Talk:German spelling reform of 1996
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Usage of ß in Wikipedia
There is a proposal for a standard for usage of "ß" in Wikipedia articles being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#ß_proposal. Please contribute your opinion. --Tysto 15:06, 2005 August 25 (UTC)
[edit] Confusion over dates
While updating what links here (after I moved the page) I realise that the reform is sometimes dated 1998 rather than 1996. The law was passed in 1996, so I will keep that as the title (which is what the German Wikipedia does as well). It would be good to have a timeline of this reform. Meanwhile, I will rename the reform to 1996 and update links. Thore 08:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Point of view
This entire article is quite biased, being as it is a rough translation of the German one. I removed the following sentence, which was too strong for me: "Despite criticism, the proponents of the reform are unwilling to budge, expressing only their disappointment that their proposal to change the capitalization system was not included in the reform." Maybe somebody else can re-insert a similar paragraph with more careful wording.
I am tempted to dispute the neutrality of the entire article. On the other hand there is nothing wrong with summarizing the viewpoints of the reform's opponents under this headline. Maybe some wordsmithing is all it takes.
[edit] State of the implementation
I have recurring problems with the "300" periodicals and newspapers that have ostensibly switched back, and never found a way to verify that information. The latest edit of User:Linguini indicates that all of these have indeed implemented the switch, but as far as I can see Der Spiegel (who was on the original list) still hasn't done so. Linguini, could you help me with a reference? Thore 17:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I understand that the Spiegel finally decided not to revert to the old rules, so this would no longer be an issue. As far as I know, the Spiegel is the only magazine which announced to switch back to the old system but then didn't. Hence, removing the bit about the Spiegel would hardly change the overall meaning of the sentence. However, it doesn't bother me if it stays in. There are, however, a large number of newspapers and magazines (including rather small ones), which never converted to new spelling in the first place. Here's a German website:
http://www.gutes-deutsch.de/Kaufempfehlungen.htm#Tageszeitungen
-
- Great, that was just the kind of information I was looking for! Thanks a lot. The problem I have with the article is the phrase "However, more than 300 newspapers and periodicals continue to use the old spelling or have switched back to the old spelling". That number was based on a list that included the Spiegel, so the claim may be wrong, and the actual number of papers could be far smaller (I simply don't know). Quickly counting the newspapers listed on the site you refer to, I get to 25+13= 38, a bit more than a 10th of what the article claims (but maybe I am not reading the list correctly). Edit to add: Ah! Now I get it. Periodicals are in section 2. 300 seems to be a good estimate. Based on that, the Spiegel example can go the way of the Dodo. What would also be interesting is to compare "300" to the total number of publications. Thore 09:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- Got it! The Verband Deutscher Zeitschriftenverleger represents some 3000 periodicals. There are also several hundred German newspapers. So the publications that use the traditional spelling seem to account for 1/10 of the total number of publications. Correct? If we can agree on that, we can use that formulation instead, drop the Spiegel, and leave the (very notable) Bild and FAZ examples in. Thore 09:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- I am not quite sure about the 10 per cent. The guy who has set up the list of publications in traditional spelling is unlikely to have access to all German periodicals. In fact, he updates this list quite regularly to include any new findings, so, I suppose, we do not have any reliable sources on the exact percentage at this point in time. Linguini 15:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Good point. Let me see if I can reword the passage in light of these observations. Thore 08:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I've added a few bits. I think it's worth mentioning that the Bild-Zeitung, despite its ambiguous reputation, is still the most widely read newspaper. Also, I've tried to emphasize the fact that despite all efforts we do not know the proportions of old/new spelling in German publications.
- Linguini 04:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Good. I think the whole paragraph has become more informative, better researched, and more readable; to a large extend thanks to your efforts. I think we can leave it at that for the moment. Thore 08:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Der Spiegel, after a heroically worded editorial, actually did switch back to the unreformed spelling, only to switch again in the very next issue. The current state is basically in-house rules with some variation among authors. One will see, for instance, "hier zu Lande" and "hierzulande" in the same issue. Otherwise, their general editorial stance toward the reform is rather critical. --Janko 22:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Janko
-
-
-
[edit] Reversions by 84.188.205.193 and 84.188.199.72
I have twice today reverted changes by the above anonymous users to this page. From both, this was the first contribution on Wikipedia, and both reverted passages that were agreed on in Talk without further comments.
