# aus halb patrizischem (stark angeplebstem) Hause



## jinxnao

I read a book named Ceasar Laesst Grüssen by Joachim Fernau. 
A sentence includes :"....... für einen Herrn aus halb patrizischem ( stark angeplebstem) Hause.
How kind of a construction is this? This has to do with Plebs but I could not find the rule behind this word. Does Angeplebst  comes from a verb like anpleben? I am confused.


----------



## Frank78

It's just creative word forming. I guess it just comes from words like "angehaucht" (=having some traits of XYZ).

"...for a man from a semi-patrician, although heavily plebeian-tinted, family"


----------



## manfy

Well, 'anplebsen' in and of itself doesn't make sense, but formally that would be the indicative of angeplebst.

'Angeplebst' is a normal ad-hoc verb created from the noun 'Plebejer'.
It means something like 'contaminated with Plebeian attitude or behaviour'.

[cross-posted and agreeing]


----------



## jinxnao

It was inspired from Anhauchen? Do you agree?


----------



## bearded

jinxnao said:


> It was inspired from Anhauchen? Do you agree?


I would say: only as a similar word-forming procedure - not concerning the meaning.


----------



## JClaudeK

Das Präfix "an" hat hier diese semantische Eigenschaft:


> _kausative Verben_: versehen das Objekt mit einer Eigenschaft: anrauen, anfeuchten, [anerziehen, an ... ]


----------



## Frank78

bearded said:


> I would say: only as a similar word-forming procedure - not concerning the meaning.



Both actually. You could also say "die Familie ist plebejisch angehaucht"


----------



## bearded

Frank78 said:


> Both actually. You could also say "die Familie ist plebejisch angehaucht"


Sure. But is that what you meant when you wrote ''creative word forming...from words like angehaucht''?


----------



## Kajjo

jinxnao said:


> It was inspired from Anhauchen? Do you agree?


No, not really. This word formation is productive and "Plebs > anblebsen" sounds analogous to "Stoß > anstoßen", "Delle > andellen", "Land > anlanden" and so ob. 

"Anhauchen" is semantically _somehow _related in this concrete context, but not relevant for word formation and "stark angeplebst" is a lot more than just "angehaucht". So, again, no, "angehaucht" leads in the wrong direction, even considered that we could rewrite the sentence with "angehaucht".


----------



## Frieder

I think _angeplebst _is meant as some kind of pun or a play on words. I find it quite funny and I instantly knew what was meant. I wouldn't read too much into it. And I agree with Kajjo that _angehaucht_ doesn't quite hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Frank78

Frieder said:


> . And I agree with Kajjo that _angehaucht_ doesn't quite hit the nail on the head.



But only due to the modifying "stark".

The sole "angeplebst" doesn't sound stronger than "angehaucht".


----------



## Kajjo

Frank78 said:


> But only due to the modifying "stark".


Yes, mostly.


Frank78 said:


> The sole "angeplebst" doesn't sound stronger than "angehaucht".


Well, I feel it closer to words like angestoßen/angedellt/angekratzt and the like. Of course, "angehaucht" is possible, too.


----------



## JClaudeK

jinxnao said:


> It was inspired from Anhauchen?



Vielleicht sollten wir _jinxnao_ erklären, dass  "angehaucht" hier bildlich zu verstehen ist:



> "....... für einen Herrn aus halb patrizischem ( stark _angeplebstem_) Hause


~ aus  halb patrizischem (stark _plebejisch angehauchtem_) Hause = er kommt aus einer Patrizierfamilie, die einen starken_ plebejischen Einfluss _erlitten hat.


----------



## jinxnao

I love this forum. You are really 10 points. I got it. Thanks


----------



## Hutschi

Take care: Without such context "angeplebst" can also mean a kind of "bullied" (angepöbelt, doof angemacht, gemobbt, belästigt).

Analogous to "angepöbelt". I supposed this meaning when reading your head line. Context corrected me.

Er hat ihn angeplebst. (Sporadische Wortbildung) = er hat ihn angepöbelt. (Etabliertes Wort.)
Plebs is often used as Mob/Pöbel.


