German: du vs. Sie vs. Ihr
Tristan Miller
I've noticed that in a lot of German films set in the Medieval and
Renaissance eras, people sometimes address each other with "Ihr", which is
now used as the second-person informal plural. In these films I also note
use of the familiar "du", but don't recall hearing a second-person "Sie".
Did there at one time exist a three-way du/Sie/Ihr distinction in German?
If so, in which situations would each form be used?
Also, approximately when and why did Ihr fall out of use as a formal term
of address? Is it still used in any German dialects today?
Regards,
Tristan
--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you
Lukas Pietsch
> I've noticed that in a lot of German films set in the Medieval and
> Renaissance eras, people sometimes address each other with "Ihr",
> which is now used as the second-person informal plural. In these films
> I also note use of the familiar "du", but don't recall hearing a second-
> person "Sie".
>
> Did there at one time exist a three-way du/Sie/Ihr distinction in
> German? If so, in which situations would each form be used?
I'm not exactly sure, but there may even have been a four-way contrast at
one point, probably in the late 17th and 18th century:
"Ihr" used to address nobility (and perhaps other socially superior
addressees),
"Sie" (3Pl.) used as a formal address among the middle class,
"Er/Sie" (3Sg.) to address socially inferior people, especially servants,
"du" everywhere else.
I haven't got evidence at hand right now of a text that shows all four used
side by side, but some 18th century plays of the "bürgerliches Trauerspiel"
type (e.g. Schiller's "Kabbale und Liebe" or Lessing's "Emilia Galotti")
might be a place to look at.
> Also, approximately when and why did Ihr fall out of use as a
> formal term of address?
I'm not exactly sure when the "Sie" came in, but I'd guess it must be 17th
century. "Ihr" must have been archaic or socially very much marked
(associated with the ancient regime and so on) by the late 18th century.
> Is it still used in any German dialects today?
Not to my knowledge.
Lukas
Michael Hemmer
> I've noticed that in a lot of German films set in the Medieval and
> Renaissance eras, people sometimes address each other with "Ihr", which is
> now used as the second-person informal plural. In these films I also note
> use of the familiar "du", but don't recall hearing a second-person "Sie".
>
> Did there at one time exist a three-way du/Sie/Ihr distinction in German?
> If so, in which situations would each form be used?
>
> Also, approximately when and why did Ihr fall out of use as a formal term
> of address? Is it still used in any German dialects today?
All of these issues are discussed in de.etc.sprache.deutsch on an almost
regular basis. I'm sorry not to have any link at hand, but I'm sure
you'll find quite a few relevant articles searching on Google Groups for
some or all of the following words, which are (semi-humorous) analogues
of duzen/siezen:
ihrzen erzen geihrzt geerzt
Michael
andy
<lukas....@uni-no-hamburg-spam.de> wrote
[
>I'm not exactly sure, but there may even have been a four-way contrast at
>one point, probably in the late 17th and 18th century:
>
>"Ihr" used to address nobility (and perhaps other socially superior
>addressees),
>"Sie" (3Pl.) used as a formal address among the middle class,
>"Er/Sie" (3Sg.) to address socially inferior people, especially servants,
>"du" everywhere else.
That's my understanding too.
>
>I haven't got evidence at hand right now of a text that shows all four used
>side by side, but some 18th century plays of the "bürgerliches Trauerspiel"
>type (e.g. Schiller's "Kabbale und Liebe" or Lessing's "Emilia Galotti")
>might be a place to look at.
Have a look at the libretto of "Wiener Blut", especially the Act I
exchanges between the Coachman and Prince Ypsheim. I recall it being
full of inter-class misunderstandings. (And Viennese dialect, which
another thread wished for)
--
Andy Taylor [Editor, Austrian Philatelic Society]
For Austrian philately http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/austamps
Felix Neumann
> Also, approximately when and why did Ihr fall out of use as a
> formal term of address? Is it still used in any German dialects
> today?
I live in the North-West of Baden-Württemberg. Here, you address clerks
and elder persons you don't know how to address ("Du" or "Sie"?) by
"Ihr".
-fn-
Sebastian Koppehel
> I've noticed that in a lot of German films set in the Medieval and
> Renaissance eras, people sometimes address each other with "Ihr", which is
> now used as the second-person informal plural. In these films I also note
> use of the familiar "du", but don't recall hearing a second-person "Sie".
Formal "Sie" is a tarher modern form and would be out of place in a
knights and swords movie. By the way, while it is fair to say that
capital "Sie" is a second-person pronoun - since it is used to address
other people - you should keep in mind that grammar-wise, it's still
the third person plural.
> Did there at one time exist a three-way du/Sie/Ihr distinction in German?
> If so, in which situations would each form be used?
There are three relevant ways of addressing other people, other than
"du", of course:
Ihr (ihrzen) - this is the oldest form. Originally derived from the
pluralis maiestatis, it became an all-purpose formal form of address
which was more or less unchallenged until the 17th century.
Sie (siezen) - this form appeared in the 17th century and began to
replace "Ihr", a process which had seized most of the German speaking
population in the 18th century but has failed to eradicate all use of
"Ihr" to this day.
Er (erzen) ["Sie" when addressing a woman] - this form started out as
a more honorific variant of "Ihr", but with the advent of "Sie" it
became the less honorific brother of the latter. For some time, the
singular and plural forms made up a pair with "Sie" being used toward
superiors and "Er" being used toward inferiors (for example, Frederick
II would say: "Nun, Zieten, wie ist Ihm das Abendmahl bekommen?" - and
the general would answer: "... aber es gibt einen über uns, der ist
mehr als Sie und ich ..." Of course it's hard to say how authentic
such anecdotes really are.) This form came completely out of use
during the course of the 18th century.
> Is it still used in any German dialects today?
Yes, the Southwest of the German speaking world (and I'm not referring
to Namibia :-)) appears to be the place to look for the last
strongholds of "Ihr". Switzerland, for example:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn9vq6jr.16p.Andreas.Karrer%40irgendwo.switzerland.org
In the Southwest, there are also areas where "Sie" prevails, but "ihr"
is used when speaking toward a group of people that individually would
be addressed with formal "Sie". Here in the North this is not the case
and might be perceived as offensive.
- Sebastian
Christian Weisgerber
> I've noticed that in a lot of German films set in the Medieval and
> Renaissance eras, people sometimes address each other with "Ihr", which is
> now used as the second-person informal plural. In these films I also note
> use of the familiar "du", but don't recall hearing a second-person "Sie".
Yes, one simple way to effect a historical setting is to use the
second person plural as the formal address. Presumably this does
correspond to actual historical usage, but I don't know the period.
Apart from the now standardized third person plural, the third
person singular has also seen some use as a formal address in
historical times.
> Is it still used in any German dialects today?
Around here, "ihr" is frequently used when talking to shopkeepers
and the like. In school, one of my German teachers insisted that
this is a remnant of the historical formal usage. Personally, I
disagree. For me this is clearly a second person plural used as
an impersonal address: I'm not inquiring about the person behind
the counter but about the shop inventory/policy/pricing/etc.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Hans-Georg Bickel
>I live in the North-West of Baden-Württemberg. Here, you address clerks
>and elder persons you don't know how to address ("Du" or "Sie"?) by
>"Ihr".
