# hätte er nie gedacht, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde (reported speech or speculation?)



## Kay Champs

Als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hätte er nie gedacht, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde (cited from Huffpost.com)

This ist an extract form an artcle of Huffpost.com. 

Does "hätte er nie gedacht" express a reported speech (Konjunktiv II, in which case  "hätte" may be replaced, I think, by "habe", Konjunktiv I) or the Auther's speculation? or could it be both?

Also I wish to know why it is "hätte" here instead of "habe."


----------



## JClaudeK

_"hätte er nie gedacht"_ (the Auther's speculation) _= "he would have  never thougt/ imagined ..."_


Kay Champs said:


> Also I wish to know why it is "hätte" here instead of "habe."


If it were "habe" it would express a reported speech.


----------



## Kay Champs

Now, everything is clear to me 
Thank you JClaudeK.


----------



## Kajjo

JClaudeK said:


> Auther's speculation


The author's? Why? "Er" decided to become king and this "er" would have never thought to reach such a prominent status.


----------



## Alemanita

Hier ist der größere Ausschnitt:
_Als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hätte er nie gedacht, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde. "Ich habe mich aber schon immer gefragt, ob mir Schmuck stehen würde", sagt er. Als er jahrelang nur noch mit einer Krone durch die Stadt lief, begannen die Augsburger ihn "König" zu nennen._
Der fragliche Satz steht in einer Reportage, in der direkte Rede und indirekte Rede sich abwechseln. Ich habe den Satz als Wiedergabe der Äußerung: "Ich habe nie gedacht, dass ich einmal so bekannt werden würde" interpretiert.


----------



## JClaudeK

Alemanita said:


> Ich habe den Satz als Wiedergabe der Äußerung: "Ich habe nie gedacht, dass ich einmal so bekannt werden würde" interpretiert.


Der Satz_ "Ich habe nie gedacht, dass ich einmal so bekannt werden würde" _ergäbe in indirekter Rede:_ Er *habe*  nie gedacht, dass ich er einmal so bekannt werden würde._


----------



## Kajjo

Alemanita said:


> ch habe den Satz als Wiedergabe der Äußerung: "Ich habe nie gedacht, dass ich einmal so bekannt werden würde" interpretiert.


Sinngemäß mag das richtig sein, aber grammatisch ist der Satz "Er hätte..." keine indirekte Rede. Erstens fehlt jegliche Form der Einleitung ("er sagte/behauptete/antwortete/erzählte, .."), zweitens sind diese irrealen Konjunktiv-II-Konstruktionen doch ohnehin recht gebräuchlich:

_Sehr viele Bürger hätten nie gedacht, dass ....
Er hätte nie gedacht, dass..._

Für welche direkte Rede sollte denn das erste Beispiel stehen?

Ich weiß leider nicht, ob es einen konkreten Ausdruck für diese Art der Verwendung des Konjunktiv II gibt.


----------



## Kay Champs

Alemanita's interpretation reminds me that also in French, there are cases of mixed speeches involving direct and indirect speeches, though I forget the formal name  of that method, which is not preceded by an introductory part like “someone said, blah blah.”


----------



## Hutschi

JClaudeK said:


> Der Satz_ "Ich habe nie gedacht, dass ich einmal so bekannt werden würde" _ergäbe in indirekter Rede:_ "Er *habe*  nie gedacht, dass ich einmal so bekannt werden würde"._


I am in doubt that "habe" is correct here. So I ask the following question:

What is "Ich hätte nie gedacht, _dass ich einmal so bekannt werden würde" in indirect speech?_
Und was ergibt: "Ich hätte nie gedacht, _dass ich einmal so bekannt werden würde" in indirekter Rede?_

Ich denke, durch den Gesamtkontext ist beides (hypothetische und indirekte Rede) möglich und vorhanden.
Due to context both is possible, direct speech and hypothetical speech.

