# Ihr wart mit Eurem Vater Tribut zollen. (Absentiv?)



## fabio407

Hi!

This is the translation to German of a dialogue in the series Vikings Valhalla on Netflix:

Subtitles in German / in English

A: Als ich Euch zuletzt sah, wart Ihr ein Kind. Wisst Ihr noch? / Last time I saw you, you were a child. Do you remember?
B: Nein. / I don't.
A: Oben in Norden? *Ihr wart mit Eurem Vater Tribut zollen*. / Up North? You were with your father as he was paying tribute.

The only explanation I've managed to find here in the forum for the grammar of the last sentence  (sein + Infinitiv of verb whose auxiliary is "haben") was that it is "a grammatical phenomenon [...] called absentive: It explains why you are 'absent'. Somebody asks you on the mobile phone, Wo bist du?, and you reply, Ich bin einkaufen. Its similarity to the English progressive form is obvious."


On Wikipedia, one reads that



> Für die deutsche Sprache werden Konstruktionen als Absentiv angenommen, die nach folgenden Regeln gebildet werden:
> 
> das finite Verb „sein“ dient als Hilfsverb
> 
> das Handlungsverb steht im Infinitiv (kein Partizip)
> 
> Bezüge auf räumliche Abwesenheit, etwa „(weg)gegangen“ oder Lokaladverbiale, sind nicht notwendig
> 
> 
> 
> Beispiele:
> 
> Karin ist einkaufen.
> 
> Karin ist joggen.
> 
> Nicht: Karin ist joggen gegangen. (grammatisch, aber Perfekt von „Karin geht joggen“; das Perfekt des Absentivs wäre „Karin ist joggen gewesen.“)
> 
> 
> 
> In der deutschen Sprache kann der Absentiv auch in der 1. Person verwendet werden:
> 
> 
> 
> Ich habe deine Nachricht erst später gesehen; ich war einkaufen.
> 
> (= Ich hatte mich von dem Orte entfernt, an dem ich die Nachricht hätte sehen können.)
> 
> 
> 
> Wenn man ihn in der 1. Person Präsens verwendet, drückt er oft eine Handlung in der Zukunft aus:
> 
> Ich bin dann mal wieder arbeiten!
> 
> 
> 
> *Der Absentiv wird ungrammatisch, sobald man ihn nicht im vorgesehenen Sinne verwendet*:



It seems to me that the last sentence in the dialogue above doesn't convey the idea that B's father was absent. B was with his father when the last one was paying tribute. Maybe because the action took place in a distant past?   Additionaly, I haven't seen any example given by Wikipedia or here in the forum with a transitive verb (as in the dialogue).

I'm wondering if one of these possibilities would be the correct one:
a) B, or B's father, is absent from present time because the action mentioned took place in a distant past;
b) the translation to German is ungrammatical;
c) in informal register or nowadays the use of Absentiv is accepted in others senses, so that the translation is OK; or
d) the phenomenon in the dialogue is not Absentiv, but another one with a similar structure.

Thanks!


----------



## Demiurg

It's
e) Both B and B's father were absent from home (up North).


----------



## bearded

Demiurg said:


> It's
> e) Both B and B's father were absent from home (up North).


Are you sure?
I understood ''Ihr wart mit Eurenm Vater Tribut zollen'' as a sentence with ''Ihr-Anrede'' (see above ''wart Ihr ein Kingd'').

And for me the construction is indeed 'Absentiv'.


----------



## fabio407

Thank you! Demiurg and bearded.


I thought that in this case the absence (of B, of B's father or of both) would have to be from the speaker, A, and not of a place / a region. If I've understood it correctly the dialogue (there is no more context about that in the plot), A saw B for the last time in the North (of England), that is to say they three were there at that moment.


----------



## Demiurg

It's clearly Absentiv.  I shouldn't have used e).


----------



## Demiurg

fabio407 said:


> I thought that in this case the absence (of B, of B's father or of both) would have to be from the speaker, A, and not of a place / a region.


No. It usually means the absence from a place where one is supposed to be (home, office, ...).


----------



## berndf

fabio407 said:


> A: Oben in Norden? *Ihr wart mit Eurem Vater Tribut zollen*. / Up North? You were with your father as he was paying tribute.


This sentence is ungrammatical. Is it spelled like that or is it your transcription of a a spoken text? It would make sense only like this:
_Ihr wart mit, Eurem Vater Tribut zollen_. (The comma corresponds to a clearly audible pause and a rising pitch in _mit_)
_You were with [other people], paying tribute to your father._


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> You were with [other people], paying tribute to your father.


Oh, I had understood ''you were together with your father while paying tribute (to someone else)'':
Ihr wart mit Eurem Vater Tribut zollen > Ihr wart (zusammen) mit Eurem Vater (beim) Tributzollen
Cf.


fabio407 said:


> B was with his father when the last one was paying tribute.


Is this interpretation wrong or not plausible based on the German wording?


----------



## berndf

bearded said:


> Oh, I had understood ''you were together with your father while paying tribute (to someone else)'':
> Ihr wart mit Eurem Vater Tribut zollen > Ihr wart (zusammen) mit Eurem Vater (beim) Tributzollen


There are two possible interpretations, which are clearly distinguished in spoken language:
_1. *Ihr wart (mit Eurem Vater), Tribut zollen.
2. Ihr wart mit, (Eurem Vater Tribut zollen)._
I.e. you have to choose if _mit _belongs to the _wart _or to _Eurem Vater_, it cannot be both at the same time.

Interpretation_ 1._ is ungrammatical because _Tribut zollen _requires an *explicit *dative object.

