# Müssen - scope of negation



## kitties

Hello everyone,

I have a question with regards to the scope of negation when using the German modal verb ‘müssen’. I was under the impression, ‘müssen’ when used with ‘nicht’ only ever negates a statement of obligation and never implies a prohibition. As in:

Muss ich mich setzen?
Am I /obliged/ to sit?

Du musst dich nicht setzen.
You are not /obliged/ to sit.

I came across a translation of Wolfang Borchert’s ‘Die Küchenuhr’ where ‘müssen’ is negated like ‘must’ in English - meaning that the scope of negation is narrow and doesn’t change the meaning of obligation:

_Nein, lieber Herr, nein, da irren Sie sich. Sie müssen nicht immer von den Bomben reden._
No, dear sir, no, you are wrong about that. You /should not/ keep talking about the bombs.

I was curious as to how often one may encounter such constructs and how to differentiate between scopes or how to properly use ‘müssen’ with negation to imply prohibition.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Frank78

kitties said:


> _Nein, lieber Herr, nein, da irren Sie sich. Sie müssen nicht immer von den Bomben reden._
> No, dear sir, no, you are wrong about that. You /should not/ keep talking about the bombs.



It's not a prohibition: "You don't have to talk about the bombs all the time."

Stronger: Du sollst nicht immer... (should not)
Prohibition: Du darfst nicht immer... (must not)


----------



## kitties

Frank78 said:


> It's not a prohibition: "You don't have to talk about the bombs all the time."



That was quoted from an 'official' translation (I am not allowed to post links but you can easily find it with google). It was also the translation given to me by another native speaker.


----------



## Frank78

kitties said:


> That was quoted from an 'official' translation (I am not allowed to post links but you can easily find it with google). It was also the translation given to me by another native speaker.



In any case "nicht müssen" can never be a prohibition.  
müssen = something is necessary
nicht müssen = something is not necessary (It is not necessary that you bother me with your monologue about bombs - for example)

If you want the sentence slightly weaker "Du brauchst nicht immer von den Bomben reden."

"Should not" can also be a strong advice in the same way as "nicht müssen".


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Frank78 said:


> In any case "nicht müssen" can never be a prohibition.


I beg to differ. While, more often than not, 

_Du musst das nicht tun._

means

_Du brauchst das nicht zu tun._

instances do occur where

_Du musst das nicht tun._

means
_
Du musst das [nicht tun]._

i.e., as in English, the modal verb refers to the *negated* infinitive.

kitties has indeed come across such an instance:





kitties said:


> I came across a translation of Wolfang Borchert’s ‘Die Küchenuhr’ where ‘müssen’ is negated like ‘must’ in English - meaning that the scope of negation is narrow and doesn’t change the meaning of obligation:
> 
> _Nein, lieber Herr, nein, da irren Sie sich. Sie müssen nicht immer von den Bomben reden._
> No, dear sir, no, you are wrong about that. You /should not/ keep talking about the bombs.







My personal observation is that the rare _must not_ meaning of _nicht müssen_ tends to come with the adverb _immer_:

_Du musst nicht immer in der Nase bohren. _
_Du musst nicht immer so ein Gesicht machen.
Du musst nicht immer in der Stube hocken bei diesem schönen Wetter.
_


----------



## bearded

> Frank78:
> ''Should not'' can also be a strong advice in the same way as ''nicht müssen''


What do you mean by ''in the same way''?  This statement seems (to me) to be contradictory with respect to the preceding ones (nicht müssen can never be a prohibition).
To me, ''should not'' is a sort of prohibition.  > That is a bad boy: you should not play with him.<
And also, if I am not mistaken, in colloquial German ''nicht müssen'' is sometimes used with the same meaning as ''nicht dürfen''.  >Das sind blöde Menschen. Du musst (=darfst, prohibition) sie nie wieder besuchen<.

Cross-posted with Schimmelreiter.


----------



## perpend

Frank78 said:


> "Should not" can also be a strong advice in the same way as "nicht müssen".



I would agree with that and also agree that "nicht müssen" can mean "do not have to", as Frank pointed out. (Siehe #2.)


----------



## Schimmelreiter

perpend said:


> "nicht müssen" can mean "do not have to"


Why _*can* mean_? That's the meaning of _nicht müssen _in the overwhelming number of cases. I'd associate _*can* mean _with _must not _because that's what _nicht müssen _"*can* mean" in exceptional cases. 