"Ich hätte nie gedacht ..." ist eine feste Form und bedeutet "ich habe in keiner Weise erwartet ...".
"Ich hätte nie gedacht ..."  is a fixed form, and it means "I did not expect this at all" - "I would never heve expected/thought this."

Direkte Rede:
Direct speech:

_Der König sagte: "Als ich 1922 beschloss/beschlossen habe, König zu werden, hätte ich nie gedacht, wie bekannt ich einmal werden würde. Ich habe mich aber schon immer gefragt, ob mir Schmuck stehen würde."_

Indirekte Rede:
Indirect speech:

Der König sagte, _als er 1922 beschloss/beschlossen habe, König zu werden, hätte er nie gedacht, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde. Er habe sich aber schon immer gefragt, ob ihm Schmuck stehen würde._

Gemischt (wie im Original):
Mixed (as in the original):

_Als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hätte er nie gedacht, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde. "Ich habe mich aber schon immer gefragt, ob mir Schmuck stehen würde", sagte er._
(Im Original steht Präsens. Ich habe Vergangenheit gewählt, weil kein Kontext in meinen Beispielen vorhanden ist.)
In the original, present tense is used. I used past tense, because of my examples do not have context.


----------



## berndf

Kay Champs said:


> Also I wish to know why it is "hätte" here instead of "habe."


Because it is hypothetical. The whole thing is _hypothetical conditional_. German does not formally distinguish between subjunctive mood and conditional as English or French do. Conditional is one of the things Konjunktiv II expresses.


----------



## Hutschi

Indeed hypothetical speech and hypothetical indirect speech use both the same Konjunktiv II. (I write Konjunktiv to indicate it is German form of conjunctive/subjunctive/hypothetical conditional.)

So only the context gives hints whether it is indirect speech.

Konjunktiv II is additionally used if you do not agree to the reported speech or if you are in doubt. (In a larger sense this is also hypothetical speech.)

Edit: more precise.


----------



## JClaudeK

JClaudeK said:


> Der Satz_ "Ich habe nie gedacht, dass ich einmal so bekannt werden würde" _ergäbe in indirekter Rede:_ Er *habe*  nie gedacht, dass *er* einmal so bekannt werden würde.
> 
> 
> Hutschi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in doubt that "habe" is correct here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _





> *Reported speech and subjunctive mood*
> Normally, the verb in reported speech is in the subjunctive I.
> Er sagt(e): „Das Kind hat Hunger gehabt.“ > Er sagt(e), das Kind habe Hunger gehabt.
> Er sagt(e): „Das Kind hatte Hunger gehabt.“ > Er sagt(e), das Kind habe Hunger gehabt.
> canoonet - Verb: Mood: Subjunctive: Reported speech


In France, we teach pupils:
_Only if confusion is possible, you should use subjunctive II:_
_ex.: _
Er sagt(e): "Wir/ sie *haben* nie gedacht, dass ...." > Er sagt(e), sie *hätten** nie gedacht, dass ....
*** subjunctive I = indicative


----------



## Hutschi

Hi, JClaudeK, in our case the confusion is with Konjunktiv, changing meaning:

"Ich hätte nie gedacht/nie geglaubt ..." is a fixed form as idiom. =_ Mir wäre es nicht im Traum eingefallen. = Ich hätte nie erwartet ...= unter keiner Bedingung hätte ich erwartet,... = I never expected, not even in my dreams._
It is very different to
"Ich habe nie gedacht/nie geglaubt ...". _I never thought .../ I never believed ..._


I have a problem, too: I do not understand the concept of subjunctive. So I cannot say if there is confusion in your special case ...

But with wrong usage of Konjunktiv (I or II) it definitely will be there.

Best regards
Bernd

PS: For me it is difficult to remember which part of Konjunktiv is Subjunctive, and even more what is the difference in different languages.