That's quite unusual. It seems to be a *very* local usage of
'Ihr'.
HG
--
Gottes schönste Gabe
ist und bleibt der Schwabe.
Stayka deyAvemta
: Tristan Miller scripsit:
:> Also, approximately when and why did Ihr fall out of use as a
:> formal term of address? Is it still used in any German dialects
:> today?
: "Ihr".
Well, I sometimes use "Ihr" in shops when I sort of know the shop
keeper, but neither want to say "Du" nor "Sie"... (i.e.: "Habt ihr
schon das Buch XY 'reinbekommen?") [I'm from Northrhine-Westfalia,
BTW.]
Clear Ether!
Stayka
--
Stayka's WoD Stuff at http://stayka.keyspace.de/sqhome/wod/
(Characters, online campaigns, my Frankfurt citybook, fun and more)
Hans-Georg Bickel
>Well, I sometimes use "Ihr" in shops when I sort of know the shop
>keeper, but neither want to say "Du" nor "Sie"... (i.e.: "Habt ihr
>schon das Buch XY 'reinbekommen?") [I'm from Northrhine-Westfalia,
>BTW.]
But in this situation the "Ihr" doesn't mean a single person. It
stands in a familiar way for "You, the company and all the staff
working here".
HG
John Atkinson
"Christian Weisgerber" <na...@mips.inka.de> wrote in message
news:c1g23k$7qm$1...@kemoauc.mips.inka.de...
In other words, it wouldn't be unusual, on entering a shop, to say to the
person behind the counter, in a single utterance: "Good afternoon. How are
[Sie] today? Have [Ihr] received the book I ordered yet?"
Is this so?
John.
Stayka deyAvemta
: In other words, it wouldn't be unusual, on entering a shop, to say to the
: person behind the counter, in a single utterance: "Good afternoon. How are
: [Sie] today? Have [Ihr] received the book I ordered yet?"
: Is this so?
I think this would be unusual. First, one wouldn't greet the
shop keeper with "Wie geht es Ihnen?" unless one would know
him/her a bit better, and in that case one would probably
rather say "Na, wie geht's?". One might say "Guten Tag. Habt
ihr schon das Buch bekommen, das ich letztlich bestellt habe?"
But as I stated in my other posting in this thread, in *my*
use of language, "ihr" is mostly used if I am *a bit* familiar
with the shop owner/clerk. If I go to a shop where I don't really
know anyone or where I am not too familiar with the personnel,
then I would say "Guten Tag. Haben Sie schon das Buch bekommen,
das ich bestellt habe?".
I'm pretty sure that there are different approaches to this in
different areas of Germany, though. ^_^
Wayne Brown
news:yCR_b.74973$Wa....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
[...]
> In other words, it wouldn't be unusual, on entering a shop, to say to the
> person behind the counter, in a single utterance: "Good afternoon. How
are
> [Sie] today? Have [Ihr] received the book I ordered yet?"
>
> Is this so?
>
> John.
Leave out the query about how the salesperson is and say: "Guten Tag. Mein
Name ist Atkinson. Haben Sie das Buch bekommen, das ich bestellt habe?"
Germany has over 80 million people so I believe it's impossible to say
exactly what all of them in every part of the country could be expected to
do in every single situation. But allow me to give you a rule of thumb that
should work everywhere for you, the stranger. Needless to say, there are
many variations on this theme, some of them rather interesting. But this one
should do quite nicely.
People usually would not be expected to enquire how a salesperson is.
However, it's considered good manners to say some variation of hello when
entering a shop and goodbye when leaving it. People do not say "Good
afternoon." In most of Germany, people usually say during the morning "Guten
Morgen" (good morning) up to noontime and afterwards "Guten Tag" (good day).
In the late afternoon, when it starts getting dark, people say "Guten Abend"
(good evening). The conventional way of saying goodbye when leaving is "Auf
Wiedersehen."
In large areas of southern Germany, local people say "Grüß Gott" at all
times of the day and evening when entering a shop, but it is not used in
other parts of Germany. Strangers in southern Germany can use the standard
German greetings without any problem. "Grüß Gott" has become as much a part
of me as my right arm; therefore, no matter how hard I try to remember to
say "Guten Tag" when visiting Berlin, I occasionally am so engrossed in
thought when entering a shop that I slip and only notice I said "Grüß Gott"
when I see a grin on the salesperson's face.
Now a word about becoming a regular customer. If you start becoming
recognized as a frequent visitor to a shop, a more personal relationship
could start to develop. For example, you ordered a book; therefore, you give
your name when you go to see if it has arrived. On your departure, the
salesperson might say "Auf Wiedersehen, Herr Atkinson." If you start going
to the shop often, the salesperson is sure to remember your name. Then when
you enter the shop and say "Guten Tag," the salesperson might say "Guten
Tag, Herr Atkinson." Then at some point you might want to ask the
salesperson's name so that you can later say something like: "Guten Tag,
Frau Schmidt. Sie waren das letzte Mal so hilfreich; ich wollte Sie noch
einmal bitten, mir beim Aussuchen eines Buches für meinen Neffen zu helfen."
Now if you've taken a fancy to the salesperson at first sight, then I'm
going to have to rewrite this entire scenario.
Regards, ----- WB.
Yunsong Huang
> Leave out the query about how the salesperson is and say: "Guten Tag. Mein
> Name ist Atkinson. Haben Sie das Buch bekommen, das ich bestellt habe?"
>
> [...]
> Now a word about becoming a regular customer. If you start becoming
> recognized as a frequent visitor to a shop, a more personal relationship
> could start to develop. For example, you ordered a book; therefore, you give
> your name when you go to see if it has arrived. On your departure, the
> salesperson might say "Auf Wiedersehen, Herr Atkinson." If you start going
> to the shop often, the salesperson is sure to remember your name. Then when
> you enter the shop and say "Guten Tag," the salesperson might say "Guten
> Tag, Herr Atkinson." Then at some point you might want to ask the
> salesperson's name so that you can later say something like: "Guten Tag,
> Frau Schmidt. Sie waren das letzte Mal so hilfreich; ich wollte Sie noch
> einmal bitten, mir beim Aussuchen eines Buches für meinen Neffen zu helfen."
>
> Now *if you've taken a fancy to the salesperson at first sight, then I'm
> going to have to rewrite this entire scenario.*
Daran bin ich aber besonders interesiert! Weiterschreibe mal, bitte!
Tristan Miller
In article <n90g1c...@bastisoft.de>, Sebastian Koppehel wrote:
> Sie (siezen) - this form appeared in the 17th century and began to
> replace "Ihr", a process which had seized most of the German speaking
> population in the 18th century but has failed to eradicate all use of
> "Ihr" to this day.
Fascinating. How did this new form come about? Or put another way, in the
nascent years of "Sie", what reason would the prescriptive grammarians of
the day have given for advocating the use of the new "Sie" over the
still-popular "Ihr"?
Tristan Miller
In article <c1h0le$jqq$01$1...@news.t-online.com>, Wayne Brown wrote:
> People usually would not be expected to enquire how a salesperson is.
> However, it's considered good manners to say some variation of hello when
> entering a shop and goodbye when leaving it. People do not say "Good
> afternoon." In most of Germany, people usually say during the morning
> "Guten Morgen" (good morning) up to noontime and afterwards "Guten Tag"
> (good day). In the late afternoon, when it starts getting dark, people
> say "Guten Abend" (good evening). The conventional way of saying goodbye
> when leaving is "Auf Wiedersehen."
