# Die Mutter hat das Meer geholt



## Toadie

I was listening to a Rammstein song (Laichzeit), and I was looking at some of the lyrics, and saw "Die Mutter hat das Meer geholt."  What seemed odd to me was that in the English translation it said that this means "The mother has been taken by the sea."  Now, I'm wondering, couldn't this be translated two ways?  Could it also mean "The mother has taken the see"?  There wasn't really any good context to go with it, but if the full lyrics would help, you can find them here.


----------



## gaer

Toadie said:


> I was listening to a Rammstein song (Laichzeit), and I was looking at some of the lyrics, and saw "Die Mutter hat das Meer geholt." What seemed odd to me was that in the English translation it said that this means "The mother has been taken by the sea." Now, I'm wondering, couldn't this be translated two ways? Could it also mean "The mother has taken the see"? There wasn't really any good context to go with it, but if the full lyrics would help, you can find them here.


 
"Das Meer hat die Mutter geholt."

The sea has "come for" the mother.

The direct object is "die Mutter". "Das Meer" is the subject. 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

Yes, it can mean both "The mother has taken the sea" and "The sea has taken the mother." This is an intersting sentence for this thread. 

In this context, I think "die Mutter" is the direct object and "das Meer" is the subject. Gaer, you translated it correctly, but you mixed up the words "subject" and "direct object" in your last sentence.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:


> Yes, it can mean both "The mother has taken the sea" and "The sea has taken the mother." This is an intersting sentence for this thread.
> 
> In this context, I think "die Mutter" is the direct object and "das Meer" is the subject. Gaer, you translated it correctly, but you mixed up the words "subject" and "direct object" in your last sentence.


Yikes! Thanks, I just fixed it. If "die Mutter" were the subject, it would be a VERY strange sentence! 

G.


----------



## mustang72

Since this is a song text and lyrics aren't necessarily proper language I was wondering if the text could also be:

The mother was taken by the sea!

And guess what, out of curiousity I googled that sentence and found an English translation of that Rammstein song.

Mother was taken by the sea

Is this an option or just wrong?


----------



## gaer

mustang72 said:


> Since this is a song text and lyrics aren't necessarily proper language I was wondering if the text could also be:
> 
> The mother was taken by the sea!
> 
> And guess what, out of curiousity I googled that sentence and found an English translation of that Rammstein song.
> 
> Mother was taken by the sea
> 
> Is this an option or just wrong?


No! That is perfectly fine in English. It is figurative. 

(My only question would be whether or not to include the article in English, and that would depend on context.)


Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

Mustang, your sentence is just like "The sea has taken the mother," only in the passive voice.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:


> Mustang, your sentence is just like "The sea has taken the mother," only in the passive voice.


The only difference:

"The sea has taken Mother."

Mustang, besides using passive, got rid of the article.

Here's the source:

This is just weird, in any language. The English translation seems inaccurate to me.

"Er liebt die Mutter" would probably be "he loves his mother".

So "Die Mutter hat das Meer geholt" would probably be "The sea has taken away his mother".

But who knows with such strange words?  

Gaer


----------



## mustang72

Whodunit said:


> Mustang, your sentence is just like "The sea has taken the mother," only in the passive voice.


*flinch* That is a thing in grammar I will never understand and my brain briefly stalled when you talked about direct object and subject.


----------



## mustang72

gaer said:


> ...  This is just weird, in any language. The English translation seems inaccurate to me. ...


This is weird indeed. I just saw the complete lyrics and it is almost impossible to understand what they want to say. Rammstein isn't my kind of music anyway.


----------



## Hutschi

Hi,
the default German form would be
"Das Meer hat die Mutter geholt."
_Meer _subject
_hat geholt_ predicate
_die Mutter_ akkussative object.

But you can move the object to the first place.
*"Die Mutter das Meer hat geholt."
This is no proper German sentence because of the verb phrase (the first part of it) must be at the second position. You have to move the subject and get: "Die Mutter hat das Meer geholt." 
This movement does not change the meaning, only the focus.
But: The accusative "die Mutter" and the nominativ "die Mutter" have the same form. This way, it could be ambiguous.
To remove the ambiguouity, there are three ways: 1. Knowledge about the world. This removes the wrong sentence, because the ocean is too heavy, nobody could take it away. 2. Passiv 3. Avoid the movement at all.

