Die Bedeutung der lateinischen Sprache in der heutigen Zeit (German Edition)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Die Bedeutung der lateinischen Sprache in der heutigen Zeit (German Edition) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Die Bedeutung der lateinischen Sprache in der heutigen Zeit (German Edition) book. Happy reading Die Bedeutung der lateinischen Sprache in der heutigen Zeit (German Edition) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Die Bedeutung der lateinischen Sprache in der heutigen Zeit (German Edition) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Die Bedeutung der lateinischen Sprache in der heutigen Zeit (German Edition) Pocket Guide.

Gemeint war, der Zugriff erfolge gleich. Deutsch: Du kannst den Fahrradfahrer nicht umfahren, du musst ihn umfahren. Jo Cienfuegos Maya Eldorado Dann kam ich in die erste Klasse. Voll Freude streckte ich die Hand auf. Das spreche ich nie!!!! Phrosch Viele Verkleinerungsformen haben eigene Bedeutungen. Verwirrt neu zugezogene Deutsche immer wieder. Masche Ein Spezialfall ist das Walliserdeutsch. Weitere Antworten anzeigen. Bse Nicht im Keller. Nelson Muntz Herbert Anneler So simple ;-. Herr Noergler AndreaNeunVier Komm wir essen, Opa! Qui-Gon Es ist mir schon rausgerutscht weil es so verbreitet ist und dann sehe ich nur fragende Gesichter.

Darum hasse ich es. Halimasch Roterriese Beides gibt's sogar, ist aber etwas anderes. Aussie Board ist nicht nur Brett. Charlie Brown Kanalisationsschachtdeckelnummerexpert Joe Smith Die deutsche Sprache ist unglaublich flexibel. So bist du auch auf dich selbst sauer wegen Kommentarklau. Gibt wohl eine miese Laune. Aber ich kann zwischen Humor und abgedroschenen Witzen unterscheiden.

In der Primarschule habe ich den Rat meiner damaligen Deutschlehrerin zu Herzen genommen und sehr viel gelesen, um der deutschen Grammatik Herr zu werden. Rakete Das ist der ultimative Test ob jemand wirklich Schweizer ist. Darf der das? Ja der darf das. Dass der das darf? Caturix Nguruh Aber ich verstehe es einfach. Macht doch nicht so ein Drama was Schweizerdeutsch ist oder nicht. So ist es nicht lustig. Geschlechtliches Schauspiel? Adumdum Hat aber nichts mit Kehren, das heisst die Postion wechseln zu tun.

Oft wird zum Beispiel die Englische Pluralform verwendet, obwohl dies keine korrekte Grammatik darstellt. Geist der Mathematik M. Warum ist Haeckel nicht mehr modern? Gibt es eine Urzeugung? Abstammungsproblematik J. Ternus, Die Abstammungsfrage heute, und F. Der Ursprung des Menschen Philosophisches Jahrbuch Ein Gelehrtenleben H. Karl Heims Weltbild K.

Latein sprechen 1 - Erste Wörter

Heim, Der christliche Gottesglaube und die Natur wissenschaft, , und K. Naturphilosophie in Abwehrstellung? Wenzl [Hrsg. Die Entstaltung des Menschen Eckart Naturwissenschaftliches Schrifttum der letzten Zeit B. Neuberg, Das Weltbild der Physik, ; H. There are rules of English, and there are rules for various registers of English. If I wish to be accepted into the "club" of those who use that particular register, then I need to follow the club rules.

I object, however, to the elitist nonsense that those who follow the rules of a different club are using "ungrammatical" English when they use constructions that are both widespread and widely accepted among educated speakers. I neither wrote nor implied that anyone here had met or should have met members of an isolated language community from another era. I wrote that isolated language communities often perpetuate the language of an earlier era i.

ETHNIKUM - Definition and synonyms of Ethnikum in the German dictionary

Have you ever met someone from Appalachia, the Ozarks or parts of the rural South? Then you have met someone who probably goes back to an isolated language community and whose speech may still reflect that fact. What we consider "hillbilly" speech contains elements of 16th-century English often with mixtures of Scottish, Irish and Welsh , including vocabulary. This puts a bit of a different spin on all of those backwoods, ignorant "mountain williams" and their speech, doesn't it?

Rather than representing a decline in the language, it represents a preservation of older elements in the language. Whose speech, then, has degenerated? Old English had the verb ascian. Chaucer writes, "I axe, why the fyfte man was nought husband to the Samaritan? Both have since existed side by side, with the newer form gradually becoming the "standard". However, it is still characteristic of some speech communities in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Ohio; in fact, it has a distribution across about half of the territory of the US and England, not just among Southerners and African-Americans.