Perhaps this is just a regional variation, but here in Kaiserslautern, it's
rare to be told, "Auf Wiedersehen" when leaving a shop. About nine times
out of ten I am told, "Tschüß" instead. This holds regardless whether I'm
a new or returning customer.
andy
<Wayne.Brow...@t-online.de> wrote
[]
>Now a word about becoming a regular customer. If you start becoming
>recognized as a frequent visitor to a shop, a more personal relationship
>could start to develop. For example, you ordered a book; therefore, you give
>your name when you go to see if it has arrived. On your departure, the
>salesperson might say "Auf Wiedersehen, Herr Atkinson." If you start going
>to the shop often, the salesperson is sure to remember your name. Then when
>you enter the shop and say "Guten Tag," the salesperson might say "Guten
>Tag, Herr Atkinson." Then at some point you might want to ask the
>salesperson's name so that you can later say something like: "Guten Tag,
>Frau Schmidt. Sie waren das letzte Mal so hilfreich; ich wollte Sie noch
>einmal bitten, mir beim Aussuchen eines Buches für meinen Neffen zu helfen."
>
the UK. If you buy something and use a credit card, thus disclosing your
name, "modern salesperson training" requires them to latch on to the
opportunity and start using your name in the rest of the transaction. I
think the idea is to impress you with their friendliness, so that you
will choose to return to that shop and not their rival.
Similarly, you may notice that when handing back your card, they lightly
touch your hand. Training again, not chatting-up.
Of course, German customs may differ :)
Michael Hemmer
> In article <c1h0le$jqq$01$1...@news.t-online.com>, Wayne Brown wrote:
>>People usually would not be expected to enquire how a salesperson is.
>>However, it's considered good manners to say some variation of hello when
>>entering a shop and goodbye when leaving it. People do not say "Good
>>afternoon." In most of Germany, people usually say during the morning
>>"Guten Morgen" (good morning) up to noontime and afterwards "Guten Tag"
>>(good day). In the late afternoon, when it starts getting dark, people
>>say "Guten Abend" (good evening). The conventional way of saying goodbye
>>when leaving is "Auf Wiedersehen."
I'd call it old-fashioned or too formal rather than conventional, at
least among native speakers, who use short forms like "Morgen!", "Tag!"
[tax], "'n Abend!" [na:mt], and "Wiederseh'n!" most of the time. None of
these will be considered impolite nowadays, but of course it's all in
the tone. That's why I'd probably refrain from using these forms as a
non-native, with the notable exception of "Wiederseh'n!" (or
"Wiederschau'n", in some regions), where nothing can possibly go wrong
IMHO.
> Perhaps this is just a regional variation, but here in Kaiserslautern, it's
> rare to be told, "Auf Wiedersehen" when leaving a shop. About nine times
> out of ten I am told, "Tschüß" instead. This holds regardless whether I'm
> a new or returning customer.
No, this isn't just a regionalism - though the percentage may, of
course, vary between regions. (It will certainly be higher in the
North.) However, I seem to experience that more and more salespersons
revert to the more formal "(Auf) Wiedersehen!" They often do so even as
a response to "Tschüß!" (which, in my eyes, is next to impolite).
Michael
Peter T. Daniels
> There's another possible reason for their using your name, at least in
> the UK. If you buy something and use a credit card, thus disclosing your
> name, "modern salesperson training" requires them to latch on to the
> opportunity and start using your name in the rest of the transaction. I
> think the idea is to impress you with their friendliness, so that you
> will choose to return to that shop and not their rival.
There's one guy at Tower Records at Lincoln Center who does that, and it
seems bizarre. (He's not a Brit.)
> Similarly, you may notice that when handing back your card, they lightly
> touch your hand. Training again, not chatting-up.
Eeww, gross.
> Of course, German customs may differ :)
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Stayka deyAvemta
: Similarly, you may notice that when handing back your card, they lightly
Umm. I think if some clerk would try to do that with me, I'd be
very irritated. I prefer my private space there, thank you. ^_^
I wonder if that would be trained here (that is, in Germany),
too. It might be just me, but I think there are other people
around here who wouldn't be too fond of such an intrusion into
one's personal space either.
andy
<mhemmer@nospam_samson.de> wrote
[]
>That's why I'd probably refrain from using these forms as a
>non-native, with the notable exception of "Wiederseh'n!" (or
>"Wiederschau'n", in some regions), where nothing can possibly go wrong
>IMHO.
I find in Austria, both Tirol and Vienna, that if I say "Wiederseh'n", I
always seem to get "Wiederschau'n" in response; and conversely.
Sebastian Koppehel
> In article <n90g1c...@bastisoft.de>, Sebastian Koppehel wrote:
>> Sie (siezen) - this form appeared in the 17th century and began to
>> replace "Ihr", a process which had seized most of the German speaking
>> population in the 18th century but has failed to eradicate all use of
>> "Ihr" to this day.
>
> Fascinating. How did this new form come about?
As I mentioned already, it had a precursor in the more or less short-
lived "Er/Sie". Why did people start to address other people in the
third person? It is likely that it began with the custom to refer to
the other person by some reverent characteristic: Eure Majestät, Euer
Gnaden, Eure Exzellenz. This not totally uncommon to the English
language - the most familiar example, to Americans at least, would
probably be "your Honor" when talking to a judge in court. A lawyer
might say: "Has your Honor considered..." or "Your Honor doesn't have
to believe the witness..." etc.
More important than the aforementioned honorifics (which are
restricted to relatively few important persons) are "mein Herr" or
"der Herr". Since this is a masculine noun, it is possible to later
refer to it by using masculine pronouns and to put the verb in the
third person, eg. "Ich bin's, was hat der Herr zu sagen?" (Faust) or The
same phenomenon was rampant in several Romance languages such as
French and Italian (Monsieur, Signor), and German usage was probably
influenced by these languages. The same applies to the respective
feminine forms, of course.
The plural then developed to distinguish an even more complimentary
form - with the result, in the end, that this plural became the
prevalent formal form of address.
> Or put another way, in the nascent years of "Sie", what reason would
> the prescriptive grammarians of the day have given for advocating
> the use of the new "Sie" over the still-popular "Ihr"?
I don't know, but I doubt that the new usage was put forth by
grammarians. As late as about 1780, Adelung (who doesn't capitalise
the pronoun) in his dictionary apparently believes it is a temporary
fashion wich will eventually go away or develop into something else:
"Da die Sprache des Wohlstandes so veränderlich ist, wie die Moden, so
hält man auch dieses sie für hohe Personen schon für zu gemein, und
gebraucht dafür oft das Demonstrativum dieselben."
- Sebastian
andy
Atkinson <john...@bigpond.com> wrote
>
[
>In other words, it wouldn't be unusual, on entering a shop, to say to the
>person behind the counter, in a single utterance: "Good afternoon. How are
>[Sie] today? Have [Ihr] received the book I ordered yet?"
>
>Is this so?
>
socially wrong.
(*) My ISP's news service has been on holiday, with the weird result
that I'm seeing answers before the questions!