2. PS: There may be context in which it is the Konjunktiv II of "Sie haben nie gedacht."

(Ergänzung)
Example:
Paul sagt: "Ich habe nie gedacht, dass das so sei."
Paul sagt, er habe nie gedacht, dass das so sei. (Ich glaube ihm.)
Paul sagt, er hätte nie gedacht, dass das so sei. (Ich glaube ihm nicht. Es ist mindestens hypothetisch falsch.)
Das kann aber auch die oben erläuterte Bedeutung haben: "Er sagt, ihm wäre nicht im Traum eingefallen, dass das so sei." Es hängt vom Kontext ab.


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> ndeed hypothetical speech and hypothetical indirect speech use both the same Konjunktiv II.


It is neither necessary nor does it further a deeper understanding to allude to the concept of _reported speech_. The description as _hypothetical conditional_ is in itself sufficient and accurate. And convolution with the concept of _reported speech _is more confusing than helpful.


----------



## Hutschi

Hi Bernd, thank you for this explanation.

But I do not understand it fully.

Do you mean that it does not exist in reported speech? I'm confused now myself.

I learnt that reported speech can have as well Konjunktiv 1 as Konjunktiv 2, depending on conditions. Is this wrong?

I think I misunderstand it.

But how would you form indirect speech in case of "_ich hätte  nie gedacht, wie bekannt ich  einmal werden würde."?

Added:_
I think that hypotheticality principle has priority. So it is necessary to consider it.


----------



## Kay Champs

My German grammar books say the same thing as JClaudeK. So I thought the matter is so simple. 
Je n’aurais jamais cru the matter is so complicated.
I will be reading this thread over again from the beginning when all that is to be said is said to really understand.
The matter is so interesting!
Please keep on going with the thread.


----------



## Hutschi

Hi, I will discuss it with Bernd and JClaudeK, so we can give an appropriate summery in a simple form, if they agree.
It is a very special case here.


----------



## Kajjo

Hutschi said:


> It is a very special case here.


Is it really?

_Hätte ich das bloß nicht gemacht!
Daran hätte ich nie gedacht!
Er hätte nie gedacht, dass...
Als sie jung war, hätte sie nie für möglich gehalten, dass..._

What is "very special" about all these examples? Please, don't make it more complicated than it really is. This is normal, absolutely idiomatic usage of _Konjunktiv II_. This has nothing at all to do with indirect speech.

If you open a private group, please include me.


----------



## Hutschi

The special case is when you transfer them to indirect speech and then try to transfer back ...
I never säid that it is indirect speech without context. It can be or not indirect speech.

_Hätte ich das bloß nicht gemacht! -> Er sagte, hätte er das bloß nicht gemacht._
_Daran hätte ich nie gedacht! -> Er sagte, daran hätte er nie gedacht.
_
All these examples clearly remain in Konjunktiv II in indirect speech.
If you transfer back, it might be fuzzy:
_Er sagte, daran hätte er nie gedacht._
Depending on context:

Daran hätte ich nie gedacht
Daran habe ich nie gedacht.
This is the point.


----------



## JClaudeK

Hutschi said:


> I have a problem, too: I do not understand the concept of subjunctive.


The English page  uses "subjunctive"
whereas the German page uses "Konjunktiv"
So, that's the same thing here.


----------



## JClaudeK

berndf said:


> It is neither necessary nor does it further a deeper understanding to allude to the concept of _reported speech_. And convolution with the concept of _reported speech _is more confusing than helpful.


Da Kay danach gefragt hat,


Kay Champs said:


> Does "hätte er nie gedacht" express a reported speech [....] ?


mussten/ durften wir schon darüber sprechen, oder?


----------



## berndf

JClaudeK said:


> Da Kay danach gefragt hat,
> mussten/ durften wir schon darüber sprechen, oder?


Ja, natürlich, tue ich ja ebenfalls. Seine Frage


Kay Champs said:


> Does "hätte er nie gedacht" express a reported speech


habe ich mit "nein" beantwortet und dieses "nein" begründet.


----------



## Kajjo

Hutschi said:


> The special case is when you transfer them to indirect speech


No, this it not at all a special case, but quite common. Transferring indirect speech into direct speech is always prone to multiple possibilities. This is not a special feature of this example.


