# sei neue Pink-Floyd-Musik ausgeschlossen, so David Gilmour.



## fabio407

Hi,

I'd like to ask you some questions about the use of Konjuntiv I in the first of these two sentences:

"Trotz seiner Freude an der Zusammenarbeit mit Nick Mason sei neue Pink-Floyd-Musik ausgeschlossen, so David Gilmour. Er arbeite an einem Solo-Projekt." [source]

It doesn't seem to be an hypothesis in indirect speech, something that Gilmour have possibly said, but the report of a categorical affirmation undoubtlly made by him.

The same in this part of the article, in which Gilmour is even quoted: "Für ihn sei Mason 'wie kein anderer Drummer' [...]"

I guess in German Konjuntiv is used in a report even if there is no doubt that something was said by someone. Is it correct?

Would the use of Präsens be correct as well? [  ist ausgeschlossen ?  für ihn is Mason ? ]   If so, would the use of Konjunktiv be considered more formal or is it colloquially used in that situations of certainty?

Thanks!


----------



## elroy

The _Konjunktiv I_ leaves no doubt that the thing *was in fact said*.  It’s neutral as to *whether the writer agrees or doesn’t agree with the statement*, and that’s why it’s common in journalism and formal writing.


----------



## fabio407

Thank you! elroy

I thought its use in indirect discourse implied necessarily an assumption, then a mere possibility that what is said was, is or will be true, as in other uses like these ones:

Was ist, wenn ich diesen Geist für eine Falle halte? / What if I believed this ghost to be a trap?

[ "mit Verben des Sagens, Glaubens und Denkens": ]

Ich dachte, dein Schicksal sei Bebbanburg. / I thought your destiny was Bebbanburg.

Ich dachte, sie sei verrücht. / I thought she was mad.


Then in indirect discourse Konjunktiv I doesn't imply an assumption. The meaing is exactly the same as the one conveyed using Präsens colloquially. Got it!


----------



## elroy

fabio407 said:


> Was ist, wenn ich diesen Geist für eine Falle halte? / What if I believed this ghost to be a trap?


This is not _Konjunktiv I_, but _Indikativ_.



fabio407 said:


> Ich dachte, dein Schicksal sei Bebbanburg. / I thought your destiny was Bebbanburg.
> 
> Ich dachte, sie sei verrücht. / I thought she was mad.


Here, too, there is no indication of whether the thought was actually true.  The speaker is simply reporting that *he or she had this thought*.  There's no doubt *that he or she had this thought*, and the sentence doesn't indicate *whether or not the thought turned out to be true*.

Ich dachte, der Laden *habe* zu dieser Zeit bestimmt geöffnet. Ich bin dahin gegangen und konnte zum Glück feststellen, dass ich recht hatte.​​Ich dachte, der Laden *habe* zu dieser Zeit bestimmt geöffnet. Ich bin dahin gegangen und musste leider feststellen, dass er tatsächlich geschlossen hatte.​


----------



## Hutschi

fabio407 said:


> I guess in German Konjuntiv is used in a report even if there is no doubt that something was said by someone. Is it correct?


You can transform it almost perfetly into speech.

Indirect speech
_Trotz seiner Freude an der Zusammenarbeit mit Nick Mason sei neue Pink-Floyd-Musik ausgeschlossen, so David Gilmour. Er arbeite an einem Solo-Projekt._
=
Direct speech
David Gilmour sagte: "Trotz meiner Freude an der Zusammenarbeit mit Nick Mason ist neue Pink-Floyd-Musik ausgeschlossen. Ich arbeite an einem Solo-Projekt."  (*edit*: Typo, es muss "meiner Freude" sein, see #20)

However, there might be small differences, like shortenings and formalisations in indirect speech.

Usually indirect speech uses Conjunctive 1. (sei)
Especially coll. language often uses indicative.
_ Trotz seiner Freude an der Zusammenarbeit mit Nick Mason ist neue Pink-Floyd-Musik ausgeschlossen, so David Gilmour. Er arbeitet an einem Solo-Projekt._

In some cases conjunctive 2 is used in indirect speech.

Konjunktiv I und II in der deutschen Grammatik

indirekte Rede, wenn Konjunktiv I nicht möglich ist (siehe auch Indirekte Rede)
Beispiel: _Unser Lehrer sagt, wir müssten noch viel lernen._


----------



## JClaudeK

fabio407 said:


> The same in this part of the article, in which Gilmour is even quoted: "Für ihn sei Mason 'wie kein anderer Drummer' [...]"


You misquoted:


> Gilmour wird des Lobes nicht müde: Es sei „fantastisch“ gewesen wieder zusammen Musik zu machen. Für ihn *sei* Mason „wie kein anderer Drummer“, offenbart der Musiker in einem Interview mit dem amerikanischen ROLLING STONE


This part is reported speach (so the reporter uses Konjunktiv I) - or a summary of what was said -, only „fantastisch“ and „wie kein anderer Drummer_“ _are literal quotations.