Peter Remmers
> I seem to experience that more and more salespersons
> revert to the more formal "(Auf) Wiedersehen!" They often do so even as
> a response to "Tschüß!" (which, in my eyes, is next to impolite).
What is impolite? The word "Tschüß" or responding to it with "Wiedersehen"?
Peter
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Michael Hemmer wrote:
> > I seem to experience that more and more salespersons revert to
> > the more formal "(Auf) Wiedersehen!" They often do so even as
> > a response to "Tschüß!" (which, in my eyes, is next to impolite).
> What is impolite? The word "Tschüß"
Obviously. That's why Michael put the clause in ( ).
> or responding to it with "Wiedersehen"?
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Santa Rosa, CA 95402, USA
Stayka deyAvemta
: Peter Remmers wrote:
:> Michael Hemmer wrote:
:> > I seem to experience that more and more salespersons revert to
:> > the more formal "(Auf) Wiedersehen!" They often do so even as
:> What is impolite? The word "Tsch??"
: Obviously. That's why Michael put the clause in ( ).
:> or responding to it with "Wiedersehen"?
Well, if you say "Tschau"/"Tschuess" or another more informal
good-bye and the reply to that is the formal "(Auf) Wiedersehen",
then this feels sort of like a verbal slap as it feels as if the
person using it tries to distance him- or herself pointedly from
the person who said goodbye in the informal way.
Joerg Schleicher
>
>As I mentioned already, it had a precursor in the more or less short-
>lived "Er/Sie". Why did people start to address other people in the
>third person? It is likely that it began with the custom to refer to
>the other person by some reverent characteristic: Eure Majestät, Euer
>Gnaden, Eure Exzellenz. This not totally uncommon to the English
>language - the most familiar example, to Americans at least, would
>probably be "your Honor" when talking to a judge in court. A lawyer
>might say: "Has your Honor considered..." or "Your Honor doesn't have
>to believe the witness..." etc.
And in German, it's "Euer Ehren", "Euer Gnaden", which is plural
rather than singular like in English. It thus requires the grammatical
construction: "Haben Euer Ehren gesehen ...". So, in repeated
addresses, its natural to avoid the repetition of "Euer Ehren"
and say "Haben Euer Ehren gegessen? Haben Sie auch getrunken?"
and there you are.
Joerg
Michael Hemmer
> In sci.lang "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <am...@sonic.net> wrote:
> : Peter Remmers wrote:
> :> Michael Hemmer wrote:
> :> > I seem to experience that more and more salespersons revert to
> :> > the more formal "(Auf) Wiedersehen!" They often do so even as
> :> > a response to "Tsch??!" (which, in my eyes, is next to impolite).
> :> What is impolite? The word "Tsch??"
> : Obviously. That's why Michael put the clause in ( ).
> :> or responding to it with "Wiedersehen"?
>
> Well, if you say "Tschau"/"Tschuess" or another more informal
> good-bye and the reply to that is the formal "(Auf) Wiedersehen",
> then this feels sort of like a verbal slap as it feels as if the
> person using it tries to distance him- or herself pointedly from
> the person who said goodbye in the informal way.
That's it. "Tschüß!" is perfectly acceptable even among strangers
nowadays, so why would you refuse to use it? IMHO, the most polite thing
to do is to simply reflect the greeting of one's opposite. For instance,
I'd never answer a "Guten Morgen!" with a "Guten Tag!" even if I felt it
was more appropriate.
Michael
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter Remmers wrote:
>
> > Michael Hemmer wrote:
>
> > > I seem to experience that more and more salespersons revert to
> > > the more formal "(Auf) Wiedersehen!" They often do so even as
> > > a response to "Tschüß!" (which, in my eyes, is next to impolite).
>
> > What is impolite? The word "Tschüß"
>
> Obviously. That's why Michael put the clause in ( ).
Having a little trouble with your acquired language? The "which" clause,
whether in parentheses or not, could equally well modify "do so" as
"'Tschüß'."
> > or responding to it with "Wiedersehen"?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Wayne Brown
news:Pine.GSO.4.33.04022...@aludra.usc.edu...
> Daran bin ich aber besonders interesiert! Weiterschreibe mal, bitte!
Bitte sag' mir, warum ich wußte, daß das Dir sofort auffallen würde!
Schönen Gruß, ----- WB.
Wayne Brown
news:1215631.6...@ID-187157.News.Individual.NET...
>
> Perhaps this is just a regional variation, but here in Kaiserslautern,
it's
> rare to be told, "Auf Wiedersehen" when leaving a shop. About nine times
> out of ten I am told, "Tschüß" instead. This holds regardless whether I'm
> a new or returning customer.
Not only in Kaiserslautern, I believe. Can you imagine that there are
Bavarians who also say "Tschüs" in shops and elsewhere? There was a time
when "Tschüs" translated to "Servus" in Bavaria. I can remember a time long
ago when "Tschüs" was very foreign and Bavarians would sometimes have great
fun with imitations of a "Prussian" saying it. I vividly recall a scene in
Bavaria many years ago on an extremely crowded streetcar in the late
evening. A Bavarian standing in the front suddenly started demonstrating to
his friends how "Tschüs" was pronounced in what he interpreted as the
singsong tones of Hamburg. His friends were obviously enchanted. In fact,
everyone on the streetcar seemed fascinated by the young man's loud
performance, and people all the way to the back of the streetcar started
joining in with their versions of "Prussian" pronunciations of "Tschüs."
Soon the whole streetcar sounded like a beginning class of students
practicing the seven tones of Cantonese.
It's a well-known fact that there has been an enormous social upheaval in
Germany in recent decades that has also affected the way people talk. That
often makes it difficult to give learners of German a rule of thumb of what
to say when and where. Therefore, I sometimes ask myself whether beginners
can actually make heads or tails out of seemingly conflicting messages in
this news group.
Regards, ----- WB.
Wayne Brown
news:rw0haUDK...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk...
> There's another possible reason for their using your name, at least in
> the UK. If you buy something and use a credit card, thus disclosing your
> name, "modern salesperson training" requires them to latch on to the
> opportunity and start using your name in the rest of the transaction. I
> think the idea is to impress you with their friendliness, so that you
> will choose to return to that shop and not their rival.
>
> Similarly, you may notice that when handing back your card, they lightly
> touch your hand. Training again, not chatting-up.
>
> Of course, German customs may differ :)
They do differ, although globalization has made big inroads. Use of the name
already had a long tradition in Germany long before US-Americans started
training people all over the world in "modern salesperson methods."
Generations of German shop apprentices were taught about the special note of
politeness when they used a regular customer's surname. If, for example, you
had occasion to order a cake at a German baker's, you would leave your name
on the order, and the salesperson would be sure to remember your name on
your next visits. The salesperson might also notice what products you bought
on a regular basis and might also call your attention to one of them by
saying for example: "Wir haben gerade frische Laugensemmeln aus der
Backstube bekommen." Admittedly, baked goods today often come from a central
bakery, and you're not likely to hear "Backstube" very often. But not
everything has changed.
The "touching" part might still be a problem. For many years, for example,
Germans' attention was sure to be attracted by some US-American slapping
someone on the back because touching a stranger, apart from a firm
handshake, was not part of German culture, unless you were also into kissing
ladies' hands. In fact, I believe "light touching" would still be unusual in
most parts today. I'm so much under German influence that if a salesperson
lightly touched my hand in Britain, that would unmistakably signal to me
that the person wanted to get into my knickers. Thank you for that bit of
clarification. I'll certainly file it away for reference on my next trip to
London.