To translate the sentence to English, you can only use the last two possibilities, as mentioned above:

1. *The Mother has taken the see. (wrong)
2. The mother has been taken by the see.
3. The sea has taken the mother.

In poetry, however, only context can help you, because the meaning and importance of words is ambiguous intentionally. (I do not think, in this case. The meaning is clear, if you know something about the world.)

Note: In lyrics, it could also mean: The mother has included the ocean into herself, while she swallowed the fish. I do not think, that this is meant, but I read the original text, and it does not forbid such an interpretation.


----------



## beclija

Hutschi said:


> To translate the sentence to English, you can only use the last two possibilities, as mentioned above:
> 
> 1. *The Mother has taken the see. (wrong)
> 2. The mother has been taken by the see.
> 3. The sea has taken the mother.



Not quite, you have a third possibility: "The mother, the sea has taken" (with a small pause/intonation break at the comma); this paralells pretty well the German object fronting construction in meaning subtleties, although it is structurally different: [Object (break) Subject Verb] as opposed to [Object Verb Subject].


----------



## gaer

beclija said:


> Not quite, you have a third possibility:


The examples given by Hustchi:


			
				Hutschi said:
			
		

> 1. *The Mother has taken the see. (wrong)
> 2. The mother has been taken by the see.
> 3. The sea has taken the mother.
> 
> "The Mother has taken the see" is wrong because of logic, not grammar. This makes no sense in either German or English unless we invent a VERY unlikely story: "The Mother" is a goddess or powerful sorceress, and she has taken away the sea, made it disappear, made it disappear.
> 
> 2. The mother has been taken by the see.
> 3. The sea has taken the mother.
> 
> Both of these are fine, although "the" in "the mother" has to transated according to context: "the mother", "mother", "his mother", etc.
> 
> 
> 
> "The mother, the sea has taken" (with a small pause/intonation break at the comma); this paralells pretty well the German object fronting construction in meaning nuances, although it is structurally different: [Object (break) Subject Verb] as opposed to [Object Verb Subject].
> 
> 
> 
> That's an incredibly complicated analysis. It may help people learning Gaerman, it may not.
> 
> In my experience such a structure in German is rather rare unless the case of the direct object is clear.
> 
> This might be common:
> 
> "Meinen Sohn liebe ich"
> 
> But there "meinen Sohn" is marked by case, and "liebe ich" makes the subject clear.
> 
> Gaer
Click to expand...


----------



## Toadie

gaer said:


> "The Mother has taken the see" is wrong because of logic, not grammar. This makes no sense in either German or English unless we invent a VERY unlikely story: "The Mother" is a goddess or powerful sorceress, and she has taken away the sea, made it disappear, made it disappear.



Hehe, clearly, you don't listen to Rammstein.


----------



## gaer

Toadie said:


> Hehe, clearly, you don't listen to Rammstein.


Good point. Maybe the mother DID take the sea (away). 

Gaer


----------



## beclija

gaer said:


> "The Mother has taken the see" is wrong because of logic, not grammar. This makes no sense in either German or English unless we invent a VERY unlikely story: "The Mother" is a goddess or powerful sorceress, and she has taken away the sea, made it disappear, made it disappear.


I think what Hutschi aims at is a sentence that _looks like_ "The mother has taken the sea" but means the same as the other two. Two make it more clear, let's use an object that inflects for case: 
*"Her has taken the sea."
Here, the form "her" makes it clear that "she" is supposed to be the object, and by implication "the sea" must be the subject, but it remains wrong in English - in this sense, it is grammar and not logic that forbids the first sentence - while the exact parallel in German is perfectly fine (although potentially ambiguous).

And a question to gaer: Do you think the English object-fronting contstruction is more common than Object-Verb-Subject order in German? I think both are a bit marked, and used to convey subtleties of what is called "Information Structure" - what is old and what is new information and what is important/remarkable or not so, or contrasted with a previous line of the dialogue or text.


----------



## Hutschi

Basically, I mean, the sea has taken the mother away.

