# Er berichtete, dass er mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen gefochten hätte



## dekdek

Hello,
I know this sentence should mean: "He reported that he had fought with 10 powerful giants".

On previous posts of mine, some told me that *hätte *is the wish form of haben (if I remember correctly).

Now the problem is that I don't understand why this form of sentence isn't like any other: Er berichtete, dass gefochten er mit zehn gewaltigen Reisen hat.
 
Why is this hätte here? And why is the order of the sentence mixed? 
 
Thanks a mil


----------



## Whodunit

dekdek said:
			
		

> Hello,
> I know this sentence should mean: "He reported that he had fought with 10 powerful giants".


 
Yes, that's correct, although "hätte" means "would have fought" here. In English, however "had" is correct.



> On previous posts of mine, some told me that *hätte *is the wish form of haben (if I remember correctly).


 
Correct, too. 



> Now the problem is that I don't understand why this form of sentence isn't like any other:


 
First off, you should know that it can always be indicative or subjunctive (wish form) in a subordinate clause, unless you have "als ob" (as if), where you must use the subjunctive.

In your sentence, the indicative form could be possible as well, but it first sounds better with the subjunctive and second conveys the sense of possibility (Konjunktiv/subjunctive = Möglichkeitsform - form of possibility).



> Er berichtete, dass gefochten er mit zehn gewaltigen Reisen hat.


 
No, your word is wrong. A subordinate/conjunctive clause should go as follows:

conjunction + subject (+ object, and anything else) (+ participle) + full, modal or auxiliary verb.

so the correct word order for your sentence should be:

"Er berichtete, dass er mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen gefochten hat."

I would suggest to use "hatte", if you want to stick to the indicative, because we are talking about an action that happened before the past (first he had fought with those giants and then he reported it).




> Why is this hätte here?


 
Because people assume that he had done it. It is not proven. The subjunctive can express several manners:

possibility
wish/desire
assumption
...



> And why is the order of the sentence mixed?


 
Yours is mixed.


----------



## dekdek

Thanks for your patience! 
When you speak your own language or even English, you never notice the form of the clauses (subjunctive,indicative or subordinate).
And when the order is mixed it's even more confusing!
But you explanations are really like any language teacher


----------



## gaer

dekdek said:
			
		

> Hello,
> I know this sentence should mean: "He reported that he had fought with 10 powerful giants".
> 
> On previous posts of mine, some told me that *hätte *is the wish form of haben (if I remember correctly).
> 
> Now the problem is that I don't understand why this form of sentence isn't like any other: Er berichtete, dass gefochten er mit zehn gewaltigen Reisen hat.
> 
> Why is this hätte here? And why is the order of the sentence mixed?
> 
> Thanks a mil


Who has explained your problem 100% correctly, but I think I can make it simpler.

In German, anything that is reported uses the subjunctive verb forms. It has nothing to do with subjunctive in English. It is a signal to the eyes and ears that something is being repeated, usually someones words. This is why you can read a paragraph or two in German without the words "he said, she said" being repeated over and over. The subjunctive form makes it clear that what you are reading is a quote. 

Gaer


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Yes, that's correct, although "hätte" means "would have fought" here.


Does it?  How can you be so sure?  We would need more context to determine whether this is a hypothetical situation. 


> In English, however "had" is correct.


Why would "had" be used if it meant "would have"?  


> First off, you should know that it can always be indicative or subjunctive (wish form) in a subordinate clause, unless you have "als ob" (as if), where you must use the subjunctive.


Really?  I'm pretty sure I've seen "als ob" followed by the indicative.


> In your sentence, the indicative form could be possible as well, but it first sounds better with the subjunctive and second conveys the sense of possibility (Konjunktiv/subjunctive = Möglichkeitsform - form of possibility).


As Gaer said, I think here it's used because of reported speech.  I don't think possibility has anything to do with it.  It's used to show that the speaker does not wish to express his personal opinion regarding whether he thinks what is reported to have happened, actually happened.


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> As Gaer said, I think here it's used because of reported speech. I don't think possibility has anything to do with it. It's used to show that the speaker does not wish to express his personal opinion regarding whether he thinks what is reported to have happened, actually happened.


I think the idea of "possiblity" is valid, and for this reason. Whenever someone is reported to have said something, there is always a possiblity that that what is reported is incorrect. In fact, we all know of countless situations in which what has been reported was never said at all.

It is not splitting hairs at all to say that what is reported is only possibly correct, and personally this is one peculiar feature of the German language that I love.

The mment you see "Er sagte, er sei…", you know that what follows may be the truth, or it may be a complete lie. 

If only American journalism made this so clear!

Gaer


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> I think the idea of "possiblity" is valid, and for this reason. Whenever someone is reported to have said something, there is always a possiblity that that what is reported is incorrect. In fact, we all know of countless situations in which what has been reported was never said at all.
> 
> It is not splitting hairs at all to say that what is reported is only possibly correct, and personally this is one peculiar feature of the German language that I love.
> 
> The mment you see "Er sagte, er sei…", you know that what follows may be the truth, or it may be a complete lie.
> 
> If only American journalism made this so clear!
> 
> Gaer


Good point.  I guess "possibility" is a good description if you think about it that way.

By the way, I too adore this feature of German.  I don't know if any other languages have it.


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> Good point. I guess "possibility" is a good description if you think about it that way.
> 
> By the way, I too adore this feature of German. I don't know if any other languages have it.


I don't know either, and I am unable to explain to people who speak only English why there is not need to repeat, over and over, "He said…" 

It's as if every sentence has a marker that implies: "Accept this as truth at your own risk" 

Gaer


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Yes, that's correct, although "hätte" means "would have fought" here. In English, however "had" is correct.


Who, if you change one thought here, I believe you will have a correct analysis:

Yes, that's correct, although "hätte" means "*reportively fought*" here. In English, however "had" is correct.

This is what both Elroy and I noticed immediately. Your idea is 100% correct, but your wording in English is misleading. 


> First off, you should know that it can always be indicative or subjunctive (wish form) in a subordinate clause, unless you have "als ob" (as if), where you must use the subjunctive.


Here I have to guess at your meaning, but let me try. Do you mean, perhaps, that in every day speech, informal speech, the indicative is often used in place of the more formal subjunctive in reporting?

I believe what you are referring to something that you explained better here:

link

This, in my opinion, is nicely explained and shows that informally the subjunctive is often replaced by the indicative, if I am following your logic correctly. 

For those learning, I would sum it up this way:

Germans do not necessarily use subjunctive when relating what other people have said when they are speaking to each other informally. The subjunctive must be used in newspapers and magazines, I belive.

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Does it? How can you be so sure? We would need more context to determine whether this is a hypothetical situation.


