"Wife" is female in German, not neutral: Die Ehefrau. "Weib" is old language and rude to use these days.
Also, 'Weib' is not rude in every context. "Wein, Weib und Gesang" is not diminutive towards women, but in fact appreciative (as in 'necessary for having a good time'). We have Weiberfassnacht. And then there are the dialects, in which "Weib" often is indicative of a homely, loving relationship (-> bairisch, Swabian). Context matters.
We should not interpret stuff out of context though, but here I'm not sure taking the context in account would not make the point even stronger. I would be quite surprised about any context changing things for this particular phrase (but happy to be surprised...)
When you are casting it as appreciative of women because they are necessary for fun, you are applying modern idea that women present at a wild party says something positive about that woman. Back then, it suggested easy sexual availability and that was seen as a bad thing.
Edit: also in general, when people in the past were crass, other people in the past were offended over it. Even women themselves who accepted their role as god given would frequently get offended over hearing what they considered crass language. When women were supposed to be guardians of morality (and Germany had such periods), they would openly take issue with such statement. Because it was their expected role to be offended and to gently positively impact men (in a way that does not actually interfere with what he does).
"Are you claiming it was appreciative of women back then?"
I think it depends very much on context, who said it, where does it get said, to whom and in what type of voice etc. The saying "Wein, Weib und Gesang" as such could be appreciative towards women, and I think it could be said in a non-demeaning way, also in the times, where women had a much worse standing as of today.
I think this, not because I know anything about that time back then, but because I learned in the last decades how heavily the perception or meaning of words can change. And how very personal those perceptions are. When I went to school, we used words casually, that would be offensive today. And I know that my friends and I used these words without thinking twice if they're offensive, because to us, they just weren't. Others could be offended by those words at that time. But this is because other people have a different moral, or knowledge, or education, or age etc.
What I want to say with all that: we are almost unable to comprehend how people back then thought, talked and meant the stuff, they said back then. Because we are pretty much blinded by our own current perception and moral of things. For example, I tend to think amicably about the past, so my interpretation of stuff that was said in the past gets a "rose tint". Others tend to think that the past was bad, people were stupid and crass, and wrong. So they interpret things in a much darker light, than me. I can't say that anyone is more right than the other, because it comes down to very personal interpretations.
> It was expression about loud wild partying, the sort of that is annoying to everyone living on the same street as your beer pub is. The women who were present were not appreciated, they were look down at sort of tramps. A well behaved woman was not supposed to be present.
This is what you learned and interpreted about that phrase and time. For me this is a possible situation you describe, but there are also very different situations, where this phrase could come from. In my social circles, the word "Weib" was used in a very endearing, appreciative way towards women. Women used that word for describing themselves as strong, and emancipated. So the phrase "Wein, Weib und Gesang" could have a very positive connotation. That says nothing about what happened a few hundred years ago, it just shows how personal language in the end is.
Not sure about the reduction, but "Wine, women and song" somewhat assumes the point of view from an heterosexual male and could feel offensive just for this.
"Wine, man and song" would sound weird, but it should not sound weirder than the "women" version. That's because we are all used to the male pov assumption and that's the core of the issue.
And of course, to add insult to injury, the phrase will feel like the reduction the grand parent describes to many.
So I think we'd be better off dropping those old phrases in favor of things like your version, which doesn't have these issues.
Note: not a German nor an English native speaker so I might be missing some cultural subtlety that could make my POV a bit wrong and disconnected from reality.
"Eine Göttin ist eine weibliche Gottheit."
This saying exists in English too: "wine, women and song".
Amongst guys, women are still sometimes referred collectively to as "Weiber".
All diminutives in German are neuter, for whatever reason. You could do the same for “Der Knabe” (“boy”) → “Das Knäbchen” (“little boy”).
Curiously, saying “Die Mad” would be as uncommon – at least nowadays – as saying “Das Knäbchen”.
