OSNews

You can substitute 'ß' with 'ss'. So it is correct.

I wanted to use the ß, but the font I use doesn't have the character. Hence, I decided to use the double s method. Tut mir leid, aber ich kann's auch nicht schöner machen .

Couldn't you draw an ß by yourself? Es sei Ihnen jedoch verziehen, mein Herr, in Anbetracht der Schönheit Ihres gar wohlfeinen Gemäldes humoresken Inhaltes. :-)

I should take some of the suggested drugs in order not to notuce the missing ß, but working antiautistica haven't been invented yet. :-)

You can, however, if ß is not present (for example on non-german keyboards or on a teletype), put any ß back into ss, that's right. (It's obvious: an ß replaces an individable ss.) In Switzerland, the ß isn't used, instead, any ss reamains ss (e. g. Strasse instead of Straße). But if you're refering to the german language, the use of the ß ligature is required for correctness.

To explicitely force the use of ß where no ß is available, it's possible to use sz (e. g. Strasze instead of Straße); this form is mostly advised in cases where you need to differentiate between ss and ß, for example in names of persons. The combination sz does not appear in reality that much so it can easily be used to indicate ß in a name.

A good example why ß and ss aren't the same are the words "die Masse" (the mass, the matter) and "die Maße" (the dimensions). In order to indicate this difference without being able to use the ß, the latter one could be written "die Masze", too. But as I mentioned before, this special isn't used very often.

Wow, I'm sounding like a teacher... :-)

Thanks for the info, I thought it did not matter at all. (btw, on non-german keyboard you can usually still make a ß (alt+b on my Finnish and alt+s on my international keyboard )

It's a fine diffference. Fine but existing. Ligatuation and typesetting is somewhat special in german. But you're right, in this case it doesn't matter, my friendly note was just caused by the urge of correctness. ::-)



On my US Sun keyboard, I can press Compose s s to get an ß. A friend of mine has a swedish keyboard where ß is possible, too. But as Thom mentioned, the ß wasn't present in the font he used. There are many requirements for a good internationalisation.

Your note is correct, but the explaination is wrong. Let me enlighten you. :-)

"Scheiße" is written with the Eszett ligature - ß - because two s meet that cannot be divided. Rule: Individable ss are typeset as ß. This has nothing to do with the "ei" being diphtong. Furthermore, to call the Eszett a "sharp s" is usual, but incorrect. The german language does not feature a diversion between "soft s" and "sharp s" in the written form. The Fraktura font types featured a "sound s" and a "long s" which are the two ones that meet here - and they are ligatuated into an Eszett. In most fonts you can see this, too.

Welcome to PISA. :-)



Richtig. :-)

Hmm, not in Switzerland:

http://german.about.com/library/weekly/aa092898.htm

Edited: sorry folks, must remember to read whole thread before posting...

Edited 2008-04-15 06:33 UTC

Allow me to get off-topic.

The article contains many untrue things.

First of all, the rule to use ß or ss does not consider the "length" of vocals because this is due to dialects. For example, in Bavaria "Spaß" (joy) is spoken with a "short vocal" - pr. shpuss - so it would be written "Spass", in opposite, in Hamburg is is spoken with a "long vocal", - pr. shpaarse - so it would be written "Spaß" there. This is one of the main reason why almost nobody is able to understand the correct use of ss or ß anymore. Furthermore, there are words that - following the "volcal length rule", would be written with ss, but they are written with a single s, for example, "Zeugnis" (cvertificate) - pr. tsoygniss - is not written "Zeugniss", allthough the stupid rule would imply it.

Traditionally, the rule to select between ss and ß is this: If an ss cannot be divided, ß is used.

During the continued the newspeak reforms this rule has been extended. There are many different rules, one of the "famous" ones is: After a vocal, there is s, ss or ß. After some "short vocals" there is ss, after other ones, there is only s. This rule complicates the tradidional rule, which is first used to turn undividable ss into ß, and then comes the "new" rule and turns some of these cases back into ss.

