12

I was reading a German Wikipedia article and ran across this sentence:

Der NS-Staat habe langjährige Traditionsfaktoren der deutschen Geschichte wie Adel und Kirche ausgeschaltet, sei technikaffin gewesen, habe die deutsche Klassengesellschaft überwunden und die Soziale Mobilität für alle Schichten erhöht. Insofern könne man davon sprechen, dass im NS-Staat eine soziale Revolution stattgefunden habe.

Why is it habe instead of hat in this example?

Wrzlprmft
  • 21,865
  • 8
  • 72
  • 132
Mr Ninja
  • 121
  • 1
  • 3

2 Answers2

31

Because it's indirect speech of Ralf Dahrendorf, David Schoenbaum und Rainer Zitelmann.

Indirect speech is put into Konjunktiv I in German.

Janka
  • 60,148
  • 2
  • 63
  • 119
  • 13
    ... and the author of the sentences in wikipedia reserves judgment whether what Dahrendorf et al. said is actually true. Note that the next paragraph lists disagreement with this particular view. – cbeleites unhappy with SX Apr 29 '20 at 11:45
  • 6
    Note to @cbeleitesunhappywithSX: regardless of reservation, judgement, belief or truthfulness, this is the correct tense for indirect speech. There are no separate tenses (in German) for things a speaker believes, doubts or disbelieves. Avoiding the tense could, however, make it sound like there was no doubt about it, but in fact it would just be bad grammar. –  Apr 29 '20 at 19:46
  • 1
    @DoctorNuu While that is true and should be observed in formal contexts (and let's assume, true or not, that a Wikipedia article is a formal context), a lengthy paraphrase in indirect speech does often indicate a disagreement. Proper indirect speech is somewhat stilted and can be easily avoided: (ctd.) – Peter - Reinstate Monica Apr 30 '20 at 12:28
  • 2
    ... (ctd.) If the author thought it was a universally accepted statement s/he would simply state it in indicative and attach footnotes. If s/he thought it was an original statement with which s/he agreed s/he could paraphrase in the indicative: "Den Autoren zufolge schaltete der NS langjährige Traditionsfaktoren der deutschen Geschichte wie Adel und Kirche aus, ...". – Peter - Reinstate Monica Apr 30 '20 at 12:28
  • 1
    Let's avoid the NS reference. So, you are saying that there is a specific, implicit difference in belief/judgement/agreement between: (A) Lisa sagt, Paul habe ein Eis gegessen. and (B) Lisa zufolge hat Paul ein Eis gegessen. I can't see that. Neither for icecream nor for longer historical statements. But then again, I'm no politician, I just wanted to bring some logic into the discussion. –  Apr 30 '20 at 14:38
  • 1
    @DoctorNuu: indirect speech reports hearsay. I.e. something that unless the [current] speaker has further evidence/knowledge they do not know for sure. Konjunktiv I mood expresses that very well. I don't see how you can separate hearsay being only hearsay and therfore Konjunktiv I being the appropriate mood in most formal contexts from grammar "prescribing" Konjunktiv I for indirect speech. But I admit to belonging into the descriptive camp wrt. grammar. Also, where I am Konkunktiv II is used to express doubt: Lisa behauptet, Paul hätte das Eis gegessen. [E.g.: But I don't trust her ... – cbeleites unhappy with SX Apr 30 '20 at 15:01
  • 1
    ... statement. I suspect she ate it.] Have a look at Wikipedia about Konjunktiv II in indirect speech: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konjunktiv#Ausdruck_des_Zweifels_am_Inhalt_des_Berichteten. This wiki page states that some grammars describe this use, while others oppose it and that this is undecided and there's too much regional etc. variation in the use of Konjunktiv II mood in indirect speech. Still, Konjunktiv I being the correct [mood] for indirect speech is therefore too strong an assertion. Also, of course you are correct that in German tense does not express agreement/doubt. – cbeleites unhappy with SX Apr 30 '20 at 15:09
  • I'm starting to get unhappy. People use the wrong form for indirect speech all day long in everyday life. I would guess that 40% use Präsens, 55% use Konjuktiv II, and 5% use Konjunktiv I. Probably worse. I don't need Wikipedia for that. All I was saying: You cannot make any conclusions from the tense(mood) used, only from the context You agree, the OP is long gone. Why do I write this? –  Apr 30 '20 at 16:05
11

Indirect speech. Examples:

Paul hat ein Eis gegessen. --> Lisa sagt, Paul habe ein Eis gegessen.

