Natürlich-göttliche und teuflische Träume

21:47 Aug 11, 2009 

As Bernd has correctly observed, something is wrong in the distorted version of the title, which is easy for a German speaker to verify. I did not have any doubt in this regard either and it is nice to have it confirmed. My question though was different and as follows and I am sorry not to have been able to formulate it more clearly.
Knowing that the message was distorted – like code or a joke or a word play – my question was: what could the distorted message mean be for a German reader. Is the author alluding to something that significantly the meaning of the phrase or is the distorted version simply incorrect and impossible to accept?

15:50 Aug 10, 2009 

is the correct title. Google for [Meisel Sieghartstein 1783] and 7 out of 8 will indicate the correct title. The title version presented here, is grammatically not making any sense at all.

15:28 Aug 10, 2009 

I would translate (2) as "Preternatural Dreams", i.e., dreams being of a divine nature, hence transcending their temporal (natural) bounds

The (1) version would have to read NatürlichE, göttlichE and teuflischE Träume to make sense.

07:39 Aug 9, 2009 

Without any further context, I would distinguish these two phrases the same way as you did. Only context could say, however, what the supposed play on words (phrase 2) was meant to say. Applying strict grammatical rules, "natürlich" belongs to "göttlich" only, but it has become so common to omit or forget hyphens that "natürlich-göttliche und -teuflische Träume" (= naturally divine and naturally devilish dreams) is also possible.

06:38 Aug 9, 2009 

1. This is a paraphrase of the correct title, thus the incorrect version:
Naturlich-gottliche und teuflische Träume
2. This is the original title in full:
Natürlich-, göttlich- und teuflische Träume; Bewiesen einem guten Freund in Wien Von Meisel, Lehrer auf der hohen Schule zu Sieghartstein

My question is: What difference in meaning for a native German speaker the above change from the original version to the changed version makes. In other words, I’d like to have both versions commented upon. I am looking for a distinction between the two. The person that changed the title could have done it for a purpose most probably as a joke but since I am not a native German speaker myself, I’d like to have both meanings verified.

11:57 Aug 8, 2009 

Please indicate which is the correct version of the hyphenation, since it changes the meaning. I removed my answer because to start with I was thinking along the lines of Naturgötter obviously. Bernd tells me this is the title of an 18th-century thesis. Please provide the correct format of the title.

11:54 Aug 8, 2009 

I had removed my answer before your comment came through. It would have helped, don't you think, if the Asker had given the context you gave me in your comment?

11:49 Aug 8, 2009 

leave it as it is, because the context of the term in question is a quotation reference, and shouldn't be translated. This is part of the title.
When you have to explain the title for whatever reason, the first version is correct.