This is a question about what is sometimes called "backshifting" in English grammar. I am sorry this is very long. You can skip the section on "Backshifting" if you know what that means, and you can skip the "Background" in any event.
German Sentences in Question
Please see the following translations of a sentence from Der Fremde (L'Étranger) by Camus.
(D1') Es war lange her, daß ich auf dem Land gewesen war, und ich fühlte{-1}, welchen Spaß es mir gemacht hätte{-1}, spazierenzugehen, wenn da nicht Mama gewesen wäre{-1 or -2}. (Tr. by Uli Aumüller.)
(E1') Schon lange war ich nicht mehr auf dem Lande gewesen, und ich fühlte{-1}, wie gerne ich spazierengegangen wäre{-1}, wenn es hier nicht die Geschichte mit Mama gegeben hätte{-1 or -2}. (Georg Goyert und Hans Georg Brenner.)
Meursault, the first person narrator, has kept a vigil for his poor mama. Seeing that it was a fine morning, he expresses the "feeling" (or wish) as above.
I marked some verbs for their time of occurrence, where '-1' means the past. That is:
- The "feeling" ("fühlen") occurred in the past (relative to the act of narrating).
- The "walking" couldn't occur, but its supposed time of occurrence is, I believe, the same as that of "feeling" (or its immediate future). I.e., Meursault was thinking, "I now want to go on a walk but can't."
- Mama's condition of being dead (represented as "Mama" or "die Geschichte mit Mama") is also contemporaneous with the "feeling" and "walking." ("Mother's now being dead prevents me.") But if we equate "Mama" or "die Geschichte" with "Mama's act of dying" then it is a more remote past, i.e. -2. ("Mother's dying yesterday now prevents my walk.") In what follows, I will ignore this second possibility.
Backshifting
So I could formulate the question, I now need to explain "backshifting." (You can skip this part if you know what that means.) Consider:
I think I am in the right.
I thought I was in the right.
When "think" became "thought," "am" backshifted to "was." In German, I understand, Konjunctiv I used for indirect speech does not backshift. It is also said that English counterfactuals (usually) do not backshift, as follows.
(X) I wish{0} I were{0} in Hawaii.
(X') I wished{-1} I were{-1} in Hawaii. (Last winter I wished I were in Hawaii, but now I am glad I stayed in New York. The snow kept me indoors, and I got a lot of studying done.)
(Y) I wish{0} I had been{-1} more careful.
(Y') I wished{-1} I had been{-2} more careful. (Last week I wished I had been more careful the week before, but it turns out it wouldn't have mattered anyway.)
You will note that:
- In (X), "wish" and "were" refer to the present. (You can characterize "were" as timeless, but still the speaker is wishing it for the present.)
- In (X'), "wished" and "were" refer to the same point in the past. I.e. (X') expresses the same thing as (X), only the act of expressing takes place at a later time.
- When (X) became (X'), "were" stayed the same, i.e. did not backshift.
- We can make similar observations about (Y) and (Y'), namely that, "had been" referred to a time before "wish"/"wished" and did not backshift.
Question
The question is: How I am to understand the quoted German sentences?
Suppose I believed that German counterfactuals did not backshift. For example, I believe these German sentences should be time-coded as below.
(XX) Ich denke{0}, es wäre{0} besser.
(XX') Ich dachte{-1}, es wäre{-1} besser.
(YY) Ich denke{0}, es wäre besser gewesen{-1}.
(YY') Ich dachte{-1}, es wäre besser gewesen{-2}.
This would mean that, when confronted with the German quotes, I may be forced to understand them on the model of (YY') rather than (XX') and imagine: Meursault, looking at the beautiful day at e.g. 10 a.m., entertained thoughts about the hypothetical walk that hadn't occurred at 8 a.m. ("I would have got that walk out of the way two hours ago if not for mother!") Time-coding would go:
(D2') Ich fühlte{-1}, welchen Spaß es mir gemacht hätte{-2}, spazierenzugehen, wenn da nicht Mama gewesen wäre{-2}.
(E2') Ich fühlte{-1}, wie gerne ich spazierengegangen wäre{-2}, wenn es hier nicht die Geschichte mit Mama gegeben hätte{-2}.
But that seems implausible. Who would think like that?
So the alternative is to retain the Meursault who at 10 a.m. entertains thoughts about a hypothetical walk at 10 a.m., i.e. (D1') and (E1'). That, however, implies I must believe that German counterfactuals backshifted. Our story, if narrated "in the present tense," would have to go as follows:
(D1) Ich fühle{0}, welchen Spaß es mir machen würde{0}, spazierenzugehen, wenn da nicht Mama wäre{0}.
(E1) Ich fühle{0}, wie gerne ich spazierenginge{0}, wenn es hier nicht die Geschichte mit Mama gäbe{0}.
You will note that in going from (D1) to (D1'), and again from (E1) to (E1'), backshifting occurred, e.g. from "machen würde" to "gemacht hätte."
In sum: In order to retain my favored reading, I have to accept the grammatical principle that German counterfactuals backshift.
To answer my question, please tell me:
(Q1) Whether I am right to time-code the German quotes as (D1') and (E1') rather than (D2') and (E2'), i.e. right to retain the plausible reading of Meursault entertaining thoughts about a hypothetical present.
(Q2) Assuming yes to (Q1), whether backshifting as exemplified in (D1) and (D1') or (E1) and (E1') is normal in German.
(Q3) If such backshifting is not normal, i.e. German counterfactually usually do not backshift, what accounts for the deviation from that rule seen in our German quotes.
Background
For what it's worth (in answering the question), the French original goes:
(F1') Il y avait longtemps que j’étais allé à la campagne et je sentais{-1} quel plaisir j’aurais pris{-1} à me promener s’il n’y avait pas eu{-1 or -2} maman.
And while we're at it, two English translations.
(A1') I hadn’t been in the country for ages, and I caught{-1} myself thinking what an agreeable walk I could have had{-1}, if it hadn’t been{-1 or -2} for Mother. (Stuart Gilbert.)
(B1') It had been a long time since I'd been out in the country, and I could feel{-1} how much I'd enjoy{-1} going for a walk if it hadn't been{-1 or -2} for Maman. (Matthew Ward.)
You will see that all but Matthew Ward exhibits what you we would call backshifting. I asked a similar question for French. If anybody can answer that also, please go and see.
For what it's worth, I think in English:
A sentence like (B1') is always clear. The "I'd enjoy" part is contemporaneous with "could feel."
A sentence like (A1') by itself suggests "could have had" being a more remote past than "caught." Suppose you overheard someone at the next table remark, "Yesterday I was thinking{-1} how much better it would have been{-2}," and nothing more. You would probably understand him as time-coded. Or better yet, imagine a novel that began, "One afternoon, Meursault was thinking{-1} how much better things could have been{-2} if not for his mother." This suggests to my ears a man reflecting on what he did or did not enjoy or achieve in the past. For someone reflecting on the current state of his life, we'd say: "One afternoon, Meursault was thinking{-1} how much better things could be{-1} if not for his mother."
I think in (A1') Gilbert may be mirroring the French original because he expects context will set the reader right anyway, all this rather subconsciously. I wonder if the same thing might be said of the German renderings.