This is not to say that I am completely opposed to their edits. Here is what I wrote on 84.188.199.72's talk page after my first reversion:
I reverted your recent changes to the German Spelling Reform Article, because you are removing some things that were established quite laboriously on the talk page during the recent history of this article. (Also, your edits seemed to be slightly biased, which is never a good message to send with your first edit. ) That is not to say your changes are bad -- they make the article shorter and more readable, which is a good thing. I would be happy to put some of your changes back in (especially, the capitalisation of "keiser" and "bot" in the 1988 proposal), but please let us discuss the other things on the talk page to establish some kind of consensus. Arbor 07:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As I said, some of the changes are very good, others seem to be strongly biased, and would benefit from re-wording. I am sure we can work with both users to improve the article, but I suggest we talk things through first. As it looks now, we have two unexplained edits by anonymous first-time users who are close to POV-pushing. That reflects poorly on their side of the argument. Arbor 11:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is it biased to remove wrong or outdated information? I don't think so. I thought Wikipedia was about improving texts rather than defending old versions. I've learned my lesson: I won't bother you any longer.
- I've re-inserted some of the recent changes, which I think, are correct. I also deleted the mentioning of the initiative in Bavaria, as at that time there were so many initiatives in all parts of Germany, there seems no reason for emphasising this particular one. Linguini 16:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- Good call, Linguini. Those were basically the changes that I would have kept myself. Two exceptions: (1) the anschluss example tries to explain that the German spelling of "anschluss" (namely, "Anschluss") is now closer to the English spelling. Maybe that needs to be explained better, but the English word still isn't capitalised. (2) I'm not happy about the Switzerland section. It's (a) unclear how the reform was received, (b) it's imprecise to say that it is hardly visible (there are lots of very visible changes for compounds and capitalisation), and (c) saying that some paper reverted to the "old" spelling is confusing, since it certainly isn't the "old" spelling that the Welt returned to. We need some Swiss people to fix this.
-
-
- I hadn't realised that "anschluss" was used as an English word. I altered the "old" spelling to "traditional" and slightly changed the bit about Switzerland. See what you think. Linguini
-
[edit] Society for German spelling and language cultivation
Good evening,
I am board member of the Verein für deutsche Rechtschreibung und Sprachpflege e.V. (VRS) - Initiative gegen die Rechtschreibreform (Society for German spelling and language cultivation - initiative against the spelling reform). My article about the VRS is also existing in the German Wikipedia, but worsened.
The VRS was founded in May 1997 in opposition to the German spelling reform. Therefore in January 2002 the VRS set up its website: http://www.vrs-ev.de/ . At the end of (the month of) March 2005 the Wikipedia-Thread in the VRS-Forum http://www.vrs-ev.de/forum/ was suddenly deleted by a hacker and also my German user page was blocked 'for life'. Many pieces of evidence were deleted. Since the fifth of april 2005 the VRS-Forum has been closed for a short time ... Therefore I started a user page to inform about the German spelling reform in the English Wikipedia.
Today all new and important articles about the German WIKIPEDIA were deleted from the VRS-Forum once again. I think, my articles are more protected from hackers in my English user page than in Germany.
Very interesting: English orthography. English spelling (or English orthography). If you can say and write: „English orthography”, then also: „German orthography” and also "German orthographic reform" ... don't you?
„It is never too late to stop the destruction of language, culture, democracy and the environment, and to combat corruption and the squandering of taxpayers' money.” (VRS)
--Manfred Riebe 20:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] New Links
Here you can integrate a few Links, if it is permitted:
Out of the German Wikipedia:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Denk [later worsened]
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Ickler [later worsened]
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative_Wir_Lehrer_gegen_die_Rechtschreibreform [later worsened]
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verein_f%C3%BCr_deutsche_Rechtschreibung_und_Sprachpflege [later worsened]
From the English Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manfred_Riebe/Friedrich_Denk [My original Article]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manfred_Riebe/Theodor_Ickler [My original Article]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manfred_Riebe/Hans_Krieger [My original Article]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manfred_Riebe/Manfred_Riebe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manfred_Riebe/Initiative_%84Wir_Lehrer_gegen_die_Rechtschreibreform%93 [My original Article]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manfred_Riebe/Verein_f%FCr_deutsche_Rechtschreibung_und_Sprachpflege [My original Article]
Manfred Riebe 16:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Lists of affected words
Does anybody know of any sites which contain a list of the rules affected by the reform? We should link to at least one from this article. — Hippietrail 01:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- Hippietrail, I tried to give an overview of that under the New Rules headline in the article. I am happy to expand it, but the question is really how to make it relevant to an English speaker, and what level of prior familiarity with the pre-1996 spelling we are to assume. (German Wikipedia has some more detailed articles about the topic.) A "list of affected words" would number in the thousands, and not be very informative. (The new rules are pretty neat and consistent; it's better to explain the rules than to show the multitude of minute consequences. For example, every German word with ß after short vowel now as ss, so that would account for thousands of words. Pretty boring list.) If you care, the 1996 Duden has all the changed words highlighted in red (Theoretically, that list would even be infinitely long, because of closed noun compounds.) Arbor 05:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Gutes-deutsch.de"???