This rule (Heyse's ruling for typesetting S) had been in use in Austria more than 100 years ago, but has been abandoned soon because it simply caused too many errors. The Nazis tried to revive Heyse's rule, but failed.

According the legal situation in Germany: The federal constitutional court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) ruled in 1998 (1 BvR 1640 / 97) that the use of the "new" rules isn't mandatory for everyone. That's why many newspapers and authors are still using the unified orthography (standard orthography) instead of "newspeak" (common term in German: Neusprech, pr. noyshprash). So anyone is free to write as he likes. So if I like to not capitalize any words, it's completely okay, or if I don't want to use any ß, it's okay, too - in a legal sense. By the way, this implies something strange: If the free choice of orthography (sentence 4) is a confirmed right, every pupil could complain about a mark he got for spelling errors and reply: "This limits my rights, you have to change it!" Germany is a strange country... :-)

Of course, this has no implications to Switzerland (which you mentioned) because in Switzerland, the ß isn't used at all. For example, this means there is no written division between "Masse" (the mass, the matter) and "Masse" (the dimensions), for the latter one, "Maße" is used in Germany and Austria. For Switzerland, this means you need to conclude the meaning from the complete sentence. You know a similar procedure from the english language where, for example, the meaning of "see" has to be concluded from the context it is used in.

So the Neusprech - which, to repeat it, is no mandatory ruleset - makes other suggestions: for dividing and concatenating words, for capitalizing and spelling. If I read texts that claim to be "new orthography", I usually find most of the suggestions not followed. This is true for newspapers from Switzerland, too. They do not follow many of the german recommendations.

Within the german society, the ongoing reforms (yes, something new every year) has caused uncertainness. Most writers rely on outdated spell checkers which, of course, cannot recognize intentions of the writer, so grammar checks or punctuation are not handled anyway. So the final products are full of errors, no matter which ruleset or recommendation you apply. That's why the term Hausortographie (in-house orhography) has developed: It describes that certain groups tend to use a custom language ruleset. One example is the famous newspaper "Die Zeit" (the time) - pr. dee tsuyt - with their "Zeitschreibung"; the Brockhaus encyclopedia has different spelling rules than the "Duden", and so on. This caused the term Beliebigkeitsschreibung (arbitrary writing) - pr. baleebishkuytsshruyboong - just write as you like - there are no rules anymore.

The article you mentioned claims that Neusprech made it easier for teachers and students, but that's not true. Look at the PISA results. And according to the example above, try to imagine how a teacher would respond to a bavarian pupil asking: "Miss, when we say 'Spass', why do we have to write 'Spaß'? There is no long vocal! And when we say 'Zeugnis', why isn't it written 'Zeugniss', then?" Oh joy oh joy. :-)

This is due to the recommendations changing every few years and contradicting theirselves. Furthermore, most Newspeak suggestions do complicate the standard rules in an unneccessary way, mostly according concatenation, capitalizing and punctuation.

Just to scare you:

kennenlernen - kennen lernen - kennenlernen (to get to know)
es tut mir leid - es tut mir Leid - es tut mir leid (I'm sorry)
leid tun - leidtun (be sorry)
aufgrund - auf Grund (because of)
zur Zeit - zurzeit (actually, at the moment)
der Heilige Vater - der heilige Vater (the holy father)
erste Hilfe - Erste Hilfe (first aid)
zusammen schreiben (to write sth. concatenated)
auseinanderschreiben (to write sth. seperated)
aufwendig - aufwändig; but: aufwenden; auswendig (complex; to spend; from one's mind)

You can imagine the pain of a teacher trying to explain this inconsistency (stupididy).

I would have welcomed a reform that makes things easier (such as the suggested abandonement of capitalization), but in fact, everything got more complicated. While I may say that I'm an expert regarding the german language, I found myself more often thinking about how to write a certain word because in my daily life I saw so much different and wrong spellings. But finally, this helps me to always remember the correct forms.