 
"He reported that he has perhaps fought with ten giants". Is this ok with you now? I was only referring to the fact that you can translate "hätte" with "would have" to get the idea of how the German word _can_ be used. I'm, of course, aware that "hätte" can m,ean a lot more than just "would have".



> Why would "had" be used if it meant "would have"?


 
Because the sentence "that he had fought" is correct in English and "would have" is just what "hätte" can _also_ mean. I was not sure if dekdek was (= sei? ) familiar with the word "hätte" and its meanings. If you translate "hätte" with "would have", you can understand it as "perhaps".

Or can you think of a better way to describe the German subjunctive in English words _in this case_?



> Really? I'm pretty sure I've seen "als ob" followed by the indicative.


 
And that's just a common mistake. You know that "He acted as if he was God" is grammatically wrong - at least I think so. The better version would be "He acted as if he were God". It's just the same in German. The former is a common mistake, the latter is correct.



> As Gaer said, I think here it's used because of reported speech. I don't think possibility has anything to do with it. It's used to show that the speaker does not wish to express his personal opinion regarding whether he thinks what is reported to have happened, actually happened.


 
Gaer explained it well enough so that I don't have to elaborate on it anymore.


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> Who, if you change one thought here, I believe you will have a correct analysis:
> 
> Yes, that's correct, although "hätte" means "*reportively fought*" here. In English, however "had" is correct.


 
I suggested "had perhaps", which I think can convey the meaning of "hätte". Another word I can think of is "had apparently". By the way, Gaer, I don't know the word reportively nor could I find it anywhere in my dictionaries. I can guess the meaning, but could you think of another word that described the same thought?



> This is what both Elroy and I noticed immediately. Your idea is 100% correct, but your wording in English is misleading.


 
Agreed. I think you both have noticed it correctly. At least you were able to understand my point.



> Here I have to guess at your meaning, but let me try. Do you mean, perhaps, that in every day speech, informal speech, the indicative is often used in place of the more formal subjunctive in reporting?


 
Yes. The subjunctive vs. indicative thing is just the same phenomenon that we can observe with genitive vs. dative. The indicative can often replace the subjunctive. And wherever/whenever possible, people do so.



> This, in my opinion, is nicely explained and shows that informally the subjunctive is often replaced by the indicative, if I am following your logic correctly.


 
Yes. If you spent some time in German or listened to German TV/radio shows, you'd be surprised how rarely you can hear a subjunctive in a conjunctive clause.



> Germans do not necessarily use subjunctive when relating what other people have said when they are speaking to each other informally. The subjunctive must be used in newspapers and magazines, I belive.


 
"Must be" is not the correct word. I'd suggest "should be" or "is expected to", because you will often see that even newspapers use the indicative after "als ob". And I think this is what Elroy was referring to.



> On the other hand, when a very follows "als ob" (as if), then the subjunctive is much more standard even informally. Would you agree with that?


 
I couldn't agree more.


----------



## dekdek

Just to pour some more light.
In this context the speaker really did lie and they didn't believe him. 
So Who analyzed the situation correctly:



> Er berichtete, dass er mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen gefochten hätte. Doch sie glaubten ihm nicht recht und gaben ihm Kamillentee zu trinken.


 
You can never rely on Don Quichotte can't you?


----------



## cyanista

Whodunit said:
			
		

> "He reported that he has perhaps fought with ten giants". Is this ok with you now?


This would mean he's not sure he did that. 

I would put it like this: "hätte gefochten" means "had allegedly fought" but _allegedly_ wouldn't  normally be mentioned in an English translation. 

_ He told them he had fought with ten giants. (But they didn't believe him.)_


----------



## Whodunit

cyanista said:
			
		

> This would mean he's not sure he did that.


 
And that's exactly what the German sentence says. But who is "he" in your sentence, Cyanista. The narrator is not sure and can't prove that the person did it. I'd like to rephrase it again: "He reported proudly that he had indeed fought with ten giants". It has to be something like that, because there's no word in English that can convey the same meaning.



> I would put it like this: "hätte gefochten" means "had allegedly fought" but _allegedly_ wouldn't normally be mentioned in an English translation.


 
Why "allegedly"? Maybe he really won again those giants ...  



> _He told them he had fought with ten giants. (But they didn't believe him.)_


 
If you put the second sentence in parentheses, it seems to me that you agree with my first suggestion.


----------



## cyanista

By "him" I mean Don Quichotte. Your sentence means that D.Q. himself was not sure that he did fight with ten giants. But he is actually convinced of that, it's the others who don't believe him.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> By the way, Gaer, I don't know the word reportively nor could I find it anywhere in my dictionaries. I can guess the meaning, but could you think of another word that described the same thought?


Yikes. You could not find it because my stupid fingers did their own thing and typed an non-existent word. If you google "reportively", you will find it, but it should be "reportedly". Sorry!


> Yes. The subjunctive vs. indicative thing is just the same phenomenon that we can observe with genitive vs. dative. The indicative can often replace the subjunctive. And wherever/whenever possible, people do so.


I think this is very similiar to "whom" in English, although this has nothing to do with verbs but rather case. In spoken English the "m" is usually left off. Those who speak in a very formal style, however, will usually use "whom".


> Yes. If you spent some time in German or listened to German TV/radio shows, you'd be surprised how rarely you can hear a subjunctive in a conjunctive clause.


I might not be surprised though. I hear many English "mistakes" in radio programs or on TV shows. 


> "Must be" is not the correct word. I'd suggest "should be" or "is expected to", because you will often see that even newspapers use the indicative after "als ob". And I think this is what Elroy was referring to.


I was referring to the subjunctive in reporting, as in "Er sagte, er sei…"

By the way, I have NO idea what I typed in my last sentence, I just got rid of the last line.

I have to run. I'm late for work!

Gaer


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Why "allegedly"? Maybe he really won again those giants ...


This is correct. Allegedly = reportedly = use of subjunctive = this is something he said he did.

D. Q. is quite sure that he did everything that he reports. That's the whole point. He lives in an imaginary world.

I really think you are making something rather simple very complicated by using the wrong words in English to explain your point. This is what all of us have been trying to tell you! 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> This is correct. Allegedly = reportedly = use of subjunctive = this is something he said he did.
> 
> D. Q. is quite sure that he did everything that he reports. That's the whole point. He lives in an imaginary world.
> 
> I really think you are making something rather simple very complicated by using the wrong words in English to explain your point. This is what all of us have been trying to tell you!
> 
> Gaer


 
No, this is not what I wanted to say. The word "hätte" in the German sentence refers to what the narrator is saying and not what D. Q. actually said.

Don Q.: _Ich_ habe mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen gefochten!
some people: Ach, das glauben wir dir nicht.