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> _Hätte ich das bloß nicht gemacht! -> Er sagte, hätte er das bloß nicht gemacht.
> Daran hätte ich nie gedacht! -> Er sagte, daran hätte er nie gedacht._


No, that is not wrong. But what is wrong is to deduce from the mere fact that the clause "hätte er nie gedacht" is in KII that it must be reported speech. KII has other uses beside reported speech and the use that applies here is _hypothetical/conditional_.

"Rede", whether it is "indrekte" or "direkte", must first and foremost be a "Rede" at all, i.e. about a meta-assertion, i.e. about an assertion about an assertion. Let us remove all dead weight from the sentence
_Als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hätte er nie gedacht, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde._​by reducing the temporal adverbial _Als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden_ to simply_ 1992_ and by replacing the object clause _wie bekannt er einmal werden würde _by the pronoun _dies_:
_1992 hätte er dies nie gedacht._​
Structurally and semantically, this reduction has changed absolutely nothing. Anything that can be said about the predicate, i.e. _hätte gedacht_, of the shorter sentence also applies to the main clause of the longer one. And when you look at the shorter sentence, there is absolutely nothing metalinguistic (an assertion about an assertion) in this clause.

Of course, you might argue that the object clause _wie bekannt er einmal werden würde_ is "indirekte Rede", but that is an entirely different question from the one that has been asked. The question was about the main clause.


----------



## Hutschi

What I wrote is that "Als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hätte er nie gedacht, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde." may be reported speech.
It also may a supposition (Vermutung) - a hypothetical sentence.

The difference: In reported speech the speech itself is:
"Als ich 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hätte ich nie gedacht, wie bekannt ich einmal werden würde."

As sentence invented by the reporter it is:
Der Reporter sagt/vermutet: "Als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hätte er(, denke ich), nie gedacht, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde."

Both is possible and used in literatur.

You have to use context to decide. From context I think it is reported speech.

_"Wie bekannt er einmal werden würde" is part of reported speech this way. _If you accept reported thoughts as reported speech (I accept it, but some refuse it) it is also reported speech but one hierarchy away.

Why do I think it as reported speech? In the whole article reported speech is mixed up with direct speech. And such a sentence is what I expect to be reported speech.
And the reported might just suppose it, but it is much more probable the the king reported it.

So my answer is:


> Does "hätte er nie gedacht" express a reported speech (Konjunktiv II, in which case "hätte" may be replaced, I think, by "habe", Konjunktiv I) or the Auther's speculation? or could it be both?


Probably it expresses reported speech. With certain probability the reporter just invented it.

It cannot be replaced by Konjunktiv I if it is reported speech, because this changes the speech.




> Bernd: But what is wrong is to deduce from the mere fact that the clause "hätte er nie gedacht" is in KII that it must be reported speech.


 I think it is because of context, I more than one time wrote that it may be both. It has a form that may or maybe not reported speech. But by comparision with the situation and symmetry of the article I think it is.

---
I wrote I'm in doubt that the direct speech is "Ich habe" but I think it is "Ich hätte".


----------



## JClaudeK

Alemanita said:


> Der fragliche Satz [_"hätte er nie gedacht"_] steht in einer Reportage, in der direkte Rede und indirekte Rede sich abwechseln. Ich habe den Satz als Wiedergabe der Äußerung: "Ich *habe* nie gedacht, dass ich einmal so bekannt werden würde" interpretiert.


 I wrote


> Der Satz_ "Ich *habe* nie gedacht, dass ich einmal so bekannt werden würde" _ergäbe in indirekter Rede:_ Er *habe*  nie gedacht, dass er einmal so bekannt werden würde._


Your answer "_I am in doubt that "habe" is correct here." (#9) _was confusing, I didn't know which "habe" you meant.
Now, it's clear:


Hutschi said:


> I wrote I'm in doubt that the direct speech is "Ich habe" but I think it is "Ich hätte".