Edit:


elroy said:


> The _Konjunktiv I_ leaves no doubt that the thing *was in fact said*.


But it was not necessarily expressed exactly that way, it might be a summary of what was said.

cf.:


Hutschi said:


> However, there might be small differences, like shortenings [....].


----------



## Frank78

elroy said:


> The _Konjunktiv I_ leaves no doubt that the thing *was in fact said*. .



I don't second that. It does imply doubt (or at least it leaves it ambiguous) for a lot of people, that's why a lot prefer the indicative in spoken language.



elroy said:


> It’s neutral as to *whether the writer agrees or doesn’t agree with the statement*, and that’s why it’s common in journalism and formal writing.



But I agree regarding written language.


----------



## elroy

Frank78 said:


> It does imply doubt (or at least it leaves it ambiguous) for a lot of people


I think you misunderstood me?

Anton sagt: _Frank sagt, Frankreich sei schön._

From Anton’s perspective, there is no doubt that Frank said this.  Of course, Anton may have misheard, but that’s a different story.  Anton believes that Frank said this.  Anton is not saying that Frank may or may not have said this; he’s saying Frank said this. 

Do you still disagree?


----------



## Hutschi

elroy said:


> The _Konjunktiv I_ leaves no doubt that the thing *was in fact said*.  It’s neutral as to *whether the writer agrees or doesn’t agree with the statement*, and that’s why it’s common in journalism and formal writing.





Frank78 said:


> I don't second that. It does imply doubt (or at least it leaves it ambiguous) for a lot of people, that's why a lot prefer the indicative in spoken language.


This is interesting.
I did not know this. And I did not expect this.
I thought it is quite sure the person said it (either with the whole text or at least it is a summary).

So it must be a sign of language change.

Even with conjunctive 2 it does not indicate doubt in what was said but (maybe) whether it is true or false or something in between.



*Edit: *I added the text of elroy to give context.
I only knew it in the same meaning as elroy.


----------



## Kajjo

elroy said:


> Anton sagt: _Frank sagt, Frankreich sei schön._
> 
> From Anton’s perspective, there is no doubt that Frank said this. Of course, Anton may have misheard, but that’s a different story. Anton believes that Frank said this. Anton is not saying that Frank may or may not have said this; he’s saying Frank said this.


I agree with you.

Konj I in indirect speech indicates that somebody said it, but we do not know whether the content is true. It does NOT cast any doubt on whether he said it.

_Frank sagte, Frankreich sei schön. _
no doubt: "Frank sagte" is a fact
indirect speech / doubt: "Frankreich sei schön", so France might be nice or might not

If we want to express doubt on the first part, we need to use Konj I there.

_Frank habe gesagt, Frankreich sei schön._
Konj I for doubt: "Frank habe gesagt"; it is unknown whether Frank actually said it



Frank78 said:


> I don't second that. It does imply doubt (or at least it leaves it ambiguous) for a lot of people, that's why a lot prefer the indicative in spoken language.


No, this is only true for the statement in Konj I, not for the indicative introduction of the indirect speech.

But you are right, that proper indirect speech causes many native listeners to feel doubt regarding the indirect part rather than to be registered as neutral indirect speech.

_Frank sagte, Frankreich ist schön. <"France is nice" is accepted as fact, no doubt is cast>
Frank sagte, Frankreich sei schön. <"France is nice" might be doubtful>_

Proper indirect speech in newspapers or educated speech should not cast doubt. However, in everyday speech it does.


----------



## Hutschi

Kajjo said:


> Proper indirect speech in newspapers or educated speech should not cast doubt. However, in everyday speech it does.


So it is either a language change or it is used different by different people of regions. I did not expect this.

There is yet another difference:

You cannot hear whether it is:
_Frank sagte, Frankreich ist schön. (coll.) - indirect speech
or
Frank sagte: "Frankreich ist schön." (stand.) - direct speech_


----------



## fabio407

Hutschi said:


> This is interesting.
> I did not know this. And I did not expect this.
> I thought it is quite sure the person said it (either with the whole text or at least it is a summary).
> 
> So it must be a sign of language change.
> 
> Even with conjunctive 2 it does not indicate doubt in what was said but (maybe) whether it is true or false or something in between.
> 
> 
> Frank78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't second that. It does imply doubt (or at least it leaves it ambiguous) for a lot of people, that's why a lot prefer the indicative in spoken language.
> 
> 
> 
> But I agree regarding written language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Edit: *I added the text of elroy to give context.
> I only knew it in the same meaning as elroy.
Click to expand...