Regards, ----- WB.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
> : Peter Remmers wrote:
> :> Michael Hemmer wrote:
> :> > I seem to experience that more and more salespersons revert to
> :> > the more formal "(Auf) Wiedersehen!" They often do so even as
> :> > a response to "Tschüß!" (which, in my eyes, is next to impolite).
> :> What is impolite? The word "Tschüß"
> : Obviously. That's why Michael put the clause in ( ).
> :> or responding to it with "Wiedersehen"?
> Well, if you say "Tschau"/"Tschuess" or another more informal
> good-bye and the reply to that is the formal "(Auf) Wiedersehen",
> then this feels sort of like a verbal slap as it feels as if the
> person using it tries to distance him- or herself pointedly from
> the person who said goodbye in the informal way.
That's not the issue. I stated -- and Michael Hemmer can confirm what
he meant -- that "(which, in my eyes, is next to impolite)" refers to
using the word "Tschüß!", not to replying with "(Auf) Wiedersehen!" to
someone saying "Tschüß!".
> Clear Ether!
Clear your head instead.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Who's drowing in a sea of assholes
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
> > Peter Remmers wrote:
> > > Michael Hemmer wrote:
> > > > I seem to experience that more and more salespersons revert to
> > > > the more formal "(Auf) Wiedersehen!" They often do so even as
> > > > a response to "Tschüß!" (which, in my eyes, is next to impolite).
> > > What is impolite? The word "Tschüß"
> > Obviously. That's why Michael put the clause in ( ).
> Having a little trouble with your acquired language?
Is this the same pathological snippy little bitch Petey Daniels who
recently bitched about <alt.usage.english> regulars: "[W]e're deluged
with exchanges filled with petty bickering and personal attacks"?
Look, you snippy little bitch, others and I have demonstrated that you
*routinely* fail to understand English, your native language. With such
a poor track record, you ought to keep your snippy-little-bitch trap
shut. But being a *pathological* snippy little bitch, you simply *had*
to demonstrate once again what an asshole you are, unable to understand
Michael Hemmer's clear statement.
As to acquiring languages, I have acquired six of them. How many
languages have *you* acquired, Mr. ASSyrian maven? (Your elementary
reading knowledge of German hardly qualifies as having "acquired" that language.)
> The "which" clause, whether in parentheses or not, could equally
> well modify "do so" as "'Tschüß'."
^^^^^^^^^^^
What's with your weird usage of single and double quote marks, Petey?
Having trouble with your native language? "'Tschüß'." is idiotic --
single (BrE) or double (AmE) quotes suffice: 'Tschüß' or "Tschüß."
Better still: using italics, as in _Tschüß_, because you're quoting a
foreign word.
But to the point: You've proved once again that you have great
difficulties understanding even simple English. Michael put the clause
in parentheses *after* and *next to* the word _Tschüß_ to indicate that
he considers using that word -- not saying "(Auf) Wiedersehen" -- as
being next to impolite.
I'm taking the liberty (hopefully, Michael won't mind, and he's welcome
to correct me) to rearrange his statement, so that answering "(Auf)
Wiedersehen" becomes the focus of what's impolite; it's a simple matter
of shifting the material in parentheses next to what's being modified:
>>>> I seem to experience that more and more salespersons revert to the
>>>> more formal "(Auf) Wiedersehen!" (which, in my eyes, is next to
>>>> impolite). They often do so even as a response to "Tschüß!"
See how that works, you fuckin' reading-comprehension-deprived little
bitch? Now the material in ( ) modifies answering with "(Auf)
Wiedersehen!", which is *not* what Michael meant.
Petey, you snippy little bitch: *Do* work on your shaky reading
comprehension of your native language before pissing on the command of
the acquired languages of others. With me, you're just pissing against
the wind and end up soaked with your own urine.
Have you now got your habitual petty bickering and personal attacks
against me out of your system for a while, _espèce de crétin enculé_?
(Hi, M. G.!)
> > > or responding to it with "Wiedersehen"?
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Santa Rosa, CA 95402, USA
Yunsong Huang
news:c1kvut$83d$06$1...@news.t-online.com...
Na ja, ich muß einen Namen als Schürzenjäger, Anhänger Casanovas oder
hoffnungsloser Romantiker gemacht haben.
Ich habe zwei Fragen:
1. Stehen die Wörter "Schürzenjäger, ... Romantiker" im Nominativ, oder im
Akkusativ wie "einen Namen"?
2. Wäre es besser, den obigen Satz konjunktivisch zu schreiben, und wie?
Wie zum Beispiel:
Ich müßte ... gemacht haben.
Ist das grammatisch und semantisch richtig?
Well, the last sentence above brings another question, i.e., how is it
parsed, like: {grammatisch und {semantisch richtig}} or {{grammatisch und
semantisch} richtig}, or is it inherently ambiguous, and thus is of bad
style? Then if we want to express {{D1 and D2} E}, where E is an
adjective, D1 and D2 are adverbs and can also be adjectives, how can we put
it, so as to avoid the parsing {D1 and {D2 E}}, where D1 is interpreted as
an adjective? Entschuldige, zu viele Fragen.
Danke im voraus.
andy
<Wayne.Brow...@t-online.de> wrote
[]
>I'm so much under German influence that if a salesperson
>lightly touched my hand in Britain, that would unmistakably signal to me
>that the person wanted to get into my knickers. Thank you for that bit of
>clarification.
(ie that they actually wanted to get into your wallet)
>I'll certainly file it away for reference on my next trip to
>London.
>
It may help to avoid the Wrath of the Blunkett :)
Peter Remmers
> Na ja, ich muß einen Namen als Schürzenjäger, Anhänger Casanovas oder
> hoffnungsloser Romantiker gemacht haben.
"sich einen Namen machen" ist reflexiv (nach meinem Gefühl).
Also: "Ich muss mir einen Namen als ... gemacht haben."
> Ich habe zwei Fragen:
> 1. Stehen die Wörter "Schürzenjäger, ... Romantiker" im Nominativ, oder im
> Akkusativ wie "einen Namen"?
Wow. Nach langem Übelegen komme ich zu dem Schluss, dass ich das gar nicht
sagen kann. Ich tendiere allerdings zum Nominativ.
Aber eigentlich müsste das egal sein, weil die Nominativ- und
Akkusativformen im Sigular die gleichen sind, und nach "als" (in diesem
Fall) nur Singular kommen kann.
Oder gibt es da Gegenbeispiele? Mir fallen jetzt keine ein...
> 2. Wäre es besser, den obigen Satz konjunktivisch zu schreiben, und wie?
> Wie zum Beispiel:
> Ich müßte ... gemacht haben.
"Ich muss mir einen Namen als ... gemacht haben"
-> "It seems I have made a name as ..."
"Ich müsste mir einen Namen als ... gemacht haben"
-> "I expect to have made a name as ..."
> Ist das grammatisch und semantisch richtig?
Ja (abgesehen von der reflexiv Sache), aber die Bedeutung ist ein Bisschen
anders.
