Piling on the infinitives

I was reading through some technical documentation (written by a native German speaker) when I came across this sentence:

"In der Regel werden Daten, die nicht geändert können werden sollen, im Bootsektor gespeichert"

Talk about a clunky sentence. In english I guess it would be

"generally data which is not supposed to be able to be edited is stored in the boot sector"
or
"... which is not intended to be able to be edited..."

I'm not sure if the commas are required in english. But either way it looks equaly ugly in english. Two points to this post

1) Am I that bad?
Do we all tend to write horrible complicated sentances in our native tongue just because we know how to? Sometimes it's easier to read stuff written by a non-native speaker as they tend to keep it simpler

2) Ordering infinitives
I learnt that if a Nebenklause has two infinitives, normaly the conjugated verb should go before the infinitives, and not at the end of the clause.
E.g. "Obwohl er es anders hätte machen müssen, hat er es so gemacht."
(although he should have done it differently, he did it like this.)
I remember wondering what the rule would be if the Nebenklause was in the passive voice as well, but dismissed the question, thinking no-one would construct a sentence so complicated.
Well, I've just been proven wrong

I think the sentence is wrong, it should be: ... die nicht geändert werden können sollen ... as this is a passive clause. It still looks stupid, though. How about: Deren Änderung durch Unbefugte ausgeschlossen werden soll. Well, some people are linguists and some are manual writers.

Wow, Google is really good! I just googled "die nicht geändert können werden sollen" to see if anyone has ever used the phrase in this order before. And what does it give me? One hit. This very Toytown thread. Amazing!

Forgot to add - agree with Sarabyrd, it should be phrased the way she proposes (i.e. "die nicht geändert werden können sollen").

the German is correct and looks neither chunky nor ugly to me edit: just re-read!!! the KÖNNEN is wrong. doesn't belong!!!

it should read in German:

In der Regel werden Daten, die nicht geändert werden sollen, im Bootsektor gespeichert

or (different meaning)

In der Regel werden Daten, die nicht geändert können werden dürfen, im Bootsektor gespeichert

i would translate with:

normally (or generally) data which should not be edited should be stored in the boot sector

Well, "geändert können werden sollen" gives you one Google hit. "geändert werden können sollen" gives you more than 100 hits. Maybe a 99 % majority does indicate proper usage...

believe me "geändert können werden sollen" is utter bollox.

the second is almost utter bollox but less utter bollox than the first. just don't bother with the können, it is superfluous.

Tend to agree with you. But on the other hand: If you just say "nicht geändert werden sollen", then it means that they shouldn't be changed, but it might still be possible to change them. Whereas if you say "nicht geändert werden können", it means it's not possible to change them. So "nicht geändert werden können sollen" seems to mean that you shouldn't be able to change them.

nicht geändert werden dürfen.

@ OG: It is the only grammatically correct way to say what this guy means without getting fancy and hitting the nouns.

That's correct. The point of the sentence/document was that it should not be possible to be able to change the data. I.e. protection mechanisms are put in place If it was possible, then you were in trouble. Didn't matter if you changed the data or not, cause someone else always might, if your protection mechanisms weren't good enough.

ok, so here is an alternative;

In der Regel werden Daten, die nicht geändert werden sollten, im Bootsektor gespeichert.

(Generally (or as a rule), Data which should not be edited are stored in the bootsektor)

Some half-assed IT'ler is still going to think it's ok to change data. Another f'r instance: Ich hätte dich nicht anrufen lassen sollen = I should not have let you call. Tons of infinitives and all correct, just not your everyday fare.

i doubt it because it means "data that should not be changed" which says to any half-arsed IT-idiot, or anyone else for that matter, that, whilst it may be physically possible to change the data, it is not OK to do so. I think this sentence structure conveys accurately the desired meaning with minimal room for misinterpretation.

no room for misinterpretation.

The point of the sentence is that hackers should not be able to edit the data. Not just some IT bozo. So there has to be some protection mechanism to prevent the modification of data, not just a warning.

As tom_a says, it would be nice to be able to say "nicht geändert werden können". But everyone should know that no protection system is 100 % effective/secure. The objective was to try and quantify just how "secure" it was. So the author ends up including a "sollen". I guess sarabyrd & tom_a's word order is also better, ending up with "Daten, die nicht geändert werden können sollen, werden im Bootsektor gespeichert".

But that still brings me back to the original point, which was if you have two infinitives in a nebenklause (können and werden in this case), then the hilfsverb (sollen in this case) should be put before the infinitives.
Does this apply for passive sentances?
So, could you say "Daten, die nicht geändert sollen werden können, werden im Bootsektor gespeichert"
Or, using a singular value, "ein Wert, der nicht geändert soll werden können, wird im Bootsektor gespeichert"

It still looks pretty clunky.

Edit: Changing verb order, messed up one example

ok, i understand.


err no it's not because that word order is incorrect and makes no sense in German.


no also incorrect and incomprehensable in German. PLEASE LISTEN TO GEN, she knows what she is talking about!


it looks pretty clunky cos it is utter bollox (to be frank) sorry.

if you want to add that extra bit of "doubt" (ie you want to say that they really shoudln't be able to change them but... you never knwo cos hackers will be hackers) you could always change Gen's suggested "dürfen" to the "konjunctiv" ie:

...Daten, die nicht geändert werden dürften, ...

but this really wouldn't be written by a native. So just go with "dürfen". as suggested by me in post #5 and Gen in post #9. It does convey what you want to say and is grammatically correct.