Comment Amy 36 , thanks for the link to that article. It doesn't use the word "permissiveness"; instead they speak of "descriptivists," which I feel is not quite the same thing, but they know more than I do. I'm very much in the Garner camp. If the emphasis is on 'You', then clearly the 'me' is the subject; if it is on 'family', then 'me' is the object. But whatever the case, it is disjunctive, i.

No one -- but no one!! However, here, we have a written report of something spoken. Comment Escoville, can you explain why the object "me" is used only in elliptical sentences and in complete sentences it appears jarring, whereas the subject form seems preferable?

Zum Glück müssen wir nicht Deutsch lernen! So lacht das Internet über unsere Sprache

Who did it? Not me. It was not I who did it. And there is no getting around the ambiguity of the object form pointed out above. Comment What an interesting thread for an innocent-looking question By now I guess it would rather fit into the "language lab" forum? It cannot always be used, but there are a number of instances.

From this thread I deduce that Bavarian has retained some "ancient" grammar? Ich hoa nischt Bieses nich gewullt. Der Jung hett keen Muus nich sehn. Trotz des lateinischen Motors und Stachels hat sich in praktisch allen hochdeutschen Mundarten die doppelte Verneinung gehalten. But I see your point. An ellipsis puts the structure definitively 'out of joint'. I agree with you about the ambiguity in writing for the reasons I mentioned, I can't imagine it happening in speech.

A good writer should a avoid stilted speech, and b avoid ambiguity. That may well involve writing something slightly different. Comment Esco, I appreciate your objective tone--and not just because we seem to have agreement on one point. Manni, hallo manni.

Deutsch for sale

Dass die doppelte Verneinung in Mundarten gehalten hat, haben wir schon festgestellt; im modernen Hochdeutsch jedoch, soweit ich informiert bin, hat es nicht gehalten und auch nicht in restlos allen deutschen Mundarten? Dazu: ist sie obligatorisch im bairischen, z. Muss ein baier immer doppelt verneinen, oder ist es fakultativ? Denn einst war es ja der Fall, nicht wahr? Und dann stellt sich die Frage, ob sich die heutige doppelte Verneinung aus der alten ne Form entwickelt hat, oder eine neuere Bildung ist, die zur alten ne Form daher keine Verbindung hat. Die Autoren von Selimas Artikel scheinen die Betonung auf die unreglementierte Entwicklung legen zu wollen.

Wie dem auch sein mag, offenbar gingen reglementierte und unreglementierte Entwicklungen parallel einher. I need to read up on "disjunctive" in English. Got any links? Manni, dass sich die doppelte Verneinung in Mundarten gehalten hat, haben wir schon festgestellt; im modernen Hochdeutsch jedoch, soweit ich informiert bin, hat es sich nicht gehalten und auch nicht in restlos allen deutschen Mundarten? Comment At Raudona [ 2] in my opinion as native American English speaker: Raudona's comment on the emphasis showing the distinction in spoken English is correct. Comment Sorry about the double post.

Don't know how that happened. In spoken English, of course, there is no ambiguity. When devising rules, you should remember that there are usually several steps. For instance: - first posit a potential rule using inductive logic based on possible preferably actual utterances in an appropriate language here modern English - then apply the rule by generating different utterances that conforms to the rule using deductive logic, if you will - if the text generated is not acceptable, reject the rule or refine it until it does not generate absurd utterances which virtually no native speaker would accept.

That was the point of my post 24, which was not making fun of anything, though you may regard it as a reductio ad absurdum if that helps to explain it in terms of logic. The specific rule that you appear to be applying generates unacceptable utterances; with few exceptions, only those utterances that use the first person singular are marginally acceptable, and only in very formal English. We are not required to tolerate sloppiness on the part of grammarians.

Comment But I'm not a generative grammarian. Comment 67 So how do you test your alleged rules? Do not be misled by my use of the word "generate". You don't have to be a generative grammarian to be required to state as rules only those rules that do actually describe the language that they allegedly apply to. That is a minimum, whether you are a "prescriptivist" or not. I wrote "for instance", so If you have a better test that is more suitable for a "non-generative" grammarian, I would be glad to hear what it is.

Comment I don't think grammarians should create rules. I certainly cannot make any for anyone other than myself my preferences occasionally diverge from the standards set by style guides and dictionaries. Rules of grammar and style are derived from usage and the logic of the language, as already pointed out above. As also noted here, rules are not always hard and fast.

Often, judgment is required, and at a certain point, personal taste takes over. The case of "it is I" versus "it is me" shows how situation and personal preference must sometimes take precedence over rules. You write: I don't think grammarians should create rules. Rules of grammar and style are derived from usage and the logic of the language. Could you explain yourself more clearly? On the one hand, I agree that grammarians should not "create rules" ex nihilo , as it were. On the other hand, grammarians are the ones who give form to statements about how a language works, i.