I liked that The Handmaids Tale in German is der Report der Magd.
It’s just one instance of the more general principle that the gender of nouns with a common suffix are based on the suffix. E.g. all nouns ending in -keit or -ung are feminine regardless of whether they have any connection to the biological female sex.
https://www.eventpeople.de/aktuelles/eventmarket/ratschlaege...
There's a whole book by Bastian Sick (famous German author) named "Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod." -- the title about the Dativ being the death of the Genetiv is playing with that idiom.
https://languagetool.org/insights/de/beitrag/dativ-genitiv-s... -- it's in German and discusses the (perceived) change of that idiom.
As much as I like Twain, the English language is one of the hardest European languages, when it comes to pronunciation (contrary to Italian, which sticks to a few simple rules). So, you're welcome, choose your poison.
That's your natural feel of language, and you are deriving from casual use of Dativ plural ... but in these situations, Genitiv would be correct again (wegen DER Regen, but more clearly: wegen der Regenfälle, as Regen is uncountable (unlike, for example, Sturm/Stürme)).
Your example is vernacular German as spoken on the road, but grammatically, it is incorrect.
Yes, I am lots of fun at parties.
I always found it weird, the vast difference between phonetics of English and literally EVERYBODY ELSE, including closely related German languages.
Of course I am biased but I actually believe that there is no other language that is so elegantly conducive to precise thinking. And above confusing example is actually illustrating this. If thinking is a bit like moving around on a high-dimensional mental manifold then language is an imperfect projection onto a mostly serialized data structure but with referencing (maybe 1.x dimensional). (If you project something from n dimensions onto less than n dimensions you always lose information)
And with German you can explore this mental manifold in a depth and strictness like with no other language. Like entering a meta debug mode where you can form a sentence creating an implicit reprojection into the space where the manifold resides and then muse about how this makes sense.
I often find myself doing that and playing around with "understanding" a sentence in different ways. A simple example would be that you can take almost any German sentence and by stressing a different word the meaning subtly changes. An analogy could be those pictures where you see something and after looking long enough at it it looks different. For example a sketch of a 3D box which you can flip. At some point you can do this intentionally by applying an invisible switch. Same feeling with German statements.
But German has also some short comings especially in the emotional department. For example there are no good translations for "smile" and "to look forward to". Another language I dabbled in is Thai which is pretty much the total opposite of German - very fascinating and refreshing.
Twain's style was so accessible, it's easy to forget this essay is almost 150 years old.
Edit: Seems true of the previous threads as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44002116
Try to swear loudly and angrily in French, and try it in German. In German like you're cursing the world out of existence, in French it is like wiping your ass with silk.
The Awful German Language (1880) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27173967 - May 2021 (253 comments)
The Awful German Language (1880) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18147467 - Oct 2018 (311 comments)
"Sleep well" -> "Slaap lekker", in German "Schlaf lecker" = "Sleep tasty".
"Nuttig" -> "Useful", in German "nuttig" means "slutty"
"Huren" -> "to rent", in German "huren" means "to whore".
"Oorbellen" -> "earrings", "ear bells".
A language is a dialect with an army and a fleet. As they used to say.
(One of my current favorite party tricks is speaking Yiddish to German speakers, and cranking up the other aspects to see where the intelligibility breaks down.)
I usually say "A dialect is a language that lost a war", but this one might be better :)
Except for Dutch in the South (Belgians and South NL), that's soft on my ears too. But not my accent, we are descendants of monsters. Why otherwise would we pronounce the G the way that we do?
A people and their language predated the concept of nation-states, but when the latter arrived obviously (geo-)political interests started to blur the facts.
So if you conflate the German state with Germans (I'd challenge that and view the German state as a continuation of the Prussian state), and you don't like the interests of the German state, it is predictable where you'll land on this issue.