I agree with Hutschi, it can be indirect speech (reported by the journaliste)  for_ "Ich *hätte* nie gedacht, dass ich einmal so bekannt werden würde."_
*>* Als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, *hätte* er nie gedacht, .....


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> The difference: In reported speech the speech itself is:
> "Als ich 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hätte ich nie gedacht, wie bekannt ich einmal werden würde.


This is a possible interpretation, indeed. I might be an utterance by himself reproduced by an interviewer rather than an original utterance by the interviewer himself. But there is nothing in the structure of the sentence that would indicate this. This could only be determined by broader context.



Hutschi said:


> As sentence invented by the reporter it is:
> Der Reporter sagt/vermutet: "Als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hätte er(, denke ich), nie gedacht, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde."


That has nothing to do with reported or quoted speech. As I explained, it lacks the most important ingredient of reported speech, namely being "speech" at all, i. e. being an assertion about an assertion.


----------



## Hutschi

berndf said:


> ...
> 
> That has nothing to do with reported or quoted speech. As I explained, it lacks the most important ingredient of reported speech, namely being "speech" at all, i. e. being an assertion about an assertion.


Exactly. This is what I wanted to say. In this case it is invented. He says it, he supposes it. It is not reported speech but his own sentence. "Der Reporter sagt/vermutet: ..."


----------



## Gernot Back

berndf said:


> The description as _hypothetical conditional_ is in itself sufficient and accurate.


I don't think so: There is no such thing as a _conditional (mood)_ in German. The sentence "Das hätte er nie gedacht" is an independent irreal declarative clause, but other than in most examples on this linked page: Declarative clauses (unreal) - Declarative clauses (unreal) - , we wouldn't even be able to think of an elliptic contitional clause.


----------



## berndf

Gernot Back said:


> There is no such thing as a _conditional (mood)_ in German.


Agreed. What I meant (and said further on) was that German did not distinguish between hypothetical and conditional and has only one mood that encompasses both of these moods as they exist in other languages.


----------



## elroy

berndf said:


> _1992 hätte er dies nie gedacht._
> 
> when you look at the shorter sentence, there is absolutely nothing metalinguistic (an assertion about an assertion) in this clause.


 German routinely uses a _Konjunktiv_ form for reported speech without any explicit reference to the statement being "an assertion about an assertion," so I don't understand your logic.  Similarly, I don't understand Kajjo's 





Kajjo said:


> Erstens fehlt jegliche Form der Einleitung ("er sagte/behauptete/antwortete/erzählte, ..")


 No "Einleitung" is required.  You can just use the _Konjunktiv_ for this purpose, and let context determine the meaning.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> German routinely uses a _Konjunktiv_ form for reported speech without any explicit reference to the statement being "an assertion about an assertion," so I don't understand your logic.


It also routinely uses KII to express general hypotheticalness. From the mere presence of KII you cannot deduce a reported speech context.


----------



## elroy

berndf said:


> From the mere presence of KII you cannot deduce a reported speech context.


 Of course not!  That wasn't my point.  I was responding to this: 





> there is absolutely nothing metalinguistic (an assertion about an assertion) in this clause.


 which I understood as an argument you were presenting _against_ the "reported speech" reading (like Kajjo's "keine Einleitung" argument).  My point was that neither the lack of a metalinguistic indicator nor the lack of an "Einleitung" say anything about how plausible the "reported speech" reading is.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> Of course not! That wasn't my point.


But it was mine. And you said you didn't understand my logic.


elroy said:


> My point was that neither the lack of a metalinguistic indicator nor the lack of an "Einleitung" say anything about how plausible the "reported speech" reading is.


There has to be _some_ positive reason why it should be reported speech. And there is none in the sentence.

Hutschi later explained he inferred this from the context of subsequent sentences. I still don't read it this way and I would consider it at least bad style to make the basic reading of a sentence conditional on subsequent ones. But I agreed it was a possible reading.