Today:
narrator: _Don Quixote_ berichtete, dass _er_ mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen gefochten hätte. Aber viele Menschen glauben im nicht.

It is the _narrator_ who is not sure that D.Q. really _had_ fought with those giants. I hope you can see my point now.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> No, this is not what I wanted to say. The word "hätte" in the German sentence refers to what the narrator is saying and not what D. Q. actually said.
> 
> Don Q.: _Ich_ habe mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen gefochten!
> some people: Ach, das glauben wir dir nicht.
> 
> Today:
> narrator: _Don Quixote_ berichtete, dass _er_ mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen gefochten hätte. Aber viele Menschen glauben im nicht.
> 
> It is the _narrator_ who is not sure that D.Q. really _had_ fought with those giants. I hope you can see my point now.


I can only tell you what this means to me in English:

"He (Don Quixote) )reported/related that he [had] fought [with a sword] with ten enormous/immense giants."

Let's start there. Do you disagree with my translation? Answer that first, then we can move to step two. 

"Fechten" is not easy to translate smoothly, since we do not have one word that means "fight with a sword", "engage in a swordfight", etc. Either past tense or past perfect can be used. "Had fought" may be better.

Gaer

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> I can only tell you what this means to me in English:
> 
> "He (Don Quixote) )reported/related that he [had] fought [with a sword] with ten enormous/immense giants."
> 
> Let's start there. Do you disagree with my translation? Answer that first, then we can move to step two.


 
Of course, I do. I have never said anything against all the translation that are actually like yours. Dekdek's suggestion was my favorite from the beginning on:

He reported that he had fought with ten (powerful) giants.



> "Fechten" is not easy to translate smoothly, since we do not have one word that means "fight with a sword", "engage in a swordfight", etc. Either past tense or past perfect can be used. "Had fought" may be better.


 
Would "to fence" work?


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Of course, I do. I have never said anything against all the translation that are actually like yours. Dekdek's suggestion was my favorite from the beginning on:
> 
> He reported that he had fought with ten (powerful) giants.


Yup!

This was the sentence that initially confused me and apparently other English speakers:


			
				Who said:
			
		

> Yes, that's correct, although "hätte" means "*would have fought*" here. In English, however "had" is correct.


Do you see why that confused us? Those of us who knew exactly what the sentence meant in German were confused.

It finally got cleared up here, for me:


> narrator: _Don Quixote_ berichtete, dass _er_ mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen gefochten hätte. Aber viele Menschen glauben im nicht.
> 
> It is the _narrator_ who is not sure that D.Q. really _had_ fought with those giants. I hope you can see my point now.


I do see your point, but by using the words "the narrator is not sure" you will again mislead most Englishs speakers. Here is the problem. Technically the narrator is REPORTING that D. Q iREPORTED (said, use whatever word you like) that he did these things.

Using your logic, all narrative would be in subjunctive, which obviously is not true. After all, all narrative assumes a narrator, assumes that someone, a narrator, is telling the story. and from that point of view, everything is hearsay, rumor, or at best a series of events, descriptions, and conversations.

The use of subjunctive in such sentences is purely grammatical in German. This is why if you put the second part of that sentence in direct quotes, the subjunctive disappears.

He reported/related (said), "I fought with ten (powerful) giants."

The use of subjunctive, as I understand it, has nothing to do with who is doubting whom. It is simply the way German is written. Indirect quotes use the subjuntive form, for the same reason, in newspapers, magazines, and so on.

I may be wrong, but I'll be very surprised this time if I am. 

One other thing:


> Would "to fence" work?


I'm not sure! I have never read the full story in any language, and I think we would have to read the source in Spanish. Can you fence with powerful giants? Fencing normally refers to what we have seen in the Olymics, light swords, delicate footwork, and in my mind I see larger swords. But there is no basis for what I am seeing, and perhaps it is meant to be that ridiculous, a normal-sized man fencing with giants. I'd like to get the opinions of others about this. 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> I do see your point, but by using the words "the narrator is not sure" you will again mislead most Englishs speakers. Here is the problem. Technically the narrator is REPORTING that D. Q iREPORTED (said, use whatever word you like) that he did these things.


 
Well, D.Q. cannot report himself, so another person must have reported his speech. And D.Q.'s speech was just "I fought with ..." (Ich habe mit ... gekämpft). That is what he reported to people, but he did not report himself.

The narrator, however, reports what he reported to people who did not believe him. But the narrator does not report what he reported. Let's take another example, because I see that it very confusing to use the word "report" in two different senses here:

I took an exam in chemistry. My grade was an A+. Then I went home and reported that I got such a good grade: "Mom, I got an A+ in chemistry!" My mother, full of enthusiasm, goes to my dad the next day and _reports_ to him: "Our son just reported that he had gotten an A+ in chemsitry. But I couldn't and still can't believe him." (Er berichtete, dass er eine Eins Plus in Chemie gekriegt hätte, aber ich konnte und kann ihm noch immer nicht glauben.)

Can you see what I mean? I would never report what I once said. But I can report what another person had reported to me, right? 



> Using your logic, all narrative would be in subjunctive, which obviously is not true. After all, all narrative assumes a narrator, assumes that someone, a narrator, is telling the story. and from that point of view, everything is hearsay, rumor, or at best a series of events, descriptions, and conversations.
> 
> The use of subjunctive in such sentences is purely grammatical in German. This is why if you put the second part of that sentence in direct quotes, the subjunctive disappears.


 
These two paragraphs contradict themselves. In the first one, you state that no narrator can be sure and - according to my logic - should always use the subjunctive. In the second one you admit that it just a grammatical difference in German and it has nothing to do with the narrator's intention. I don't seem to get you here, sorry. 



> The use of subjunctive, as I understand it, has nothing to do with who is doubting whom. It is simply the way German is written. Indirect quotes use the subjuntive form, for the same reason, in newspapers, magazines, and so on.


 
Yes, it does. And no, it's not simply the way it is written in German. Consider these two examples:

Ich sagte ihm, dass er mir nicht geholfen hätte.
Ich sagte ihm, dass er mir nicht geholfen hatte.

Which sentence would you consider correct? They are both correct. The first sentence simply says that the person who was supposed to help me did not help, but at least made an effort to do so. The second sentence excludes any kind of helpfulness of the person, and I am a bit angry about him.



> I may be wrong, but I'll be very surprised this time if I am.


 
I feel sorry to say it, but this time you seem not to be entirely right. Of course, there are situations in which the subjunctive must be used (remember "als ob"), but in most cases, it is possible to use either the subjunctive or the indicative.