> Well, the last sentence above brings another question, i.e., how is it
> parsed, like: {grammatisch und {semantisch richtig}} or {{grammatisch und
> semantisch} richtig}, or is it inherently ambiguous, and thus is of bad
> style?
Well, "grammatisch" and "semantisch" are on the same level, so I think the
second interpretation applies here.
But I must say, it is otherwise ambiguous.
> Then if we want to express {{D1 and D2} E}, where E is an
> adjective, D1 and D2 are adverbs and can also be adjectives, how can we put
> it, so as to avoid the parsing {D1 and {D2 E}}, where D1 is interpreted as
> an adjective? Entschuldige, zu viele Fragen.
With this concrete example, I think it is difficult to mean
{D1 and {D2 E}}, because, due to the reason I mentioned above, it will most
likely be parsed as {{D1 and D2} E}.
> Danke im voraus.
Peter
Yunsong Huang
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:54:05 -0800, Yunsong Huang wrote:
>
> > Na ja, ich muß einen Namen als Schürzenjäger, Anhänger Casanovas oder
> > hoffnungsloser Romantiker gemacht haben.
>
> "sich einen Namen machen" ist reflexiv (nach meinem Gefühl).
Ja, danke.
> Also: "Ich muss mir einen Namen als ... gemacht haben."
>
> > Ich habe zwei Fragen:
> > 1. Stehen die Wörter "Schürzenjäger, ... Romantiker" im Nominativ, oder im
> > Akkusativ wie "einen Namen"?
>
> Wow. Nach langem Übelegen komme ich zu dem Schluss, dass ich das gar nicht
> sagen kann. Ich tendiere allerdings zum Nominativ.
> Aber eigentlich müsste das egal sein, weil die Nominativ- und
> Akkusativformen im Sigular die gleichen sind, und nach "als" (in diesem
> Fall) nur Singular kommen kann.
Actually I asked this question because the case would affect how the adjective
in front of the noun declines:
Nominativ - "... hoffnungsloser Romantiker"
Akkusativ - "... hoffnungslosen Romantiker"
> Ja (abgesehen von der reflexiv Sache), aber die Bedeutung ist ein Bisschen
> anders.
Sollte das "abgesehen von der _reflexiven_ Sache" sein?
Sebastian Koppehel
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:54:05 -0800, Yunsong Huang wrote:
>
>> Ich habe zwei Fragen:
>> 1. Stehen die Wörter "Schürzenjäger, ... Romantiker" im Nominativ, oder im
>> Akkusativ wie "einen Namen"?
>
> Wow. Nach langem Übelegen komme ich zu dem Schluss, dass ich das gar nicht
> sagen kann. Ich tendiere allerdings zum Nominativ.
Es muß in der Tat Nominativ sein, denn es bezieht sich ja auf das
Subjekt "ich".
> Aber eigentlich müsste das egal sein, weil die Nominativ- und
> Akkusativformen im Sigular die gleichen sind, und nach "als" (in diesem
> Fall) nur Singular kommen kann.
> Oder gibt es da Gegenbeispiele? Mir fallen jetzt keine ein...
Man sagt: "Ich habe mir einen Namen als Geistesriese gemacht", nicht
"... als Geistesriesen gemacht". Oder eben, wie im vorliegenden Falle,
das Adjektiv: "Ich habe mir einen Namen als *hoffnungsloser*
Romantiker gemacht." Der Akkusativ würde in meinen Ohren ganz absurd
klingen.
> "Ich muss mir einen Namen als ... gemacht haben"
> -> "It seems I have made a name as ..."
>
> "Ich müsste mir einen Namen als ... gemacht haben"
> -> "I expect to have made a name as ..."
Diese Übersetzung finde ich recht verwunderlich. Was soll das
bedeuten, "I expect to have made ..."?
>> Well, the last sentence above brings another question, i.e., how is it
>> parsed, like: {grammatisch und {semantisch richtig}} or {{grammatisch und
>> semantisch} richtig}, or is it inherently ambiguous, and thus is of bad
>> style?
>
> Well, "grammatisch" and "semantisch" are on the same level, so I think the
> second interpretation applies here.
That's how it's meant, but for me, "grammatisch" already means
"grammatikalisch richtig". If you interpret "grammatisch" simply as
"concerning grammar" (which is perfectly valid), then it's on the same
level.
>> Then if we want to express {{D1 and D2} E}, where E is an
>> adjective, D1 and D2 are adverbs and can also be adjectives, how can we put
>> it, so as to avoid the parsing {D1 and {D2 E}}, where D1 is interpreted as
>> an adjective? Entschuldige, zu viele Fragen.
Let's have an example:
Das ist sachlich und rechnerisch richtig.
is ambiguous and could be understood as: "This is objective and
correctly calculated" OR it could be understood as: "This is correct
regarding facts as well as numbers." (I think most readers would
intuitively tend towards the second interpretation.) It could be
disambiguated in the following way:
Das ist sachlich und ist rechnerisch richtig.
or, if the second meaning is intended:
Das ist sachlich richtig und rechnerisch richtig.
This second disambiguation is normally unneeded, while the first one
is obligatory if you indeed intend the first meaning.
- Sebastian
Christian Weisgerber
> > Ich habe zwei Fragen:
> > 1. Stehen die Wörter "Schürzenjäger, ... Romantiker" im Nominativ, oder im
> > Akkusativ wie "einen Namen"?
>
> Wow. Nach langem Übelegen komme ich zu dem Schluss, dass ich das gar nicht
> sagen kann. Ich tendiere allerdings zum Nominativ.
> Aber eigentlich müsste das egal sein, weil die Nominativ- und
> Akkusativformen im Sigular die gleichen sind, und nach "als" (in diesem
> Fall) nur Singular kommen kann.
> Oder gibt es da Gegenbeispiele? Mir fallen jetzt keine ein...
*Picks up Wahrig* There are a few declensions where nominative and
accusative disagree:
Masculine weak:
der Bär, den Bären (huh? I use "den Bär")
der Riese, den Riesen
Adjectival declension, masculine:
ein Abgeordneter, einen Abgeordneten (strong)
der Abgeordnete, den Abgeordneten (weak)
Hmm. I can't decide whether to use nominative or accusative.
*Picks up next reference* Duden "Richtiges und gutes Deutsch" says
both are possible ("Kongruenz", section 4, in my 1985 edition),
with the nominative increasingly gaining the upper hand.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Peter Remmers
> Peter Remmers <p.re...@expires-2004-02-29.arcornews.de> writes:
>> "Ich muss mir einen Namen als ... gemacht haben"
>> -> "It seems I have made a name as ..."
>>
>> "Ich müsste mir einen Namen als ... gemacht haben"
>> -> "I expect to have made a name as ..."
>
> Diese Übersetzung finde ich recht verwunderlich. Was soll das
> bedeuten, "I expect to have made ..."?
Es sind ja nicht direkte Übersetzungen. Sie sollen nur die Nuancen in der
Bedeutung verdeutlichen.
Der zweite Fall drückt eine Erwartungshaltung aus:
"Ich müsste jetzt nachschauen, um sicher zu sein, aber eigentlich bin ich
davon überzeugt, dass es so ist."
Es gibt ja noch andere Beispiele:
Das Essen kocht, der Deckel ist auf dem Topf. Man schaut auf die Uhr und
sagt: "Es hat jetzt lange genug gekocht, es *müsste* jetzt gar sein."