----------



## Kajjo

elroy said:


> point was that neither the lack of a metalinguistic indicator nor the lack of an "Einleitung" say anything about how plausible the "reported speech" reading is.


Formally, yes, I agree. But to interpret a sentence as reported speech, I feel there needs to be some kind of indicator. If using K-II (as opposed to K-I) this is even more necesary. I repeat myself with my above examples:

_Hätte ich das bloß nicht getan!
Er hätte das nie gemacht!_

Such constructions are very idiomatic and natural and have nothing to do with reported speech. Of course we could create some context in which the same sentences might function as reported speech, but normally they are not.


----------



## berndf

Kajjo said:


> But to interpret a sentence as reported speech


Exactly my point as well. To give an only slightly exaggerated analogy: It is like deducing from the sentene _Jack bought a new car _that this car was red just because there is nothing sentence that said it wasn't red.


----------



## elroy

Does a present-time "hätte" stay "hätte" when expressed in a past-time frame?

1. Ich sehe gerade Blumen auf meinem Schreibtisch. Ich hätte nicht gedacht, dass mir ein Kollege jemals etwas schenken würde. 

2. Letztes Jahr sah ich eines Morgens Blumen auf meinem Schreibtisch. Damals hätte ich nicht gedacht, dass mir ein Kollege jemals etwas schenken würde. 

Is 2 okay?


----------



## Kajjo

elroy said:


> 2. Letztes Jahr sah ich eines Morgens Blumen auf meinem Schreibtisch. Damals hätte ich nicht gedacht, dass mir ein Kollege jemals etwas schenken würde.
> 
> Is 2 okay?


 Top! The word "damals" is exactly the solution I thought of when I read (1). This is idiomatic.


----------



## Kay Champs

When the subject is “ich” instead of, say, “er” or “sie,” then  the situation would not involve the question of whether it is a Vermutung or a reported speech, because “ich” is the narrator.


----------



## Hutschi

berndf said:


> It also routinely uses KII to express general hypotheticalness. _*From the mere presence of KII you cannot deduce a reported speech context.*_


 (I marked the essential part.)
I agree. My point is the stronger proposition:  _*From the mere presence of KII you cannot deduce a reported speech context or exclude it.*_ You need context either in semantic or in syntactic form or both - even the situation may be context.



> Kay Champs: When the subject is “ich” instead of, say, “er” or “sie,” then the situation would not involve the question of whether it is a Vermutung or a reported speech, because “ich” is the narrator.


----------



## JClaudeK

Alemanita said:


> *Der fragliche Satz steht in einer Reportage, in der direkte Rede und indirekte Rede sich abwechseln. *Ich habe den Satz als Wiedergabe der Äußerung: "Ich habe nie gedacht, dass ich einmal so bekannt werden würde" interpretiert.


I agree with Alemanita exept for the intial sentence: 
Man könnte _den Satz als Wiedergabe der Äußerung_ "Ich *hätte* nie gedacht, dass ich einmal so bekannt werden würde" _interpretieren._


----------



## Kay Champs

Meaning the rule of sequence of tense need not be followed in this case.

Considering what has been discussed above, I have now the impression:

KII could also be used for KI even though the verb  conjugates differently between these two modes (my grammar book confirms this).
An introductory part is not necessarily required.
The context is a deciding factor.
In the case under discussion, the context would allow either interpretation (i.e. Vermutung and reported speech).


----------



## bearded

Kay Champs said:


> In the case under discussion, the context would allow either interpretation (i.e. Vermutung and reported speech).


OK, reported speech is possible in this case (although not so probable in my view). But if it is not reported speech, why talk about ''speculation''? I'd rather simply say ''narration''. The (future) King's thoughts are presented/described as  facts.


----------



## Kay Champs

bearded man said:


> But if it is not reported speech, why talk about ''speculation''?



Because the author of the article is not the 　self-proclaimed King. 

All the author can do, therefore, is presume, unless he actually talked with him and the “King” actually told him: Ich hätte nie gedacht, wie bekannt ich einmal werden würde.”  Only then would man be able to say that it is nothing else but narration. So narration is one of the possibilities.