> I'm not sure! I have never read the full story in any language, and I think we would have to read the source in Spanish. Can you fence with powerful giants? Fencing normally refers to what we have seen in the Olymics, light swords, delicate footwork, and in my mind I see larger swords. But there is no basis for what I am seeing, and perhaps it is meant to be that ridiculous, a normal-sized man fencing with giants. I'd like to get the opinions of others about this.


 
Let's either wait for other native English speakers or open a new thread.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Consider these two examples:
> 
> Ich sagte ihm, dass er mir nicht geholfen hätte.
> Ich sagte ihm, dass er mir nicht geholfen hatte.
> 
> Which sentence would you consider correct? They are both correct.


I will answer the rest at another time, but here you have shown me something that I would not have caught. No, I would not know that the first implies that someone did try to help you, unsuccessfully, but the second implies irritation at having gotten on help. As I mentioned in a PM, I believe I have probably read countess sentences with such small nuances and had no difficulty understanding them because of context, but no, I did NO realize this difference!

I think you may have brought up an excellent point. 

Gaer


----------



## dekdek

He's such a smart boy eh? 

So after letting me read this long discussion, can you sum something up for me?
As I understood since the beggining haete is used with subjunctive.
What does the wish form exactly express? And when shall I use it? (maybe when you have a possibility and something which is less absolute and more open?)
So what about the different word order?
Is it becasue of the act of the *report*, or because there is a *conjunction* like *dass*?

Btw: I thought that there is no such thing as reported speech in German.


----------



## englishman

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Yes, it does. And no, it's not simply the way it is written in German. Consider these two examples:
> 
> Ich sagte ihm, dass er mir nicht geholfen hätte.
> Ich sagte ihm, dass er mir nicht geholfen hatte.



I would translate these as:

I told him that he had been unable to help me.
I told him that he had not helped me.

but I'm not sure that the second implies that the writer is angry with the "helper" - do German readers read it like this ?


----------



## Whodunit

englishman said:
			
		

> I would translate these as:
> 
> I told him that he had been unable to help me.
> I told him that he had not helped me.


 
I like your translation a lot. The first one just implies that the person was about to help me, but failed. The second sentence tells me that the person rejected to help me.



> but I'm not sure that the second implies that the writer is angry with the "helper" - do German readers read it like this ?


 
He is not angry with the "helper"; but with the person who was supposed to help him. As I previously said, the person did not even show any kind of help.

Maybe someone may disagree, but that's at least how I read my sentences.


----------



## Whodunit

dekdek said:
			
		

> He's such a smart boy eh?


 




> So after letting me read this long discussion, can you sum something up for me?


 
All I can tell you is that your first translation was completely correct. 



> As I understood since the beggining hätte is used with subjunctive.


 
Maybe you have understood it correctly, but you expressed it wrongly. The word "hätte" is not used with the subjunctive, but it is the subjunctive of the word "haben". That's why I said that it is often translated as "would have" or "could have" or "might have" ... 

Du hättest mir helfen können.
You could have helped me.

Ich hätte dir geholfen, wenn du zu mir gekommen wärst.
I would have helped you, if you had come up to me.
(but here the wording "would have helped" as well as "hätte geholfen" is conditional )



> What does the wish form exactly express? And when shall I use it? (maybe when you have a possibility and something which is less absolute and more open?)


 
Gaer gave us a link where I once explained it. Click.



> So what about the different word order?
> Is it becasue of the act of the *report*, or because there is a *conjunction* like *dass*?


 
It is the word "dass" that requires the chanmge of word order. There are a lot more.



> Btw: I thought that there is no such thing as reported speech in German.


 
Yes, there is. Is there some language in which no reported speech can be found at all?


----------



## dekdek

I meant that I thought that in German there's no special way to express that the speech is reported, like in Hebrew. We just say: He told me that he loves her, or he told me that the cake is really tasty.
No such thing in German?


----------



## Whodunit

dekdek said:
			
		

> I meant that I thought that in German there's no special way to express that the speech is reported, like in Hebrew. We just say: He told me that he loves her, or he told me that the cake is really tasty.
> No such thing in German?


 
Well, no. 

It is much more complicated in German. For "He told me that he loves (better: loved) her", I'd say "Er sagte mir, dass er sie liebt/liebe/lieben würde". And - I hope I don't confuse you now - it can also be "Er sagte mir, er liebt/liebe/würde sie (lieben)".


----------



## dekdek

Well you did 
What about the haben? Er hat mir gesagt, dass er sie liebt (whyyyy würde?)
And the second one saying he loves her not 

If you've explained those on the linked post, don't bother answer because I am just lazy for now to read it.


----------



## Whodunit

dekdek said:
			
		

> Well you did
> What about the haben? Er hat mir gesagt, dass er sie liebt (whyyyy würde?)


 
Because "würde + infinitive" is colloquial for the subjunctive. 



> And the second one saying he loves her not


 
Oops.  I'm gonna edit it.



> If you've explained those on the linked post, don't bother answer because I am just lazy for now to read it.


 
It's my pleasure to help you till you get it.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> I like your translation a lot. The first one just implies that the person was about to help me, but failed. The second sentence tells me that the person rejected to help me.


(A slight correction: The second sentence tells me that the person rejected helping me. BETTER: The second sentence tells me that the person refused to help me.)

Please don't ask me to explain, because I can't! But I think you will understand…

Gaer


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Well, no.
> 
> It is much more complicated in German. For "He told me that he loves (better: loved) her", I'd say "Er sagte mir, dass er sie liebt/liebe/lieben würde". And - I hope I don't confuse you now - it can also be "Er sagte mir, er liebt/liebe/würde sie (lieben)".


Who, why don't you give Dekdek just one choice? I'm having similar difficulties in the Spanish forum, because there I'm asking for ways to say things quickly and effectively, and I get very confused when I'm bombarded with multiple answers!

Dekdek, unfortunately, Who's information IS correct. That is to say, there are many ways to say the same thing. If you want to speak and write German, and I don't do either unless a gun is held to my head, usually you can get along with only one way of saying things, at least at first, but you do have to be aware of variations. If possible, try to concentrate on the German examples that people give you, absorb them, and just trust that the when all of us agree that A=B, meaning something in German = something in English, it's reliable. If there is doubt, someone will jump and say, "I don't agree!"

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> (A slight correction: The second sentence tells me that the person rejected helping me. BETTER: The second sentence tells me that the person refused to help me.)
> 
> Please don't ask me to explain, because I can't! But I think you will understand…


 
Well, maybe it can be explained with one of those sentences a student of English should know:

The gerund stands for an action that has already taken place.
The infinitive (with "to") stands for an action is still approaching.

