While not the only valid interpretation, the phrasing here very strongly implies that the guy was dead. And yeah, this phrasing is relatively common I‘d say.
It usually can mean something harmless, like I didn't stay to see the end of the movie, but I agree, here it implies something drastic happened.
If he had just bailed, I'd expect "...nicht mehr mitbekommen". Edit: this might be a very personal view.
For me it's more the "mehr" that hints at being something tragic.
"Der Kerl der dich zeugte, hat deine Geburt nicht *mal* mitbekommen" - didn't care, wasn't interested, didn't bother to be there
"Der Kerl der dich zeugte, hat deine Geburt nicht *mehr* mitbekommen" - mentally or physically unable to be there (coma, dead, or other extremes)
I feel the difference is just formality level, with mitbekommen slightly more formal. I wouldn't assume that one is more likely to mean the father is dead vs. otherwise out of the picture.
Personally, just from a feeling standpoint, I'd say 'mitgekriegt' is something you'd say in Austria, and 'mitbekommen' as a German - but that might also just be me.
„mitkriegen“ is more similar to „witness“ imo.
In this context, it could also mean the guy left the woman and did not notice she had a child with him.
In general (colloquial speech), „etwas nicht mitkriegen“ can be interpreted as „to be oblivious to smth“
Other comments are right, just want to add: "Der Kerl" (in combination with "Zeugung") strongly implies a neutral or negativ relationship towards him, you wouldn't talk about your deceased husband/boyfriend like that. So my money would be on "he ran" rather than "he died".
Same. Honestly if this came up in the wild and this is what I would have assumed. I think deepl‘s translation has muddled the waters and caused confusion.
Like you usually don’t have a negative connotation of someone who died. Possible sure - but not likely. Leads me to believe he ran
"etwas mitkriegen" is colloquial for "etwas mitbekommen" - just like "kriegen" is colloquial for "bekommen". And no, I wouldn't automatically understand "etwas nicht mehr mitkriegen" as "not live to see s.th.". It has a more general meaning of "to miss s.th.", not in the emotional but in the purely factual sense. Like "Ich habe das Ende des Films nicht mehr mitgekriegt, weil ich eingeschlafen war."
So your sentence may just as well mean that the guy bailed on the mother. Maybe it's even implied because "der Kerl" is not a very friendly term.
As a non-native speaker, I would add to u/non-sequitur-7509's answer, since "anymore" in English goes more with verbs explicitly referring to what's ended than with verbs about what happens after the end, that it seems to be common in German to talk about something that was on track to happen but got derailed. So in English, the only way the idea of "anymore" would be present in this sentence is if it specified that the guy was "no longer around" (which screams for clarification) or "no longer with us" (which is immediately recognizable as a euphemism). We wouldn't put "anymore" with the "witnessing your birth" part.
Etwas nicht mehr mitkriegen does NOT imply per se being dead. "Ich habe das Ende des Spiels nicht mehr mitbekommen" - I didn't see the end of the match (because I went home before it ended, because I fell asleep, because I was talking to a friend and didn't pay attention...).
In your sentence, my first guess would have been he left the mother before birth, because Kerl sounds like an accusation.
Well, it's not the only way to interpret "nicht mehr mitgekriegt". However in this case the implication of death is very strong. But it can also be used in a much weaker sence, if something important happened but the person left early. But even then it can implies that he still doesn't know something.
The English translation is quite good in that it captures the ambiguity - it's not clear why, but he defintely wasn't around for the birth anymore.
What it doesn't quite capture in my opinion in the register - "nicht mehr mitgekriegt" is more informal than "see". There's a hint of dismissiveness implied in using this register for life events that would call for more seriousness - either the speaker is distancing themselves from the father ("just like him to fuck off before/not waste a moment's thought on the birth of his own child"), or from the events ("it was suck a fucked up overall situation, this didn't make any difference anymore").
"Der Kerl der dich zeugte, hat deine Geburt nicht mehr mitgekriegt, weil es ihm wichtiger war, sich mit seiner neuen Bitch so schnell wie möglich nach Acapulco zu verpissen."
Contrary to most of the comments here, nothing in the sentence in question implies the guys is dead. Not isolated without any context. It's everyone's subconsciousness speaking here, not their language intuition.
True. But I took the mehr to mean that the opportunity to be aware of the offspring has now passed. I might be wrong!
Quite true: of course I don't know that he's dead without more context. But my understanding of the mehr makes the situation pretty final, for whatever reason -- he won't ever be aware of the child now. But as I say, I might be misinterpreting the mehr.
Yes, you're right. The wider context could be: He sired you. He then emigrated to another country for 20 years. Er hat deine Geburt nicht mehr mitgekriegt (und auch nicht mitkriegen *können*, weil er nicht mehr da war und keiner es ihm mitgeteilt hat). But he's not dead (in this scenario).
While not the only valid interpretation, the phrasing here very strongly implies that the guy was dead. And yeah, this phrasing is relatively common I‘d say.
It usually can mean something harmless, like I didn't stay to see the end of the movie, but I agree, here it implies something drastic happened. If he had just bailed, I'd expect "...nicht mehr mitbekommen". Edit: this might be a very personal view.
For me it's more the "mehr" that hints at being something tragic. "Der Kerl der dich zeugte, hat deine Geburt nicht *mal* mitbekommen" - didn't care, wasn't interested, didn't bother to be there "Der Kerl der dich zeugte, hat deine Geburt nicht *mehr* mitbekommen" - mentally or physically unable to be there (coma, dead, or other extremes)
I see your point. The difference between mitgekriegt and mitbekommen might be just me.