Or are you saying that the latter is not the proper purview of grammarians? If not, who then ought to give form to expressions of how a language works? Is this properly the task of each individual speaker of the language? You seem to intimate as much in the following statement: "I certainly cannot make any [rules of grammar] for anyone other than myself my preferences occasionally diverge from the standards set by style guides and dictionaries.

Thank you for your clarification of this. In that sense, it is necessary to describe the actual language as it is used, not as one wishes it to be used and certainly not another language's practices, no matter how exalted that other language may be perceived. For me, at least, it makes far less sense to say that a widespread, persistent and accepted feature of a language "shows how situation and personal preference must sometimes take precedence over rules" than to say that the rule needs refinement or reworking. Or else we should relegate "rules of grammar" to the status of "rules of thumb" or "of limited scope" within the confines of a particular register, genre, etc.

Comment Mit anderen Worten, die deutsche Sprache hat von selbst die doppelte Verneinung aufgeben und die "einfache" Verneinung angenommen, also eben nicht, wie es Robert haben will, weil Grammatiker diese Entwicklung verordnet haben. Korrektur: Die Schriftsprache hat das getan. Comment 71, DAS finde ich auch spannend! Darf ich mir eine kleine Wortklauberei erlauben? Aber ich denke, das ist es auch, was Bob C. Deren Grammatik ist i. Comment Was mich angeht hat Cro-Mignon Recht. So habe ICH das gemeint :- Ich denke aber, jetzt verstehen wir beide, was der jeweils andere meint.

Doch, bestimmt Ich muss zu meiner Schande gestehen, dass ich keine Ahnung habe, was eine flektierende oder eine isolierende Sprache ist Und es mehren sich die Fragen. Es wurde festgestellt. Man merkt, dass es in der Regel so ist, und demzufolge konnte eine Regel formuliert werden. Nun sind wir aber bei der Division Mundart und Hochsprache gelandet.

Zum Schluss werde ich eine Provokation in den Raum schicken: die besten Grammatiker Fowler, Garner sind eher konservativ. Da liegt die Trennlinie zwischen sie und die descriptivists und permissivists. Comment 70, etc. To clarify: I was using "devise rules" in the sense of formulating descriptions of syntax that reflect patterns used in actual speech.

Since they describe patterns, they can also be used to generate new utterances. I was using "generate" in the sense of thinking of an utterance that would fit the rule ideally, the utterance could be generated by a computer applying the rule. If the utterance I thought of actually fits the rule but would not be accepted as as syntactically correct by native speakers, then my rule is incorrrect and I need to go back to the drawing board.

Bob C. Since at least one of these would not normally be accepted as correct by most native speakers, it is inadequate. It needs to be modified to state that the subjective case following the copular verb is permitted only in very formal English, and only for the first person singular. One possible explanation for such a rule is that it is an artefact created by grammarians who enforced an invented rule but always used the first person singular in their examples, thus allowing even educated native speakers trained to use the formal English taught by the grammarians to retain their recognition of the intuitively correct form in the third person and in the plural.

In other words, the generated utterance "It Is us" is claimed to be incorrect, rather than an alternative form. Since most native speakers accept the utterance as correct, it is the rule which is incorrect. As Professor Williams Style: The Basics of Clarity and Grace writes: "When competent writers regularly violate an alleged rule, and most careful readers never notice, then the rule has no force. In those cases, it is not writers who should obey the grammarians, but the grammarians who should change their rules.

Comment 82 Although Fowler did a lot of good work, I think you need to re-examine your ideas about his respect for or knowledge of tradition. His disputes with Jespersen, as well as what he writes in "A Dictionary of Modern English Usage", provide a better indication of where he got some of the ideas that became the bread and butter of prescriptivists. Also interesting in this context is the following story: "One time a newspaper sent us to a morgue to get a story on a woman whose body was being held for identification.

A man believed to be her husband was brought in. Somebody pulled the sheet back; the man took one agonizing look, and cried, "My God, it's her! Dieser Vorgang beleuchtet auch die Entstehung der Hochsprache, nicht war? Und sprichst du von Deutsch oder Englisch oder beide? Die Richtung, die Ellen vertritt, finde ich bis jetzt ganz nach meiner Meinung. Welche neue Grammatik und Morphologie? Standard languages are an abstraction. If you examine the language of individual speakers, you will find some that come closer to the standard language than others, but there is always variation.

Yes, you are mistaken. It would be quite a miracle if English hadn't changed in the last years. Living languages change. English is changing. One change that is happening, i. In many varieties of English the 3rd. In the future, however, one can predict that even prestige varieties of English will lose the -s and English will resemble Danish in this regard: jeg sidder, du sidder, hun sidder, vi sidder, I sidder, de sidder. Endungslose Adverbien: certain, gentle, natural usw.

