after WWI],*
> ...would favor the second option.
> Besides, I'm *not very happy with "matter"*, but I don't know if I'll be able to come up with a better translation.




Enttäuscht äußerte sich auch Carl von Ossietzky, der im Juni 1919 darauf hinwies, daß *es* in den ersten Monaten nach dem Umsturz *auf* einen dreifachen Neubeginn *angekommen wäre.*


● I agree with _Bearded_ and _anehisieri’s_ sharp observation about it being a matter of simple reported speech.

*Given the context we have and based on that, I would say: *
In June 1919 he pointed out that in the first months after the revolution,
▶…a threefold new beginning *was what would have mattered.*

▶…*a threefold new beginning resulted*/*came about
it became a matter *of a threefold/three-part new beginning
*it resulted in*/*ended up being*/*turned out to be*…  a threefold/three-part new beginning
*there was a threefold/three-part *new beginning


----------



## sedmont

*In case it clarifies anything, I've now included, in green below, the sentence that follows the sentence we are all discussing.*
__________________________________________

*Enttäuscht äußerte sich auch Carl von Ossietzky, der im Juni 1919 darauf hinwies, daß es in den ersten Monaten nach dem Umsturz auf einen dreifachen Neubeginn angekommen wäre: "Auf drei Gebieten mußten wir unbedingten Bruch mit alten Methoden und Neuaufbau erwarten. Auf dem politischen, dem wirtschaftlichen und dem geistig-sittlichen."*
__________________________________________



bearded said:


> I understand that Kon.II _also may _be used in such an indirect speech. In order to be quite sure, I hope to read opinions from native grammarians.


I was under the (mistaken?) impression that Konj II only substitutes for Konj 1 when Konj 1 is not distinguishable from non-Konjunktive forms -- but sei angekommen is distinguishable, so if indirect speech were intended, I suppose sei angekommen would have been used? Thus I assumed the author used Kon. 2 _as_ Kon. 2. *What do you think, bearded? Anahiseri, what do you think?

*
__________________________________________
__________________________________________

*ayuda suggests:*
_…a threefold new beginning resulted/came about_

Ayuda, thanks.  The difficulty with that translation is that a threefolding new beginning did not come about, and the author was talking about the disappointment of Carl Ossietzky.


----------



## Kajjo

sedmont said:


> auf einen dreifachen Neubeginn angekommen wäre


So im erweiterten Kontext verstehe als das jetzt als indirekte Rede, die direkte Rede folgt danach.


----------



## sedmont

Kajjo, thanks.
So the author could just as well have used "angekommen sei" instead of "angekommen wäre" ?

And the translation should be "what has mattered/what mattered" not "what would have mattered" ?

*Enttäuscht äußerte sich auch Carl von Ossietzky, der im Juni 1919 darauf hinwies, daß es in den ersten Monaten nach dem Umsturz auf einen dreifachen Neubeginn angekommen wäre: "Auf drei Gebieten mußten wir unbedingten Bruch mit alten Methoden und Neuaufbau erwarten. Auf dem politischen, dem wirtschaftlichen und dem geistig-sittlichen."*

*Carl von Ossietzky also expressed disappointment. In June 1919 he pointed out that in the first months after the revolution, a threefold new beginning **was what mattered: "In three areas we had to expect an unconditional break with the old methods, and [we had to expect] reconstruction. In the economic, the political, and the spiritual-moral."*


----------



## anahiseri

sedmont, you're not mistaken about the rules of the Konj. I and II, it's exactly like you say. And you've drawn a very interesting conclusion:
Thus I assumed the author used Kon. 2 _as_ Kon. 2. *What do you think, bearded? Anahiseri, what do you think?* 
Yes, *angekommen wäre *could be both the reported speech expression and the direct speech.But then you contradict yourself: 
So the author could just as well have used "angekommen sei" instead of "angekommen wäre" ?