Paul isst ein Eis. --> Lisa sagt, Paul esse ein Eis.

Paul wird ein Eis essen. --> Lisa sagt, Paul werde ein Eis essen.

Paul wird ein Eis gegessen haben. --> Lisa sagt, Paul werde ein Eis gegessen haben.

Das Eis ist gegessen worden. --> Lisa sagt, das Eis sei gegessen worden.

Bernd glaubt, Lisa habe gesagt, das Eis sei gegessen worden.

This is the correct way to express indirect speech (somebody says that somebody said something). It should be used in more formal registers of speech / written language. It can be omitted (and often is) in casual registers of speech / oral communication.

Attention: In oral communication (and unfortunately increasingly also in written communication) some people use the wrong form in indirect speech:

*Lisa sagt, das Eis wäre (! urgh!) gegessen worden.

*Lisa sagt, Paul hätte (! urgh!) das Eis gegessen.

This should be avoided. It is no good. It actually expresses irreality: Paul did not eat the icecream, but he would have eaten it (if...)

Community
  • 1
Christian Geiselmann
  • 31,137
  • 39
  • 108
  • 1
    Das letzte Beispiel ist köstlich ;-) – Nico Apr 29 '20 at 12:14
  • 1
    @Nico - Bernd hört nicht mehr so gut. – Christian Geiselmann Apr 29 '20 at 12:17
  • Achso ;-) Verstehe! – Nico Apr 29 '20 at 12:18
  • Lisa sagt, du habest/hättest das Eis gegessen. Was klingt besser? – David Vogt Apr 29 '20 at 13:01
  • @DavidVogt Die zweite Option klingt "besser". Ich glaube, du meintest "gängiger". Trotzdem scheibt die deutsche Grammatik vor, dass die erste richtig ist. Hier müsste man eigentlich entscheiden, ob man eine präskriptive oder eine deskriptive Stellung einnimmt... – Nico Apr 29 '20 at 13:40
  • @Nico Wie kann ich herausfinden, was die Grammatik vorschreibt? – David Vogt Apr 29 '20 at 14:00
  • I'd like to point out that the attention part is not seen by everyone the way ChristianGeiselmann sees it (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konjunktiv#Ausdruck_des_Zweifels_am_Inhalt_des_Berichteten). It may very well be a variation due to region/dialect (or maybe sociolect), but where I am, Konjunktiv II is used to indicate that the current speaker reports on what Lisa said (indirect speech) and very much doubts that Paul ate the icecream. Whereas indirect speech + Konjunktiv I signs the current speaker does not express an opinion/judgment on whether Paul ate the icecream. The corresponding no – cbeleites unhappy with SX Apr 29 '20 at 14:56
  • doubt Paul ate the icecream would be in indicative (this is rare: if the current speaker knows for sure Paul ate the icecream, they'd usually express that first and then add that Lisa corroborates it, e.g. "Paul hat das Eis gegessen. Das sagt auch Lisa." – cbeleites unhappy with SX Apr 29 '20 at 15:00
  • @DavidVogt Du weißt sicherlich besser als ich, wann Konjunktiv I verwendet werden soll. – Nico Apr 29 '20 at 15:32
  • Do you want to add a word about the subjunctive present mood to express indirect speech in German? English, after all, simply uses the indicative which probably is the reason for the question. (Plus the unfortunate fact that the 3rd person singular subjunctive present is the same as the 1st person singular indicative present.) – Peter - Reinstate Monica Apr 30 '20 at 12:12