----------



## Perseas

I think, it is just the third-person narrative mode here, the character's words and thoughts are integrated into the narration. I don't feel that the character's words are reported by the narrator (reported speech). In that case it would be for example: _Als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, sagte er, hätte er nie gedacht... _
I agree with Kajjo's post #35

Also, I don't think it's the author's speculation. If the "König" spoke in the first person, he would probably say "Als ich 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hätte ich nie gedacht..."


----------



## Schlabberlatz

It can probably be analysed either way. But I tend to think it's reported speech. Three paragraphs above the statement in question one finds:





> Als Altenpfleger habe er zumindest nicht herumsitzen müssen. Nach vier verschiedenen Berufen schmiss dieser Mann alles hin und wurde König - Video


The reporter interviewed the "king". Some of his utterances are reproduced as "direkte Rede", some others as "indirekte Rede". For example: "Als Altenpfleger *musste* ich wenigstens nicht herumsitzen" --> Als Altenpfleger *habe* er …
"Ich *hätte* nie gedacht …" --> Er *hätte* nie gedacht … Here, the forms are identical (cf. #19), but in my opinion, this is still reported speech.

Edit: "(in)direct speech" --> "(in)direkte Rede"


----------



## Hutschi

Hi, after reading all, there seems to be a difference in terms.
In German usually it is called "indirekte Rede" (indirect speech), in English it is "reported speech". If you just take the words there is a difference.
But in German usually I only learned "indirekte Rede" - and this covers the most of "reported speech" and more.

Usually indirekte Rede is the same as reported speech. Example: Anton erzählte mir, Berta habe gesagt, er käme morgen.
But I think it does not change the form if the original is not reported but speculative.

So for the grammatical form "Indirekte Rede" it is the same form if I säy "Ich denke, er habe gesagt ..." and "Sie sagt, er habe gesagt." The second is indirect reported speech, the first is indirect _*speculative *(_reported) speech.
Both are indirect speech.
Is this correct?

What is the difference between reported speech and indirect speech? Does the term "indirect speech" exist in English at all?


Is some of the confusion above caused by mismatch of terminology?

*Edit:* "the first is indirect *speculative *reported speech." (included "speculative")
Both are indirect speech.
German does not make a grammatical difference between speculative and non-speculative reported speech except context and keywords: "Ich denke"-> speculative
"Er sagte" -> usually non-speculative


----------



## bearded

Kay Champs said:


> Because the author of the article is not the 　self-proclaimed King.


I beg your pardon, but if that criterion were valid any novel, paper article etc. would be ''speculation''.  A direct narration is different from a speculation in my view.
I agree with Perseas (''it is just the 3rd person narrative mode here'').


----------



## Kay Champs

In the case of novels, the author is supposed to know what he/she is writing, narrating or talking about.


----------



## Perseas

Hutschi said:


> *Edit:* "the first is indirect *speculative *reported speech." (included "speculative")
> Both are indirect speech.
> German does not make a grammatical difference between speculative and non-speculative reported speech except context and keywords: "Ich denke"-> speculative
> "Er sagte" -> usually non-speculative


Hallo, I think you say that in German both sentences have indirect speech:  "Ich denke, er habe Recht" & "Er sagte, sie habe Recht". In other languages, indirect speech is only in the second sentence, i.e. when a person conveys the words of another person.
I didn't know the terms "speculative" and "non-speculative" in terms of reported speech. What are the German equivalents? Thank you.


----------



## Hutschi

I do not know a special term. If necessary I'd use a descriptive term.


----------



## berndf

Perseas said:


> I didn't know the terms "speculative" and "non-speculative" in terms of reported speech. What are the German equivalents? Thank you.


I don't find _speculative _an appropriate term at all. The appropriate (and well established) term is _hypothetical._


----------



## Kay Champs

Is "Erlebte Rede" something else?