And the translation should be "what has mattered/what mattered" not "what would have mattered" ?
In my view, it should be something like
*a threefold new beginning would have mattered           *or
          .  .   .   .   .   .    .   .   .  *was what we had to aim at    *or
*          .  .   .   .   .   .    .   .   .  was the point*


----------



## sedmont

anahiseri thanks.
I wasn't really contradicting myself -- In post #11 I say something different from what I said in post #9, because Kajjo's post #10 made me change my view or become unsure of it.

After the sentence we are all now discussing, Ossietzky is quoted. You can see it below, the *green sentence.  *After reading that green sentence, Kajjo concluded that the preceding sentence IS reported speech.

*Enttäuscht äußerte sich auch Carl von Ossietzky, der im Juni 1919 darauf hinwies, daß es in den ersten Monaten nach dem Umsturz auf einen dreifachen Neubeginn angekommen wäre: "Auf drei Gebieten mußten wir unbedingten Bruch mit alten Methoden und Neuaufbau erwarten. Auf dem politischen, dem wirtschaftlichen und dem geistig-sittlichen."*

What do you think, anahiseri?  Do you agree with Kajjo?


----------



## anahiseri

Well, i agree that *daß* ..............*wäre* is indirect speech, but this seems obvious to me, I never had a doubt, the verb *hinweisen* is a synonym of "say, state, point out etc." And the rest of the text is in quotation marks, so it's crystal clear that it's direct speech.


----------



## ayuda?

sedmont said:


> *ayuda suggests:*
> _…a threefold new beginning resulted/came about_
> Ayuda, thanks. The difficulty with that translation is that a threefolding new beginning did not come about, and the author was talking about the disappointment of Carl Ossietzky.


*You said:In case it clarifies anything, I've now included, in green below, the sentence that follows the sentence we are all discussing.*
Exactly! A lot things need to be clarified!

*Point 1):
I originally said:*
In June 1919 he pointed out that in the first months after the revolution,
 ▶…a threefold new beginning *was what would have mattered.*

▶…*a threefold new beginning resulted*/*came about*
*it became a matter *of a threefold/three-part new beginning
*it resulted in*/*ended up being*/*turned out to be*… a threefold/three-part new beginning
*there was a threefold/three-part *new beginning

I don’t particularly agree with _Sedmont’s _translation either—*mattered*.
That’s just my opinion. I wish more good native English speakers would join the forum and contribute.
Without that we have only a narrow view of what is the best way to translate certain excerpts.
That makes the perspective a bit myopic and intransigent!
*

In my response to what we were given this is what I  basically said:*
A disappointed Carl von Ossietzky, who pointed out/said in June 1919 that in the first months after the revolution: [this was as a consequence of the revolution]


▶…*a threefold new beginning resulted*/*came about*
*it became a matter *of a threefold/three-part new beginning
*it resulted in*/*ended up being*/*turned out to be*… a threefold/three-part new beginning
*there was a threefold/three-part *new beginning

This is my impression of what was meant or could have been meant, *just given the context we had*.
Would one of the natives ,K_ajjo, anahisieri bearded_, please confirm that this is or is not a valid interpretation translation of that excerpt—especially that *it ended up in/resulted in a  threefold new beginning*.**[ The basic idea, anyway.] [From just this excerpt alone I do not see that *“it* *did not* *come about.*
Maybe _sedmont_ got that from what followed or came before, but, on its face value, that’s what I understand it to be.
I will stand to be corrected by any of you expert natives and would appreciate your input.

