# sie schrie(e)n



## Whodunit

[/url]

I have more and more doubts when I use Word. The Duden disagrees:

[QUOTE][FONT=Arial][B]schr[U]ei[/U]|en;[/B][/FONT] du schriest; geschrien; schrei[e]!; die schreiends[COLOR=Red]|[/COLOR]ten Farben[/QUOTE]


----------



## MrMagoo

Whodunit said:
			
		

> [/url]
> 
> I have more and more doubts when I use Word. The Duden disagrees:[/QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Both forms are correct, Who - simply quite the same case as the one we had with "du wäsch(s)t":
> 
> Sometimes, the "e" is pronounced, sometimes it's dropped - that often depends on the situation or the context.
> 
> You should write out the "e" in case you would also pronounce it when speaking and drop it otherwise.
> 
> 
> Infinitive: schreien
> Partizip2: geschrie(e)n
> 
> Präteritum:
> ich schrie
> du schrie(e)st
> er schrie
> wir schrie(e)n
> ihr schrie(e)t
> sie schrie(e)n
> 
> All the best
> -MrMagoo


----------



## Whodunit

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> You should write out the "e" in case you would also pronounce it when speaking and drop it otherwise.



I'm not yet sure what you would write. In a formal as well as in an informal text I'd write "sie/wir schrien", because otherwise it would look as strange as "Knieen" etc.


----------



## MrMagoo

Whodunit said:
			
		

> I'm not yet sure what you would write. In a formal as well as in an informal text I'd write "sie/wir schrien", because otherwise it would look as strange as "Knieen" etc.


 
You can write either one, Who - both forms are correct.
The same is true for "knie(e)n". 
"knieen" is preferred when used as an infinitive, but "knien" is right as well.


----------



## Whodunit

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> You can write either one, Who - both forms are correct.
> The same is true for "knie(e)n".
> "knieen" is preferred when used as an infinitive, but "knien" is right as well.



Haha, I was referring to "Knieen" (plural of Knie). "Auf den Knie(e)n liegen.


----------



## MrMagoo

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Haha, I was referring to "Knieen" (plural of Knie). "Auf den Knie(e)n liegen.


 
Both forms are accepted here, too - no worries!


----------



## Whodunit

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> Both forms are accepted here, too - no worries!


 Again, the Duden disagrees what you said here.


----------



## MrMagoo

Maybe Duden dropped the 2nd variant with the new spelling; I have learned at school that both variants are correct.

I would btw prefer the spelling with two "e" here, in order to have a distinction between 

ein Knie
zwei Knie => zwei Kniee.


----------



## Whodunit

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> Maybe Duden dropped the 2nd variant with the new spelling; I have learned at school that both variants are correct.
> 
> I would btw prefer the spelling with two "e" here, in order to have a distinction between
> 
> ein Knie
> zwei Knie => zwei Kniee.



Well, I'm afarid I have to disagree with you there. I wouldn't prefer the second variant, because I hate such a spelling with two vowels in one row, such as "Haar", "Moos", and "Meer". They shouldn't exist, but we can't change things.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Well, I'm afarid I have to disagree with you there. I wouldn't prefer the second variant, because I hate such a spelling with two vowels in one row, such as "Haar", "Moos", and "Meer". They shouldn't exist, but we can't change things.



You should never learn Dutch then!


----------



## Jana337

elroy said:
			
		

> You should never learn Dutch then!



Or Finnish and Estonian! They (or at least one of them) have even three vowels! 

Jana


----------



## Whodunit

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Or Finnish and Estonian! They (or at least one of them) have even three vowels!
> 
> Jana



Yes, I know. I hate the Finnish ää.   

But well, that's the way it is. I'll decide it later if I study Dutch or Finnish.


----------



## gaer

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> Maybe Duden dropped the 2nd variant with the new spelling; I have learned at school that both variants are correct.
> 
> I would btw prefer the spelling with two "e" here, in order to have a distinction between
> 
> ein Knie
> zwei Knie => zwei Kniee.


Kniee is an older spelling, right?  

Gaer


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Well, I'm afarid I have to disagree with you there. I wouldn't prefer the second variant, because I hate such a spelling with two vowels in one row, such as "Haar", "Moos", and "Meer". They shouldn't exist, but we can't change things.


Why shouldn't they exist? Why do you object to them? Doesn't the doubling of the vowel show pronunciation? How would you respell them?    

Gaer


----------



## MrMagoo

gaer said:
			
		

> Kniee is an older spelling, right?
> 
> Gaer



That might be, yes - as I said: I've learnt that both variants are correct.


----------



## MrMagoo

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Yes, I know. I hate the Finnish ää.
> 
> But well, that's the way it is. I'll decide it later if I study Dutch or Finnish.