More precisely, when _nicht müssen_ means _must not_, we're presented with one of the rare cases in which _nicht _doesn't negate the modal verb _müssen _but the full verb, in the bare infinitive, that follows it:


kitties said:


> _Sie müssen nicht immer von den Bomben reden._


_You must not always speak about the bombs._

So, in both German and English, the *full* verb is negated: That which *must* happen is the *not speaking.* Whereas that's always the meaning of _must not_ in English, it's the meaning of German _nicht müssen_​ only in rare, exceptional cases.


----------



## perpend

Frank78 said:


> "You don't have to talk about the bombs all the time."



Frank wrote that in #2. I would say the same.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

perpend said:


> Frank78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You don't have to talk about the bombs all the time."
> 
> 
> 
> Frank wrote that in #2. I would say the same.
Click to expand...

And how does this answer kitties's question?





kitties said:


> I came across a translation of Wolfang Borchert’s ‘Die Küchenuhr’ where ‘müssen’ is negated like ‘must’ in English - meaning that the scope of negation is narrow and doesn’t change the meaning of obligation:
> 
> _Nein, lieber Herr, nein, da irren Sie sich. Sie müssen nicht immer von den Bomben reden._
> No, dear sir, no, you are wrong about that. You /should not/ keep talking about the bombs.


You and Frank are saying the translation kitties came across is wrong. I'm saying it's correct, and I'm explaining the reason why. At great length.


----------



## bearded

> Schimmelreiter:
> Sie müssen nicht immer von den Bomben reden/you must not always speak about the bombs.


And in this rare usage, is the meaning of ''müssen'' the same as (or near to) that of ''dürfen'' in your opinion? Thank you.


----------



## Perseas

Hello,
I have read the text and in my opinion it follows that the meaning is "(please) stop talking about the bombs all the time", and "should not" renders this meaning.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

bearded man said:


> And in this rare usage, is the meaning of ''müssen'' the same as (or near to) that of ''dürfen'' in your opinion? Thank you.


Doctrinally, yes. In the present example, I find it rendered nicely as





kitties said:


> should not


whereas I definitely wouldn't go down the standard _need not/don't have to _path.



I couldn't agree more with Perseas.


----------



## Frank78

Schimmelreiter said:


> My personal observation is that the rare _must not_ meaning of _nicht müssen_ tends to come with the adverb _immer_:
> 
> _Du musst nicht immer in der Nase bohren. _
> _Du musst nicht immer so ein Gesicht machen.
> Du musst nicht immer in der Stube hocken bei diesem schönen Wetter.
> _



To me this is not a prohibition but rather an advise (of an annoyed person).

"Du musst nicht immer in der Nase bohren" is still weaker than "Du sollst nicht immer in der Nase bohren".


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Frank78 said:


> To me this is not a prohibition but rather an advise (of an annoyed person).
> 
> "Du musst nicht immer in der Nase bohren" is still weaker than "Du sollst nicht immer in der Nase bohren".


Agreed. There are varying degrees of telling people they shouldn't perform a certain activity. But they are all degrees of telling people they should refrain from an action. This is substantially different from telling them it's not necessary they perform that action/needn't/don't have to perform that action.


----------



## berndf

Frank is right semantically and you (SR) are right pragmatically. The _meaning _of _du musst nicht _is _you are not obliged _but is can be used as a euphemistic way to issue a prohibition, similar to a master ordering a servant to leave with the words _you may leave now_.

The situation concerning _müssen/must _is fundamentally different in English and German. The original meaning is _to be free to do something_ and in both languages, it was used as a euphemistic way to express an obligation. The difference is that in German the entire verb consequently turned around its meaning so that the former euphemism became the literal meaning of the verb. In English, this shift of meaning didn't affect the entire verb but only the past subjunctive (past subjunctive=_must_; infinitive/present=_mote_) and only positive uses. I.e. in English _you must not=you are not allowed_ is, contrary to German, not a euphemism but a left-over of the original meaning of the verb.


----------



## wandle

From the context, it does not seem obvious to me which way it should be interpreted.
In post 1, an intervening sentence has been left out, which shows that the correction being made refers to a factual point:


> Er sah seine Uhr an und schütellte den Kopf. Nein, lieber Herr, nein, da irren Sie sich. das hat mit den Bomben nichts zu tun. Sie müssen nicht imer von den Bomben reden.


The sentence with _müssen_ follows that and could apparently be well rendered as 'You need not always be talking about the bombs'.


