# die bereits seine Freunde immer zum Lachen gebracht hatte



## fabio407

Hi,

"[...] he answered, tossing his head back in that odd way that used to make his friends laugh at him."

was translated this way in a printed biligual edition of The Picture of Dorian Gray, by Oscar Wilde:

"[...] antwortete er und warf seinen Kopf auf jene merkwürdige Art zurück, die *bereits *seine Freunde immer zum Lachen gebracht hatte."

It seems to me that neither "already" nor "just" works as a translation to "bereits" in this case.  I'm in doubt about "just".  I've looked up  "bereits" and found out in Porto Editora's online dictionary [on this page ] that bereits could also mean "almost" in Swiss German, what for me would make more sense: "that odd way of tossing his had used to make his friends almost laugh at him".

As I've found this meaning only in that dictionary after looking up the word in some others and here in the forum, I've decided to ask for your confirmation of that meaning in this case.

The translator was born in Berlin, but I think that "almost" would make much more sense than "just" in that case.  The friends of someone wouldn't "always (just) laugh" at their way of tossing their head back, but they might "almost always laugh" after some time really laughing until getting accustomed to it.

Thanks!


----------



## elroy

I think “bereits” is an unjustified addition / a translation error.  I would omit it.  It also doesn’t make much sense to me.


----------



## Demiurg

I see "bereits ... immer" as a way to render "used to".

"bereits" means _already_ here and can be replaced with "schon":

_... , die schon seine Freunde immer zum Lachen gebracht hatte._


----------



## elroy

Demiurg said:


> I see "bereits ... immer" as a way to render "used to".


I think that meaning is conveyed without “bereits.”



Demiurg said:


> "bereits" means _already_ here and can be replaced with "schon":
> 
> _... , die schon seine Freunde immer zum Lachen gebracht hatte._


What does that mean to you here?  It doesn’t make sense to me.


----------



## Demiurg

You can insert "früher" to make it clearer:

_... , die bereits (früher) seine Freunde immer zum Lachen gebracht hatte._


----------



## elroy

I don’t think “früher” can be assumed, can it?  If it were “seine Kindergärtnerin,” that would make sense.  But friends aren’t associated with any particular time period.


----------



## fabio407

elroy said:


> I think that meaning is conveyed without “bereits.”



By the way, Präteritum could be used as well to render "used to", isn't it?

"[...] antwortete er und warf seinen Kopf auf jene merkwürdige Art zurück, die seine Freunde zum Lachen brachte.

Wouldn't this verb tense be more appropriate in this case, considering that's a literature text? I seem to me that the two actions repeatedly would take place simultaneously in the past: he used to toss his head back in an odd way and that used to make his friends laught at him (everytime he did that).


----------



## elroy

I wouldn’t use “brachte,” because that would be concurrent with the event being described, whereas “gebracht hatte” situates it in the past in relation to the described event.


----------



## fabio407

The translation was made in 1924. Maybe at that time "bereits" was used in Germany with this meaning of "almost" as it currently is,  according to Porto Editora's dictionary, in Swiss German?


----------



## elroy

“almost” is nowhere to be found in the source, and it makes just as little sense to me as “already.”


----------



## elroy

Ah, I think I understand the usage now!  He’s saying that this wasn’t a new thing, but something that he *already* did habitually.   I still find it unnecessary; I don’t think it’s needed to convey the “used to” meaning.


----------



## Demiurg

elroy said:


> Ah, I think I understand the usage now! He’s saying that this wasn’t a new thing, but something that he *already* did habitually.



Bingo.


----------



## Kajjo

Demiurg said:


> _... , die schon seine Freunde immer zum Lachen gebracht hatte._




Das gefällt mir sehr gut!

Erstens: Ich glaube, im Deutschen ist es schwierig "used to" wirklich befriedigend zu übersetzen. Das hier war gewiss ein Versuch davon. Ich bin mit "used to" nie so richtig warm geworden.

Zweitens: Für die deutschen flavour particles gibt es keine "justification if translated word by word", wohl aber, wenn man einen idiomatischen, fließenden deutschen Satz erzeugen will. Wir verwenden eben viele Modalpartikel und die kann man doch nicht einfach weglassen, nur weil sie im Original nicht vorkommen.

