German Reform?

guest2   Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:15 pm GMT
Guest, have you ever read what I've written? Or do you just like to troll around?

The ß is probably the youngest letter in use. The other letters are much older, they go back at least to the romans. The capital ß, which got it's unicode a couple of month ago, is even younger.

The double s reminds on a criminal organisation, already forgotten?

Look up to the stars, they look pretty old, they're millions and billions of years old.

According to the ''Rechtschreibreform'' the ß isn't totally discarted. So even young people use that letter!
Guest   Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:30 pm GMT
Yes, that's true. But you're free to choose between ß and ss.
In case of doubt, it's better to use ss instead.

After long vowels you're supposed to use ß, but many of the native speakers aren't sure if a vowel is short or long. In such cases, ss is much more practical.
guest2   Wed Jul 16, 2008 2:33 pm GMT
If you already left school, you're entirely free to write however you like.
(But if you do so, you most likely will never get read.) If you're a pupil, you're forced to write according to one of the several differing dictionaries, which is IMHO ridiculous.

According to the ''reform'', there are now 3 possible endings of words ending with an s sound: -s, -ss, -ß, so, in case of doubt, there is a 2/3 probability to make an error.

According to classical orthography, there are just 2 possible endings of words ending with an s sound: -s and -ß. So in case of doubt, there is 1/2 probability of making an error.

There reformers claimed to reduce the amount of errors which could occure, but, as shown above, by mathematical facts, failed in doing so!
(I've never heard form a ''in case of doubt rule''!)

So, in case of doubt, you should question the reliability of the entire reform!

The ''after a long vowal''-rule is relatively useless, because length of vowals before an s sound in one and the same word can differ depending on the region you live in. So this rule will also lead to errors (or, at least, to inconsistent writing, which is in contradiction to the notion of orthography).

This rule is intended for people already knowing classical orthography learning the ''new'' rules. It is of no help for children without knowledge of classical orthography.

This rule -- claimed to be more logical than the classical rules, which it isn't -- is called the ''logical trap'', because it leads to more errors made by children without knowledge of classical orthography. It leads to -ss endings when only -s is intended, even by the reform. Errors which only seldomly occured before the reform.

And yes, many of the native speakers aren't sure if a vowal is short or long. You can't be sure on that, especially it the vowal is a diphthong. Because of that, the new rule doesn't make sense!

(Your statement only gives a suggestion, but doesn't prove why ss is more practical in such cases. What does ''practical'' mean concerning orthography? I also could claim that ß is more practical in such cases!)
Guest   Wed Jul 16, 2008 2:40 pm GMT
why should one phoneme--'s'--be given so much special attention?

is there also an analogous way of handling 'tt' with a new letter?

how about 'nn'?
guest2   Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:02 pm GMT
There're actully two phonemes, the voiced (s) and the unvoiced (ß) s sound. In Turkic, there is e.g. a voiced s sound denoted by z and an unvoiced s sound denoted by s. In German, z is used for ts an in ''Zirkus'' = circus, where in Englisch, the first c in circus is pronounced s. Not that the second c is pronounced differently!

Since German is a language which heavily makes use of compounding, it is very likely that the first part of a compund ends with an s sound and the second starts with an s. This can lead to three consecutive s letters, which is ugly und difficult to read.

Compare Schloßstraße with Schlossstraße.

Schloß = castle
Straße = street

Schloßstraße = Street that leads to a castle (name of a street)

With Schloßstraße, you instantly recognize that its a compount built up of the two words Schloß and Straße.

With Schlossstrasse, the end of the first and the beginning of the second word is watered-down. You might read it as Schloss-trasse with the third s considered as a typo.

Trasse = alignement, roadway, route, according to dict.leo.org

Trasse would be best translated as roudway here. This would not make that much sense, but could be interpreted as a plain place where a castle is built. (Routes usually are built on relatively plain soil.)
guest   Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:19 pm GMT
<<Schloß = castle
Straße = street
>>

Well, that's good and well for "Schloßstraße"

but what if we had
Bett + Treffen

it would be Betttreffen, no? three 't's, so it's a possible phenomenom with most other bookstaves other than 's'
guest   Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:21 pm GMT
<<it would be Betttreffen, no? three 't's, so it's a possible phenomenom with most other bookstaves other than 's' >>

I guess what I'm saying is this: if you can't do it for *all* letters, then don't do it for any. otherwise, I do see your point.
Guest   Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:26 pm GMT
The complains usually come from part of the old generation who don't like changes.

You can find advantages and disadvantages of both the old and new orthography.

A whole generation grew up using the new orthography and they have no problem with that.
guest2   Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:26 pm GMT
This would not make that much sense, but could be interpreted as a plain place where a castle is built. (Routes usually are built on relatively plain soil.) Trasse would be best translated as roadway here.

It gets even worse with words where there is no t or p after the s but e.g. a z:

Compare Schlußszene with Schlussszene.

Schluß = end, ending, termination
Szene = szene

Schlußszene means the final szene in a theater play (the szene where the curtain comes down).