----------



## kitties

Correct me if I'm wrong:


The previous sentence establishes that the speaker is of the opinion that his conversational partner is wrong.
This, to my mind, leads to most readers expecting the speaker to be slightly upset/annoyed, further emphasized by the usage of "immer" in the sentence at question;
therefore "should not"/"please don't" would be the most appropriate translations here.


----------



## wandle

In English, the phrase 'You need not always be talking about the bombs' can very well express an admonition not to do so.

It seems to me that this corresponds closely to the German usage, as explained by *berndf*:


berndf said:


> The meaning of _du musst nicht_ is _you are not obliged_ but is can be used as a euphemistic way to issue a prohibition, similar to a master ordering a servant to leave with the words _you may leave now_.


The consequence of this is that there are two basic options in English: to translate as 'you should not' or as 'you need not'.
'Should not' is stronger than 'need not'. Therefore the question is: which one is closer to the German?

To answer that, you would need to be equally familiar with the different shades of meaning in both languages.
My German is not good enough for that.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

The author expressly didn't say, _Sie brauchen nicht_, which - in German, too - could have implied the admonishing tone of _you needn't_, which militates against _​needn't._


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Schimmelreiter said:


> So, in both German and English, the full verb is negated: That which must happen is the not speaking. Whereas that's always the meaning of must not in English, it's the meaning of German nicht müssen​ only in rare, exceptional cases.


How does one recognize these rare cases, then? What makes you so convinced that the original sentence should be interpreted as

_Sie müssen [nicht [[immer von den Bomben] reden]]_ (→ _nicht _negating full verb phrase), and not

_Sie [müssen nicht] [immer von den Bomben] reden_ (​→ _nicht _negating _müssen_)?

In speech, one could tell which interpretation was intended by the intonation, but both interpretations are possible in written texts, aren't they?

Cheers
Abba


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Context!

A: _Ich bin so hässlich und unfähig.
_B: _Das musst du nicht sagen!


_Pick an interpretation:
(1) _You needn't tell me since I know anyway.
_(2) _Don't say that!_


----------



## Schlabberlatz

I think it’s rare, but I remember it from my childhood. One of our neighbours used to say "Das musst du nicht machen!" when she wanted to tell me or somebody else not to do something, so it was equivalent to "You must not do that!" or "You should not do that!". But as to Borchert’s text I don’t know which interpretation is right.





> ABBA Stanza
> In speech, one could tell which interpretation was intended by the  intonation, but both interpretations are possible in written texts,  aren't they?


That’s a good point.


----------



## wandle

Schlabberlatz said:


> That’s a good point.


Yes, but still a translator has to make a decision.

The two different interpretations exist for _müssen nicht_ in German and also for 'need not' in English.
In both languages, one of the two interpretations is stronger than the other.
It does not follow, though, that the difference in strength is parallel in the two languages.

However, someone who is familiar with the different interpretations of each phrase in the two languages will be able to make a reasoned choice for the purpose of translation (though even so, there will still be no guarantee of exactly reflecting the author's intention).


----------



## Schimmelreiter

wandle said:


> The two different interpretations exist for _müssen nicht_ in German and also for 'need not' in English.


This seems to be a misunderstanding.

The ambiguity of _need not _corresponds to the ambiguity of _nicht brauchen._

To 
_D__u brauchst nicht zu kommen_, 
besides its standard meaning of _absent obligation, _there's the exceptional meaning of 
_K__omm nicht!_ 
Cf.





berndf said:


> a master ordering a servant to leave with the words _you may leave now_


_Sie können/dürfen gehen_: _Gehen Sie!_

The ambiguity of
_Du musst nicht kommen_.
vs.
_Du musst nicht kommen.
_does not, in my opinion, have a counterpart in English.


----------



## bearded

@ SR
Perhaps
you don't have to come  vs  you have ​not to come
?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

bearded man said:


> @ SR
> Perhaps
> you don't have to come  vs  you have ​not to come
> ?


Isn't there the BrE modal _have_ _​(He hasn't a car)_?
_You have not to come._
vs.
_You have not to come_.


----------



## bearded

Sure, you're right.  So there is an English counterpart after all  !?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

bearded man said:


> So there is an English counterpart after all  !?


Dunno.
Is there any living native speaker that uses the two different meanings, so there's the same potential for misunderstanding that comes with _nicht müssen_​?


----------



## Hutschi

Hi,

the thread started with a question:

"Muss ich mich setzen?"
Here "Muss" includes both options:
I have to sit down - and I do not need to sit down, but may sit down.
It is a decision question. (Entscheidungsfrage.)

A question cannot easily be negated, especially if it is a "yes-no" question it seems to be symmetrically. But in German it is not, if you include "nicht".