_die seine Freunde zum Lachen gebracht hatte.
die schon seine Freunde zum Lachen gebracht hatte.
die seine Freunde immer zum Lachen gebracht hatte.
die schon seine Freunde immer zum Lachen gebracht hatte._

Mir gefällt die letzte Version eindeutig am besten. Da gehören flavour particles rein, wenn es glatt klingen soll. Natürlich sind die schlichteren Varianten deswegen nicht falsch, sondern natürlich auch korrekt. Die Frage ist halt, was man beim Übersetzen erreichen möchte: Soll es möglichst wortwörtlich eng am Original sein oder soll es auch Stimmung, Sprachfluss, Konnotationen rüberbringen.


----------



## elroy

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I wouldn't consider "bereits" (or "schon") a flavoring particle in this context.  I think it's a literal "already."

I take the point that it may be more idiomatic in German with "bereits" or "schon," but unless I'm missing a certain subtlety, I don't see how it contributes to the "used to" meaning.  If I wanted to translate this "used to," I may have said "die *damals* seine Freunde (immer) zum Lachen gebracht hatte".  What do you think of that?


----------



## Kajjo

elroy said:


> die *damals* seine Freunde


I see no indication at all to phrase it that way. Is that implied in the English sentence?

I understand the "used to" as "he did it all his life, now and before, and his friends laughed about it". "Answered" and "used to" are in the same time frame, aren't they?

It is difficult to render "used to" properly. Depending on the original sentence, many different versions might be necessary.

Note that "schon ... immer" form a unit and work fabulously together.


----------



## elroy

Kajjo said:


> "Answered" and "used to" are in the same time frame, aren't they?


No.  His friends used to do it (habitually did it) before the event described, but this was not happening at the time of the event.  That’s why I suggested “damals.” 



Kajjo said:


> Note that "schon ... immer" form a unit


So for you, “die *bereits/schon* seine Freunde *immer* zum Lachen gebracht hatte” = “die seine Freunde *schon immer* zum Lachen gebracht hatte”?  To me, those mean different things:
(1) This was something that he *already* did before this event; it’s sometime that used to always make his friends laugh. 
(2) This is something that used to *always* make his friends laugh OR had *always* made his friends laugh [“schon” is for emphasis]

How do you read the German sentence?


----------



## Kajjo

elroy said:


> That’s why I suggested “damals.”


Hm, aber "damals" funktioniert im Deutschen nicht. Du meinst:

_seine Freunde haben darüber früher immer gelacht_

Ich empfinde "schon immer" oder "immer" hier als perfekt im Deutschen. So ist es gewiss gemeint. Seine Freunde haben darüber immer gelacht. Close to your (2) suggestion.


----------



## elroy

Colloquially, “damals” can be used without an explicit antecedent, can’t it?   

For example:

_Mein Stil war schon immer unbeliebt. Damals haben mich meine Mitschüler sogar ganz böse ausgelacht deswegen. _

Do you read the German sentence as saying that the laughing still happened at the time of the narrative?


----------



## Kajjo

elroy said:


> Do you read the German sentence as saying that the laughing still happened at the time of the narrative?


No, I don't. His style was and is bad, but only back in school his classmates made fun of him.



elroy said:


> _Mein Stil war schon immer unbeliebt. Damals haben mich meine Mitschüler sogar ganz böse ausgelacht deswegen. _


It somehow works without antecedent, but I wouldn't say it that way. Maybe, the fronting of "damals" doesn't work so well. In later position it is less conspicuous.

_Meine Mitschüler haben mich damals sogar ganz böse ausgelacht deswegen. _

Ich würde wohl sagen:

_In der Schule haben sie mich sogar ausgelacht deswegen.
In der Schule haben sie mich damals sogar ausgelacht deswegen. <Schule muss sehr lange her sein>_


----------



## JClaudeK

Kajjo said:


> I understand the "used to" as "he did it all his life, now and before, and his friends laughed about it". "Answered" and "used to" are in the same time frame, aren't they?



So sehe ich das auch.


*Edit: *
Nachdem ich mir den Originaltext angeschaut habe, muss ich elroy recht geben, dort steht:


> tossing his head back in that odd way that used to make his friends laugh at him *at Oxford*.





elroy said:


> His friends used to do it (habitually did it) before the event described, but this was not happening at the time of the event.