Okay, enough german lessons for today. Non-native german speakers must think we're completely mad. :-)

I think I stand corrected and much better informed ;-).

Just a further question, what seems to be implied in what you have said is that Hochdeutsch/Standarddeutsch doesn't appear to have the integrating effect on the orthographical level that one might surmise (given as you say the differing length of vowel sounds in dialect-speech). Or has Standarddeutsch always been overplayed in this respect?

Non-native speakers of German just find it bewildering, and in my case I simply plough on as before...

Anyway, great response

I hope I can express this in an understandable way, but I will try:

The rules how to pronounce words are given by the german stage language (deutsche Bühnensprache). It is based on the standard orthography. This corresponds to what we call new high german (Neuhochdeutsch). It is the (mostly) mandatory base for language considerations.

Dialect influenced pronounciation can be transferred into written form, but it needs the use of incorrectly written words.

Some examples:

Stage language: "Ach, ich glaube, da kommt eine Straßenbahn."
Saxonian: "Ei nu, ä isch gloub dä gommd ä Stroosnbohn."
Bavarian: "Mei, i gloab da kimmt a Straßnbahn."

Of course, none of the deviating words occurs in a dictionary. :-) Most dialects have the character to have the new high german as a common base which forms the rules. But still, language is a living thing, it changes due to its use, and this is done by the people speaking and writing, not by stupid or old-nazi regulation fanatics who just want to sell new dictionaries every year. That's why the standard (unified) orthography (Einheitsorthographie, Einheitsschreibung), incorrectly often called "old orthography" (according to a timeline, it's still the newest one), is the easiest to understand and to constitute according to its correctness (this is where Newspeakers fail). Standard orthography is, by the way, becoming more and more popular again. People who are writing books or have to tell you something substancial still use it due to its better readability and liability for errors (grammar, punctuation, hyphenation).

To get a little little bit on topic, i. e. it has something to do with operating systems, I'd suggest introducing a new language code. There are already de_DE, de_CH and de_AT, why not make de_DE conforming to standard orthograhy and add de_NS for german Neusprech? :-) (Germans will notice the fine fitting connotation of "NS").



You cannot conclude the written form from the spoken form, and maybe that's what makes the german language a bit complicated. Due to the many "new", constantly changing and contradicting suggestions for spelling, it won't get easier.

When you're learning a language, your first step usually is the spoken form, not the written one. And because they differ in many cases, German language must show up like strange spellings from another Whoniverse. :-)



I would have never imagined that I would discuss such a topic here. And I'm sure I never used that much german words in an english speaking discussion board. :-)

Maybe it's the same the other way round. I know funny things how Germans pronounce english words and what they read from certain sentences, I have seen "ReiserFS" as "rice fat" and "language" as "lagoon". Or from my russian classes, "I am used trousers". :-)

And all this because Thom had to use a font that did not contain an Eszett! I hope all the readers here are willing to forgive me my dedication to my native language. :-)

Edited 2008-04-15 20:40 UTC

I'm sorry, but that's not true. The official rules have always considered the length of the preceding vocal. The official rules used to be:

"ss" if it's between two vocals and the first one is short (diphtongs count as long vocals)
"ß" otherwise

So it was "Straße" (long "a"), "Schloß" (short "o", but not between two vocals), "Scheiße" ("ei" counts as long vocal) and "müssen" (between two vocals and the "ü" is short).
This rule only differentiates between "ss" and "ß", it says nothing about when to use "ss"/"ß" and when to use a single "s". You simply have to learn that. It's the same thing in the English language: There's no rule that tells you that misunderstanding isn't written missunderstanding.

With the new orthography the two-vocal-rule has been eliminated. So now you only have to look at the preceding vocal: It's still "Straße" (long "a"), "Scheiße" ("ei" counts as long vocal) and "müssen" (the "ü" is short), but now you write "Schloss" (short "o", it doesn't matter anymore that the "ss"/"ß" isn't between two vocals).

