Glossary entry (derived from question below)
German term or phrase:
seiner Frau Vermoegen
English translation:
didn't allow his daughter, ergo the son-in-law's wife, to squander her assets
Added to glossary by
Wendy Streitparth
Mar 19, 2012 21:00
12 yrs ago
2 viewers *
German term
seiner Frau Vermoegen
German to English
Other
Genealogy
I'm unsure of the precise meaning of this section of a 1789 death record from the church registers. To put it into context: "Zum Leichentext hat er sich erwaehlt gehabt aus dem 73. Psalm, doch mir es in mein Belieben gestellt weil er von seinem Tochtermann N.N. sehr viel Ungnaden, Spott, Schmach und Uebel Wuensche gehabt, der ihm noch auf seinem Krankenlager Fluchte weilen er seiner Tochter also seiner Frau Vermoegen nicht voellig verputzen und zu verschwenden zuliess."
So, the way I read it...the deceased chose his own funeral text, but left it to the pastor's discretion since he (the deceased) had had so much displeasure, scorn, ridicule and bad wishes from his son-in-law, who continued to curse the deceased on his sickbed, since he (the deceased) didn't allow the son-in-law to squander and waste his (the son-in-law's) wife's money.
I had another person look at it, and he thought the deceased had not allowed his daughter to waste her own money. Any suggestions?
So, the way I read it...the deceased chose his own funeral text, but left it to the pastor's discretion since he (the deceased) had had so much displeasure, scorn, ridicule and bad wishes from his son-in-law, who continued to curse the deceased on his sickbed, since he (the deceased) didn't allow the son-in-law to squander and waste his (the son-in-law's) wife's money.
I had another person look at it, and he thought the deceased had not allowed his daughter to waste her own money. Any suggestions?
Proposed translations
(English)
Change log
Mar 21, 2012 18:45: Wendy Streitparth Created KOG entry
Proposed translations
11 hrs
Selected
didn't allow his daughter, ergo the son-in-law's wife, to squander her assets
It is not proven that the son-in-law was the potential squanderer, though he presumably would have liked to get his hands on the money.
Nor do I think it has anything to do with the deceased's wife.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 13 hrs (2012-03-20 10:18:20 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
It seems more logical for the first "seiner" to refer to the deceased and the second to the husband.
Nor do I think it has anything to do with the deceased's wife.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 13 hrs (2012-03-20 10:18:20 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
It seems more logical for the first "seiner" to refer to the deceased and the second to the husband.
Peer comment(s):
neutral |
Thomas Pfann
: Good point, but neither does the original text say that the daughter was the squanderer. So maybe s.th. more neutral such as "didn't allow his daughter's assets to be squandered". Agree that the deceased's wife doesn't come into this, though.
10 mins
|
Thanks, Thomas.
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Vielen Dank!"
+2
11 mins
his wife's assets
his wife's assets
example:
A husband took ownership of all of his wife's property on marriage and could use his wife's assets as collateral for loans.
example:
A husband took ownership of all of his wife's property on marriage and could use his wife's assets as collateral for loans.
Peer comment(s):
agree |
philgoddard
: Although Armorel's explanation is better.
57 mins
|
vielen Dank philgoddard
|
|
agree |
thefastshow
: his (the son in law) wife's assets
3 hrs
|
vielen Dank thefastshow
|
+2
37 mins
his daughter´s fortune (the fortune of his daughterman´s wife)
his daughter´s fortune, i.e. the fortune of his daughterman´s wife. that´s how I interpret this passage.
Peer comment(s):
agree |
Susanne Rindlisbacher
: Der Schwiegersohn war wütend, weil der Verstorbene (sein Schwiegervater) nicht zugelassen hatte, dass er (der Schwiegersohn) das Vermögen seiner Frau (der Tochter des Verstorbenen) verschwendete.
19 mins
|
neutral |
Helen Shiner
: daughterman? fortune?
23 mins
|
disagree |
philgoddard
: No such word. Also, it doesn't say fortune, it says assets.
26 mins
|
text from times long gone. Tochtermann is unknown nowadys, and assets is not equivalent to fortune which I find more adequate in this context.
|
|
agree |
Thomas Pfann
: vom Sinn her auf jeden Fall so
27 mins
|
thank you, Thomas!
|
|
agree |
Horst Huber (X)
: Certainly so. "Zeitliches Vermögen, derjenige Vorrath an Geldes und Geldeswerth, welchen jemand eigenthümlich besitzet ... Um sein Vermögen kommen ..." (Adelung). I would keep "fortune", in effect meaning inheritance
1 day 2 hrs
|
thank you, Horst !
|
+3
42 mins
didn't allow his daughter to squander his wife's assets
weil er seiner Tochter (dative, indirect object of "zuliess") seiner Frau Vermögen (genitive - "of his wife the assets" - so "his wife's assets") nicht verputzen zuliess.
That is my reading of it.
That is my reading of it.
Peer comment(s):
agree |
Helen Shiner
19 mins
|
agree |
Ramey Rieger (X)
: I would suggest dowry as more in keeping with the period.
8 hrs
|
agree |
writeaway
: assets as you say. (there's nothing to indicate it's a dowry. )
9 hrs
|
neutral |
Ellen Kraus
: the wife of the deceased does not come into it.
11 hrs
|
Discussion
you are right; weilen(s) must not necessarily be "temporal" but could also be read as "wohingegen" , i.e. as adversative Konjunktion;but woe! this word is but a small piece in our puzzle!
I also read up on Psalm 73 to see if it could possibly shed some light on the author's intentions (and learned that it basically laments the fact that the wicked prosper and avoid punishment), so not much luck there!
The context is exactly as Timoshka initially guessed.
Those old texts aren't always totally correct in terms of contemporary syntax. When working with old cemetery registers I encountered quite a few strange ones.
It seems to be quite conclusive that the father was not totally taken with the husband's behaviour... So, would it be possible that according to the law the husband of this woman would inherit all the money his late wife would have inherited? Maybe it is relevant to consider that there are probably children in this marriage and that the father-in-law (the deceased man here who cursed his son-in-law) decided to fix his inheritance on his grandchildren and to basically disinherit his son-in-law. The latter would evidently not be very pleased if he was a little bit free in his spending. I know that in the UK it was possible to settle a fortune in a trust on a woman or child until she married or the child came of age (25 I believe) so she/it would have the use of the interest it generated up till marriage or majority. I don't think it was possible to do it afterwards (at least not in this time frame). When a woman married, she relinquished all that was hers or would ever become hers. I suppose such things could be done in Germany too
I would definately choose "assets" though instead of fortune (not correct here).
So I'll "agree" INES on accounts of choosing the best translation though we don't know how she interpreted the sentence originally (Phil at leat seemed to have supported Amorels interpretation ).
I think we're having a problem here which cannot be solved merely by paying close attention to grammar (two interpretations possible).
We would need the information. Please could you have a look.