So, the version "reject helping" is correct, but now I can't understand the use of "refuse to help". I think I understand why it is "to help" in the latter, but I won't tell until you told me that "refuse helping" is not correct in any context.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Well, maybe it can be explained with one of those sentences a student of English should know:
> 
> The gerund stands for an action that has already taken place.
> The infinitive (with "to") stands for an action is still approaching.
> 
> So, the version "reject helping" is correct, but now I can't understand the use of "refuse to help". I think I understand why it is "to help" in the latter, but I won't tell until you told me that "refuse helping" is not correct in any context.


We would need a new thread for the whole subject of "reject helping", "refuse to help". I don't think it is a big problem, but if you really want to get more help, it would be a good thing to bring up in the English forum. 

Gaer


----------



## selters

_Er berichtete, dass er mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen gefochten hätte.
Er berichtete, dass er mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen gefochten habe._

Are there any native users of German here who can comment on the difference in meaning between these two sentences? 

I have learned that both Konjunktiv I and Konjunktiv II can be used in indirect speech (aren't these sentences examples of just that?), but Konjunktiv I is preferred unless the Konjunktiv I form is identical with the indicative form.


----------



## Whodunit

selters said:
			
		

> _Er berichtete, dass er mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen gefochten hätte._
> _Er berichtete, dass er mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen gefochten habe._
> 
> Are there any native users of German here who can comment on the difference in meaning between these two sentences?


 
It sounds strange because "Konjunktiv I" is like "present subjunctive", I think. And since the first sentence is in the past perfect, the present perfect (subjunctive) is not preferable, if not impossible.



> I have learned that both Konjunktiv I and Konjunktiv II can be used in indirect speech (aren't these sentences examples of just that?), but Konjunktiv I is preferred unless the Konjunktiv I form is identical with the indicative form.


 
Konjunktiv I is the preferred one? I'd rather use Konjunktiv II.


----------



## selters

Sorry, my mistake. The example in this thread is of course Plusquamperfekt Konjunktiv (he is reporting something that has happened in the past) and the form of _haben_ to be used is of course _hätte_.

What I was thinking about when I wrote my last post, was the difference between KI and KII when the Zeitstufe is Gegenwart. 

Take a look at these examples, which ones would you prefer?

1. and 5. are direct speech.
2. and 6 are indirect speech with the indicative (does this sound wrong to you?)
3. and 7. are indirect speech with KI.
4. and 8. are indirect speech with KII.

*Singular*

_1. Er sagte: "Ich fechte mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen."_
_2. Er sagte, dass er mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen ficht._
_3. Er sagte, dass er mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen fechte._
_4. Er sagte, dass er mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen föchte._

*Plural*

_5. Sie sagten: "Wir fechten mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen."_
_6. Sie sagten, dass sie mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen fechten._
_7. Sie sagten, dass sie mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen fechten._
_8. Sie sagten, dass sie mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen föchten._

From what I've learned, 3. and 8. are the preferred ones. Do you agree?

In all these examples, you can probably omit _dass_, but the only change would be a movement of the verb, right?


----------



## WERWOLF

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Would "to fence" work?



Yes or wild gesticulate with hands by speaking. But with a sword, you can fence only.


----------



## WERWOLF

"gefochten hätte" drückt die indirekte Rede in de Vorvergangenheit / Plusquamperfekt aus.  Vielleicht ist auch etwas Unsicherheit, die sich auf den Inhalt der Aussage bezieht, dabei. Mit dem Subjunktiv könne man das aber nicht vergleichen, habe ich irgendwo gelesen. Das deutsche Tempus-Modus-Paradigma ist ganz anders als z. B. im Spanischen. Es gebe keine direkte Korrespondenz zwischen Zeit und Modus.


----------



## Whodunit

selters said:
			
		

> From what I've learned, 3. and 8. are the preferred ones. Do you agree?


 
I'm sorry, but I don't like any of your example sentences. "Föchte" is too rarely used, so that I can't tell you whether or not it is correct or sounds good.

I would prefer the past perfect subjunctive (gefochten hätte) and nothing else.


----------



## Whodunit

WERWOLF said:
			
		

> "gefochten hätte" drückt die indirekte Rede in de Vorvergangenheit / Plusquamperfekt aus. Vielleicht ist auch etwas Unsicherheit, die sich auf den Inhalt der Aussage bezieht, dabei. Mit dem Subjunktiv könne man das aber nicht vergleichen, habe ich irgendwo gelesen. Das deutsche Tempus-Modus-Paradigma ist ganz anders als z. B. im Spanischen. Es gebe keine direkte Korrespondenz zwischen Zeit und Modus.


 
Nein, darum geht es hier nicht. Wir sprechen nicht vom spanischen, französischen oder einem anderen romanischen Subjunktiv, sondern vom deutschen Konjunktiv, der mit dem englischen (einer germanischen Sprache immerhin!) verglichen wird.

Schließlich wollen wir doch auch nicht den arabischen Konjunktiv noch mit einbringen, oder?


----------



## WERWOLF

Die Form "föchten" als solche ist richtig Konjunktiv des Preteritums. Aber es wird nicht einmal in der Literatur gebraucht.

"gefochten hätten" drück doch die Vorzeitigkeit gegenüber "berichtete". 

Eine dritte Person hat zuerst mit Riesen gefochten und erst danach hat darüber der "Er" berichtet.

Ich berichtete, daß ich mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen gewochten hatte. 
Ich war ja dabei, ich weiß das das stimmt, ich will es nicht bezweifeln.

Er berichtete, daß Peter mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen gewochten hätte.
Ich war nicht dabei, und bin mir nicht sicher, ob das wirklich stimmt. Das einzige, was ich weiß, ist, daß er darüber berichtete.


----------



## Whodunit

WERWOLF said:
			
		

> Die Form "föchten" als solche ist richtig als Konjunktiv des Präteritums. Aber es wird nicht einmal in der Literatur gebraucht.


 
Das ist richtig. 



> "gefochten hätten" drückt doch die Vorzeitigkeit gegenüber "berichtete" aus.
> 
> Eine dritte Person hat zuerst mit dem Riesen gefochten und erst danach hat darüber der "Er" berichtet.


 
Genau so stimmt es. Wir brauchen "gefochten hätte".



> Ich berichtete, daß ich mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen gefochten hatte.
> Ich war ja dabei, ich weiß, dass das stimmt, ich kann es nicht bezweifeln.
> 
> Er berichtete, daß Peter mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen gefochten hätte.
> Ich war nicht dabei und bin mir nicht sicher, ob das wirklich stimmt. Das einzige, was ich weiß, ist, daß er darüber berichtete.


 
Das ist das, was ich die ganze Zeit versuche zu erklären.


----------



## WERWOLF

Leider Tippfehler und ungenügende Konzentration.

