OSNews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome to PISA. :-)



Richtig. :-)

Hmm, not in Switzerland:

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

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

Edited 2008-04-15 06:33 UTC

Allow me to get off-topic.

The article contains many untrue things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to scare you:

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

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

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

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