Here, with Schlussszene, you can't instantly get the meaning of the compount because you don't instantly find the word borders. Instead, you are forced to step back to the beginning of the word and to reanalyze it character by character as if you still were in elementary school.

To overcome that, you are recommended by the reformer to put a hyphen in it, yielding

Schluss-szene

This looks ugly and needs 13 characters to wirte, instead of 11 as in Schlußszene. So the reformed form needs more space, more paper, more effort to wirte it and more ink. (Remember, paper is a resource which causes much environmental pollution during production)

And with the reform-induced habit to omit the hyphens where they made sense and where they were obligatory in classical orthography you probably end up with

Schluss szene or Schluß Szene

which aren't compounds any more. But compounds are stressed in a special way in German to be recognized as compounds. So the reform destroys the internal structure of the German language. You might think that it happens that there is a second word by accident. You probably need to time-consumingly reanalyze the whole sentence to get its meaning, especially if there are other reform-caused flaws like lacking or ill-positoned commata.
guest2   Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:49 pm GMT
<<Well, that's good and well for "Schloßstraße"

but what if we had
Bett + Treffen

it would be Betttreffen, no? three 't's, so it's a possible phenomenom with most other bookstaves other than 's' >>

Yes, it would be Betttreffen! You can build this word, but it actually doesn't exist.


<< <<it would be Betttreffen, no? three 't's, so it's a possible phenomenom with most other bookstaves other than 's' >>

I guess what I'm saying is this: if you can't do it for *all* letters, then don't do it for any. otherwise, I do see your point. >>

You should be more modest and not try to impose rules concerning topics you don't really understand. The world isn't just black and white.

You need not have a special rule to be applied to all letters. Letters occure in different distribution within a language writing system as do sounds in the phonem inventary of a language. So it makes sense to have special rules for special letters.

The recognizability or readabilty of a text is the most important issue concerning orthography. A text is written once but read several or myriard of times, most likely at different points in time. So its better for the writer to spent a little more effort to make his text clear and understandable so that the many readers effortlessly can understand him. As a writer, you shouldn't wast the precious time of your readers.

In classical orthography, a third consonant can be omitted if a vowel follows.

Compare Stoffetzen with Sauerstoffflasche.

Stoffetzen = Stoff + Fetzen

Stoff = fabric
Fetzen = shred, tatter

Sauerstoffflasche = Sauerstoff + Flasche

Sauerstoff = oxygene
Flasche = bottle

I don't know if it is because if you would omit the third f in Sauerstoffflasche you would get Sauerstoff + Lasche, were Lasche means clip, flap, hanger, or strap etc.

So the classical rule is somewhat geniusly.
guest2   Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:02 pm GMT
<<The complains usually come from part of the old generation who don't like changes.>>

You can't complain if you don't know about the things you got deceived
from. What the reformer did is clearly misuse of children.

<<You can find advantages and disadvantages of both the old and new orthography.>>

Yes, nearly no advantage und almost only disadvantages! You need not make a very costly reform for just a few advantages. This few advantages could have been added to the next issue of the Duden without any problems.

<<A whole generation grew up using the new orthography and they have no problem with that. >>

There is no new orthography! There are several dictionaries, each of them different from another. There were at least three reforms of the reform. There is total chaos. The children are confused, but they can't recognize that their confusion is due to the new rules they belive to be more logical. But do they really know the rules? Do they really know all of the many changes to the rules? They have a problem, but they still don't know it. See the PISA test!
Guest   Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:14 pm GMT
Compare Nußecke with Nussecke.

Nuß = nut
Ecke = corner

Nußecke means a kind of triangular (three-cornered) pastry with nuts.

Nussecke = ?

Compare Wasser with wäßrig.

Wasser = water

wäßrig = aqueous, hydrous, diluted, washy, watery

The ß shows the end of the syllable. So, wäßrig is two syllable, wäß-rig. In Nussecke, you would read Nusse-cke, but cke isn't a German word.
You probably also read Nus-secke. Nus is not a German word. Secke could be Säcke (plural of sack, bag), written with typo. Or Segge, a kind of plant. So you need backtracking and annoying reanalysis to get the meaning.
guest2   Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:16 pm GMT
Again, post form Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:14 pm GMT was me.
guest2   Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:21 pm GMT
<<is there also an analogous way of handling 'tt' with a new letter?

how about 'nn'?>>

In handwriting, you often draw one long bar instead of two small ones.
But that doesn't has anything to do with orthography.

I once read that in former times, one put a bar over the e.g. letter m to indicate that it has to be two consecutive m letters.

But I don't know if these was codified by orthography, then.
Guest   Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:36 pm GMT
OMG, you certainly are making too much fuss about the new orthography!

Many of the reforms affect trifles in the writing, and tens of millions of Germans have been adopting them without snivelling around.
The new generation has no problem with it.
The insecurity persists because old conservatives keep on talking at everybody that the old was better.

The Israelites had to wait 40 years before they could enter the promised land because a change in the mentality was necessary.

Just stop the nostalgy and move forward!