Because of this, even if their national anthem does so, calling the Dutch Germans would infuriate them and rightly so, because it would imply justification to some for things like those happening between Russia and Ukraine right now.
I think in the end it is also a matter of "national" self-confidence. While Luxemburgish is virtually indistinguishable to the German ear from say the dialect of Cologne, Swiss-German is hardly understandable for anyone outside of Switzerland. Yet, the Swiss don't have an urge to re-label their dialect as a separate language. And the urge of the Dutch to re-lable themselves is lesser than that of Luxemburg because seemingly no one questions their identity.
A Dutch speaker can't read or understand German. Some words are similar, but the same can be said about English. There are a number of differences in the grammar and alphabet.
Of course they're related languages; because I can speak English, German, and Dutch I can kind of read Swedish or Danish on account of being Germanic as well. But that doesn't make a "dialect with pretensions". We might as well say that all current Germanic languages are some sort of "dialect with pretensions" of some old Germanic language. But that doesn't really mean anything.
Of course, most Western languages have gendered nouns - English is pretty unique in that respect. That likely comes from English being born as a pidgin of French and German.
Verbs in German are valuable things. You collect them, hold on to them as long as you can, and then - at the end of the sentence - they all come tumbling out. The order of the nouns at the end of the sentence differs by region. In purest German, they come out in reverse order, giving you a nice, context-free grammar. In Swiss dialects, they come out in the order they were conceived, meaning that the grammar is technically context sensitive. In Austrian dialects, the order can be a mix.
Of course, every language has its quirks. French, for example, puts extra letters on the ends of words that you are not supposed to pronounce. Well, unless the right two words are next to each other, in which case, you pronounce the letters after all.
English, meanwhile, gives learners fits, because the pronunciation has nothing whatsoever to do with spelling. Consider the letters "gh" in this sentence (thanks ChatGPT): "Though the tough man gave a sigh and a laugh at the ghost, he had a hiccough and coughed through the night by the slough, hoping to get enough rest."
Could you give some examples? As a German native speaker I have to admit I have no idea what you are talking about. :)
as a German native I felt oddly at home with Japanese because funnily enough building seemingly endless verbs at the end of sentences felt very natural. Despite the fact that German, most of the time, is an ordinary SVO language. It's one of the mistakes English natives who just learn German make, that only made sense for me after I thought how odd that structure is.
I've also heard live TV translators really hate this about German because it's annoying, depending on the context, to have to wait to the end of a sentence to translate the whole thing.
As a descendant of the Romans, I can only shake my head at such barbarism.
I swear they only do this to mess with people.
Franz Kafka put this property to good use and sometimes keeps the reader in suspense for half a page or more until the sentence falls in place.
Swedish had some of this until the second world war, since then we've made it into an english-like pidgin.
A lot of this is to due with latin, which pronounciation evolved over time to give modern French but which origin is still kept in spelling. So it's not that the language "puts extra letters" it's that it kept old spelling when the pronunciation change.
An example: 'est' (to be, third person singular) is very obviously verbatim latin spelling but pronunciation has shifted so that the 't' is not pronounced (and arguably the 's' could go, too).
Sometimes there are useful "rules" about how spelling and pronunciations evolved, which can be useful for English speakers writing in French, too, to remember your accents:
hospital -> hôpital
hostel -> hôtel
castel (castle in English) -> château
In my native German spelling, while there are irregularities, has been updated over times. Sometimes out of habit, sometimes by "order."
But over time most of the change have proven to be successful ...
And yes, the French "est" will remain for the time being, but for me as a student of French there would have been a lot of low hanging fruit.
But today the interesting thing to me is how modern communication changes this. Text messaging leads to a massive increase in "dialect writing" while at the same time auto correction (and more recently AI) counters that. Back in the days™ writing was mostly done by the elites (authors, news papers, authorities) and the private letter was well thought. But test messaging, online forums, ... lead to more text being generated by "average" public, which over time certainly impacts "professional" writing.