Sorry. My mistake. Where I wrote "something that Gilmour have possibly said, but the report of a categorical affirmation undoubtlly made by him.", I meant

"It doesn't seem to be an *hypothesis *in indirect speech, *the possibility that what Gilmour said is true."*

The doubt is about the trueness of the statement reported. The one mentioned by Frank78 too, I guess. It's a verb tense used in indirect speech to convey the idea that the speaker does not endorse the statement they are reporting.

I got really surprised by the fact that indicative mood is used to convey this idea of a mere possibility, as in

"Was ist, wenn ich diesen Geist für eine Falle halte?".

Is the use of the indicative mood in the sentence above only possible colloquially? Would the Konjuktiv I be possible in a formal version o it? If so, how would one distinguish it from Indicative, considering that the conjugation of the verb in both tenses has the same form in the third person singular?

Thank you all for the very useful explanations!


----------



## elroy

fabio407 said:


> It's a verb tense used to convey the idea that the speaker does not endorse the statament they are reporting.


Yes and no (as we’ve shown).  Also, it’s a mood, not a tense.



fabio407 said:


> I got really surprised by the fact that indicative mood is used to convey this doubtness, as in
> 
> "Was ist, wenn ich diesen Geist für eine Falle halte?".


This doesn’t convey any doubt.  This is just a plain old first conditional.  All the languages I know use indicative for this.


----------



## fabio407

elroy said:


> Yes and no (as we’ve shown).  Also, it’s a mood, not a tense.



Konjuntiv is the mood, but Konjuntiv I is a tense in Konjuntiv mood, isn't it? At least it's classified that way in grammars.



elroy said:


> This doesn’t convey any doubt.  This is just a plain old first conditional.  All the languages I know use indicative for this.


Yes, I've edited the post before your answer.  The idea is of a possibilitiy, not doubt. 

I think there's not a consensus between descriptive grammarians about that construction as being indicative, as its form in English:

"What if I *believed *this ghost to be a trap?"

Some say is simple past, some say is subjunctive.  For me, the second analysis makes more sense.  That's why I've initially applied it to German too. I'll study that subject.

Thanks!


----------



## elroy

fabio407 said:


> Konjuntiv I is a tense in Konjuntiv mood, isn't it? At least it's classified that way in grammars.


No, it’s not a tense.  What grammars say it is? 



fabio407 said:


> "What if I *believed *this ghost to be a trap?"
> 
> Some say is simple past, some say is subjunctive. For me, the second analysis makes more sense.


It’s past subjunctive for sure, but this is not the form that corresponds to the German one.

What if I *believe*… = present indicative


----------



## Kajjo

Hutschi said:


> You cannot hear whether it is:


Well, usually the intended direct speech has a MUCH clearer break. So I would assume to be able to tell the difference with a proper native speaker, even in most colloquial situations.


Hutschi said:


> So it is either a language change or it is used different by different people of regions


What is? 

The rule about proper indirect speech not casting doubt?

The fact that in everyday language Konjunktiv is nowadays often interpreted like doubt? 

The fact that the more educated and elevated the spoken language is, the more likely you are hear proper neutral indirect speech?

The fact that in colloquial speech proper Konj I is less frequent than in written language?

All of this is valid in all regions and since many decades.


----------



## JClaudeK

elroy said:


> This doesn’t convey any doubt. This is just a plain old first conditional.


 No doubt, just a certain "distancing": you do not vouch for what has been said.

See *here*:       


> (8) Maria sagte, dass sie heute um 18 Uhr zu uns kommt.
> (9) Maria sagte, dass sie heute um 18 Uhr zu uns komme.
> Der erste Satz drückt die Meinung des Sprechers aus. Diese Meinung stimmt zwar in diesem Fall mit der von Maria überein, aber möglicherweise kann man sie nicht unmittelbar auf eine Äußerung Marias zurückführen [...]. *Der Konjunktiv einer indirekten Rede signalisiert Distanz* in zweifacher Weise. Mit der formalen Kennzeichnung einer Rede als fremder oder früher eigener Rede distanziert sich der Sprecher gegenüber dem beschriebenen Sachverhalt. Er zeigt auf, dass der Sachverhalt nicht als ursprünglich oder unmittelbar gesetzt, sondern nur als vermittelt verstanden werden darf. Zum anderen wird verdeutlicht, dass zwischen dem Urheber des Redeakts und dem Hörer eine kommunikative Distanz besteht,


----------



## Hutschi

Kajjo said:


> The fact that in everyday language Konjunktiv is nowadays often interpreted like doubt?


Indeed I mean in our context (indirect speech) it might be interpreted as doupt but I never heared it.

Direkt speech:

Maria sagte: sie kommt heute um 18 Uhr zu uns.

Indirekt speech:
This is how I interprete this.