*Point 2.) *
_Sedmont_, no one expects you, with your knowledge of German, to know when you might use *Konjunktiv I* or *Konjunktiv ll*. There are, however, a lot of good books and sources out there. We all need to be _enlightened_ *☼* now and then.
●That fact is where the form of *Subjunctive l* look exactly identical to the *Indicative* forms,
*Subjunctive l *is replaced by *Subjunctive ll* to avoid ambiguity.
*This occurs only in* the *wir—*and *sie—*[pl.] and *Sie—*forms because these forms are identical in both the *Indicative* and *Sunjunctive*. [I don’t think that *es... *meets this standard here!!]
● When reporting someone’s statements, German speakers often use *Subjunctive ll* to indicate the accuracy of what they are reporting:
*Example:
Direct speech:* Paul sagte zu mir: „Hans ist drogenabhängig,“
*Indirect speech:* Paul sagte zu mir, dass Hans drogenabhängig *wäre*.
● There are other cases where *Subjunctive l* and *Subjunctive ll* can be used interchangeably:
*Example:* [When reporting commands]
_Thomas soll einseitige Meinungen vermeiden und offen sein, da er nicht alles weiß._
*Direct speech: *Der Lehrer sagte zu Thomas:  „Seien Sie offen*!“
Indirect speech: *Der Lehrer sagte, dass er offen sein *solle/sollte*.

*Point 3.) *
●When someone posts something, they should *include as much context as possible!*
That made a difference here to everybody.
●There might also be an exclamation point [*!*] here or there; nevertheless, I think you might deduce that it would not impact anything…you just overlook it. I hope you understand the point I am making*!*
●The same applies to a statement made in the positive sense or a negative sense,  e.g., “a threefolding ??new beginning did* not* come about.” With something like that, you can just take out the *not*.


----------



## sedmont

anahiseri,
If, as you say, *daß* ..............*wäre *is indirect speech, why did the author not say *sei *instead of *wäre *?

*Perhaps I know the answer to that question: * If I hear Joe utter the words "es angekommen wäre" -- and Joe means: "It would have mattered" -- and then I want to report Joe's statement to Susan, there is no Konj. I "reported speech" form to report Joe's statement, is there? So in reporting it, I have to use the same words Joe himself used, "es angekommen wäre" ?

That means that Konj II can be used as reported speech _not only _when Konj. I is indistinguishable from non-Konj. forms.  Konj. II can also be used as reported speech when one is reporting someone else's Konj. II statement!  True?

Thus in the below quotation, if the author reporting the speech of Ossietzky had wanted to report Ossietzky said "mattered" or "has mattered," then the author would have used "angekommen sei" -- but since the author used "angekommen wäre" to report Ossietzky, Ossietzky himself must have said "angekommen wäre" "would have mattered" -- there is no other way to report subj.II speech except to repeat subj. II speech, correct?



sedmont said:


> Enttäuscht äußerte sich auch Carl von Ossietzky, der im Juni 1919 darauf hinwies, daß es in den ersten Monaten nach dem Umsturz auf einen dreifachen Neubeginn angekommen wäre: "Auf drei Gebieten mußten wir unbedingten Bruch mit alten Methoden und Neuaufbau erwarten. Auf dem politischen, dem wirtschaftlichen und dem geistig-sittlichen."


----------



## anahiseri

Correct, sedmont!


----------



## bearded

sedmont said:


> there is no other way to report subj.II speech except to repeat subj. II speech, correct?



That's correct, but on the other hand, when one finds a Kon.II in indirect speech, one cannot be sure whether the corresponding direct speech was also in Kon.II:


ayuda? said:


> *Direct speech:* Paul sagte zu mir: „Hans ist drogenabhängig,“
> *Indirect speech:* Paul sagte zu mir, dass Hans drogenabhängig *wäre*


Therefore, the uncertainty remains concerning the original sentence .
Neither grammar nor context cast a real light on the issue, methinks.
I don't actually like the verb 'matter' here, either. Perhaps 'count' is better...?
So it might be ''he pointed out that what (had) counted was a threefold new beginning'' or ''he pointed out that what would have counted was a threefold new beginning'' - at your choice.

Ayuda: thanks for including me in the list of  ''natives''
And I like your ''it became a matter of a threefold new beginning''.


----------



## ayuda?

bearded said:


> Ayuda: thanks for including me in the list of  ''natives''
> .



Your point of view is always very important: both your English and German are excellent.
Sometimes it seems we have had to dig a little deeper and see things from a slightly different perspective.
That’s what is needed. And it is key!
The English of the others on this thread is excellent as well. I kind of completes the whole picture.
There aren't always a lot of us in the forum.