It is not just spelling. There are periodic calls to simplify grammar for no other reason than apparently people get dumber and dumber over time and can't learn the language anymore so it should be simplified.
One example in France is reform to reduce the use of the subjunctive tense. For example, now when I read the news I see horrible stuff like "Après qu'ils ont" (instead of "Après qu'ils aient" [and btw "est" and "aient" are pronounced the same ;)]), which would have sent my primary school teacher into a rage. Why do that? Cynically just because the members of the Académie Française need to find something to do...
First of all, it is not German, but Old English, which is not particularly more similar to German than it is to any other Germanic language e.g. Icelandic.
Second, the idea that middle/modern English began as a pidgin is a very fringe view in linguistics; the vast majority of people who have studied the question would instead say that it indeed has a huge amount of French (or more precisely, Norman) influence, but not to the extent that we can say it went through a pidgin/creolization process.
* I know languages aren't "designed" for the most part, but I find it helpful to compare them as if they were.
Also, the increase in possible permutations (and opportunities for mistakes) when you add adjective conjugations to the mix is daunting.
Most of the time we try to use English for technical identifiers and German for business langugage, leading to lets say "interesting" code, but it works for us.
The Donau is a river. On this river is a steamship (Dampfshiff): Donaudampfschiff
This ship is part of an organisation (Gesellschaft) that manages cruises (Fahrt): Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaft
The ship has a captain (Kapitän) who has a cap (Mütze): Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänsmütze
On this cap is a button (Knopf): Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänsmützenknopf
You could extend this example: The button is colored with a special paint (Farbe), which is produced in a factory (Fabrik): Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänsmützenknopffarbenfabrik
And the factory has an entry gate (Eingangstor): Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänsmützenknopffarbenfabrikeingangstor
In English, this would be a huge sentence, all in reverse order: The entry gate of the factory that produces the color for the button on the captain's cap of the ship belonging to the cruise organization on the Donau.
The German is a lot more compact, if sometimes hard to parse :-)
But it also odd example for this, because it is long as hell anyway already and additional spacing that English equivalent would require is just opportunity to wrap. It is just harder to read, but English equivalent would be easier to layout.
the Donau steamship cruise organization's captain's cap button.
And extended:
the Donau steamship cruise organization's captain's cap button's colour factory's entry gate.
EDIT: Let's not forget to mention its Java implementation, which goes full German:
DonauSteamshipCruiseOrganizationCaptainButtonsColorFactory
Which isn't surprising since Anglo Saxon is at the heart of the non French bits of English.
avagoodweekend and dontforgetaboutheaeroguard
Germans are allowed to write compound nouns in hyphens
Donau-Dampfschifffahrts-Gesellschafts-Kapitänsmützenknopf-Farbenfabrik-Eingangstor
Anyway, there is also a perfectly acceptable and established way of making German words easier to parse if need be: hyphens. So Hyphen-Case instead of PascalCase.
I’m sure a native German speaker wouldn’t make the same mistake, though.
(They added the third f or maybe re-added it)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_der_deutschen_Rechtschr...
... several times: 1996,2004,2006,2011,2017.
The current correct spelling is either Schiff-Fahrt or Schifffahrt.
German does not simply just concatenate words ad infinitum across logical classification, a concatenated, compound word is generally logically limited by classification. The concatenation generally only tends to be used in relevant (operative word being “relevant”), increasing smaller/lower logical classification. You generally will not rise and fall in that classification, let alone jump horizontally as you concatenate. It is really just a logic tree, you don’t all the sudden jump trunks or branches. It has to be a logically precise unit.
You’re essentially just saying ManBearPig. It’s not an actual thing.
So the entry gate of the factory that produces paint that happens to maybe also be used on the button of the cap of the captain of the ship on the Danube and is also part of a union, is not…
Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänsmütze nknopffarbenfabrikeingangstor
A special kind of this is the «prosessøkonomisk (process economical) påtaleunnlatelse» where in a large and complex case with many serious offences, some less serious can be non-prosecuted in this way to not spend eternity in the courtroom.