Hier könnte oder sogar muß das "will" stehen. Ich kann selbsverständlich meine eigene Aussage bewzeifeln, obwohl ich mich dadruch zum Narren mache.

"Ich war ja dabei, ich weiß, daß das stimmt, ich will es nicht bezweifeln."

Ich schreibe klassisch unreformiert, es sollte "daß" dastehen. Trotzdem danke für die Korrekturen.


----------



## Whodunit

WERWOLF said:
			
		

> Leider Tippfehler und ungenügende Konzentration.


 
Kann passieren. 



> Hier könnte oder sogar muß das "will" stehen. Ich kann selbsverständlich meine eigene Aussage bewzeifeln, obwohl ich mich dadruch zum Narren mache.


 
Das macht man nicht. Man bezweifelt doch nicht absichtlich seine eigenen Taten, es sei denn, sie waren illegal. Was man selbst gemacht, kann man vielleicht bezweifeln (weil man betrunken war oder was auch immer), aber man will es nicht absichtlich.



> Ich schreibe klassisch unreformiert, es sollte "daß" dastehen. Trotzdem danke für die Korrekturen.


 
This is up to you, deswegen habe ich auf meine Art korrigiert, aber deine "daß"-Wörtern stehen gelassen.


----------



## selters

Whodunit said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but I don't like any of your example sentences. "Föchte" is too rarely used, so that I can't tell you whether or not it is correct or sounds good.
> 
> I would prefer the past perfect subjunctive (gefochten hätte) and nothing else.


 
Uhm, but that's Plusquamperfekt, right? I was talking about which possibilities we had to express the same sentence if we changed the time into Präsens, that's why I included

_Er sagte: "Ich fechte mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen."_

The direct speech of 

_Er berichtete, dass er mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen gefochten hätte._

would have to be

_Er sagte: "Ich habe mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen gefochten."_

Don't you agree?


----------



## WERWOLF

Im Präsens wäre das so:
Die erste Möglichkeit eher im geschriebenem Text, die zweite beim Gespräch.

Er berichtet, daß er mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen gefochten habe / hätte.

Dabei ist aber nicht klar, ob er derselbe ist, der gefochten hat, oder nur derjeneige, welcher berichtete.


----------



## selters

So what you are saying is that converted to indirect speech

_Er sagte: "Ich fechte mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen."_

becomes

_Er berichtet, daß er mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen gefochten habe / hätte._

?


----------



## WERWOLF

Ja. Yes. Jah


----------



## Kajjo

WERWOLF said:
			
		

> Im Präsens wäre das so:
> Die erste Möglichkeit eher im geschriebenem Text, die zweite beim Gespräch.
> Er berichtet, daß er mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen gefochten habe / hätte.
> Dabei ist aber nicht klar, ob er derselbe ist, der gefochten hat, oder nur derjeneige, welcher berichtete.



1) Dein Satz stellt nicht die Gleichzeitigkeit von "berichten" und "fechten" dar. Ich glaube, daß das aber die Fragestellung war.
2) Natürlich ist klar, daß es sich um dieselbe Person handelt. Nur durch einen sehr komplexen Kontext mit vielen männlichen Darstellern könnte eventuell Unklarheit entstehen. Selbst dann müßte das zweite "er" anders ausgedrückt werden, um unmißverständlich eine andere Person fechten zu lassen.

Kajjo


----------



## selters

So in English, example 1. expresses the same as 2.?

1. _He said: "I am fighting with ten huge giants."_

2. _He says that he has fought with ten huge giants._


----------



## Kajjo

selters said:
			
		

> So in English, example 1. expresses the same as 2.?
> 
> 1. _He said: "I am fighting with ten huge giants."_
> 
> 2. _He says that he has fought with ten huge giants._



Please excuse my interruption. I am not sure anymore, which tense you want to translate, and I doubt anyone else is. 

Your sentences 1 and 2 are in different tenses. So they can not exactly express the same idea.

Kajjo


----------



## WERWOLF

Es war nicht von Gleichzeitigkeit die Rede, sondern von einem Schub in die Gegenwart:

Uhm, but that's Plusquamperfekt, right? I was talking about which possibilities we had to *express the same sentence if we changed the time into Präsens,* that's why I included


----------



## selters

Kajjo said:
			
		

> Please excuse my interruption. I am not sure anymore, which tense you want to translate, and I doubt anyone else is.
> 
> Your sentences 1 and 2 are in different tenses. So they can not exactly express the same idea.
> 
> Kajjo


 
I'll write in English, that's goes a lot quicker for me.

I know.  That's why I asked if WERWOLF still thought the sentences expressed the same.

The sentence I want translated is the indirect speech version of this sentence:

_He said: "I am fighting with ten huge giants."_

namely

_He said that he is fighting with ten huge giants._

So the only difference (apart from the language) between this sentence and the sentence in the thread title is that the report in this sentence is happening in the present, whereas the report in the original sentence had happened in the past.

On the previous page of the thread, I supplied a number of different translations of

_He said that he is fighting with ten huge giants._

And for the sake of comparison between Konjunktiv I and Konjunktiv II, I also changed the subject from _Er_ into _Sie_.

This was what I wrote (I've just copied it from the last time I wrote it)

Take a look at these examples, which ones would you prefer?

1. and 5. are direct speech.
2. and 6 are indirect speech with the indicative (does this sound wrong to you?)
3. and 7. are indirect speech with KI.
4. and 8. are indirect speech with KII.

*Singular*

_1. Er sagte: "Ich fechte mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen."_
_2. Er sagte, dass er mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen ficht._
_3. Er sagte, dass er mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen fechte._
_4. Er sagte, dass er mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen föchte._

*Plural*

_5. Sie sagten: "Wir fechten mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen."_
_6. Sie sagten, dass sie mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen fechten._
_7. Sie sagten, dass sie mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen fechten._
_8. Sie sagten, dass sie mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen föchten._

From what I've learned, 3. and 8. are the preferred ones. Do you agree?

PS. I have to take a lot of the blame for the unclearness of my original question. I should have formulated it better, sorry about that.


----------



## selters

WERWOLF said:
			
		

> Es war nicht von Gleichzeitigkeit die Rede, sondern von einem Schub in die Gegenwart:
> 
> Uhm, but that's Plusquamperfekt, right? I was talking about which possibilities we had to *express the same sentence if we changed the time into Präsens,* that's why I included


 
Yeah, that's where the ambiguity arose. I meant if you changed the report into the present, not the main verb (_to say/berichten_). Sorry about that.


----------



## WERWOLF

Das habe ich aber getan! I moved the sentence into present.

Präteritum ---> Plusquamperferk
Präsens ---> Perfekt

Didn't I?


----------



## selters

Wenn du das getan hättest, was habe ich dann hier gemacht?