Probably it's sometimes difficult for people who speak a dialect and, e.g., pronounce "Spaß" with a short "a". But these people cannot say: "I do not accept the rules, because I cannot speak High German properly."
In High German "Spaß" has to be pronounced with a long "a" and therefore it's written "Spaß".



This is interesting. It looks like your "traditional" rule gives the exact same results as the former German official rules. "Straße" (not "Stras-se"), "Schloß" (not "Schlos-s"), "Scheiße" (not "Scheis-se"), "müssen" ("müs-sen"). The (dumb) reformers, however, probably knew only the official rules and thought: If we simplify these rules, it will be simpler to decide when to use "ß" and "ss". They didn't know there was another "traditional rule" that was even simpler, but now cannot be used at all anymore. (I didn't know your rule, either, and I may say that I'm an expert regarding the German language, too.)

By the way, I completely agree with everything else you said about that "Neusprech"...

That's not entirely correct. Let me take the time to proove it.

According to that rule (or, let's call it suggestion, because it's nothing different), words like "bis" or "Zeugnis" would have to be written "biss" or "Zeugniss". Words like "Glas" or "Rasen" would have to be written "Glaß" or "Raßen". As you will agree, that's not correct. As I mentioned furthermore, "vocal lengths" are subject of dialects.

q.e.d. :-)

I don't know why you used the word "always"; the standard orthography defines individable ss to be written as ß. That's the simple rule. Allthough since the beginning of the reforms more and more suggestions occured, the standard rule is still present and used, by the way, more and more often, because it is easier to master than the "vocal length suggestion".



This is not correct. As I mentioned before, the ability to divide a word is the key to select between ss and ß. Stra-ße (not Stras-se), Schloß (not Schlos-s), Scheiße (not Scheis-se) and müssen (müs-sen); you can easily form other examples that illustrate the correctness of the rule. Especially at the end of a word no ss is placed (because you cannot divide off the last s).



That's correct.



You got the idea. You have to know which words are written with ß, which ones with ss and which ones with s. You cannot conclude this from the spoken form because it depends on dialects. See the "bavarian example" above.

Zeugnis - short vocal i - Zeugniss *wrong*
lesen - long vocal e - leßen *wrong*
Maßeinheit - in Bavaria: short vocal a - Masseinheit *wrong*

The german written language is [b[not[/b] a vocal language (Lautsprache). From the spoken form, you cannot exactly tell the written form.



The vocals never mattered. This Neusprech suggestion makes things more complicated as I mentioned before. There are "short vocals" where no ss follows, but instead simple s; furthermore, concatenated nouns where an "ss" is followed by "s*" in the next word part look weird. One of my favourite examples is "Messstrippe" - ssstr - five (!) conconants and no visible word gap.

Because vocal lengths are a matter of dialects, you cannot tell for sure how a vocal is spoken. For example, "Gras" can be spoken with a long a and a short a, but in no case "Graß" or "Grass" is written.

This is the main reason why pupils today have so many problems regarding correct spelling. I've seen it all. I know it, I did work in education sector. :-)



As I proved, nobody needs to obey these suggestions (because they have no power of force).



That's not a matter of Neuhochdeutsch (new high german), but instead of the so called deutsche Bühnensprache (german stage language) which is the mandatory pronouncing guide. If you put it into written form, you end up within standard orthography (and not in one of the suggested "reformed" forms), and correctly, if you read text according to standard orthography dialect-free, you have the german stage language again.



You're correct, the "new" rules (abolished in Austria more than 100 years ago due to too much confusion) do not make things easier, because first you have to know where an ß occurs and then replace some of them with ss. The rule according to division of ss is very simple and easy to check (place - between s and s in ss and check if it works). In my opinion, it is the easiest rule to decide s, ss or ß, because the rule based on vocal lengths does not work in all cases (examples above).



That's an educated and scientifically proven point of view. :-)

Finally, the use of ß ligature can be seen a matter of typography, so it's not within the working place of orthography. For example, if I don't use ck, fl, ffl, fi and other ligatures, my text still remains correct.

just to confess, i had to search the name to get the joke