 

Well, in case you have a real vowel-phobia, you should not learn either of these languages; you know what a you can call a duck, swimming in (or is it: "on"?) a lake?

"een zeeëende"!


----------



## MrMagoo

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Well, I'm afarid I have to disagree with you there. I wouldn't prefer the second variant, because I hate such a spelling with two vowels in one row, such as "Haar", "Moos", and "Meer". They shouldn't exist, but we can't change things.




Of course you _can_ change things.
Writing a vowel twice means that the vowel is lengthened - this is a very old way of showing the length of a vowel.
Using an "h" as a length mark is a newer 'invention'.

Beside doubling a vowel and using "h" as a length mark, there has been a third way of showing length: "e".
This "e" has only survived in its combination with the letter i => "ie", but it was way more common some hundred years ago.

The preferred method is using the "h" btw; the doubling of vowels has almost only been kept in those cases where it could have lead to confusion with words that are pronounced the same or at least similar, which in then would have been spelt the same way, as well:

Compare:
"Meer" and "mehr"
"Heer" and "hehr"
"leeren" and "lehren"
"Seen" and "sehen"
etc.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Yes, I know. I hate the Finnish ää.
> 
> But well, that's the way it is. I'll decide it later if I *should * study Dutch or Finnish.



I just remembered that Dutch also has triple vowels sometimes.  In such cases, a trema needs to be placed on the third one.    

*met zijn tweeën* (zu zweit)


----------



## elroy

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> Well, in case you have a real vowel-phobia, you should not learn either of these languages; you know what a you can call a duck, swimming in (or is it: "on"?) a lake?
> 
> "een zeeeende"!



*in * a lake...


----------



## MrMagoo

elroy said:
			
		

> *in *a lake...


 
Cool, thank you!
(If you said "im See" in German, that'd rather mean that duck is dead...)  *g*


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> Why shouldn't they exist? Why do you object to them? Doesn't the doubling of the vowel show pronunciation? How would you respell them?
> 
> Gaer



Well, one variant is using the "h", as Magoo has already suggested. The other variant is a bit easier: Omitting double vowels:

Meer => Mer (long e)

short e = Merr

What about "tun"? Why isn't it "tuun"?


----------



## elroy

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> Cool, thank you!
> (If you said "im See" in German, that'd rather mean that duck is dead...)  *g*



German is a far more "pictorial" language than English.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Well, one variant is using the "h", as Magoo has already suggested. The other variant is a bit easier: Omitting double vowels:
> 
> Meer => Mer (long e)
> 
> short e = Merr
> 
> What about "tun"? Why isn't it "tuun"?


"Herr" is considered to have a short vowel? It doesn't sound that way to me?  

I suppose the problem is that German is MOSTLY phonetic, but not fully. 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> "Herr" is considered to have a short vowel? It doesn't sound that way to me?
> 
> I suppose the problem is that German is MOSTLY phonetic, but not fully.
> 
> Gaer



Yes, "Herr" has a short "e sound" and "Heer" has a long one.   

That's what I mean. "Hehr" doesn't exist, but it would be pronounced the same as "Heer".

Got it?


----------



## MrMagoo

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Yes, "Herr" has a short "e sound" and "Heer" has a long one.
> 
> That's what I mean. "Hehr" doesn't exist, but it would be pronounced the same as "Heer".
> 
> Got it?


 
"*hehr*" does exist: It's an adjective meaning "noble" (kind of), but it's very rarely used and almost always very poetic.


----------



## Whodunit

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> "*hehr*" does exist: It's an adjective meaning "noble" (kind of), but it's very rarely used and almost always very poetic.



Hm ... You're really right! I didn't even know that.   

Thank you for enlightening me.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Yes, "Herr" has a short "e sound" and "Heer" has a long one.
> 
> That's what I mean. "Hehr" doesn't exist, but it would be pronounced the same as "Heer".
> 
> Got it?


I understand it theoretically. I know both the words "Herr" and "Heer" (by sound), but I never thought about the difference before. They are normally used in totally different contexts.

One problem is that long and short vowels are confusing terms. Sometimes these terms refer to the length of a vowel, other times to the actual pronunication of a vowel.


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> I understand it theoretically. I know both the words "Herr" and "Heer" (by sound), but I never thought about the difference before. They are normally used in totally different contexts.



What about "In einem Heer gibt es viele Herren"?


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> What about "In einem Heer gibt es viele Herren"?


Hmm. Sometimes "Heer" and "Herr" sound the same to me, because some readers do not speak "Herr" quickly. But Herren does sound different.

