2

(1) Um so viel zu riskieren, muss sie mehr als nur einen Verdacht gehabt haben.

I take sentence (1) to mean in English:

(2) To risk so much, she must have had more than just a suspicion.

However, if I were translating the English sentence (2) back to German, my first instinct would have been to translate it as follows, using the double infinitive:

(3) Um so viel zu riskieren, hat sie mehr als nur einen Verdacht haben müssen.

Is there (if any) distinction in the meanings of the two constructions above? And why might (1) have been preferable to (3)?

(N.B. Sentence (1) comes from the book 'Das Lied von Eis und Feuer', and is spoken by Catelyn Stark, and thus in quotation marks, if that has any influence on the sentence construction)

  • Note the false friend: "etwas haben müssen" can mean "urgently want something" – tofro Aug 26 '17 at 14:21
2

And why might (1) have been preferable to (3)?

In spoken language, in commercial documents or in literature?

As a native speaker I can tell you that sentences like this are only used in literature. In literature however artists are often use their own style which differs a bit from "official" grammar.

(1) Um so viel zu riskieren, muss sie mehr als nur einen Verdacht gehabt haben.

(2) Um so viel zu riskieren, hat sie mehr als nur einen Verdacht haben müssen.

I doubt that most Germans would unterstand the difference between the two sentences and I even doubt that I do!

In other words: Most Germans (including me) would only hardly understand the difference between the two sentences and if they were in the situation that they had to write a book they would use the wrong variant with a 50:50 chance.

I tried to simplify the two sentences and I ended with this:

(1) Sie muss eingekauft haben.

(2) Sie hat einkaufen müssen.

In the first example the word "müssen" is in the present while the word "einkaufen" is in the past.

Just like in English the word "must" or "müssen" can have two meanings in German:

  • "She" is (now) in some situation where it is neccessary that "she" has already been shopping / has already finished shopping ("eingekauft haben" is in the past!)
  • We have (now) evidence that "she" has been shopping (in the past). (I think your example "(1)" is exactly meant like this.)

In the second example however the word "müssen" is in the past while the word "einkaufen" is in the same time as the word "müssen". Therefore the sentence may have the following meanings:

  • "She" was (in the past) in a situation where it was neccessary that she goes shopping.
  • We had (in the past) some evidence that "she" is (still) being shopping. (I doubt that this meaning is used very often.)
1

(1) and (2) match perfectly.

But the translation of (3) is more tricky, as must has no present perfect. Replacing with „to have to“, it reads:

(4) To risk so much, she has had to have more than just a suspicion.

(I'm not sure if this sentence is as idiomatic as in German.)

(1) is not preferable to (3). They have a slightly different meaning:

  • In (1/2) risking so much implies that she has had more than just a suspicion. („She must + perfect“ = „There is evidence she did“).
  • In (3/4) risking so much requires to have more than just a suspicion. („She has had to“ = „She couldn't have done without“).

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.