In our case, if you insert "nicht" in the question, there is only one place you can do it:
_
Muss ich mich nicht setzen?
_
But this is not a negation of the question. It basically changes the question into a kind of securing question (Nachfrage). 
"Nicht" is no negation here, but indicates as a flavoring particle that you suppose you should sit down.
It is similar to:

"I should sit down, shouldn't I?" but expecting an answer, so it is not purely rhetorically.

I added this to the discussion, because it may be important some times.

---
Happy New Year!


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Schimmelreiter said:


> Isn't there the BrE modal _have_ _​(He hasn't a car)_?
> _You have not to come._
> vs.
> _You have not to come_.


Interestingly, I wouldn't use either of these two sentences . Instead, I would say (if I've understood you correctly )

_You don't have to come_

or

_You have to not come_ (or, even easier: _You must not come_),

respectively.

Cheers
Abba


----------



## Schimmelreiter

That ambiguous sentence was meant to illustrate the ambiguity of _Du musst nicht kommen_ by mirroring its structure. I understand it's too unidiomatic to do the trick.


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> This seems to be a misunderstanding.
> The ambiguity of _need not _corresponds to the ambiguity of _nicht brauchen._


The case of _brauchen_, seems to me, with all respect, irrelevant to this thread. The verb under discussion is _müssen_.

The usual English to express _Du musst nicht kommen_ is not 'You have not to come' but 'You need not come'.

The usual English to express _Du musst nicht kommen_ is not 'you have not to come' but 'You must not come'.

The English 'You need not come' is, in the absence of context, ambiguous, as it may mean 'you are not obliged to come' or 'you ought not to come'. A similar ambiguity occurs with _Du musst nicht kommen_.

The second, stronger, meaning of the English is less frequent than the first meaning.
I suppose a difference of frequency also occurs with the German ambiguity.

However, only someone equally familiar with both languages could say whether that difference of frequency is the same in both languages.


----------



## Schlabberlatz

wandle said:


> Yes, but still a translator has to make a decision.
> 
> The two different interpretations exist for _müssen nicht_ in German and also for 'need not' in English.
> In both languages, one of the two interpretations is stronger than the other.
> It does not follow, though, that the difference in strength is parallel in the two languages.
> 
> However, someone who is familiar with the different interpretations of each phrase in the two languages will be able to make a reasoned choice for the purpose of translation (though even so, there will still be no guarantee of exactly reflecting the author's intention).


One could read all of Borchert’s other works to find similar passages where it might be absolutely clear what exactly is meant. This would be a good hint as to the exact meaning of the passage in "Die Küchenuhr". Well, nowadays it could also be possible to search digitized versions of his works for such passages, if they are available. It’s a lot faster than reading through everything.

Such scrupulous work would be necessary if one wanted to make a critical edition. For a normal edition / translation I think it’s sufficient to convey the meaning of the passage. It’s clear that the owner of the clock wants to make the other person stop talking about the bombs, and this can be expressed, for example, by "should not" (cf. #1), or by "need not". (I’d have thought that this was too weak, but your explanation makes it clear that it would be a good translation in this context.)


----------



## Hutschi

wandle said:


> ...
> 
> The usual English to express _Du musst nicht kommen_ is not 'you have not to come' but 'You must not come'.
> 
> ...



Hi, this is extremely seldom in German.
The usual German phrase for "You must not come." is "Du darfst nicht kommen."

Actually I do not remember any time that I heared "Du must nicht kommen." in the meaning "du darfst nicht kommen!"

_Du musst nicht kommen is blocked in German or it is new as an Anglicism - I am not aware of.

The only problem I see is that in cases if "You must not come" may mean "You do not need to come", you can translate it as well as "Du brauchst nicht zu kommen" and "du musst nicht kommen."

In German "Du brauchst nicht zu kommen", and "Du musst nicht kommen." have basically the same meaning. It is a typical German idiom.

To German speaker: Is there really a language change that "Du musst nicht kommen" is "Du darfst nicht kommen"?



_


----------



## ABBA Stanza

Schlabberlatz said:


> ..., or by "need not". (I’d have thought that this was too weak, but your explanation makes it clear that it would be a good translation in this context.)


For me, "need not" is equivalent to "don't/doesn't have to", which is indeed quite weak. But it might be taken as a hint in this context to the effect that one would be well-advised () not to keep on talking about the bombs.

Cheers
Abba

P.S. Crossed with Hutschi. From his post, the situation seems to be the same in German, too.