----------



## fabio407

Thank you! JClaudeK.  I've omitted "at Oxford" because I see no difference in meaning, for "used to" necessarily conveys the idea that the laughing took place in the past. For me, the narrator is describing two habits that were taking place simultaneously in the past: the habit of tossing the head back in an odd way and the habit of laughing at the person who used to do it. I don't see a point in time separating the two habits. That's why I think the use of "(schon) immer", as explained by Kajjo, would be the only possible translation, among the ones we've read in the thread.

Well, I've conclued this translation is poor and I'll stop reading this edition in German. I've already read the book in Portuguese many years ago.

As always, I've learned a lot with the discussion. Thank you all very much!


----------



## JClaudeK

fabio407 said:


> I've omitted "at Oxford" because I see no difference in meaning, for "used to" necessarily conveys the idea that the laughing took place in the past.


*vs*


fabio407 said:


> By the way, Präteritum could be used as well to render "used to", isn't it?
> 
> "[...] antwortete er und warf seinen Kopf auf jene merkwürdige Art zurück, die seine Freunde zum Lachen brachte.


"at Oxford" beweist, dass seine merkwürdige Art, den Kopf zurückzuwerfen, seine Freunde jetzt nicht mehr mehr zum Lachen bringt.
 Sie "pflegten zu lachen", als sie zusammen in Oxford waren, das ist jetzt aber nicht mehr so, deshalb ist das Plusquamperfekt angebracht.


P.S.
"at Oxford" macht auch das "bereits" in der Übersetzung verständlicher,


> "warf seinen Kopf auf jene merkwürdige Art zurück, die {bereits seine Freunde in Oxford} immer zum Lachen gebracht hatte."


wenn auch nicht optimal .....



Kajjo said:


> Hm, aber "damals" funktioniert im Deutschen nicht.


Mit "{damals in Oxford}/ damals, als sie in Oxford waren" funktioniert es.


----------



## fabio407

JClaudeK said:


> *vs*
> 
> "at Oxford" beweist, dass seine merkwürdige Art, den Kopf zurückzuwerfen, seine Freunde jetzt nicht mehr mehr zum Lachen bringt.
> Sie "pflegten zu lachen", als sie zusammen in Oxford waren, das ist jetzt aber nicht mehr so, deshalb ist das Plusquamperfekt angebracht.
> 
> 
> P.S.
> "at Oxford" macht auch das "bereits" in der Übersetzung verständlicher,
> 
> wenn auch nicht optimal .....
> 
> 
> Mit "{damals in Oxford}/ damals, als sie in Oxford waren" funktioniert es.


I understand what you and elroy say.  But I think that it does not apply to the text (the original one, in English).

I read it that way:

 (1) present time =>  Basil is tossing his head back  in that odd way (in which odd way?)
 (2) past time, at Oxford =>  (in that same odd way) that (he used to toss it back at Oxford)
and (, as a result)
 (3) past time, at Oxford =>  used to make his friends laugh at him.

(1) the narrator is saying that Basil is currently tossing his had back in an odd way
(2) the narrator is saying that the odd way is that same odd way he used to toss it back at Oxford
(3) the narrator is saying that at the same time in the past, at Oxford, this way of tossing his head back (a habit, because he used to do it) used to made his friends laugh at him -- another habit, that one of his friends.

That's why, in my view, (2) and (3) are habits in the past (at Oxford)  referred at once by the narrator to bring elements to the reader to understand how odd is the way in which  Basil is tossing his head back now.

The action (wich was a habit, at Oxford) referred in (2) always / schon immer resulted in the action (a habit, too, at Oxford) referred in (3). Then "bereits" in the second clause,  which refers only to (2) and (3), two habits at the same time in the past (at Oxford), doesn't make sense to me -- at least if it conveys the same meaning of "already" (something that happened previously).

In other words, Basil's friends used to laugh at him. This is a habit ("used to" is textually used). Something that repeatedly happened in the past.  If the cause of this repeated laughing was the way that Basil tossed his head back, necessarily this happened repeatedly too in order to cause the laughing. They used to laugh because Basil used to toss his head in that odd way.


----------



## anahiseri

In my opinion "immer" is a good way to render the "used to" in this   context,  and "bereits" is not necessary.  But I wouldn't say it's a mistake, it sounds OK and I don't think it changes the meaning of the sentence in an unacceptable way.


----------



## Hutschi

fabio407 said:


> That's why, in my view, (2) and (3) are habits in the past (at Oxford) referred at once by the narrator to bring elements to the reader to understand how odd is the way in which Basil is tossing his head back now.


