Hide yo’ kids, hide yo’ wife, the lingua franca English is coming for yo’ Deutsch.
Language is democratic. If people are starting to speak or write in a certain way, that is the correct way to use a language. I know that we have all these organizations trying to define “correct” language use, but if many Germans are deciding that they want to use this apostrophe, that should be correct.
And there is another issue: There are a lot of people looking down on people who can’t read or write correctly. You can see this here: people are calling other people itiots just because they are using an apostrophe in a not officially accepted way. Which should never, never happen
First off, a) Standard German is not a language that’s spoken anywhere in the country in the first place, not even at the Tagesschau studios. It’s a solely literary language, defined somewhat semi-democratically by book and newspaper editors and b) this is about orthography, not language qua language.
This is not about telling people whether they should say “ich bin am gehen” or “ich bin gehend” – both are incorrect in Standard Geman, the reason it doesn’t have a present progressive is that people couldn’t agree which form to use, and the different forms are quite far apart. So it’s avoided by editors, hence it’s not part of the language, “ich gehe gerade” is used instead which is (IMNSHO) unnatural but also not terribly awkward. That kind of thing is way more at odds with how people actually speak than orthography, and accepted without second thought: Because Standard German is a Dachsprache. If I want to talk to a Bavarian, compromises will have to be made.
Then, an orthography has to be, and this might be surprising to Anglophones, one thing: Logical and predictable, inferrable from how you speak and what things mean. The idiot’s apostrophe is not. It makes no sense, it follows no rule. If I say “gehn” then I can infer, from a uniform rule, that I should write “gehen” – because folks in the south say “gehe”, and well a compromise is when noone is happy. But using a different rule for “the dog’s bone” and “Jane’s bar”? There’s no justification for that. None. It introduces a distinction where there’s none.
The issue I have with this whole thing isn’t that it seems to be influenced by English, the issue I have is that it makes as much sense as English orthography.
As the commenter above you said, people use language differently than how formal rules describe. Is it a kind of capitulation for a formal rules body to change in response? Yes, probably. But so what? If someone doesn’t like it take it up with the general population.
As you might have gleaned from my comment, everyone uses language differently. Very differently. Scots vs. English kind of differently and that’s not even covering all autochthone minorities. To make sure the whole country has a way to understand each other we need to agree on a standard that’s half-way acceptable and half-way convenient to everyone. In setting that standard, why should we follow the practices of simple but bold businessmen (“Lara’s hair stylez”) over newspapers. One knows stuff about hair and not so much language, the other knows quite a bit about language and less about hair. Why are we asking plumbers how to bake bread and bakers how to fix faucets. Explain it to me.
Some questions: Is it your position that people can’t understand each other when using this apostrophe? Are you saying that only business people use this apostrophe? And are you saying that the only people who can be trusted to correctly use language are those at newspapers?
No, no, and no.
The question is whether what’s understood as the standard is set by bowing to random influence from people being careless or plain uninformed, or by reference to how people specialising in the thing do it.
This whole thing is just a declaration of bankruptcy on part of the standards body because the natural authorities of the language – and that’s editors, not barkeeps – will not be adopting this one. They also prevented some details about the 1996 spelling reform, while adopting the rest: In the end it was the reform that bent to the editors, not the editors bending to the standards body.
You’re talking about “But shouldn’t randos be free to choose how they spell things” – yes, and they are. And the rest of the republic is free to consider that usage wrong, especially if those randos didn’t choose a spelling, but simply didn’t care. The standards body saying “hey shouldn’t this be right” has no authority over the opinion of the rest of the republic we’re not in France.
Language is democratic. If people are starting to speak or write in a certain way, that is the correct way to use a language
What’s popular is what’s correct. We get it.
That’s why the language is evolving based on influencers, people too stupid to KNOW the syntax guiding the path forward.
Nice going.
What is your opinion on people using “would of” instead of “would have”?
I don’t think that accepting the lowest common denominator or following the tyrrany of majority is particularly democratic, when it’s clearly destroying the meaning of the language.
Sure, so let’s say we accept it, but then how do we teach children these new rules? It’ll only result in further degradation of the language because nobody knows what is right or wrong anymore.
Well for starters, kids aren’t going to whinge about it- they’re just going to use it, generally correctly for their setting.
Headlines when a royal family kid is bilingual, every day regular-ass survival when a poor border town kid does it, unprompted.
I mean, the royal kids totally would of got it on their own, right?
Aren’t royals supposed to be bilingual? Like, that’s part of their job
There was one royal kid-a girl- who learned spanish.