----------



## berndf

manfy said:


> Well, 'anplebsen' in and of itself doesn't make sense, but formally that would be the indicative of angeplebst.
> 
> 'Angeplebst' is a normal ad-hoc verb created from the noun 'Plebejer'.
> It means something like 'contaminated with Plebeian attitude or behaviour'.
> 
> [cross-posted and agreeing]


It is not all that unusual to derive adjectives directly from nouns that formally look like past participles of a weak verb without there being such a verb, like in _der Jüngling mit dem gold _*gelockten*_ Haar_ (_gelockt_ is obviously derived from the noun _Locke_ and not from the verb _locken_).


----------



## Hutschi

locken – Wiktionary

But the verb exists, though.

I would follow the argument in case of "goldgelockt" but I am in doubt in case of "gold gelockt". But even with the etymology of "goldgelockt" I am in doubt. Duden goldgelockt "mit goldblonden Locken"


Duden: locken



> in Locken legen, drehen
> BEISPIELE
> das Haar leicht locken
> er lässt sich die Haare locken
> 
> sich in Locken legen; in Locken fallen



Edit:

Are you sure about the etymology (and spelling) of "gold gelockt"?


----------



## berndf

I have always understood the verb as a continuation of the adjective and not the other way round but I may be wrong.


----------



## JClaudeK

berndf said:


> (_gelockt_ is obviously derived from the noun _Locke_ and not from the verb _locken_).
> 
> 
> Hutschi said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the verb exists, though.
Click to expand...




> locken
> glattes Haar lockig machen
> Beispiele:
> die Friseurin lockt ihr das Haar


----------



## berndf

Irrespective of the historical timeline, the adjective is (obviously) directly derived from the noun. Otherwise, the expression _gelocktes Haar_ would imply that the person's hairs weren't naturally curled but by some technical means and that not what the expression means. There are similar constructions in other Germanic languages, like the adjective _bearded _in English (and incidentally _bebartet _in German), which are also directly derived from a noun without the detour of a verb.


----------



## JClaudeK

berndf said:


> Otherwise, the expression _gelocktes Haar_ would imply that the person's hairs weren't naturally curled but by some technical means and that not what the expression means.


I don't agree. 

For me:
Sie hat gelocktes Haar *=* lockiges Haar (we don't know whether it's _naturally curled_ or  _curled by some technical means_)


> Synonyme
> gelockt · gewellt · lockig [☯ Gegensatz: glatthaarig (sein)] · onduliert · wellig


----------



## berndf

JClaudeK said:


> For me:
> Sie hat gelocktes Haar *=* lockiges Haar (we don't know whether it's _naturally curled_ or _curled by some technical means_)


Exactly. That's what I said.


----------



## Hutschi

berndf said:


> Irrespective of the historical timeline, the adjective is (obviously) directly derived from the noun. Otherwise, the expression _gelocktes Haar_ would imply that the person's hairs weren't naturally curled but by some technical means and that not what the expression means. There are similar constructions in other Germanic languages, like the adjective _bearded _in English (and incidentally _bebartet _in German), which are also directly derived from a noun without the detour of a verb.



Hi, this is not quite necessary.

Duden again:

locken


> sich in Locken legen; in Locken fallen
> Grammatik
> sich locken
> BEISPIELE
> 
> *sein Haar lockte sich ein wenig im Nacken*
> *sie hat [von Natur aus] gelocktes Haar*


(Bold by hutschi)

This just means that the hair  is naturally curled.

PS: I wrote this before but without the examples, because the quotation would have been too long.

#17
I thought that _sich in Locken legen; in Locken fallen_ implies these examples.


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> This just means that the hair is naturally curled.


That (_in Locken fallen_) seems wrong to me. As the example shows they have derived this verbal meaning solely from the adjective. I do not accept this as a valid conclusion. Otherwise the sentence _Meine Haare locken_ should be valid and meaningful and mean _my hairs are curled_ and it clearly isn't valid and meaningful at all.


----------



## Hutschi

Locken needs an accusative. So it becomes: Meine Haare locken sich, dann/deshalb sind sie gelockt. (as a kind of reflexive verb.)

My hairs are curling themselves - after this they are curled.


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> Locken needs an accusative. So it becomes: Meine Haare locken sich. (as a kind of reflexive verb.)
> 
> My hairs are curling themselves - after this they are curled.