This is what the German text expresses, too.

So the original text is:

"I don't think I shall send it anywhere," _he answered_, _tossing his head back_ in that _odd way_ that _used_ to _make his friends laugh_ at _him_ at Oxford."

"Ich glaube nicht, dass ich es überhaupt irgendwohin schicken werde«, antwortete er und warf seinen Kopf auf jene merkwürdige Art zurück, die bereits seine Freunde in Oxford immer zum Lachen g_ebracht hatte_."
---
(Thank you, JClaudeK, for correcting the quotation, see #20).


 "... die *bereits *seine Freunde immer zum Lachen gebracht hatte."
 "... die *bereits *seine Freunde in Oxford immer zum Lachen gebracht hatte."
If we not consider the context, "seine Freunde in Oxford" is not the same syntax as in _"his friends laugh_ at _him_ at Oxford." Also there is another meaning. But considering the context it is "quasi the same with different words". (Eco, Umberto: Quasi dasselbe mit anderen Worten. über Das Übersetzen.)


I think that "bereits" works good here in German #2. Especially "in Oxford" gives context that it was in earlier times. Oxford gives the idea of learning/university/youth.

It is not explicitely in the original text but implicitly in "Oxford".

If he lives in Oxford yet, it would not have been mentioned usually. "In Oxford" includes implicitely that he changed the town he lived  in.

Translation ist an interesting process. There are different solutions. The selected one is oriented at the destination language. It adds particles and uses the "melody" and intonation from the time of writing or from the time it refers to..

In German later they used a more laconic style.

"Bereits" is a kind of pointer to the time in Oxford. It is not necessary but it is a way to express the sentence in German. Additionally it is a pointer for comparision to present time here.

"Überhaupt" is not neccessary, to. But it gives German style.


----------



## Maformatiker

fabio407 said:


> Well, I've conclued this translation is poor and I'll stop reading this edition in German. I've already read the book in Portuguese many years ago.


I, as all other German speakers here, don't agree.


elroy said:


> I take the point that it may be more idiomatic in German with "bereits" or "schon," but unless I'm missing a certain subtlety, I don't see how it contributes to the "used to" meaning. If I wanted to translate this "used to," I may have said "die *damals* seine Freunde (immer) zum Lachen gebracht hatte". What do you think of that?


I think both are fine. For me "die seine Freunde damals immer zum Lachen gebracht hatte" is a bit more idiomatic.

"die bereits/schon seine Freunde immer zum Lachen gebracht hatte" - sounds a bit as if these are previous friends and there are still people laughing because of this habit
"die seine Freunde schon immer zum Lachen gebracht hatte" - sounds as if his current friends always (since the past) have laughed because of this habit
"die seine Freunde damals immer zum Lachen gebracht hatte" - sounds a bit as if in the past this was considered funny but now not any more.

But I would not say that deviating usages are wrong.


----------



## fabio407

Maformatiker said:


> I, as all other German speakers here, don't agree.
> 
> I think both are fine. For me "die seine Freunde damals immer zum Lachen gebracht hatte" is a bit more idiomatic.
> 
> "die bereits/schon seine Freunde immer zum Lachen gebracht hatte" - sounds a bit as if these are previous friends and there are still people laughing because of this habit
> "die seine Freunde schon immer zum Lachen gebracht hatte" - sounds as if his current friends always (since the past) have laughed because of this habit
> "die seine Freunde damals immer zum Lachen gebracht hatte" - sounds a bit as if in the past this was considered funny but now not any more.
> 
> But I would not say that deviating usages are wrong.


The problem, for me, is not with the grammar of this sentence with "bereits", but with its meaning. I'm not saying the sentence is not fine. I'm just an intermediate learner.  According to your explanation, the way it sounds doesn't correspond, in my view, to the way the original sentence does . For me, acconding again to your explanation, the version with "damals" is the one that corresponds to the original meaning: the use of "used to" imples the habit does not exist anymore. Your post endorsed my convinction. A translator that changes the meaning of a text unnecessarily is not doing a good job. Sometimes it is necessary to do so and that's why I totally agree with Hutschi (#25), but that's not the case of the translation of that sentence: he should have used "damals", considering the way the sentence with it sounds in your view.
He added an adverb to another text you've helped me with here in the forum -- modifying there the original meaning top.
I'me not saying it's poor German. I'm saying is poor translation, based on the explanations posted here.
The compairison you've made was very helpful. Thank you!


