Horst Huber (X) Mar 20, 2012:

Nichts zu danken, my sense is simply that "also" is equivalent to "i.e.", "to whit", or to unpack it, "thus by implication". What the second "seiner" intends to say is really "dessen". I was looking at Psalm 73, 18 "Thou dost set them in slippery places; thou dost make them fall to ruin" ff. (RSV). All the best!

thefastshow Mar 20, 2012:

There's a lot more in there in Psalm 73 but I am too tired to explain right now. Please forgive.

Johanna Timm, PhD Mar 20, 2012:

Horst thanks for the compliment, but I'm not that smart all by myself :-) ---had some support from the DWD, a fine resource for historical texts http://woerterbuchnetz.de/DWB/?sigle=DWB&mode=Vernetzung&lem...
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!

Horst Huber (X) Mar 20, 2012:

@Johanna, quite right as usual; but look, just like "since", conjunctions are not always pinned down so neatly, especially their "temporal" vs. "causal" nature. Even the English "while" is not untainted (actually I sense it is hugely overused in a "concessive" meaning). Our "weilen" is not far removed. Maybe something like "inasmuch". Adelung:"Weil, eine Partikel, welche auf eine gedoppelte Art gebraucht wird. 1. Als ein Adverbium der Zeit ... [A. also refers to the English whilst] 2. Als eine causale Conjunction ..."

thefastshow Mar 20, 2012:

@ Kirsten this possibility has been ruled out already. I did ask for such information after reading Amorel's answer.
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.

Kirsten Bodart Mar 20, 2012:

I believe 'weilen' and modern 'während' can also be used as the conjunction 'while', not meaning during but a kind of reason or additional fact. The problem is too much 'sein'.
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

Helen Shiner Mar 20, 2012:

With Horst The two instances of 'seiner' + person could be separated with 'that is', i.e. his daughter's assets, that is, those of his [deceased] wife. Perhaps this father had managed to set terms so that the daughter (and hence the son-in-law) could not have free rein with the money/assets - maybe ensuring that she didn't inherit until a particular age or stipulating that the property, whatever it was, could not be sold (for a given length of time?). We can't know whether they were actually spendthrifts, but the father evidently wanted to control/block some sort of (perceived?) behaviour on their part.

Johanna Timm, PhD Mar 20, 2012:

"weilen" altertümlich f. "alldieweil"; also temporal, nicht kausal gemeint, d.h. nicht weil, sondern während (while)

Horst Huber (X) Mar 20, 2012:

From the German text it is reasonably clear that the son-in-law ("Tochtermann") cursed the deceased who would not allow his daughter's dowry (thus, that of the wife of the "Tochtermann) to be dissipated. The insinuation might be that chiefly the husband, but also the daughter, were spendthrifts.

thefastshow Mar 20, 2012:

You're right, great you checked it up. Now we can be sure your interpretation is correct."seiner" can also be reflexive here because the author used a relative clause before... I just wanted to check since Amorel also had a point there..
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 ).

Timoshka (asker) Mar 19, 2012:

The wife died in 1774. This information about the disgruntled son-in-law comes from 1789. I think the key is the confusing use of "seiner" twice to refer to two different people: "...weilen er SEINER Tochter also SEINER Frau Vermoegen nicht voellig verputzen und zu verschwenden zuliess." I believe this refers to the assets of "his" (the deceased's) daughter "thus his (the son-in-law's) wife." I am quite certain the deceased's wife, who had died 15 years earlier, was not a wealthy woman.

thefastshow Mar 19, 2012:

Timoshka do you have any other information where it says or could be deducted, that the (not mentioned yet ) wife of the deceased has passed on her assets straight to her daughter? Is it mentioned anywhere in your material that the wife of the deceased was wealthy? When did the deceased die and when did his wife die.
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.

thefastshow Mar 19, 2012:

I think your interpretation is correct .