Comment Hi Amy. The grammar of Shakespeare is essentially the same as modern English grammar, as far as I can see. You can read Shakespeare and his contemporaries if you can read 21st century English. You need a dictionary, but nothing else. The vocabulary and usage have changed, and as you say will continue to change, but there has been no major change in the basic grammar, inflection, and the sentence structure that goes with it.

Shakespeare wrote what as far as I know is considered modern English in the broad historical sense. That's what I'm getting at. Manni, das ist sehr interessant, wie die in Anlehnung an Latein geschaffenen Formen entstanden sind. Hoffe, dass ich sie nicht falsch verstehe. Comment Footnote to Mike: you and I have enrolled in different schools of methodology, so finding common ground for a discussion is tricky.

Comment Bei den Hilfsverben geht es dem Englischen auch nicht viel besser als dem Deutschen. Comment Manni, verstehe nicht ganz. Auf Englisch, wenigstens, muss man in gewissen Situationen will verwenden, wenn auch nicht in allen. Comment 73 Yes, if I understand you correctly, I agree, but as Cro-Mignon pointed out, rule" is used with different meanings. I usually use the word "rules" in several senses: 1 Items of notional knowledge shared by native speakers of a language that are reflected in regular patterns of usage.

These rules are notional in the sense that such knowledge in not stored statically like a fact in a computer memory. They enable us to generate utterances and to understand utterances of others. This is what I mean when I talk of the "intuitive rules of English". They are intended to reflect the rules described in 1.

It is this sense that I usually mean when conversing with Bob, though our definitions may differ slightly. These rules can only approximate the intuitive rules. They need to be reformulated when it becomes apparent that they disagree with the intuitive rules of the native speaker either because language has changed, or because the rules were badly formulated in the first place. They describe, for instance, the register of particular elements, but they overlap with other types of rules.


  • Tell me about the Alpacas, Llamas and Vicunas.
  • Keans Edge.
  • Calaméo - PCTS 10 / .
  • GENERATIONS #3, the comic strip: spring (Generations, the comic strip).

Such rules are descriptive; for example, such a rule may state that "ain't" is used only in informal, or even uneducated, speech. The speaker can use a series of such words to make a speech informal, or folksy; and the hearer understands the utterance in the expected way. These rules do not belong primarily in the field of grammar. Unlike the other rules, these rules are not necessarily shared among all or most members of the language community.

An example would be: "You should not say 'ain't'. Comment Bob, ich meine die Mehrdeutigkeit der Hilfsverben z. Comment 91 "you and I have enrolled in different schools of methodology" I'm glad all those years of studying Linguistics had some effect! Comment manni, wo sagt man denn "ich bin gestanden"? Ich kenne nur "ich stand" oder "ich habe Comment In vielen hochdeutschen Mundarten , auf deren Basis das heutige Hochdeutsch entstanden ist. Comment 92 "I am come" is quite common in Shakespeare. Comment 90 ". I'm not even sure whom you and I would agree on as being a grammarian.

However, you do seem to be a follower of Fowler "die besten Grammatiker Fowler, Garner. No, you aren't mistaken. Using be as a helping verb in the perfect tenses used to be productive in English, now it is only preserved, and often misinterpreted, in older literature, as in Shakespeare, some translations of the Bible, hymns, and so on.

OT: Don't you need an apostrophe in "gab's auch im Englischen"? I don't dispute that Shakespearean English is identifiably English, but to state that two language varieties are similar enough to be identifiably the same language is not the same as claiming that there are no important differences between them. In Shakespeare's time it was still possible to form questions simply by putting the verb before the subject without do-support, as is still possible in German: Saw you not him? Came he not home tonight?

Why the devil came you between us? Spakest thou of Juliet? Negation worked differently: I know not what to say. My bosom likes not, nor my brows. The usage of mine and my was different: Now my sworn friend, and then mine enemy. Mine honest friend, will you take eggs for money? Be was still used as a helping verb: What, is my daughter gone to Friar Lawrence? These are differences in syntax and morphology, presumably they would fall under what most would call basic grammar and sentence structure.

Perhaps, however, you don't consider them major, but then you haven't provided a definition of major. I wish everyone a pleasant time in this thread. I'm bowing out now. Comment Hi Amy, ich habe dann doch noch etwas dazu gefunden und in 95 eine Grafik zur historischen Entwicklung der Perfektbildung im Englischen verlinkt. We don't need it! E1: Aber ohne Apostroph: die Schriften des Aristoteles, E2: Der Apostroph steht auch, wenn -s, -z, -x usw. Comment Thanks, manni.