----------



## Hutschi

fabio407 said:


> the way it sounds doesn't correspond, in my view, to the way the original sentence does .


This is true. The original sentence uses another way to explain it. The translation uses a way which is idiomatic in German (at least in German of the time). It uses more particle-like adverb. It is here more because of the sound than of adding meaning.


----------



## Hutschi

A question: Does the original sentence sound formal in English?

PS: In German a literal translation does not sound idiomatic.
I try one:
... he answered, tossing his head back in that odd way that used to make his friends laugh at him."
"[...] antwortete er,  seinen Kopf in jener merkwürdigen Art zurückwerfend, die gewöhnlich seine Freunde über ihn lachen machte."

(This translation is not absolutely literally but very much. And it sounds not very good in German.)
Duden: machen "du hast mich lachen gemacht"

"That used to" has no direct way for translation in a literal sense. I replaced it by "gewöhnlich".

Note: This is your original sentence in #1. "Oxford" brings additional information about the time. That is why I consider "bereits" as correct in the sentence of Wilde.


----------



## fabio407

Hutschi said:


> A question: Does the original sentence sound formal in English?


I don't think it does.

If this explation given by Malformatiker is correct, and of course I'm assuming it is,



> "die bereits/schon seine Freunde immer zum Lachen gebracht hatte" - sounds a bit as if these are previous friends and *there are still people laughing* because of this habit



The sentence with "bereits" in German is not only adding meaning to the original one. It's changing it a lot: "used to" implies that Basil's friends doesn't have this habit of laughing at Basil in present time. The use of "used to" is enough to situate the habit in the past -- which is why I see no difference with the addition of "at Oxford".

Thank you very much for your help, Hutschi. I'm taking note of everthing.  I'm seeing that, as Kajjo said, it's hard to translate "used to" to German.

Thanks to you all!


----------



## Hutschi

fabio407 said:


> The sentence with "bereits" in German is not only adding meaning to the original one. It's changing it a lot: "used to" implies that Basil's friends doesn't have this habit of laughing at Basil in present time. The use of "used to" is enough to situate the habit in the past -- which is why I see no difference with the addition of "at Oxford".


I see. Thank you very much.


fabio407 said:


> The sentence with "bereits" in German is not only adding meaning to the original one. It's changing it a lot: "used to" implies that Basil's friends doesn't have this habit of laughing at Basil in present time.





Thanks for explaining. "Bereits" in the sentence does not imply the present time but allows it. I did not know that "used to" says that this habit ended in the past.

So indeed it suggests a small difference.

---


----------



## fabio407

You're welcome, Hutschi. Thank you for your additional explanation.

I'd like to share with you all something interesting I've found in "PONS -- Die grosse Grammatik Englisch":



> “Used to” bezieht sich auf wiederkehrende Handlungen, Gewohnheiten und Zustände in der vollendendeten Vergangenheit, die heute nichmehr zutreffen.
> 
> 
> 
> She used to live in London. > Sie hat früher in London gelebt.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you use to work in England? > Hast du früher in England gearbeitet?
> 
> 
> 
> “To be used to + ing-Form” ist nicht gleich “used to + Infinitiv”
> 
> 
> 
> I am used to Jam arriving late. > Ich bin es gewohnt, das Jan zu spät kommt. (Er kommt immer noch zu spät.)
> 
> I am used to arrive late. > Früher is Jan zu spät gekommen. (Aber heute ist er pünktlich).
> 
> 
> 
> Man verwendet “used to” wenn mann über frühere regelmässige Handlungen oder Situationen sprechen möchte, die heute nicht mehr der Realität entsprechen.
> 
> 
> 
> I used to play tennis twice a week. > Früher habe ich zweimal die Woche Tennis gespielt.



And I've found in my annotations this translation to German of subtitles of "Vikings" series on Netflix:

I used to visit him frequently here. I found it depressing then, and even more so now.
Ich früher besuchte ihn oft hier. Damals fand ich es trist, nun noch mehr.


----------



## Hutschi

Many of these are machine translations now. And the sources often are texts created by sound recognition. This is better in quality than ten years ago, but not very good.


fabio407 said:


> Ich früher besuchte ihn oft hier.


Ich besuchte ihn früher oft hier.


----------