But in poetry, it is also possible in contradiction to any logic (I do not mean mathematical logic, but knowledge about the world - which avoids sourcerers), that the mother has taken away (or just taken a little bit) the sea. This is possible in poetic pictures. It is not possible in nature. 

It would be surreal.

It is only: also other pictures in the song are surreal, too.

The basic German form, however, but not possible in English is: *her has taken the sea. Which has to be transformed to a grammatical correct sentence.


----------



## Hutschi

gaer said:


> In my experience such a structure in German is rather rare unless the case of the direct object is clear.
> 
> This might be common:
> 
> "Meinen Sohn liebe ich"
> 
> But there "meinen Sohn" is marked by case, and "liebe ich" makes the subject clear.
> 
> Gaer


 
Exactly.

One remark: The Rammstein texts are rather complicate*d *for learners. I would not recommend them for beginners.


----------



## gaer

Hutschi said:


> Exactly.
> 
> One remark: The Rammstein texts are rather complicate*d* for learners. I would not recommend them for beginners.


I know that this missing "d" is a typo. 

The fact is that no one can possibly know for sure what the lyrics of such songs mean unless the people who wrote them TELL us what they are SUPPOSED to mean! 

Poetry and song lyrics are always very difficult to understand, in any language!

Gaer


----------



## gaer

beclija said:


> And a question to gaer: Do you think the English object-fronting contstruction is more common than Object-Verb-Subject order in German?


I'm not quite sure why you are using different terminology for English and German. I have never seen "object-fronting contstruction". It may exist, as a term, but this is why I prefer to avoid labels and use examples.

My fear is that we will open up a subject so complex that it will be impossible to discuss.

Some problems, in English:

1) Are we discussing direct or indirect objects?
2) Are we disuccsing nouns or pronouns?
3) Which verbs are we using, and where are they placed?

For example:

To me it's clear that/Mir ist es klar, dass

Results 1 - 10 of about 43,500 for "mir ist es klar, dass".
Results 1 - 10 of about 671 for "to me it's clear that".
_*Results 1 - 10 of about 156,000 for "it's clear to me that".*_ 

This uses a pronoun, dative in German, and "dative like" in English.

Strangely, "to me it's clear" does not sound the least bit unusual, and I'm shocked at how few hits I found.


> I think both are a bit marked, and used to convey nuances of what is called "Information Structure" - what is old and what is new information and what is important/remarkable or not so, or contrasted with a previous line of the dialogue or text.


 
Again, your terminology is too hard. "Informative structure"? I'm struggling to understand your point, but I think you may be talking about stress, something like this:

I've never heard the term "informative structure".

"_Informative structure_" I've never heard of!"

Is that what you have in mind? There I would really be stressing the term "_Informative structure_", making a point. 

Gaer


----------



## beclija

That is precisely what I am talking about.
"Object Fronting" or "Object Topicalization" refers to any "reversed" order of subject and object in a language where the usual unmarked order is subject before object. I could well have used the same term for both German and English, but I thought this would be even more confusing, as the resulting structure is quite different. In German the result is something like "die Mutter hat das Meer geholt" or "seinen Sohn habe ich getroffen", in English it is "the mother, the sea has taken" or "his son, I met." So, in English, everything is the same as in the unmarked sentence "I met his son", only that the obect is somewhere else. In German, you have to rearrange the entire sentence to make sure the verb is in second place again. 

But on the meaning side, the to forms are quite comparable in German, English, and many other languages: You would use them most likely when contrasting or (probably more so in German) listing up episodes:
His son, I met yesterday (implies: but not him/not his daughter, or something of the like) - contrast.
Die Mutter hat das Meer geholt. Den Vater hat ein Baum erschlagen - listing.

That is basically what "Information Structure" is about - changes in grammar that are not directly relevant to core meaning but to what is stressed in what context. Whenever it is true that "I've met his son", it is by definition also true that "his son, I've met" - but you wouldn't use them in the same contexts, and by using one of them you show which parts of the message you consider most important.


----------



## gaer

beclija said:


> That is precisely what I am talking about.
> "Object Fronting" or "Object Topicalization" refers to any "reversed" order of subject and object in a language where the usual unmarked order is subject before object. I could well have used the same term for both German and English, but I thought this would be even more confusing, as the resulting structure is quite different.


