'Ruhetin Frieden'
padraic
seen 'Ruhetin Frieden'.
'Ruhetin' looks like the combination of 'ruhe' and 'in', but if so,
why is the letter 't' inserted?
A letter 't' to avoid 'ruhein' which might look like 'ruh.ein' instead
of 'ruhe.in'? - but why 't'?
Thanks!
UC
Imperative construction.
UC
Imperative construction. Seems odd to say to a dead person...LOL
UC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_verbs#Imperative_conjugation
I found something on it:
Imperative conjugation
There is an imperative for second person singular and second person
plural, as well as for first person plural and second person formal.
The endings for second person singular informal are: "-(e)", "-el" or
"-le", and "-er(e)".
The endings for second person plural informal are: "-(e)t", "-elt",
and "-ert".
"Fahren (wir/Sie)!" – "Fahr(e)!" – "Fahrt!"
The imperative of first person plural and second person formal is
equal to the infinitive.
This subtopic is strongly related to the construction of German
sentences, so you are strongly recommended to take a look at that
section.
Joachim Pense
There is a space between "ruhet" and "in" - maybe you didn't notice
because it happened to be very thin. "ruhet" would be "ruht" in more
modern German, which is just the plural of "ruhe".
Joachim
Einde O'Callaghan
"Ruhe in Frieden" is the equivalent of "Requiescat in pace", i.e the
singular, while "Ruhet in Frieden" is the equivalent of "Requiescant in
pace", i.e. the plural.
Please not: I said the equivalent as it's not a literal translation of
the Latin!
Gruß, Einde O'Callaghan
UC
But the question was why the 't'. It's imperative.
Einde O'Callaghan
I answered the question. The "t" is there because it's the plural!!!
Einde O'Callaghan
UC
> On 19.11.2010 00:17, UC wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 6:04 pm, Einde O'Callaghan<eind...@freenet.de> wrote:
> >> On 18.11.2010 23:05, padraic wrote:
>
> >>> I have seen 'Ruhe in Frieden' on cemetery headstones, but have also
> >>> seen 'Ruhetin Frieden'.
> >>> 'Ruhetin' looks like the combination of 'ruhe' and 'in', but if so,
> >>> why is the letter 't' inserted?
> >>> A letter 't' to avoid 'ruhein' which might look like 'ruh.ein' instead
> >>> of 'ruhe.in'? - but why 't'?
>
> >> "Ruhe in Frieden" is the equivalent of "Requiescat in pace", i.e the
> >> singular, while "Ruhet in Frieden" is the equivalent of "Requiescant in
> >> pace", i.e. the plural.
>
> >> Please not: I said the equivalent as it's not a literal translation of
> >> the Latin!
>
>
> > But the question was why the 't'. It's imperative.
>
> I answered the question. The "t" is there because it's the plural!!!
>
> Einde O'Callaghan
I gave the reference above.
Christian Weisgerber
> I have seen 'Ruhe in Frieden' on cemetery headstones, but have also
> seen 'Ruhetin Frieden'.
That would be a misspelling for "Ruhet in Frieden".
Present subjunctive, second person plural.
Ich think "ruhe" is not an imperative but a third person singular
subjunctive: [er/sie] ruhe in Frieden.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Alwyn
>
> "Ruhe in Frieden" is the equivalent of "Requiescat in pace", i.e the
> singular, while "Ruhet in Frieden" is the equivalent of "Requiescant in
> pace", i.e. the plural.
>
> Please not: I said the equivalent as it's not a literal translation of
> the Latin!
It seems like a word-for-word translation to me. What am I missing?
Alwyn
UC
Rest in peace is a sort of imperative, I think.
Joachim Pense
> padraic<m6...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have seen 'Ruhe in Frieden' on cemetery headstones, but have also
>> seen 'Ruhetin Frieden'.
>
> That would be a misspelling for "Ruhet in Frieden".
> Present subjunctive, second person plural.
>
> Ich think "ruhe" is not an imperative but a third person singular
> subjunctive: [er/sie] ruhe in Frieden.
>
I doubt that.
Joachim
Einde O'Callaghan
Gruß, Einde.
Alwyn
You're right, of course. For some reason I looked at only the number,
not the person.
Alwyn
JaWo
----------------------------------------
The translation of "requiescat in pace!"
So, subjunctive is wright.