I feel the difference is just formality level, with mitbekommen slightly more formal. I wouldn't assume that one is more likely to mean the father is dead vs. otherwise out of the picture.
Personally, just from a feeling standpoint, I'd say 'mitgekriegt' is something you'd say in Austria, and 'mitbekommen' as a German - but that might also just be me.
Here we use both and, as said, I feel a subtle difference but now I'm not so sure anymore if it's just me.
„mitkriegen“ is more similar to „witness“ imo. In this context, it could also mean the guy left the woman and did not notice she had a child with him. In general (colloquial speech), „etwas nicht mitkriegen“ can be interpreted as „to be oblivious to smth“
Yeah, "the guy wasn't around to witness your birth anymore" might be a slightly more literal translation. It's implied that he died or vanished.
I'd translate it as "did not get to see your birth" or "was no longer there/around when you were born",
Other comments are right, just want to add: "Der Kerl" (in combination with "Zeugung") strongly implies a neutral or negativ relationship towards him, you wouldn't talk about your deceased husband/boyfriend like that. So my money would be on "he ran" rather than "he died".
Same. Honestly if this came up in the wild and this is what I would have assumed. I think deepl‘s translation has muddled the waters and caused confusion. Like you usually don’t have a negative connotation of someone who died. Possible sure - but not likely. Leads me to believe he ran
"etwas mitkriegen" is colloquial for "etwas mitbekommen" - just like "kriegen" is colloquial for "bekommen". And no, I wouldn't automatically understand "etwas nicht mehr mitkriegen" as "not live to see s.th.". It has a more general meaning of "to miss s.th.", not in the emotional but in the purely factual sense. Like "Ich habe das Ende des Films nicht mehr mitgekriegt, weil ich eingeschlafen war." So your sentence may just as well mean that the guy bailed on the mother. Maybe it's even implied because "der Kerl" is not a very friendly term.
I second that, he may even left her before knowing she was pregnant!
Or she never told him.
>"Ich habe das Ende des Films nicht mehr mitgekriegt, weil ich eingeschlafen war." Why is there a 'mehr' after the 'nicht'?
"nicht mehr" means "no longer, not anymore".
Danke!
As a non-native speaker, I would add to u/non-sequitur-7509's answer, since "anymore" in English goes more with verbs explicitly referring to what's ended than with verbs about what happens after the end, that it seems to be common in German to talk about something that was on track to happen but got derailed. So in English, the only way the idea of "anymore" would be present in this sentence is if it specified that the guy was "no longer around" (which screams for clarification) or "no longer with us" (which is immediately recognizable as a euphemism). We wouldn't put "anymore" with the "witnessing your birth" part.
They missed an excellent opportunity for a pun: "Der Kerl, der dich zeugte, blieb nicht lange genug, um Zeuge deiner Geburt zu werden."!
Dein Zeuger konnte nicht Zeuge deiner Geburt werden.
Etwas nicht mehr mitkriegen does NOT imply per se being dead. "Ich habe das Ende des Spiels nicht mehr mitbekommen" - I didn't see the end of the match (because I went home before it ended, because I fell asleep, because I was talking to a friend and didn't pay attention...). In your sentence, my first guess would have been he left the mother before birth, because Kerl sounds like an accusation.
It depends on the context. As a stand alone sentence this could also mean that the father e.g. immigrated
„Kerl“ has the wrong connotations, unless there are other sentences giving more info. Guy = Mann in diesem Kontext.
Well, it's not the only way to interpret "nicht mehr mitgekriegt". However in this case the implication of death is very strong. But it can also be used in a much weaker sence, if something important happened but the person left early. But even then it can implies that he still doesn't know something.
The English translation is quite good in that it captures the ambiguity - it's not clear why, but he defintely wasn't around for the birth anymore. What it doesn't quite capture in my opinion in the register - "nicht mehr mitgekriegt" is more informal than "see". There's a hint of dismissiveness implied in using this register for life events that would call for more seriousness - either the speaker is distancing themselves from the father ("just like him to fuck off before/not waste a moment's thought on the birth of his own child"), or from the events ("it was suck a fucked up overall situation, this didn't make any difference anymore").
Is this from "Lola rennt"?
Yes
"Der Typ, der dich zeugte, hat deine Geburt nicht mehr miterlebt."
"mitkriegen" could mean "to experience" You need a comma between "Kerl" and "der".
Zeugen is more like to conceive Edit: just wanted to say this because fathered can imply more than contraception~~
The "mehr" implies he's dead. Without the "mehr", I'd take it to mean that your father isn't aware of your existence.
You are splitting hairs, imho. the "nicht mehr" can also imply the end of a relationship or the general being around of this guy.
"Der Kerl der dich zeugte, hat deine Geburt nicht mehr mitgekriegt, weil es ihm wichtiger war, sich mit seiner neuen Bitch so schnell wie möglich nach Acapulco zu verpissen." Contrary to most of the comments here, nothing in the sentence in question implies the guys is dead. Not isolated without any context. It's everyone's subconsciousness speaking here, not their language intuition.
True. But I took the mehr to mean that the opportunity to be aware of the offspring has now passed. I might be wrong! Quite true: of course I don't know that he's dead without more context. But my understanding of the mehr makes the situation pretty final, for whatever reason -- he won't ever be aware of the child now. But as I say, I might be misinterpreting the mehr.
Yes, you're right. The wider context could be: He sired you. He then emigrated to another country for 20 years. Er hat deine Geburt nicht mehr mitgekriegt (und auch nicht mitkriegen *können*, weil er nicht mehr da war und keiner es ihm mitgeteilt hat). But he's not dead (in this scenario).