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> _To German speaker: Is there really a language change that "Du musst nicht kommen" is "Du darfst nicht kommen"?_


No. _Du brauchst nicht zu kommen _and_ Du musst nicht kommen _are 100% synonymous_. _It is conceivable that _Du musst nicht kommen _could be used as a euphemistic way to express an obligation or, rather, an expectation. But this applies to _Du brauchst nicht zu kommen_ to the same degree.

I would consider the possibility to analyse _Du musst nicht kommen _as _Du musst nicht kommen _rather than _Du musst nicht kommen _as purely theoretical with no practical relevance.


Hutschi said:


> _It is a typical German idiom._


I don't think that has much to do with "idioms". It is just the basic semantics of the verbs involved.


----------



## Hutschi

This is what I thought, but others told other usages or I misunderstood it.

Thank you, Bernd, to confirm that they are synonymous in German language, and _Du musst nicht kommen_. is not in usage.


----------



## Franz_but

Do you think it can also be understood as "You don't have to bother coming" or more expressively: "You're not welcome here." ?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> I would consider the possibility to analyse _Du musst nicht kommen _as _Du musst nicht kommen _rather than _Du musst nicht kommen _as purely theoretical with no practical relevance.


_dürfen, sollen (verneint)
__norddeutsch
_http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/muessen


----------



## Hutschi

Die Bedeutung ist tatsächlich schon alt.
Grimms Wörterbuch: http://woerterbuchnetz.de/DWB/?sigl...&hitlist=&patternlist=&lemid=GM08653#XGM08653


> a) in verneinenden sätzen, nicht verstattet sein, nicht dürfen: ahd. uuanda alsô uuir jehen sulen
> iêogelicha personam sundiriga got uuesen unde hêrren, sô ne muoʒen uuir cheden drî gota, alde drî
> hêrren. Notker 2, 641 Piper; nhd. der rath weisete sie in ihre heuser, *daraus musten sie auch nicht
> gehen*. Spittendorff 397 Opel; der rat muste nicht zuhören oder bei der antwort sein. 435; denn er
> (der Türke) leszt warlich die christen offenlich nicht zusamen komen, und *mus auch niemand
> offentlich Christum bekennen.*


(Beachte sehr alte Rechtschreibung des Zitates)

Offensichtlich ist das aus dem allgemeinen Gebrauch verschwunden und hat sich im Norden gehalten.

Wieder was gelernt.


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> _dürfen, sollen (verneint)
> __norddeutsch
> _http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/muessen


That has nothing to do with _muss nicht kommen _oder _muss nicht kommen_. The shift in meaning happened a bit differently in Low German than in High German; more like in English where it retained the original meaning (_to be free to do_) longer in negative use. I don't think it is useful to confuse things further by adding Low German. Anyway, I doubt that there are many speakers left any more who use the verb like this.


----------



## tomgallagher98

*müssen* is 'to have to' or, as you put it, 'to be obliged to' (loosely). This translation works with both affirmation and negation:

du müsst reden = you have to speak / you must speak
du müsst nicht reden = you don't have to speak

linked with *dürfen* (to be allowed to), as this translation works also in both cases:

du darfst reden = you are allowed to speak / you may speak
du darfst nicht reden = you are not allowed to speak / you must not speak

therefore, I think it would be easier not to view *müssen *and *dürfen *as 'must' and 'may', respectively, but rather as the aforementioned infinitives.

as regards the quote, I believe this clears it up, _*you don't have to*_ is the implied meaning.


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> Die Bedeutung ist tatsächlich schon alt.


Nicht "schon"! "Noch"!

Auf die Gefahr mich aufs Neue zu wiederholen: *dürfen ist die ursprüngliche Bedeutung des Verbes müssen*. Egal ob in positiven oder negativen Ausdrücken. Die heutige Bedeutung ist aus euphemistischen Verwendungen langsam erwachsen und in verneinenden Ausdrücken hat sich die ursprüngliche Bedeutung darum etwas länger behaupten können; im Englischen (und teilweise auch im Niederdeutschen) bis heute. Im Hochdeutschen aber praktisch nicht mehr; hier ist der Prozess des Bedeutungswandels inzwischen abgeschlossen. Grimms Beispiele aus "neuerer Zeit" beziehen sich auf das frühe 19. Jahrhundert.

Moderne Euphemismen wie _Du musst ja nicht jedes Mal zu spät kommen _basieren ja gerade auf der Vervollständigung des Bedeutungswandels und funktionieren als Euphemismen auch nur deshalb.


----------