- It seems the Australian section 10 is handed out by the court, where the English and Norwegian options dispense with a trial entirely. It also looks like a Section 10 doesn't go in a person's criminal record, unlike the other two.
- It looks like the English caution requires an admission of guilt, while the Norwegian option is at the prosecutor's discretion within the rules of applicability of the procedure. Of course someone not demanding a trial when given this can be seen as an _implicit_ admission of guilt, but the legal nuance can probably be important.
- The English and Norwegian procedures are nominally also different in who makes the decision: the English procedure is handled by the police, while in Norway it's the prosecutor's office. But this is more a theoretical than practical difference I think, because the Norwegian prosecutor's office is organized differently than the English Crown Prosecution Service: here, the lowest levels of prosecutors are integrated into the police services they work with, so in practice I think it works out much the same.
cut,copy,paste auschneiden,kopieren,einfügen
this can break the UI so you have scroll on a popup just to copy a piece of text because google put "copy" last in the selection.
That does not seem like a concept at all, let alone an actual German word. “Beans” is not even German, there is no German word spelled “Beans”.
(me neither but that is the kind of factories you build there ... at least in folklore)
So it's code-switching code.
Also, the fact that collocations can acquire more specialised meanings than just the sum of their parts is hardly unique to German (in English, the "theory of relativity" means something very specific and isn't used, e.g., for moral or epistemic relativism).
The Latin-derived cases from the article, on the other hand, are the truly maddening, and makes you appreciate the simplicity of English grammar by comparison.
They're not Latin-derived, they come originally from Proto-Indo-European (which had even more cases). Many other Indo-European languages retain cases (Slavic languages, Greek, etc.), but were lost in English and the Romance languages.
What does come from Latin is the way we name and analyse these cases traditionally.
For instance, we first learned what a direct object was (something which is done with/to, e.g. in “I ate the ice cream”, “the ice cream” would be direct object). Then we learned that in German, the direct object is declined in accusative (which primarily affects the article, and adjective declination). This was consistent across multiple classes and teachers and books and schools. But my German German teachers had never heard of the concept “direct object”; for them, only the “accusative object” existed. Of course, the accusative object would be in accusative, but also, its presence would signal e.g. whether to use “haben” or “ist” for “is” in certain situations (for which I learned an entirely different set of rules that they had never heard of).
You would think that this is because my native language (Norwegian) has different concepts, but our entire way of teaching Norwegian grammar was uprooted at some point pre-WW2 _precisely to map well to German_, to prepare students for German classes when that was a more common second language than English was. (There were tons of things I never understood why were important until I got to apply them to German later.) So you'd think they'd match better.
In my experience as a German, everyone instantly switches to English if just one non-German speaker is in the group.
That said, I simply don't understand the mindset of people who move somewhere for an extended period of time and don't bother to learn the language. It locks you out of a lot of opportunities and makes you dependent on other people (especially for official/administrative/legal purposes). It also simply doesn't work in many places - (younger) Germans may speak decent English, but try going to Spain, Italy, or even Japan and see how far you get if you insist on speaking only English.
I live in Zürich and I get by just fine unable to speak German. I can read it just fine because it is similar enough to Swedish, my native language. I doubt I will ever learn Swiss deutsch, it really is a language on its own - with very strong dialects.
But today there are amazing translator apps that can make it so much easier parsing official documents.
Compounds have to be translated using multiple words, yes - that's just a few extra white space, it doesn't result in loss of precision.
Drawing - Zeichnung
Picture - Bild
You were thinking of Bild, I guess?
Similarly for English and French, seen as practical and artsy, resepectively, due to say Hobbes/Smith and the likes of Baudelaire or Rimbaud.
Whether any of that makes any sense is a problem for the philologists, I suppose.