_Er berichtete, dass er mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen gefochten hätte._

-->

_Er berichtete, dass er mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen fechte._


----------



## cyanista

selters said:
			
		

> _Er berichtete, dass er mit zehn gewaltigen Riesen fechte._


Dieser Satz ist grammatikalisch richtig, wenn du implizierst, dass er immer noch dabei ist. Die Situation ist aber unmöglich: wenn er gerade mit zehn Riesen kämpft, hat er wohl keine Zeit davon gleichzeitig zu berichten; außerdem müsste der Empfänger seines Berichtes ja auch am Ort sein und dann könnte er mit eigenen Augen sehen, was da tatsächlich passiert (es sei denn, Don Quichotte ficht mit den Riesen und telefoniert gleichzeitig).


----------



## Kajjo

Die Normalform lautet:_

He said that he is fighting with ten huge giants.
Er sagte, daß er mit zehn Riesen fechte. (Konjunktiv I Präsens)
Sie sagten, daß sie mit zehn Riesen fechten. (Konjunktiv I Präsens)
_
Leider stimmen in diesem Fall die Formen des Indikativs mit denen des Konjunktivs I überein. In solchen Fällen hat man die Wahl zwischen drei Versionen:

1) Konjunktiv I (= Indikativ)
Diese Möglichkeit wird häufig dann gewählt, wenn kein Zweifel an der Richtigkeit der Aussage besteht und man daher die "Möglichkeitsform" nicht betonen muß. Gerade in der gesprochenen Sprache ist dies die häufigste Form (siehe oben).

2) Konjunktiv II als Ersatzform
Diese Möglichkeit wird immer dann gewählt, wenn man den Konjunktiv sprachlich ausdrücken möchte, zum Beispiel weil die Tatsache, daß es sich um indirekte Rede handelt bedeutsam ist, oder weil ganz klar Zweifel an der Richtigkeit der Aussage bestehen. Allerdings wird diese Möglichkeit immer dann nicht verwendet, wenn die Konj. II Formen sehr ungewöhnlich oder altmodisch klingen.

Dies ist zum Beispiel hier der Fall und würde daher so NICHT verwendet werden:

_He said that he is fighting with ten huge giants.
Er sagte, daß er mit zehn Riesen föchte. (Konjunktiv I Präsens)
Sie sagten, daß sie mit zehn Riesen föchten. (Konjunktiv I Präsens)

_3) Ersatzform "würde"
Die Möglichkeit wird in der gesprochenen Sprache am häufigsten verwendet, in der Schriftsprache dagegen nur, wenn Möglichkeit 2 wegen Ungewöhnlichkeit entfällt.

_He said that he is fighting with ten huge giants.
Er sagte, daß er mit zehn Riesen fechten würde.
Sie sagten, daß sie mit zehn Riesen fechten würden. 
_
Man kann die Sätze jeweils auch ohne "daß" bilden. Dies klingt gehobener und sprachlich geschickter:

_Er sagte, er würde mit zehn Riesen fechten.
__Er sagte, er fechte mit zehn Riesen._
_
_Kajjo


----------



## cyanista

Kajjo said:
			
		

> Die Normalform lautet:_
> 
> He said that he is fighting with ten huge giants.
> 1) Er sagte, daß er mit zehn Riesen fechte. (Konjunktiv I Präsens)
> 2) Sie sagten, daß sie mit zehn Riesen fechten. (Konjunktiv I Präsens)
> _
> Leider stimmen in diesem Fall die Formen des Indikativs mit denen des Konjunktivs I überein.


Nur im zweiten Satz! "er.. fechte" aus dem ersten Satz ist ganz klar Konjunktiv, weil Indikativ "er ficht" wäre.

Nebenbei bemerkt, "he said he is fighting" ist im Englischen falsch, es soll heißen "he said he was fighting" (sequence of tenses).


----------



## Whodunit

cyanista said:
			
		

> Nur im zweiten Satz! "er.. fechte" aus dem ersten Satz ist ganz klar Konjunktiv, weil Indikativ "er ficht" wäre.
> 
> Nebenbei bemerkt, "he said he is fighting" ist im Englischen falsch, es soll heißen "he said he was fighting" (sequence of tenses).


 
Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob ich der Diskussion noch richtig folgen kann. Hier noch mal ein kurzer Überblick für mich:

Geht es überhaupt, dass man "He said that he is fighting ..." im Englischen sagt? Es klingt sinnlos, genauso wie der deutsche Satz: "Er sagte, er fechte ...". Da man aber nicht beim Fechten berichtet, sollte wohl erst die Tat, dann der Bericht kommen:

"Er sagte, er hatte/hätte ... gefochten"
"He said that he had fought ..."

Mir fällt gerade noch "had been fighting" ein, aber ich denke, dass man dafür erstens mehr Kontext und zweitens wieder so eine unvorstellbare Situation brauchte: Während des Fechtens berichtet er, deswegen wird das Continuous verwendet.

Cyanista hat da insofern schon Recht, dass es Quatsch ist, das Continuous zu verwenden, es sei denn,d er Herr hatte ein Handy dabei.


----------



## Kajjo

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Cyanista hat da insofern schon Recht, dass es Quatsch ist, das Continuous zu verwenden, es sei denn, der Herr hatte ein Handy dabei.



Nein, das trifft im Deutschen nicht zu! Die englische Zeitenfolge gilt im Deutschen ganz und gar nicht. In der indirekten Rede heißt es sowohl im Präsens als auch im Präteritum richtig:

_Sie sagte, er sei in Gefahr. Er fragte, ob sie Durst habe.
Sie sagt, er sei in Gefahr. Er fragt, ob sie Durst habe.
_
Dies setzt keineswegs voraus, daß die Gefahr oder der Durst noch andauert. Siehe dazu auch Canoo.net.

Kajjo

PS
Im Englischen habt Ihr wohl recht. Dazu mögen sich die passenden Muttersprachler äußern!


----------



## Sepia

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob ich der Diskussion noch richtig folgen kann. Hier noch mal ein kurzer Überblick für mich:
> 
> Geht es überhaupt, dass man "He said that he is fighting ..." im Englischen sagt? Es klingt sinnlos, genauso wie der deutsche Satz: "Er sagte, er fechte ...". Da man aber nicht beim Fechten berichtet, sollte wohl erst die Tat, dann der Bericht kommen:
> 
> "Er sagte, er hatte/hätte ... gefochten"
> "He said that he had fought ..."
> 
> Mir fällt gerade noch "had been fighting" ein, aber ich denke, dass man dafür erstens mehr Kontext und zweitens wieder so eine unvorstellbare Situation brauchte: Während des Fechtens berichtet er, deswegen wird das Continuous verwendet.
> 
> Cyanista hat da insofern schon Recht, dass es Quatsch ist, das Continuous zu verwenden, es sei denn,d er Herr hatte ein Handy dabei.




