4 ms·

Yeah I don't do that. Never have, never will :P You are correct of course under the new rules (that I refused to ever learn, which is fine since I don't need to

Yeah I don't do that. Never have, never will :P You are correct of course under the new rules (that I refused to ever learn, which is fine since I don't need to write German any longer :) Next thing you tell me the new rules for "das" vs "dasz" (sorry no umlauts here but I guess you get what I mean) after a comma make sense. The reasoning was that the new rules will finally make it easier for people to know when to write "das" after a comma vs. "dasz" which you now write "dass". No they don't, they just make the exact same mistake! It was never about the szett. It's all about the "das" vs "dass", which given I have no umlauts here I always wrote as "dass" anyway, since you can replace an szett with a double s. Ich dachte mir schon, dass das Auto neu ist. vs. Das Auto, das ich meine, ist neu. With the old rules, it would have been exactly the same, just that dass would be dasz. Bonkers! Now I will give you the Stillleben and the Pappplakate and Schifffahrt make sense in a way. But they went all out, didn't they? Let's just allow Schiff-Fahrt and Papp-Plakate and Still-Leben as well. Donau-Dampf-Schiff-Fahrts-Gesellschafts-Kapitaen FTW! :P

MrJohz 3y ago
I'm sorry, I think you've misunderstood the point of the Eszett spelling reform. The goal was to somewhat codify the idea that a single consonant (e.g. the "l" at the end of "Tal") implies that the previous vowel should be long (t-ah-l) while a double consonant (the "ll" at the end of "Ball") implies that the previous vowel should be long (b-a-l). (This was already true most of the time for other consonants, but "s/as/ß" remained an exception.) Therefore similarly, by analogy, "Fass" has a double consonant at the end of the word, so we know that it is a short vowel (f-a-ss), and "Maß" has a single consonant at the end, so we know it must be long (m-ah-ss). As an aside, this doesn't explain why we still need ß in the first place - if it's just there to indicate long and short vowels, why not just use a single "s" like with the other consonants? The answer is in pluralisation rules: when you pluralise "Maß -> Maße", you still say a hard "s" sound (m-ah-ss-uh). But if you pluralise, say, "Los -> Lose", the "s" becomes a "z" sound (l-oh-z-uh). In German orthography, it's generally the case that you need to know both the single and plural of a word to be able to spell it correctly. Even under this new scheme, a lot of short, very common words retain their original spelling, which is why "das", which was an irregular, common word under the old scheme, remains an irregular, common word under the new scheme. So yes, you still need to understand the difference between "das" and "dass", in the same way you need to understand the different between "there" and "they're" in english.
- tharkun__ 3y ago
  That is fair enough on what their reasons might be (just like there are reasons for all other changes which all sort of make sense in some way except if you look at all of them together and what they did or didn't change it seems like an arbitrary cutoff). Heck isn't Dative nowadays even officially allowed to replace Genetive or is it just that everyone thinks it's snobbish now? Sich des Genetivs zu befleissigen scheint altmodisch. I get the actual szett. That's not the point of dass vs das after the comma. That's exactly my point. It never was about the szett vs. double s for that rule. The thing that trips people up about that rule wasn't the szett. It's the "can you replace the dass/dasz with 'welche(s)' or not". And they did not make that part easier. But that's what the reform was about. Everything was supposed to make more sense and be easier. Except kids that had learned for 12 years suddenly were supposed to use arbitrary new rules in year 13 which would be their final school year exams (replace with 11/12 in states with 12 instead of 13 years). Like you say "das" and "dass" really make the same sound. As did "dasz" (instead of making a "dahs" sound). Side note: just like people not getting das vs dass irks me in German the there and they're really irks me in English. Is it really that hard? (tho on the interwebs we gotta discount half the misspellings nowadays to autocorrect I would presume).

MrJohz 3y ago

I'm sorry, I think you've misunderstood the point of the Eszett spelling reform. The goal was to somewhat codify the idea that a single consonant (e.g. the "l" at the end of "Tal") implies that the previous vowel should be long (t-ah-l) while a double consonant (the "ll" at the end of "Ball") implies that the previous vowel should be long (b-a-l). (This was already true most of the time for other consonants, but "s/as/ß" remained an exception.) Therefore similarly, by analogy, "Fass" has a double consonant at the end of the word, so we know that it is a short vowel (f-a-ss), and "Maß" has a single consonant at the end, so we know it must be long (m-ah-ss). As an aside, this doesn't explain why we still need ß in the first place - if it's just there to indicate long and short vowels, why not just use a single "s" like with the other consonants? The answer is in pluralisation rules: when you pluralise "Maß -> Maße", you still say a hard "s" sound (m-ah-ss-uh). But if you pluralise, say, "Los -> Lose", the "s" becomes a "z" sound (l-oh-z-uh). In German orthography, it's generally the case that you need to know both the single and plural of a word to be able to spell it correctly. Even under this new scheme, a lot of short, very common words retain their original spelling, which is why "das", which was an irregular, common word under the old scheme, remains an irregular, common word under the new scheme. So yes, you still need to understand the difference between "das" and "dass", in the same way you need to understand the different between "there" and "they're" in english.

tharkun__ 3y ago
That is fair enough on what their reasons might be (just like there are reasons for all other changes which all sort of make sense in some way except if you look at all of them together and what they did or didn't change it seems like an arbitrary cutoff). Heck isn't Dative nowadays even officially allowed to replace Genetive or is it just that everyone thinks it's snobbish now? Sich des Genetivs zu befleissigen scheint altmodisch. I get the actual szett. That's not the point of dass vs das after the comma. That's exactly my point. It never was about the szett vs. double s for that rule. The thing that trips people up about that rule wasn't the szett. It's the "can you replace the dass/dasz with 'welche(s)' or not". And they did not make that part easier. But that's what the reform was about. Everything was supposed to make more sense and be easier. Except kids that had learned for 12 years suddenly were supposed to use arbitrary new rules in year 13 which would be their final school year exams (replace with 11/12 in states with 12 instead of 13 years). Like you say "das" and "dass" really make the same sound. As did "dasz" (instead of making a "dahs" sound). Side note: just like people not getting das vs dass irks me in German the there and they're really irks me in English. Is it really that hard? (tho on the interwebs we gotta discount half the misspellings nowadays to autocorrect I would presume).