Sorry, but are you sure there should be a link to "gutes-deutsch.de"? This seems to be the site of a small far-left group with some serious problems. Quote (translated):
With spelling reforms and clothing restrictions, Devil tests how easily the people can be broken in for the preparation of bigger (world-wide) nonsense. After the spelling reform of 1901, Devil lead the submissive German people under the blessing of the State Churches into two successive "righteous" - but ending in death and destruction - world wars. I therefore digress to the basis of all the human actions, which can be found in the Lord's Prayer:
Thy Kingdom come! Thy Will be done! ... And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil!
--End Quote--
So, to put it bluntly: These guys obviously have a very loose wire. They actually justify their critic of a spelling reform with a Bible excerpt and the two world wars... --84.137.30.109 15:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I think you are right in pointing out that the credibility of that site may be compromised by their obvious partiality. If you have another source with the same information (or with conflicting information) then please let us know. I have tried over some time to give credence to the many claims on the internet about German newspapers and periodicals to have abandoned or ignored the reform. So when we found that site I was overjoyed. In any case the claims on the list about individual papers should be easy enough to falsify, and lacking such information I see no reason to disbelieve their figures. Arbor 16:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Spelling rules
Burying the actual spelling rules at the bottom of the article seems like a bad idea. Couldn't they be moved to a more prominent position? Rmhermen 18:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Good idea. Go ahead. It would be nice indeed if this article was more about the rules and less about the controversy. Arbor 19:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Strange Examples
ß and ss: the letter "ß" is to appear only after long vowels and diphthongs.
- der Fluß → der Fluss (the river)
A short vowel is to be followed by "ss" or "s".
- Ich möchte, daß du kommst. → …, dass du kommst (I want you to come)
- but das Haus → das Haus (the house)
"das Haus" was never anything else, so I don't see what this illustrates. The reform only deals with the use of the ß ligature, which is written after long vowels and diphthongs. "Daß-das" is fine, but "der Fuß" or "der Gruß" and their plurals would be better contrasting examples. This rule really only represents a logical extension of a rule already in place for plurals.
--Janko 22:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Janko
[edit] Belgium
Isn't German an official language of Belgium? So, why isn't Belgium mentioned in the introduction?Marco Neves 01:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, also in Denmark I think.Cameron Nedland 04:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Some NPOV botherings
I removed "“quality”" from the section that read "Still, some "quality" newspapers, such as Die Zeit..." because it seems biased. "...felt the need to create their own in-house orthographies..." Also seems kind of biased; I changed "felt the need to create" into simply "created". But is there a source for that? Matsu 02:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Good changes. There are many other places where this article could need some attention, so please continue. Arbor 08:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
"Experience from other reforms that affect the behavior of large groups of people ([...], Sweden's change from driving on the left to driving on the right, etc.) suggests that such reforms may be more effective the shorter the transitional period is." - this sounds rather stupid to me, as I really cannot imagine a transitional period where people drive on the left _and_ on the right. Can anyone find a better formulation on that? 134.83.1.225 16:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia's position on the German spelling reform
What is the German Wikipedia's position on the 1996 spelling reform ? Has the new orthography been adopted yet on the Wikipedia ? 200.177.23.57 01:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. Dewiki policy is to use the new spelling. Angr (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- How come the title of the article on Geographie is not spelled Geografie then ? Is the use of 'f' replacing 'ph' in foreign loanwoards optional ? Thanks for the information. Mbruno 13:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Transitional Period - A Suggestion
From the article:
- Even if the spelling of private individuals could be legislated, there are still millions of books in libraries using the older spelling.
A traditional solution suggests itself. ;-) Ralphbk 12:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