Die Geschichte ist ja sowieso fiktiv - es gibt keine Riesen. Also, wenn unser Protagonist der Held in einer Manga-Anime und mit Riesen kämpft, kann er dies auch über ein Funkgerät mit Headset berichten. Also ist es schon relevant dies ausdrücken zu können.

Was ich aber vermisse in diesem langen Thread ist: Die Verwendung von Konjunktiv in indirekter Rede muss nicht viel über die Fakten ausdrücken sondern über die Haltung der Überbringer der Mitteilung. 

Alt bekanntes Beispiel aus dem kalten Krieg (in etwa) und analog zum Beispiel am Threadanfang:

Willy Brandt: Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ist ein demokratischer Rechtstaat! 

Wird in einer West-Zeitung zitiert, Bundeskanzler Willy Brandt sagte, die Bundesrepublik Deutschland sei ein demokratischer Rechtstaat.

Und die DDR-Zeitungen: Der Bundeskanzler Willy Brandt sagte, dass die BRD ein demokratischer Rechtstaat wäre. 

---

And now I think it is up to you Anglophone guys and girls to find a good translation for these two different ways of using the subj. tense. I think the differece in meaning or at least attitude is clear.


----------



## cyanista

Kajjo said:
			
		

> Nein, das trifft im Deutschen nicht zu! Die englische Zeitenfolge gilt im Deutschen ganz und gar nicht. In der indirekten Rede heißt es sowohl im Präsens als auch im Präteritum richtig:
> 
> _Sie sagte, er sei in Gefahr. Er fragte, ob sie Durst habe.
> Sie sagt, er sei in Gefahr. Er fragt, ob sie Durst habe.
> _
> Dies setzt keineswegs voraus, daß die Gefahr oder der Durst noch andauert. Siehe dazu auch Canoo.net.



Kajjo heißt das, dass dieser Satz richtig ist und der Kampf möglicherweise schon beendet ist???

_Er sagte, daß er mit zehn Riesen fechte.

_Ich würde auf jeden Fall "gefochten habe/hätte" sagen._
_


----------



## Kajjo

cyanista said:
			
		

> Kajjo heißt das, dass dieser Satz richtig ist und der Kampf möglicherweise schon beendet ist???
> 
> _Er sagte, daß er mit zehn Riesen fechte.
> __
> _



Ja, genau!

"Die Ritter kämpften zehn Tage lang mit den Riesen. Der Anführer der Riesen fragte schließlich, warum die Ritter so ausdauernd seien. Aber keiner wußte eine Antwort. Nach weiteren drei Tagen siegten schließlich die Ritter und verkündeten, das Reich sei nicht mehr in Gefahr!"

Die gesamte Erzählung ist im Präteritum, nur die indirekte Rede ist im Konjunktiv I Präsens geschrieben. Vgl. Canoo.net. Dies sagt überhaupt nichts aus über den heutigen Zustand. Der Konj. I sagt nur etwas aus über die Gleichzeitigkeit von "er sagte" und "er sei": Damals, als es gesagt wurde, war gleichzeitig die indirekte Rede und die Rede ("sagen") gültig.

Kajjo


----------



## Whodunit

Kajjo, ich denke, dass es etwas mit dem jetzigem Zustand zu tun hat und nicht mit der grammatischen Funktion:

Er berichtete während des langen Kampfes, dass der Riese unglaublich stark sei. (der Riese lebt noch, er ist immer noch - angeblich - stark)

Er berichtete während des langen Kampfes, dass der Riese unglaublich stark wäre. (der Riese lebt noch, allerdings ist er jetzt nicht mehr stark)

Er berichtete während des langen Kampfes, dass der Riese unglaublich stark gewesen sei/wäre. (den Riesen gibt es nicht mehr)

Deshalb denke ich auch, dass es in dem hier relevanten Satz "gefochten hätte" sein muss, ansonsten würde der Kampf noch immer stattfinden. Das mag an meinem Sprachgefühl liegen, aber so empfinde ich es halt.


----------



## Kajjo

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Er berichtete während des langen Kampfes, dass der Riese unglaublich stark sei. (der Riese lebt noch, er ist immer noch - angeblich - stark)


Nein, das ist eigentlich falsch. In dem Moment, wo dies berichtet wurde, lebte der Riese offensichtlich noch. Über den heutigen Zustand sagt das aber überhaupt nichts aus.



			
				Whodunit said:
			
		

> Er berichtete während des langen Kampfes, dass der Riese unglaublich stark wäre. (der Riese lebt noch, allerdings ist er jetzt nicht mehr stark)


Er hat es berichtet, aber wir haben ihm nicht geglaubt. Vielleicht war nicht der Gegener zu stark, sondern er zu schwach? Über den heutigen Zustand sagt das wieder gar nichts aus, und auch nicht darüber, ob der Riese damals wirklich stark war oder nicht. 



			
				Whodunit said:
			
		

> Er berichtete während des langen Kampfes, dass der Riese unglaublich stark gewesen sei/wäre. (den Riesen gibt es nicht mehr)


Auch das hat nichts mit dem heutigen Zustand zu tun. Schon während des Berichts wird eine Aussage über einen vergangenen Zustand gemacht. Der Riese mag aber entkommen oder unser Held geflüchtet sein. Während des Kampfes war er jedoch stark.



			
				Whodunit said:
			
		

> Deshalb denke ich auch, dass es in dem hier relevanten Satz "gefochten hätte" sein muss, ansonsten würde der Kampf noch immer stattfinden. Das mag an meinem Sprachgefühl liegen, aber so empfinde ich es halt.


Ja, dann täuscht Dich diesmal Dein ansonsten gutes Sprachgefühl.

_Er berichtete, daß er mit dem Riesen gefochten habe. (indirekte Rede)
Er berichtete: "Ich habe mit dem Riesen gefochten!" (direkte Rede)
_
Der Held hat gekämpft, vielleicht hat er gewonnen, vielleicht ist er geflohen, wie auch immer, der Kampf ist zu Ende. Erst lange nach dem Kampf berichtet er am Feuer des Burgfeuers seiner Angebeteten von dem schwierigen Kampf.

Die Bildung des Konjunktivs ist ganz eindeutig. Lies Dir doch mal die von mir gegebenen Canoo.net-Seiten durch!

Die Zeit des Konjunktivs richtet sich ausschließlich nach der Zeit in der analogen DIREKTEN Rede. Diese wird umgesetzt. Die Zeitform, die davor steht ("er sagt/sagte"), ist völlig egal!

Kajjo


----------