Aber um sicher zu gehen müsste man den Deckel anheben und nachschauen...
> - Sebastian
Peter
Peter Remmers
Naja, es ist ja nicht "die Sache", die reflexiv ist.
Es sollte mehr im Sinne von
abgesehen von der "(ist das nun) reflexiv (oder nicht?)" Sache
zu verstehen sein.
Peter
Michael Hemmer
> Stayka deyAvemta wrote:
>>Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
>>: Peter Remmers wrote:
>>:> Michael Hemmer wrote:
>>:> > I seem to experience that more and more salespersons revert to
>>:> > the more formal "(Auf) Wiedersehen!" They often do so even as
>>:> > a response to "Tschüß!" (which, in my eyes, is next to impolite).
>
>>:> What is impolite? The word "Tschüß"
>
>>Well, if you say "Tschau"/"Tschuess" or another more informal
>>good-bye and the reply to that is the formal "(Auf) Wiedersehen",
>>then this feels sort of like a verbal slap as it feels as if the
>>person using it tries to distance him- or herself pointedly from
>>the person who said goodbye in the informal way.
>
> That's not the issue. I stated -- and Michael Hemmer can confirm what
> he meant -- that "(which, in my eyes, is next to impolite)" refers to
> using the word "Tschüß!", not to replying with "(Auf) Wiedersehen!" to
> someone saying "Tschüß!".
No, I'm afraid I can't confirm that. My reply to Stayka's post should
have made it clear it's actually that "verbal slap" I'm critical of
rather than the use of "Tschüß!" itself.
Michael
LEE Sau Dan
Peter> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:39:16 +0100, Michael Hemmer wrote:
>> I seem to experience that more and more salespersons revert to
>> the more formal "(Auf) Wiedersehen!" They often do so even as a
>> response to "Tsch+APwA3w-!" (which, in my eyes, is next to impolite).
Peter> What is impolite? The word "Tsch+APwA3w-" or responding to it
Peter> with "Wiedersehen"?
Or "Auf Wiedersehen"! :)
Haha... I always respond with the same word. I think that's the
"safest" thing to do.
--
Lee Sau Dan +Z05biGVm-(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
LEE Sau Dan
Michael> I'd call it old-fashioned or too formal rather than
Michael> conventional, at least among native speakers, who use
Michael> short forms like "Morgen!", "Tag!" [tax], "'n Abend!"
Michael> [na:mt], and "Wiederseh'n!" most of the time. None of
Michael> these will be considered impolite nowadays, but of course
Michael> it's all in the tone. That's why I'd probably refrain
Michael> from using these forms as a non-native, with the notable
Michael> exception of "Wiederseh'n!" (or "Wiederschau'n", in some
Michael> regions), where nothing can possibly go wrong IMHO.
I, being non-native, use those forms all the time.
Michael> No, this isn't just a regionalism - though the percentage
Michael> may, of course, vary between regions. (It will certainly
Michael> be higher in the North.) However, I seem to experience
Michael> that more and more salespersons revert to the more formal
Michael> "(Auf) Wiedersehen!" They often do so even as a response
Michael> to "Tschüß!" (which, in my eyes, is next to impolite).
I've read many "phrases in German" or teach yourself books on German
before I came to Germany. They all say that the way to say goodbye is
"Auf Widersehen". I know these books in the library are old. So, I
bought 2 new pocket-size phrasebooks from bookstores. One of the is
from the Lone-Planet series, which has a very good reputation. LP is
pretty good and even teach you the bad words and spend some space on
the Austrian and Swiss variations and regionalisms. OK. But even
this new and good LP book says that "Tschüss" is 'dialectual'.
However, once I'm in Germany, I find this wrong. I hear "Tschüss" on
the official TV channel (ARD) at the end of a new report! So, I know
this "Tschüss" can't be a just a southern dialectual word, nor can it
be informal. As a matter of fact, all news programmes now end with
"Tschüss", and I seldom hear "Auf Widersehen". "Ciao" is used quite
often, too. I'd feel it VERY formal when some says "Auf Widersehen"
to me. However, "Widersehen" is heard from time to time and sounds
between formal and casual to this non-native speaker.
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
Dietmar Schindler
> In most of Germany, people usually say during the morning "Guten
> Morgen" (good morning) up to noontime and afterwards "Guten Tag" (good day).
When someone says "Guten Morgen" shortly before noon, I have the
impression that he got up late. For me, personally, the morning ends at
10 o'clock.
Stayka deyAvemta
Well, as I often get up late, my "Guten Morgen!" often stretches
up to 14:00 or so. But of course that causes people to look funny
at me then :-)
In the very northern parts of Germany you can hear "Moin Moin"
the whole day through, though.
GEO
<am...@sonic.net> wrote:
>But to the point: ...
> Michael Hemmer wrote:
> I seem to experience that more and more salespersons
> revert to the more formal "(Auf) Wiedersehen!" They often do so even as
> a response to "Tschüß!" (which, in my eyes, is next to impolite).
>> Peter R:
>> What is impolite? The word "Tschüß" or responding to it with "Wiedersehen"?
>>> Reinhold :
>>> Obviously. That's why Michael put the clause in ( ).
>>>> Stayka:
>>>> Well, if you say "Tschau"/"Tschuess" or another more informal
>>>> good-bye and the reply to that is the formal "(Auf) Wiedersehen",
>>>> then this feels sort of like a verbal slap as it feels as if the
>>>> person using it tries to distance him- or herself pointedly from
>>>> the person who said goodbye in the informal way.
>>>>> Reinhold :
>>>>> That's not the issue. I stated -- and Michael Hemmer can confirm what
>>>>> he meant -- that "(which, in my eyes, is next to impolite)" refers to
>>>>> using the word "Tschüß!", not to replying with "(Auf) Wiedersehen!" to
>>>>> someone saying "Tschüß!".
>>>>>> PTD:
>>>>>> The "which" clause, whether in parentheses or not, could equally
>>>>>> well modify "do so" as "'Tschüß'."
>>>>>>> Reinhold :
>>>>>>> Michael put the clause in parentheses *after* and *next to* the
>>>>>>> word _Tschüß_ to indicate that he considers using that word -- not saying
>>>>>>> "(Auf) Wiedersehen" -- as being next to impolite.
> Michael Hemmer wrote:
> That's it. "Tschüß!" is perfectly acceptable even among strangers
> nowadays, so why would you refuse to use it? IMHO, the most polite
> thing to do is to simply reflect the greeting of one's opposite. For
> instance, I'd never answer a "Guten Morgen!" with a "Guten Tag!"
> even if I felt it was more appropriate.
Geo
Sebastian Koppehel
> Peter Remmers <p.re...@expires-2004-02-29.arcornews.de> wrote:
>
>> > Ich habe zwei Fragen:
>> > 1. Stehen die Wörter "Schürzenjäger, ... Romantiker" im Nominativ, oder im
>> > Akkusativ wie "einen Namen"?
>>
>> Wow. Nach langem Übelegen komme ich zu dem Schluss, dass ich das gar nicht
>> sagen kann. Ich tendiere allerdings zum Nominativ.
[...]
> Hmm. I can't decide whether to use nominative or accusative.
Only the nominative case is correct.