----------



## sedmont

I'm grateful that you all have views to share about this (to me) difficult subjunctive business. I am becoming acquainted here with intricacies that are new to me.
___________________________________________________________

sedmont said: 
there is no other way to report subj.II speech except to repeat subj. II speech, correct?


bearded said:


> That's correct, but on the other hand, when one finds a Kon.II in indirect speech, one cannot be sure whether the corresponding direct speech was also in Kon.II


Ok, but is that also the case with, say, formal or scholarly texts? In a formal text, if one wanted to report that someone said "a threefold change was the point/had been the point", wouldn't one usually have to use "angekommen sei"?  Not "angekommen wäre"?  And in formal texts, wouldn't one usually use "angekommen wäre" in reported speech only if the speaker himself said "_would_ have"?


----------



## bearded

sedmont said:


> in formal texts, wouldn't one usually use "angekommen wäre" in reported speech only if the speaker himself said "_would_ have"?


I don't think so.  Please see the possibilities to render ''Er sagte: ich finde es gut'' in indirect speech, according to Canoonet: canoonet - Verb: Modus: Konjunktiv: Indirekte Rede.  I think that Canoonet does not refer to informal speech, when using ''fände''.


----------



## sedmont

bearded, thanks very much, that page is the clearest thing I've seen on the subjunctive. I love it. The page maps everything out. I'm keeping it for reference.

Since I have a choice, I'm not going to use "would have" in the sentence we have been discussing.


----------



## bearded

sedmont said:


> Since I have a choice, I'm not going to use "would have" in the sentence we have been discussing


Your privilege.
Glad that you appreciate that page/link.


----------



## anahiseri

I've read everything over again and I confess i have some doubts. The correct way to phrase indirect speech is Konj.I , with some exceptions that are not applicable here, but Konj. II is very common (or even absolutely normal) in colloquial spoken German, and I wonder whether it could also be used in an (apparently) formal text like this. I give up.


----------



## bearded

ayuda? said:


> Your point of view is always very important


That's too kind of you. I'm blushing.


----------



## sedmont

anahiseri said:


> I've read everything over again and I confess i have some doubts. The correct way to phrase indirect speech is Konj.I , with some exceptions that are not applicable here, but Konj. II is very common (or even absolutely normal) in colloquial spoken German, and I wonder whether it could also be used in an (apparently) formal text like this. I give up.



anahiseri,

The link bearded gave

canoonet - Verb: Modus: Konjunktiv: Indirekte Rede

shows a chart if one scrolls down a bit:

*Tabelle: Ersatzformen direkte Rede » indirekte Rede*

The chart seems to say, if I read the German right, that Konj II can be used to phrase indirect speech -- and that the choice between Konj 1 and Konj 2 to phrase indirect speech is a matter of style, not right or wrong. I don't know if the chart refers only to ordinary conversation, or if it also refers to formal writing and scholarly texts.  I wonder what you think of the chart in reference to this whole discussion?


----------



## anahiseri

Well, I can't really say more than I said in my previous message. 
I said Konj. 2 is very common (or even absolutely normal) in colloquial spoken German

you say, based on the grammar web you've seen (which I am acquainted with)
Konj II can be used to phrase indirect speech -- and the choice between Konj 1 and Konj 2 to phrase indirect speech is a matter of style, not right or wrong.

Well, it's a question of deciding whether the "style" can include something which some people consider wrong. . . .
When I studied at the Gymnasium (secondary school), iI had to use Konj. 1 in my compositions, or the German teacher would mark the verb as wrong. That was long time ago, though. . . . . I don't know if they are more lenient now. 
But *in spoken language*, I would go as far as saying that *nobody uses Konj 1.*
(except it's a formal speech).
And on the other hand I guess you can find a lot of this informal Konj 2 (or würde) in informal written texts. . . 