Okay…


> In German the result is something like "die Mutter hat das Meer geholt" or "seinen Sohn habe ich getroffen", in English it is "the mother, the sea has taken" or "his son, I met."


I don't agree with "his son, I met." You are inserting a comma. It's not necessary. It actually appears wrong to me. I'm not sure though.

"His son I've met. It's his daughter that I don't know.

If you google this, you probably won't find it "his son I met", but I'm quite sure it's possible, more likely in spoken English. There would be voice emphasis.

But it would be at least a bit unusual in English, and I would not find it at all unusual in German.


> So, in English, everything is the same as in the unmarked sentence "I met his son", only that the obect is somewhere else. In German, you have to rearrange the entire sentence to make sure the verb is in second place again.


Yes. It would be like "His son met I". And that would be VERY strange in modern English.


> But on the meaning side, the to forms are quite comparable in German, English, and many other languages: You would use them most likely when contrasting or (probably more so in German) listing up episodes:
> His son, I met yesterday (implies: but not him/not his daughter, or something of the like) - contrast.


Again, I would not use a comma.


> Die Mutter hat das Meer geholt. Den Vater hat ein Baum erschlagen - listing.
> 
> That is basically what "Information Structure" is about - changes in grammar that are not directly relevant to core meaning but to what is stressed in what context.


Okay.


> Whenever it is true that "I've met his son", it is by definition also true that "his son, I've met" - but you wouldn't use them in the same contexts, and by using one of them you show which parts of the message you consider most important.


I understand. We could probably come up with better examples though, and I still would highly suggest that you get rid of the comma in English!

Gaer


----------



## Hutschi

beclija said:


> Not quite, you have a third possibility: "The mother, the sea has taken" (with a small pause/intonation break at the comma); this paralells pretty well the German object fronting construction in meaning nuances, although it is structurally different: [Object (break) Subject Verb] as opposed to [Object Verb Subject].


 
This construction is interesting, I did not know that it is possible in English at the present time.

I feel, it is one of the best translations.

Best regards
Bernd


----------



## Sepia

What is really funny about this sentence, I think, is that when you can usually tell by the article which word is the subject and which is the object, here you cannot ... 

Does anyone have similar sentences from real life?


----------



## Hutschi

In real life, many sentences with female subjects and objects have this problem, because nominative and accusative are the same. There are also other cases, for example, names. Usually the case endings make it clear, if not, it may be ambiguous. 

Usually it is solved either by context (Diese Brücke hat die Architektin besonders gelobt.) or additionally by word order: Die Architektin hat eine Brücke konstruiert.

In other cases, only the word order can help:
Anna hat Roland etwas geschenkt. - The names do not have case endings. The Word order is SPO subject - predicate (verb) - object.

To make it clear, you could add articles in regional colloquial language: 

Der Anna hat Roland etwas geschenkt. 
Anna hat dem Roland etwas geschenkt.

*Note:* According to Duden, Bd. 9, 6. Aufl., it is in the standard to mark the case of a name using an article, if necessary.

(See also the next article of Kajjo.)


----------



## Kajjo

Hutschi said:


> Usually it is solved either by context.


Right, the only method that is generally valid for this problem in German.



> additionally by word order


Right, if nothing helps, the rule of thump is that the subject comes first -- but formally the sentence is just ambigious. We should clearly admit that ambigious sentences exist.



> To make it clear, you could add articles:
> Der Anna hat Roland etwas geschenkt.
> Anna hat dem Roland etwas geschenkt.


No, you cannot do so in standard German! Usually first names with articles are considered derogatory. In Northen Germany this is very strictly so, but standard German generally has no articles in front of first names. We should remember to clearly mark colloquial or regional usage.

Kajjo


----------



## Hutschi

Sorry, I was not aware, that this is only in colloquial language. I changed it in my article and marked it.
Thank you.


I found following article: http://www.canoo.net/services/OnlineGrammar/Wort/Artikel/Gebrauch/Namen.html

It confirms that it is often used in the south of Germany in colloquial language. 