I thought this site might be interesting.
Erlebte Rede | Merkmale, Beispiele und Wirkung

I've just found this site. But it's time to go to bed.


----------



## Robocop

> Als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hätte er nie gedacht, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde.


Als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hätte er nie gedacht, dass er einmal derart bekannt werden würde.
Als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hätte er sich nie vorstellen können, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde.

"Als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden" defines a point in time in the past like the adverb "damals", for example.
_Damals _*hätte *er nie gedacht (anders gesagt, es *war *für ihn unvorstellbar (Tatsache!) - it hasn't been a possibility for him), dass er einmal derart bekannt werden würde. Hätte er es gedacht, dann hätte er es auch für möglich gehalten. 

I see no evidence of direct or indirect speech in this matter.


----------



## Hutschi

Indeed, you need more context to see whether it is indirect speech (or direct speech.) There is no evidence in the sentence only.

Reported speech (indirect speech)

Herr Morris sagte, er habe mit dem König geredet. Der König sprach viel über seine Jugend. 
Als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hätte er nie gedacht, dass er einmal derart bekannt werden würde.
Als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hätte er sich nie vorstellen können, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde.

Direct and reported speech:

Herr Morris und ich sprachen über den König. Morris sagte:
"Als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hätte er nie gedacht, dass er einmal derart bekannt werden würde."
"Als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hätte er sich nie vorstellen können, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde."


----------



## Kay Champs

I wonder how the sentence using “dass” compares from that using “wie”? Robocop considers the latter incorrect.


----------



## Hutschi

The sentence with "dass" is neutral style, while "wie" in the examples indicates emphatic style, more personal involvement. 
So the sentences with "wie" are more often used in colloquial language.
"Dass ..." speaks about the fact, "wie" speaks about the level.

Also possible is
"Als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hätte er nie geglaubt, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde."

I do not see that this kind of sentences is wrong. Maybe Robocop can explain it.


----------



## Robocop

To me, "denken, wie + subordinate clause" or "glauben, wie + subordinate clause" is simply not correct.

Look at this (for comparison):
Schon als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hatte er gedacht, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde.
Schon als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hatte er geglaubt, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde.
Denkst du, wie du heute Abend nach Hause kommst?
Ich glaube nicht, wie er es heute noch schaffen kann, fertig zu werden.
"Denken/Glauben, wie" just does not work out in my opinion.


----------



## Kay Champs

Now that Robocop says this, "Denken/Glauben, wie" sounds a bit strange to me, too.


----------



## Hutschi

Only: The negated sentence is often different from the positive.
I would not use it in the positive way. But why is the negated version wrong?

I think in the positive the mode is different.
You have to replace "gedacht" by "vermutet".
"Gedacht" has not the fuzzy meaning necessary for the positive form.


Schon als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hatte er _vermutet_, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde.
Schon als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hatte sich ausgemalt, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde.
Schon als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hatte er geglaubt, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde. 

Schon als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hatte er gewusst, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde. 

Noch als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hätte er _kaum geglaubt_, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde.
Schon als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hätte er _kaum geglaubt_, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde.
Schon als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hätte er _beinahe gedacht_, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde.
When negating you have to consider a lot.

edit: additional examples


----------



## Kay Champs

Being nicht Muttersprachler, I cannot understand why A is OK and B not.

A: Noch als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hätte er _kaum geglaubt_, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde.

B: Schon als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hätte er _kaum geglaubt_, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde.


----------



## Hutschi

Schon als er 1992 beschloss, König zu werden, hätte er _kaum geglaubt_, wie bekannt er einmal werden würde.

The problem is "schon". It does not fit here.

------>noch--->grammatically sometimes he changed his mind in this timeline after "noch"
schon------>grammatically he did not change his mind in this timeline after "schon" - but this is a contradiction. He believes it (factual) and he does not believe it (grammatically) now.

It would mean that he even today would not believe it -- that is contra-factual.


----------



## Kay Champs

OK, I understand. Thank you.


----------