I am not an authority to decide on this (if there is any)


----------



## anahiseri

On the internet you can find all kinds of opinions. For example this
Sei oder wäre? - Bastian Sick


----------



## anahiseri

Und noch ein sehr interessanter Standpunkt:
(obwohl nicht auf unseren konkreten Fall anwendbar)



In manchen Formen mancher Verben klingt der Konjunktiv I für viele Sprecher dermaßen gestelzt und veraltet, dass sie dort auch bei formalem Sprachgebrauch in der indirekten Rede den Konjunktiv II verwenden:

_Er sagte, ihr wäret nicht rechtzeitig informiert worden._
Ich wäre ziemlich überrascht, hier in einem gegenwartssprachlichen Text den Konjunktiv I zu finden:
?_Er sagte, ihr seiet nicht rechtzeitig informiert worden._

Entsprechendes gilt für einige Konjunktiv I-Formen von _haben_:
_Er sagte, du hättest den Wagen schon verkauft._
?_Er sagte, du habest den Wagen schon verkauft._


----------



## Kajjo

anahiseri said:


> On the internet you can find all kinds of opinions. For example this
> Sei oder wäre? - Bastian Sick


In this case I fully agree with Sick. Nicely presented and easy to remember.


----------



## sedmont

Thanks very much anahiseri for the further thoughts and the interesting websites. And to Kajjo too.


----------



## Kajjo

> _Enttäuscht äußerte sich auch Carl von Ossietzky, der im Juni 1919 darauf hinwies, daß es in den ersten Monaten nach dem Umsturz auf einen dreifachen Neubeginn angekommen wäre: "Auf drei Gebieten mußten wir unbedingten Bruch mit alten Methoden und Neuaufbau erwarten. Auf dem politischen, dem wirtschaftlichen und dem geistig-sittlichen."_


core sentence:

_(1) Carl wies darauf hin, dass es auf einen dreifachen Neubeginn angekommen wäre.
(2) Carl wies darauf hin, dass es auf einen dreifachen Neubeginn angekommen sei.
_
Correctly, the indirect speech should use version (2). Konjunktiv II is only allowed if Konj. I is identical to Indikativ_. _However, many people use Konj. II instead of Konj. I without any particular intention. 

If taken literally, the Konj. II must be interpreted as irrealis or potentialis, i.e. not as fact.

Without the knowledge of the further context it is not possible to decide which version is true. The author can actually mean Konj. II or he can just sloppily have used Konj. II. 

_

_


----------



## anahiseri

Amen.


----------



## sedmont

Kajjo and anahiseri, thanks.


Kajjo said:


> Konjunktiv II is only allowed if Konj. I is identical to Indikativ_._


Kajjo, isn't Konjunktiv II also supposed to be used to report speech that was in Konjunktiv II?


----------



## anahiseri

Oh yeah . . . . .


----------



## Kajjo

sedmont said:


> Kajjo, isn't Konjunktiv II also supposed to be used to report speech that was in Konjunktiv II?


Yes.


----------



## sedmont

Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## JClaudeK

Kajjo said:


> Correctly, the indirect speech should use version (2). Konjunktiv II is only allowed if Konj. I is identical to Indikativ


Ausnahmen:


> *wenn das Verb in der zweiten Person Singular und Plural steht.* Dann ziehen viele die Formen des Konjunktivs II (respektive die würde-Formen) den als veraltet oder gehoben empfundenen Formen des Konjunktivs I vor:
> Man behauptet, du hättest das absichlich getan (statt: du habest das absichtlich getan).
> Ich dachte, ihr wär(e)t schon weggegangen (statt: ihr seiet schon weggegangen).
> canoonet - Verb: Modus: Konjunktiv: Indirekte Rede


----------



## Kajjo

JClaudeK said:


> Ausnahmen


Ja, das stimmt. Was wäre die Welt ohne Ausnahmen. Aber diese Ausnahmen sind ja nicht für die Titelfrage einschlägig.


----------



## JClaudeK

Kajjo said:


> Aber diese Ausnahmen sind ja nicht für die Titelfrage einschlägig.


War als Information für sedmont gedacht (der sich Fragen zum KonjunktivI und II stellt) ....


----------