I simultaneously know too little about German and have seen too much horror stories on German that I cannot identify whether this is but a typographical-error or actually pursuant to DIN orthographical standards
Technical entities get English names, domain entities get German names.
I also dimmly remember a German version of VBA.
But German is a blood-and-tears uphill battle for me and I just can't get over it. It's really fascinating on some level.
Verb prefix system is the same. Noun conjugation even uses the same prepositions to decide the case. Compound words are slighly different, instead of a tram-station you would use tramlike station.
But there are rules for 2/3 of cases. https://sprachekulturkommunikation.com/genus-der-substantive...
You can classify by suffix.
* -ung, -heit, -keit -> feminin, e.g. die Schönheit
* -ling -> masculin, e.g. der Flüchtling
* -chen, -lein -> neutrum, e.g das Mädchen
You can classify by category. Every alcoholic drink is masculin, except for beer.
You can classify by phonetic spelling. That is probably the closest you have to Portugese.
Just imagine if someone studied Portuguese but learned vocabulary like this, never bothering with the ending vowel:
'gat-'
'cas-'
'bolach-'
To make a weird tech analogy: Romance nouns are like laptops, with a touchpad built in. Germanic nouns are like desktops, you have to remember to carry a mouse* along.
* Die Maus
It’s a typical kind of lashing out by hubristic people who reject complexity they cannot master with vigorous anger; kind of like how a child may call math stupid out of frustration. It’s probably a symptom of the jingoistic era, especially in trust-fund-baby-country called America.
Also, it’s not clear that either is “more complex” than the other across the board. German has more complex noun morphology (cases, etc) whereas English has more complex phonology, for example.
But I agree that languages with more complex morphology aren't somehow "better", that's just weird elitism coming from an era where every language was analysed as if it were some variant of Latin, Greek or Sanskrit.
Have you maybe considered the idea that a simplification might actually be an improvement?
As in: a language's first and foremost role is to communicate ideas and feelings as efficiently and clearly as possible, and with the broadest possible reach and not to impress the plebs with how sophisticated your sentences can become.
In that light, which of {English, German} best fits the bill in your opinion?
Though not quite chinese level
German was PITA, French was pretty easy but obviously I had a personal French teacher, and old lady who was amazing
I don't speak German at all anymore :/
Really funny, very well written, and most of all, while exaggerated: all true.
German is laden with a ton of fairly useless and purely ornamental flourishes, it's truly a pain to master.
Every step of the way, your mind is haunted by this recurring thought: "why in heaven's name would they inflict this to themselves?"
It's even worse than French if you count the number of genders.
DocTomoe•6h ago
mark38848•6h ago
GuestFAUniverse•6h ago
Doesn't work as good if one has ears.
jkaplowitz•5h ago
psychoslave•5h ago
French of course also have many original grammatical torture instruments. You might think that as a bastard child between Latin and the Germanic Frank tribe dialects it’s no wonder, though elimination of noun declension is rather surprising from this perspective. The truth is that all languages out there have their own dungeon with many traps and treacheries included.
Fortune, nun ni ĉiuj parolas Esperanton. Kaj ne forgesas la akuzativo nin. :D
DocTomoe•5h ago
For me it was when I had to realize that for the French, every number larger than what they can count with their fingers becomes a small algebra problem. quatre-vingt-dix-neuf ... four times twenty plus ten plus nine makes 99.
Svip•5h ago
jandrewrogers•4h ago
psychoslave•4h ago
sitharus•3h ago
Celtic remained a strong influence around modern France, Belgium, the Netherlands so we end up with French counting partially in 20s, even though continental Celtic languages are extinct (Breton, spoken in north west France is an insular Celtic language, more closely related to Celtic as spoken in the British isles and Ireland.)
I don’t know how Danish got base 20 counting though. Must have more reading to do.
umanwizard•1h ago
Hilift•3h ago