-----------------------------------------
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Alwyn
>
> The translation of "requiescat in pace!"
> So, subjunctive is wright.
Yes, though E. O'Callaghan has pointed out that it is not an exact
translation.
It seems to me to be inappropriate to give orders to the dead. The
meaning is IMO akin to 'may you rest in peace'.
Alwyn
Christian Weisgerber
> > That would be a misspelling for "Ruhet in Frieden".
> > Present subjunctive, second person plural.
> >
> > Ich think "ruhe" is not an imperative but a third person singular
> > subjunctive: [er/sie] ruhe in Frieden.
>
> Rest in peace is a sort of imperative, I think.
What is a more likely sentiment on a headstone?
(1) I command you to rest in peace!
(2) May he rest in peace.
Helmut Richter
> UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Rest in peace is a sort of imperative, I think.
>
> What is a more likely sentiment on a headstone?
>
> (1) I command you to rest in peace!
> (2) May he rest in peace.
Your notion of "command" are a bit narrow. Would cou call these commands:
Werd bald wieder gesund! (I command you to recover quickly from your
illness!
Komm gut heim! (I command you not to have an accident on your way home!)
Schlaf gut! (I command you to sleep well!)
--
Helmut Richter
UC
Yes, I do think this is the imperative mood...which does not mean that
it is a military command!
Joachim Pense
> Am 19.11.2010 08:07, schrieb Joachim Pense:
>> Am 19.11.2010 00:41, schrieb Christian Weisgerber:
>>> padraic<m6...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have seen 'Ruhe in Frieden' on cemetery headstones, but have also
>>>> seen 'Ruhetin Frieden'.
>>>
>>> That would be a misspelling for "Ruhet in Frieden".
>>> Present subjunctive, second person plural.
>>>
>>> Ich think "ruhe" is not an imperative but a third person singular
>>> subjunctive: [er/sie] ruhe in Frieden.
>>>
>>
>> I doubt that.
>>
>> Joachim
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> The translation of "requiescat in pace!"
> So, subjunctive is wright.
>
The translation of "requiescat in pace" is "er ruhe in Frieden". (May he
rest in peace). But this is "Ruhe in Frieden" ("rest in peace").
The ellipsis of [er/sie] Christian suggests sounds not very probable.
You don't just drop pronouns.
Joachim
Diedrich Ehlerding
> I have seen 'Ruhe in Frieden' on cemetery headstones, but have also
> seen 'Ruhetin Frieden'.
> 'Ruhetin' looks like the combination of 'ruhe' and 'in', but if so,
> why is the letter 't' inserted?
"ruhet in Frieden" is simply the plural form of "ruhe in Frieden", you will
probably have seen it on a headstone of a grave for a couple. Usually, you
would say "ruht in Frieden", "ruhet" sounds a bit archaic - which is
intended on a grave stone.
Diedrich
--
pgp-Key (RSA) 1024/09B8C0BD
fingerprint = 2C 49 FF B2 C4 66 2D 93 6F A1 FF 10 16 59 96 F3
HTML-Mail wird ungelesen entsorgt.
Christian Weisgerber
> > > Rest in peace is a sort of imperative, I think.
> >
> > What is a more likely sentiment on a headstone?
> >
> > (1) I command you to rest in peace!
> > (2) May he rest in peace.
>
> Your notion of "command" are a bit narrow. Would cou call these commands:
>
> Werd bald wieder gesund! (I command you to recover quickly from your
> illness!
> Komm gut heim! (I command you not to have an accident on your way home!)
> Schlaf gut! (I command you to sleep well!)
Yes, you are right, the imperative can also be used to express
wishes. *sigh*
UC
Yep!
mb
Stop bullshitting.
In this case it is a very simple indicative present. Er ruhet in
Frieden.
And keep away from trying to translate before getting the rudiments.
UC
No 'er', however, is present, and in English we say 'rest in peace'.
mb
Sure. The er was in the way of explanation for the clueless. And,
again, stop bullshitting.
[UC: "Imperative construction. Seems odd to say to a dead
person...LOL"]
Paul Schmitz-Josten
(Einde)
>> "Ruhe in Frieden" is the equivalent of "Requiescat in pace", i.e the
>> singular, while "Ruhet in Frieden" is the equivalent of "Requiescant in
>> pace", i.e. the plural.