But on the other hand it is quite common to use _mit sein, mit kommen_ or _mit gehen_ without explicitly stating whom you are joining, either because it doesn't matter or because it is clear by context. Therefore, _2._ is grammatical.


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> _Tribut zollen _requires an explicit dative object.


Has ''Tribut zollen'' to be interpreted in the modern, figurative sense only?
It seems to me that the story refers to the time of the Vikings, so perhaps the literal meaning (to pay a tribute/a tax) might be correct. If so, maybe a dative object would not be necessary - and interpretation no.1 could be admitted...?


----------



## berndf

bearded said:


> Has ''Tribut zollen'' to be interpreted in the modern, figurative sense only?
> It seems to me that the story refers to the time of the Vikings, so perhaps the literal meaning (to pay a tribute/a tax) might be correct. If so, maybe a dative object would not be necessary - and interpretation no.1 could be admitted...?


OK, maybe. As this literal meaning is obsolete, there are no firmly established usage rules. It is from a film; so there must be a spoken version. In spoken language, you cannot reproduce the ambiguity that arises form the (in my mind always wrong) omission of a comma. If you listen to the spoken sentence it must be clear, which interpretation applies.


----------



## Demiurg

berndf said:


> Interpretation_ 1._ is ungrammatical because _Tribut zollen _requires an *explicit *dative object.



It's a translation problem The original English sentence reads: _You were with your father as he was paying tribute._ The recipient of the tribute is not mentioned.


----------



## Kajjo

Die Bedeutung ist hier doch klar. Wir haben ein englisches Original und viele kennen die Handlung der Serie.

Der Vater hat jemandem anderen Tribut gezollt und sein kleiner Sohn hat ihn dabei begleitet.

_"Ihr wart mit Eurem Vater Tribut zollen."_ is correct, but seems shortened for reason of proper dubbing, and after all is not entirely idiomatic. 

_"Du warst dabei, als dein Vater Tribut gezollt/bezahlt hat."_ wäre sofort verständlich.


----------



## berndf

Kajjo said:


> Die Bedeutung ist hier doch klar. Wir haben ein englisches Original und viele kennen die Handlung der Serie.


Jetzt ja; seit #12. Ich kannte die Serie leider zuvor nicht.


----------



## fabio407

berndf said:


> This sentence is ungrammatical. Is it spelled like that or is it your transcription of a a spoken text?


I've checked on Netflix because I'm concerned about the correctness of its translations to German. It is spelled like that, as shown on the attached images.

Thank you!


----------



## Demiurg

fabio407 said:


> I've checked on Netflix because I'm concerned about the correctness of its translations to German. It is spelled like that, as shown on the attached images.


The spelling is correct. It's just a question of style.



Kajjo said:


> _"Ihr wart mit Eurem Vater Tribut zollen."_ is correct, but seems shortened for reason of proper dubbing, and after all is not entirely idiomatic.


----------



## fabio407

Kajjo said:


> _"Ihr wart mit Eurem Vater Tribut zollen."_ is correct, *but seems shortened for reason of proper dubbing*


Unfortunately, that's not the case. At least in this series and in the original Vikings series, the translation provided to the audios in German is totally different from the one provided to the subtitles. That means that there's no reason to care about dubbing while making the subtitles in German. And that I cannot practice listening by watching it 

Thanks!


----------



## Demiurg

fabio407 said:


> At least in this series and in the original Vikings series, the translation provided to the audios in German is totally different from the one provided to the subtitles.



You're right. The spoken text is "Ihr wart mit Eurem Vater da, als er Tribut zahlte" (_zahlte_, not _zollte_).


----------



## berndf

Demiurg said:


> You're right. The spoken text is "Ihr wart mit Eurem Vater da, als er Tribut zahlte" (_zahlte_, not _zollte_).


That makes much more sense.


----------



## Demiurg

Nevertheless, "Ihr wart mit Eurem Vater Tribut zahlen" is also an Absentiv.


----------



## fabio407

Demiurg said:


> Nevertheless, "Ihr wart mit Eurem Vater Tribut zahlen" is also an Absentiv.


Thank you for checking the audio, Demiurg!

But the meaning in that sentence is different from the original sentence in English, isn't it? I mean these sentences (with "zollen" and with "zahlen") in Absentiv convey the idea that both B and B's father were absent paying tribute -- though there is no sense in a child paying tribute --, for "Ihr" is the subject of the clause. They would be proper translations to "You were absent paying tribute with your father".

Differently, the audio translation conveys the idea that both were in a trip, but B's father to pay tribute and B merely to accompany his father. The same idea conveyed by the original sentence in English. Then we can conclude that the subtitles translation was not properly made.

Is that right?


----------



## Demiurg

fabio407 said:


> I mean these sentences (with "zollen" and with "zahlen") in Absentiv convey the idea that both B and B's father were absent paying tribute -- though there is no sense in a child paying tribute --, for "Ihr" is the subject of the clause.



Maybe the son had to carry the gold chest.


----------



## διαφορετικός

fabio407 said:


> I mean these sentences (with "zollen" and with "zahlen") in Absentiv convey the idea that both B and B's father were absent paying tribute -- though there is no sense in a child paying tribute --


Both were absent, but these sentences don't tell me who exactly payed. They tell me: One or both of them payed.


----------



## fabio407

διαφορετικός said:


> Both were absent, but these sentences don't tell me who exactly payed. They tell me: One or both of them payed.


As in their version in English I've made up, I think: "You were absent paying tribute with your father."  Thank you for your comment. My analysis was imprecise on that point.


----------



## Kajjo

Demiurg said:


> "Ihr wart mit Eurem Vater da, als er Tribut zahlte"


So much more idiomatic.


----------