However, Duden, Bd. 9, 6. Aufl. says, that it is in the standard language to mark the casus (or may be, the genus) using an article in such cases.


----------



## Sepia

Hutschi said:


> In real life, many sentences with female subjects and objects have this problem, because nominative and accusative are the same. There are also other cases, for example, names. Usually the case endings make it clear, if not, it may be ambiguous.
> 
> Usually it is solved either by context (Diese Brücke hat die Architektin besonders gelobt.) or additionally by word order: Die Architektin hat eine Brücke konstruiert.
> 
> In other cases, only the word order can help:..
> 
> (See the next article of Kajjo.)



Obviousy. I was of course looking for sentences, where the context wouldn't quite clear the matter.


----------



## Hutschi

I think, I would try to avoid such sentences, where it is not clear - but I'm not sure if I would not make mistakes. Outside of poetry I would try to avoid such ambiguousness. But it occurs. 

http://www.sz-online.de/nachrichten/artikel.asp?id=1453974


> Er ist Sprecher des Schweizer Unternehmens, das die 19-Jährige beauftragt hatte, um aus der Asche ihres Vaters einen Diamanten zu pressen.


 
In this sentence you can see the meaning only if you know the context. But the context in the article makes it clear. There is a far binding accross some paragraphs.


----------



## Sepia

Yeah, that one is funny ...

Any more?


----------



## Hutschi

Kajjo said:


> In Northen Germany this is very strictly so, but standard German generally has no articles in front of first names. We should remember to clearly mark colloquial or regional usage.
> 
> Kajjo


 
The Duden says 
standard German usually has no articles in front of first names. 

But it also says:
There are a lot of cases where the article is used in the standard. One of the examples given in the Duden, Bd. 9, 6. Aufl. (edition), S. (page) 696 is that an article is used to mark the casus, if necessary. An example is given: "Die Dramen des Sophokles".

There are a lot of other examples, but they are out of topic of this thread.


----------



## Kajjo

Hutschi said:


> An example is given: "Die Dramen des Sophokles".


Yes, this is a specific _exception _regarding genitive construction. What would be rules without exceptions?

Kajjo


----------



## gaer

Hutschi said:


> http://www.sz-online.de/nachrichten/artikel.asp?id=1453974
> 
> In this sentence you can see the meaning only if you know the context. But the context in the article makes it clear. There is a far binding accross some paragraphs.


Hutschi, I'm confused. I read the sentence out of context and understood it. Then I read the rest of the article. I don't see the ambiguity. What did I miss? 

Gaer


----------



## Hutschi

> Er ist Sprecher des Schweizer Unternehmens, das die 19-Jährige beauftragt hatte, um aus der Asche ihres Vaters einen Diamanten zu pressen.


Es ist zunächst nicht klar, ob das Schweizer Unternehmen die 19-Jährige beauftragt hatte oder ob sie vom Unternehmen beauftragt wurde. Aus dem Kontext wird es sofort klar. Auch aus dem Weltwissen kann man es ableiten. 



> das die 19-Jährige beauftragt hatte:


 Hat sie das Unternehmen beauftragt? Oder umgekehrt das Unternehmen sie?

Aus dem Kontext geht klar hervor, das die 19-Jährige die Auftraggeberin ist.

Grüße von Bernd


----------



## gaer

Hutschi said:


> Es ist zunächst nicht klar, ob das Schweizer Unternehmen die 19-Jährige beauftragt hatte oder ob sie vom Unternehmen beauftragt wurde. Aus dem Kontext wird es sofort klar. Auch aus dem Weltwissen kann man es ableiten.
> 
> das die 19-Jährige beauftragt hatte: Hat sie das Unternehmen beauftragt? Oder umgekehrt das Unternehmen sie?
> 
> Aus dem Kontext geht klar hervor, das die 19-Jährige die Auftraggeberin ist.
> 
> Grüße von Bernd


Ah, clear, Bernd. Now I see the problem. I suppose I assume that this would be a personal decision and that a person in the family (the 19 year old girl) would be trying to get an authority to go along with her wishes. Lucky guess? 

Gaer


----------



## Hutschi

Ja, sie versucht, ihren Wunsch vor Gericht durchzusetzen.

Bernd


----------