(8a) Maria sagte, dass sie heute um 18 Uhr zu uns kommt.
(9a) Maria sagte, dass sie heute um 18 Uhr zu uns komme.
With doubt it would be (depending on where the doubt is):



(8b) Maria sagte, dass sie heute um 18 Uhr zu uns kommt, doch ich denke, doch ich zweifle, dass sie kommt.
(9b) Maria sagte, dass sie heute um 18 Uhr zu uns komme, doch ich ich zweifle, dass sie das sagte.
But 

8a) and 8b) is the same in direct speech.



(8c) Maria sagte, "Ich komme heute um 18 Uhr zu euch." Doch ich zweifle, dass sie kommt.
(9c) Maria sagte, "Ich komme heute um 18 Uhr zu euch." Doch ich ich zweifle, dass sie das sagte. Das gefälschtes Zitat.
But this is not connected with Konjunktiv 1. It is just possible in all statements.

Mein Mathelehrer sagte: 2+2=4 . Aber ich zweifle, dass das stimmt.

This can be related to Mathelehrer and it can be related to 2+2=4.
 
Indeed 2+2 can be =0, for example. This is called clock arithmetic.

I do not see a connection to indicative-conjunctive-1- transformation.

PS: I use "indicative" for German "Konjunktiv" here because English "conjunctive" can be something other.




> English subjunctive - Wikipedia
> In English, the *subjunctive mood* is a grammatical construction recognizable by its use of the _bare form_ of a verb in a finite clause that describes a non-actual scenario. For instance, "It's essential that he be here" uses subjunctive mood while "It's essential that he is here" does not



German subjunctive in our context:
Verb Moods: Indicative vs. Subjunctive - Deutsch 101-326



> *Subjunctive I* is used to _report indirect speech_, i.e. what someone else said (and, by extension, what s/he thought, believed, etc.)



There is no: "whatever one might have said".
(And this part of subjunctive 1 is equal to Indikativ 1)

---

Is there any essay about this  "whatever one might have said" meaning?


----------



## fabio407

elroy said:


> No, it’s not a tense.  What grammars say it is?



Of course you're right.  Konjuntiv I and II are moods and have both  different tenses in which are used. A not very clear table  made me forget that. By "Konjuntiv I" I meant "Konjuntiv I Präsens."


----------



## DonHolgo

Hutschi said:


> You can transform it almost perfetly into speech.
> 
> Indirect speech
> _Trotz seiner Freude an der Zusammenarbeit mit Nick Mason sei neue Pink-Floyd-Musik ausgeschlossen, so David Gilmour. Er arbeite an einem Solo-Projekt._
> =
> Direct speech
> David Gilmour sagte: "Trotz seiner Freude an der Zusammenarbeit mit Nick Mason ist neue Pink-Floyd-Musik ausgeschlossen. Ich arbeite an einem Solo-Projekt."


»Trotz _meiner_ Freude ...«


----------



## fabio407

I've made up similar sentences using Konjunktiv I Perfekt in the first one.  Would you please proofread it for me?

I'm specially concerned about what to use in the second sentence. I guess "sollen + main verb" works, meaning "it has been said that", but I don't know which combination of "sollen + main verb" tenses to use.

 "Es gibt ein Gerücht, trotz David Gilmours Freude an der Zusammenarbeit mit Nick Mason sei Gestern neue Pink-Floyd-Musik ausgeschlossen gewesen. Er hat an einem Solo-Projekt arbeiten sollen."


----------



## bearded

> Er hat an einem Solo-Projekt arbeiten sollen."


Da würde ich eher sagen: Er soll (angeblich) an einem Solo-Projekt gearbeitet haben.


----------



## fabio407

bearded said:


> Er soll (angeblich) an einem Solo-Projekt gearbeitet haben.


It is presently being said that (supposedly) something has been taking place or took place. Vey good. I didn't have an example like that in my notebook. Thank you very much, bearded!


----------



## elroy

You can also use _Konjunktiv I_:

Es heißt, er *habe* an einem Solo-Projekt gearbeitet.


----------



## fabio407

elroy said:


> You can also use _Konjunktiv I_:
> 
> Es heißt, er *habe* an einem Solo-Projekt gearbeitet.


That is  the option that combines with the formal style of the previous sentence.   Really useful. I'll take not of it, too. Thank you for your help, elroy!


----------



## JClaudeK

fabio407 said:


> I guess "sollen + main verb" works, meaning "it has been said that"





elroy said:


> Es heißt, er habe an einem Solo-Projekt gearbeitet.


Here, the _"it has been said that"_-part is translated by "es heißt, (dass)".


----------



## Maformatiker

Hutschi said:


> PS: I use "indicative" for German "Konjunktiv" here because English "conjunctive" can be something other.


What? 🤯


----------



## Hutschi

Maformatiker said:


> What? 🤯


Sorry. This was a mistake. I cannot correct it. I meant Konjunktiv vs. Subjunktiv.

Many thanks.


----------