I'm on thin ice here, and I will tell you frankly that I may be totally wrong, but I THINK there is enough variation in speech that some words are not necessarily pronounced differently even though they should be. In other words, when spoken properly and clearly the differences would be obvious, but at full speed I'm not sure these differences are always audible.

Perhaps spelling shows more about how words SHOULD be pronounced than the way they actually are pronounced, in real life, by people who do not speak carefully.

I know this is true in English, and it's true for very fine readers. Hmm.

The other problem is that in English a long vowel is not longer. It's a different vowel. "Hate" has a "long a". "Hat" has a "short a". It's totally illogical.

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> Hmm. Sometimes "Heer" and "Herr" sound the same to me, because some readers do not speak "Herr" quickly. But Herren does sound different.



I'm sorry to tell you that you MIGHT be wrong here. I have never heard "Herr" being pronounced as "Heer" and vice versa.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> I'm sorry to tell you that you MIGHT be wrong here. I have never heard "Herr" being pronounced as "Heer" and vice versa.


I won't say more then. But in English there is so much variation in speech from region to region that a word spoken by one person may sound exactly the same as a very different word, spoken by another. That does not mean that the same person would pronounce those two words the same.

I don't know if you understand my point. Let me give you just one example:

Draw, drawer

My friend from New Jersey prounounced both words the same way. Most people in the US  pronounce these differently.

In other cases differences in pronunciation are really radical.

Perhaps there simply is not as much diversity in the way German is pronounced, though I find that a bit suprising.

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> I don't know if you understand my point. Let me give you just one example:



haha, I think I understood your point very well, but I'm afraid there's actually EVERYWHERE a difference in pronunciation between Herr and Heer. But let's wait for other natives.


----------



## MrMagoo

Whodunit said:
			
		

> I'm sorry to tell you that you MIGHT be wrong here. I have never heard "Herr" being pronounced as "Heer" and vice versa.


 

You haven't?
To be totally honest: I can't really notice a difference between Herr and Heer in pronunciation.
"Heer" might be pronounced a slight little little little bit longer than "Herr" sometimes, but in general, I'd say they sound the same.

-MrMagoo


----------



## Whodunit

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> You haven't?
> To be totally honest: I can't really notice a difference between Herr and Heer in pronunciation.
> "Heer" might be pronounced a slight little little little bit longer than "Herr" sometimes, but in general, I'd say they sound the same.
> 
> -MrMagoo



Really? I'm shocked. I will pay attention to the pronunciation in the future, but I'm sure I pronounce it totally differently.

Heer (long e)
Herr (short e)

The h's and r's are pronounced the same.


----------



## MrMagoo

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Really? I'm shocked. I will pay attention to the pronunciation in the future, but I'm sure I pronounce it totally differently.
> 
> Heer (long e)
> Herr (short e)
> 
> The h's and r's are pronounced the same.


 
The reason is the following:

It's pretty uncommon to "really" pronounce an r in German when it's not followed by a vowel (at least in Northern Germany - it's different in Southern dialects where an r is rolled, or in the very West, Cologne-Area, where an r almost reaches the character of a French r). Short vowels preceeding an r are pronounced longer than short vowels preceeding any other sound, therefore there is no real difference between the "long" r in Heer and the "short(er)" one in Herr.

Generally you can say that an "r" in the end of a word is hardly pronounced (except it is rolled); the preceeding vowel is either lengthened, e.g.: "Bar" or diphthongized (=with the second element almost reaching the sound of a Schwa-"a" (e.g.: "Bär", "Herr"), in good phonetic transcriptions shown by an upside down "a", that is different from the Schwa-"e" which is represented by an upside down e [=Compare "Lehre" and "Lehrer"].

-MrMagoo


----------



## gaer

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> You haven't?
> To be totally honest: I can't really notice a difference between Herr and Heer in pronunciation.
> "Heer" might be pronounced a slight little little little bit longer than "Herr" sometimes, but in general, I'd say they sound the same.
> 
> -MrMagoo


This is what I was saying. I have a book recording that has a narrator and
"characters" (actors) reading the same words. I hear more difference between the way "Herr" is pronounced, from person to person, than a definite difference between "Heer" and "Herr". I think the reason is that sometimes when "Herr" is emphasized, the length of the vowel is a tiny bit longer BECAUSE of the emphasis.

To jump to another post, I've never heard anyone pronounce a final "r" in a way that even slightly approximates our American "r". But I have heard actors roll them, either for emphasis or to indicate an "accent" that I assume would indicate to a German listening that a particular part of Germany is (or might be) represented. 

Gaer


----------



## elroy

I just wanted to agree that I have not heard a difference in pronunciation between "Heer" and "Herr."


----------