Not "kind" of a reflexive verb but it *is *a (true) reflexive verb. That is the first of the two uses in "sich in Locken legen; in Locken fallen". The adjective belongs to the second as the two examples clearly show.


----------



## Hutschi

So it builds a participle, doesn't it?

Edit: 
other examples:
Ich wasche mir die Hände. - die gewaschenen Hände. 
Meine Haare locken sich. - die gelockten Haare.


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> Ich wasche mir die Hände. - die gewaschenen Hände.


The adjective _gewaschen_ is from the participle of transitive and not of the reflexive verb. It doesn't matter who washed something.

_Irgend welche Hände wurden von irgend jemand gewaschen - gewaschene Hände_


----------



## Hutschi

Danke, Bernd. Ich verstehe es nicht, worin der Unterschied besteht, aber wenn es grammatisch so ist, dann ist es so. Ich komme leider bei der Argumentation nicht mehr mit. (Das ist ernst gemeint, nicht rhetorisch.)

_Irgend welche Hände wurden von irgend jemand gewaschen - gewaschene Hände 
Irgendwelche Haare wurden von irgend jemand oder irgend etwas gelockt - gelockte Haare (Das verstehe ich nicht.)_


----------



## berndf

Weil das Adjektiv _gelockt_ auch natürlich gelockte Haare einschließt, die von niemandem "gelockt" wurden.


JClaudeK said:


> For me:
> Sie hat gelocktes Haar *=* lockiges Haar (we don't know whether it's _naturally curled_ or _curled by some technical means_)


Es handelt sich also nicht um eine Passivform eines Aktionsverbs (und alle Partizipien II transitiver Verben haben passive Bedeutung). Das ist derselbe Grund, aus dem _offen _und _geöffnet_ zwar ähnliche aber nicht dieselbe Bedeutung haben (eine Unterscheidung, Sprecher romanischer Sprachen praktisch nie vollkommen beherrschen; das aber nur nebenbei bemerkt).


----------



## Hutschi

Ich fange an, es zu verstehen.

Es ist klar, dass "die Tür ist offen" und "die Tür hat sich geöffnet"- deshalb: "sie ist jetzt geöffnet" unterschiedliche Bedeutung haben.
Sie ist offen, das ist ein Status in der Gegenwart. "Sie ist geöffnet" entspricht "die Haare sind gelockt".

wegen:

_Irgendwelche Haare wurden von irgend jemand oder irgend etwas gelockt - gelockte Haare 
entspricht:
Irgendwelche Türen wurden von irgend jemand oder irgend etwas geöffnet - geöffnete Türen _
Weil nämlich auch gelten kann: Die Tür hat sich geöffnet. (In unserem Fall von selbst.) (Entspricht analog: die Haare haben sich gelockt.)
Das ist der Fall, weil gilt: Die geöffnete Tür schließt auch Türen ein, die von niemandem geöffnet wurden, sondern sich selbst öffneten. Ursachen kann es viele geben.

Danke für die Erklärung, es ist nun klar.


Edit: ergänzt: - deshalb: "sie ist jetzt geöffnet"


----------



## Schlabberlatz

jinxnao said:


> I read a book named Ceasar Laesst Grüssen by Joachim Fernau.
> A sentence includes :"....... für einen Herrn aus halb patrizischem ( stark angeplebstem) Hause.


The author seems to take a critical stance towards the plebejans:


> Beispiel B um den Konflikt zwischen Patriziern und Plebejern wenig später:
> _Also, wer waren sie? Unterdrückte, doch wohl?
> Natürlich nicht.
> Cäsar läßt grüßen von Joachim Fernau bei LovelyBooks (Historischer Roman)_


It seems that the book is written in a more or less humorous style:


> georg_moor
> Geschichte humorvoll präsentiert
> _Cäsar läßt grüßen von Joachim Fernau bei LovelyBooks (Historischer Roman)_


I think the author is mocking that mister from a half-patrician family.
… for a gentleman from a half-patrician house, a house that had seen quite a bit of meddling in by plebejans.
I don’t know if this sentence is correct. It’s an attempt at rendering the mocking tone of the original. I think there must have been inter-marriage so that the fully patrician house became a house that’s only half-patrician.


----------