> *Picks up next reference* Duden "Richtiges und gutes Deutsch" says
> both are possible ("Kongruenz", section 4, in my 1985 edition),
> with the nominative increasingly gaining the upper hand.
Please have a closer look at said section, and I believe you'll notice
it treats a slightly but significantly different case. What I have
here - I own the 2nd edition from 1972 - is the following:
| Bestimmte Verben können bei gleichbleibender Bedeutung mit /sich/
| oder etwa einem Substantiv als Objekt verbunden werden: Er klagte
| sich an. - Er klagte seinen Nachbarn an. ... Wenn bei ihnen im
| reflexiven Gebrauch ein mit /als/ oder /wie/ angeschlossenes
| Substantiv steht (sich als Mörder anklagen), dann kann dies im
| Nominativ (Er klagt sich als der Mörder des Kindes an) oder im
| Akkusativ stehen (Er klagt sich als den Mörder des Kindes an). Der
| Nominativ überwiegt heute. Der Akkusativ veraltet allmählich: ...
But the construct "sich einen Namen als etw. machen" (or, for
simplicity, "einen Namen als etw. haben") does not follow this scheme.
Consider the following example.
Ich habe einen Namen als fleißiger Dudenleser.
If I would put the "als" phrase in the accusative case,
Ich habe einen Namen als fleißigen Dudenleser.
it would imply that, by owning a name, I somehow manage to own a
reader of the great works from Mannheim. Which is hardly possible!
- Sebastian
--
Er hüllte seine Abkunft und Heimat in undurchdringliches Dunkel, und
tat wohl daran, denn Buxtehude hatte nie einen guten Klang als
Vaterstadt schwärmerischer Liebhaber gehabt.
(Carl Reinhardt, "Der fünfte Mai")
Sebastian Koppehel
> the whole day through, though.
Which is due to the fact that "Moin" has nothing to do with "Morgen".
- Sebastian
Sebastian Koppehel
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 03:29:09 +0100, Sebastian Koppehel wrote:
>
>> Peter Remmers <p.re...@expires-2004-02-29.arcornews.de> writes:
>>> "Ich muss mir einen Namen als ... gemacht haben"
>>> -> "It seems I have made a name as ..."
>>>
>>> "Ich müsste mir einen Namen als ... gemacht haben"
>>> -> "I expect to have made a name as ..."
>>
>> Diese Übersetzung finde ich recht verwunderlich. Was soll das
>> bedeuten, "I expect to have made ..."?
>
> Es sind ja nicht direkte Übersetzungen. Sie sollen nur die Nuancen in der
> Bedeutung verdeutlichen.
>
> Der zweite Fall drückt eine Erwartungshaltung aus:
> "Ich müsste jetzt nachschauen, um sicher zu sein, aber eigentlich bin ich
> davon überzeugt, dass es so ist."
Ich sehe da keine Erwartungshaltung, sondern lediglich einen im Raume
stehenden Konditionalsatz: "Wollte ich sicher sein, müßte ich ..."
> sagt: "Es hat jetzt lange genug gekocht, es *müsste* jetzt gar sein."
> Aber um sicher zu gehen müsste man den Deckel anheben und nachschauen...
Nur hat das Garseinmüssen mit dem Deckelanhebenmüssen nix zu tun. Er
müßte jetzt gar sein, wenn alles so verläuft wie immer ...
- Sebastian
Peter Remmers
> Peter Remmers <p.re...@expires-2004-02-29.arcornews.de> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 03:29:09 +0100, Sebastian Koppehel wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Remmers <p.re...@expires-2004-02-29.arcornews.de> writes:
>>>> "Ich muss mir einen Namen als ... gemacht haben"
>>>> -> "It seems I have made a name as ..."
>>>>
>>>> "Ich müsste mir einen Namen als ... gemacht haben"
>>>> -> "I expect to have made a name as ..."
>>>
>>> Diese Übersetzung finde ich recht verwunderlich. Was soll das
>>> bedeuten, "I expect to have made ..."?
>>
>> Es sind ja nicht direkte Übersetzungen. Sie sollen nur die Nuancen in der
>> Bedeutung verdeutlichen.
>>
>> Der zweite Fall drückt eine Erwartungshaltung aus:
>> "Ich müsste jetzt nachschauen, um sicher zu sein, aber eigentlich bin ich
>> davon überzeugt, dass es so ist."
>
> Ich sehe da keine Erwartungshaltung, sondern lediglich einen im Raume
> stehenden Konditionalsatz: "Wollte ich sicher sein, müßte ich ..."
Ja, wie du schon unten gesagt hast, ist dieses "müsste" ein anderes.
Es sollte ja auch kein "müsste" Beispiel sein. Es war nur ein Versuch,
deutlich zu machen, welche Erwartungshaltung ich meine.
>> sagt: "Es hat jetzt lange genug gekocht, es *müsste* jetzt gar sein."
>> Aber um sicher zu gehen müsste man den Deckel anheben und nachschauen...
>
> Nur hat das Garseinmüssen mit dem Deckelanhebenmüssen nix zu tun. Er
> müßte jetzt gar sein, wenn alles so verläuft wie immer ...
Genau. Das "müsste" um das es mir ging, habe ich deswegen auch mit **
markiert. Der zweite Satz, sollte nur weiter verdeutlichen, dass es nur
eine Erwartungshaltung sein kann, denn Sicherheit erhält man erst durch
Nachprüfen. Leider brachte das zweite "müsste" etwas Verwirrung ins Spiel,
und lenkte etwas vom eigentlichen "müsste", um das es hier ging, ab.
Hach, es ist schwierig, rüberzubringen was man meint :)
> - Sebastian
Peter
Apokrif
What does "moin" mean ?
fu2 aug
--
Languages of the World: http://www.ethnologue.com/web.asp
Ruud Harmsen
>> Which is due to the fact that "Moin" has nothing to do with
>> "Morgen".
>
>What does "moin" mean ?
Beautiful. Cf. Dutch "Het is een mooie dag" = "it's a beutiful day".
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com/
Oliver Cromm
> So, I know
> this "Tschüss" can't be a just a southern dialectual word, nor can it
> be informal.
30 years ago, Tschüss was only acceptable in the North, and still the
adoption into the South is not perfect. Even in Frankfurt I know some
people who avoid it, and in Bavaria there was an Anti-Tschüss-Campaign
to save local customs.
> As a matter of fact, all news programmes now end with
> "Tschüss", and I seldom hear "Auf Widersehen". "Ciao" is used quite
> often, too. I'd feel it VERY formal when some says "Auf Widersehen"
> to me. However, "Widersehen" is heard from time to time and sounds
> between formal and casual to this non-native speaker.
It is verz hard to explain when and how you could say "Auf Wiedersehen"
(note the ie!) without being overly formal, but it is sure possible.
(crossposting cut)
Oliver C.
Oliver Cromm
Sebastian Koppehel writes:
>> A lawyer
>>might say: "Has your Honor considered..." or "Your Honor doesn't have
>>to believe the witness..." etc.
>
> And in German, it's "Euer Ehren", "Euer Gnaden", which is plural
> rather than singular like in English.
Well, _your_ is originally the plural in English (as opposed to _thou_),
and nowadays it is both singular and plural.
Oliver C.
Sebastian Koppehel
Yes, but Joerg's point was without doubt that the English form is not
"your honors".
- Sebastian