It made headlines.
I assume her accent is so bad as to be largely unintelligible to most spanish speaking folks.
They have translators.
Border kids learn both on their own or they starve
Meanwhile in English, the semicolon is dead – long live the dash.
I regularly use the semicolon; it makes me happy.
hey germany, considering your history maybe you shouldn’t be making a fuss about linguistic purity?
just a thought.Languages and grammar change over time.
Truly the English are a plague unto the world
“There is a long tradition of conservative circles fretting about international influences on the German languages,” said Stefanowitsch. “It used to be French, and now it’s mainly English”.
Heh.
The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.
However, guidelines issued by the body regulating the use of Standard High German orthography have clarified that the use of the punctuation mark colloquially known as the Deppenapostroph (“idiot’s apostrophe”) has become so widespread that it is permissible – as long as it separates the genitive ‘s’ within a proper name.
Hmm.
So how do they deal with the more-complex cases?
https://www.thesaurus.com/e/grammar/whats-the-rule-for-doing-a-possessive-after-the-word-s/
Singular nouns ending in S
Rule 1: In general, you form a possessive singular noun (both proper and common) by adding an apostrophe and the letter S to the end of the word.
-
the flower’s petals
-
Riley’s car
That’s simple enough. It’s when the car belongs to a person named Chris, or we’re talking about the petals of a crocus that the rules get blurry. Most experts and guides say you should add an apostrophe and an S to both proper and common nouns to make them possessive even when they end in S. So, using the examples above, it would be:
* Chris’s car
- the crocus’s petals
Not everyone agrees with this method, however, and some, such as the Associated Press Stylebook, nod in favor of adding only an apostrophe to make a proper noun possessive, such as:
-
Chris’ car
-
Dickens’ novels
To add even more confusion, AP Style also has an exception if the word following the possessive starts with an S, stating that in those cases only the apostrophe should be added. So it would be:
- Texas’s people
Texas’ streams
In 2019, the AP raised quite the ruckus when they tweeted that they were considering adding an S after the apostrophe for singular proper nouns, as in Mavis Staples’s album or Martha Reeves’s concert. To date, no changes have been made, but as you can see, it’s an ever-evolving, highly volatile topic.
Plural nouns ending in S
Rule 2: Plural nouns, on the other hand, generally don’t get an extra S, just an apostrophe. Most experts suggest you form the plural form of the word first, then add the apostrophe.
For example:
-
the Joneses’ house
-
the classes’ rules
Most say possessive words should generally read as you would speak them.
The one-syllable rule
When it comes to historical proper names or those found in the Bible, however, there is another rule many choose to follow.
Rule 3: According to some, those words with two or more syllables typically just get an apostrophe after the final S, while one-syllable words getting both an apostrophe and an S.
For example:
-
Jesus’ teachings
-
Zeus’s temper
Some people apply it to more recent names as well, such as Dr. Seuss’s writings or Kenny Rogers’ songs, while others believe they all should also get an additional S.
Singular nouns in plural form
Rule 4: When it comes to singular nouns that are plural words, they typically just get the apostrophe.
For example, the Beatles is a singular noun, but it’s in the form of a plural word. So, it would be:
- The Beatles’ album
For the sake of …
Rule 5: Whether a noun ends in an S or not, if it’s followed by the word sake, most say it just gets an apostrophe.
For example:
-
for goodness’ sake
-
for conscience’ sake
-
for appearance’ sake
Others, such as the Chicago Manual of Style, say if the word before sake ends in an S, then it should just get an apostrophe. Others should get an apostrophe and an S. So, it would be:
-
for goodness’ sake
-
for conscience’s sake
-
for appearance’s sake
Like, there’s a whole rabbit hole to go down there.
In German it would be like:
Franks Haus.
Franz’ Haus.
A way without the apostrophe could also be „Franzens Haus“ (but that’s out of style since a few decades)
-
I cringe every time I see it, but just because I don’t like it doesn’t mean it should be wrong. It is super wide spread to use it that way (even more wide spread than the “correct” way), so it should be considered legal imho. Sidenote: I also hate that the plural of “house” isn’t “hice” in eglish, but what can I do.
Rice isn’t the plural of rouse, either. Dice is valid as singular and plural, no relation to douse. English is a language of exceptions rather than rules.
The singular of “dice” was traditionally “die”, but it seems to be well on its way out
Is it? Everyone I play tabletop games with uses die for singular.
I do too, but I think that those of us that play tabletop ganes probably think more about dice a lot more than the average person