>But the question was why the 't'. It's imperative.
Ruhe...! is imperative as well as Ruhet...! - only singular.
Einde has it perfectly right - between the two, the "t" signifies (sp?)
the plural, not the imperative.
Ciao,
Paul
Helmut Richter
> Stop bullshitting.
> In this case it is a very simple indicative present. Er ruhet in
> Frieden.
Have you got more examples where a 3rd person subject pronoun is elided in
a German indicative sentence? Or is it the only example so that grammar
book should now be rewritten based on this enlightening observation? I am
always eager to learn more about my native tongue in this newsgroup where
there are so many who have better command of it than I.
--
Helmut Richter
Stephen Hust
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2010, mb wrote:
>> Stop bullshitting.
>> In this case it is a very simple indicative present. Er ruhet
>> in Frieden.
> Have you got more examples where a 3rd person subject pronoun is
> elided in a German indicative sentence?
How about "Geht in Ordnung" or "Paßt schon" (where "es" is the
missing pronoun)?
--
Steve
My e-mail address works as is.
Joachim Pense
> Helmut Richter<hh...@web.de> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2010, mb wrote:
>
>>> Stop bullshitting.
>>> In this case it is a very simple indicative present. Er ruhet
>>> in Frieden.
>
>> Have you got more examples where a 3rd person subject pronoun is
>> elided in a German indicative sentence?
>
> How about "Geht in Ordnung" or "Paßt schon" (where "es" is the
> missing pronoun)?
>
You're right, it works with a neutral pronoun. But with a person?
Joachim
Tom P
I suspect Diedrich has got it right (see other post), but we need the OP
to confirm if it's a grave for single or for multiple occupancy.
T.
UC
It is a simple imperative, folks...nothing more than that.
Joachim Pense
>
> It is a simple imperative, folks...nothing more than that.
I agree.
Joachim
Christian Weisgerber
> > Have you got more examples where a 3rd person subject pronoun is
> > elided in a German indicative sentence?
>
> How about "Geht in Ordnung" or "Paßt schon" (where "es" is the
> missing pronoun)?
"Wird schon stimmen" etc.
I thought about that, too, but I think the elided pronoun is a
demonstrative: "das". This extends to usages where it is the object,
e.g.:
"Mach ich gleich"
"Will er auch nicht"
UC
Buy now!
Rest in peace
Don't forget!
These are all imperatives....
mb
No need to get upset. Nothing to do with mother tongue or command of a
spoken language, or anything of that kind.
Just consider:
1. The reason for making tombstones is that they can bear the name of
the deceased, i.e. not a pronoun but the full name is on it. Not
elided.
2. "Ruhet" as an imperative would be addressed to whom? To the
surviving readers, plural --who won't have any Ruhe by definition, as
opposed to the deceased? A subjunctive (or quasi-imperative if you
want) to translate exactly "requiescat in pacem" would have to be in
the singular...
Helmut Richter
> 1. The reason for making tombstones is that they can bear the name of
> the deceased, i.e. not a pronoun but the full name is on it. Not
> elided.
After sending my last contribution, I thought about that possibility as
well. If the tombstone reads
Hier ruhet in Frieden
HELMUT RICHTER
born 19xx -- died 20xx
your interpretation is the only possible.
If it reads
HELMUT RICHTER
born 19xx -- died 20xx
Ruhet in Frieden.
I would try to find an explanation of that awkward sequence of words.
If, at any time, there was more than one person buried there, the plural
makes sense. If the -t- (see the headline 'Ruhetin Frieden') was inserted
later, then perhaps because of a later burial of other persons whose names
may or, for whatever reason, may not have been added to the names on the
tombstone.
A picture of the tombstone could be helpful.
--
Helmut Richter
mb
...
> If, at any time, there was more than one person buried there, the plural
> makes sense. If the -t- (see the headline 'Ruhetin Frieden') was inserted
> later, then perhaps because of a later burial of other persons whose names
> may or, for whatever reason, may not have been added to the names on the
> tombstone.
>
> A picture of the tombstone could be helpful.
You're right. What to me appears even more helpful, though, is
knowledge of the original: 'requiescat in pacem'. Which is a
subjonctive or optative or whatever you like to call that (while still
avoiding the big fight about the optative, i.e. a quasi-imperative),
the point being that it is a singular intended for the buried person.