I've got no grammar skills so this is just gut:

In der Regel sind Daten die nicht geändert werden sollten in dem Bootskeller gespeichert.

dürfen dürfen dürfen dammit! That's what it's for!

i suggested that one in post #5, ER.

the "sollten" just means shouldn't as opposed to shouldn't be allowed. "dürfen" means "may not" (also a suggestion in post #5) which is as Gen say less open to misinterpretation.

why have 2 werdens though? and wouldn't it be dürften or sollten?

Again I could be wrong just gut.

i know Gen, i know but if people won't accept the right answer.

how about this "round the house" versions for those that don't like dürfen.

In der Regel werden Daten, wo keine Änderungen erlaubt sind, im Bootsektor gespeichert.

I love it!

one for each of the sub-clauses. first werden related to the Data ie the data will be stored. the second werden related to changing the data, ie the data is not allowed to be changed

dürften could be used theoretically but no native would write it. As Gen keeps trying to say, dürfen is exactly what this guy is trying to say. "nicht sollten" doen't forbid but just means "shouldn't" "nicht dürfen" means "not allowed" ie forbidden.

You're right, that sounds much better. I should stay out of things that make my head hurt.

Sorry, my mistake. I messed up the word order in the post as you quoted it and had to edit it.
No worries about calling it bollox. I didn't write it .

As I said, it was written by a German native speaker in a technical document. The whole document is pretty heavy going, with long sentances and complicated constructions. I think he was trying to be a bit diplomatic. Anyway the example I gave was just one particularly jarring sentence.

C'mon, you don't really mean that? "Wo" is a preposition whereas you want a pronoun when referring to the data. Or try the Bavarian version "Daten, die wo ma ned ändern kenna soit." I perfectly agree that nouns work better than the string of verbs, but my version is NOT wrong.

"Wo" can be used as a relative pronoun in standard German, e.g. "an dem Tag, wo..."
However in contexts where it does not refer to a time or place, it is indeed dialectal. Swabian for instance uses hardly anything else: "dr Mah, wo grod schwätzt"

I agree with Gen/OG in terms of linguistic flow and nice German, but the problem with dürfen is that this is a technical construction. I think the können is used by the author (as this is an IT context) to indicate data that should not be alterable in the more absolute sense (i.e. programatically unalterable - physically alterable). The problem with dürfen is that it has a connotation of permission. If you use dürfen, then the sentence means the data CAN be altered but may not be (is not allowed to be).

"In der Regel" should just go. This is a useless construction in any language. I guess it should be written:

Daten, die nicht geändert werden können, sollen im Bootsektor gespeichert werden.

Or something like that. I am neither a grammar nor punctuation profi in German. The dürfen just doesn't hit me right, though.

At any rate, the können werden sollen bit is just nonsense or bollocks as OG said. It just proves once more the fact that technical writers are neither technical nor writers - no matter what language is being used.

hello, OG was making a JOKE with the wo bit.

Daten, die nicht geändert werden dürfen, werden im Bootsektor gespeichert. (no sollen, no können!)
Data which may not be changed are saved on the boot sector.

As you can always change files, the permission aspect is indeed necessary. "Sure, change the files! Ruin your operating system for all I care, you'll just have to pay for the support hotline etc..."

How can you always change files? Open your computer and hit your hard disk with a hammer, that'll change them. It's a bad idea though.

OK, I'm finally throwing down and jumping in here.


All data can be modified unless written to ROM/PROM/WORM. And this is a matter of permission: may the data be changed? No.

The original sentence was:


IS was close, but I think the sentence would best be written:


Of course, any fucktard out there writing to the boot sector should be LARTed with a ginormous cluestick.

woof.

This is slowly becoming my favorite quote. Note the timestamp.

True, I guess you can always change files by destroying the medium on which they are saved.
However the idea in the document was that you can save certain data in ROM. It is no longer possible to programatically change it. In fact if the chip is manufactured securly it is also not possible to physically change it. The individual bits are so small that it is not even possible to use an electron beam probe (or whatever the thing is called) to change bits. Trying such physical attacks renders the chip unusable.

Admitidly none of this is clear from the single sentence I originally quoted.

I got an even better one: "Ich hätte dich nicht angerufen werden lassen sollen". I should not have permitted you to be called. Of course, "Ich hätte nicht zulassen sollen, daß du angerufen wirst" is more flowing. Just goes to show how extreme Germans can get if you let them. Use "dürfen" by all means, I was just correcting the sentence as originally written.
Hell, look at the grammatical and spelling mistakes running rampant in the various chats here and I don't know if we English native speakers have the right to point out mistakes by German native speakers.
Pax.

Off-topic

Mein Gott, people, how did you all managed to learn this horrible language.

Read, read, read, speak, speak, speak, listen, listen, listen. Don't be afraid of making mistakes, don't get frustrated. Try reading children's books at first. Listen to the radio/tv. You probably never will acheive excellence if you start German at a mature age but it's not impossible to learn.

You could try starting with dropping the "horrible language" attitude.

Yes, I know, you are of course one hundred percent right I am very unpatient, I want to read Süddeutsche Zeitung, but have to stick on textbooks.

My 9-year-old son got today 1 (19/19 Punkte) for his Deutschprobe after being less than two years in the country, and I want be at least as good as him.

Probably by not having an attitude like that.

Oh, could someone please, repeat it one more time. I think, I'm having difficulties to get it.

Which English or German?

Natalia - you'll be fine - I was very stubborn when I moved here and wanted to be able to read "Die Welt" (I was in Heidelberg) right away. So I understand. I have a great grammar book I used that helped me alot and I think once you get along a bit in the high expectations you have set yourself you'll be fine. Let me know if you want to vent (my biggest step, funnily enough, was figuring out "Dativ" that was my turning point).