# Süddeutsche Zeitung:  Man muß es täglich lesen.



## srk

I remember often seeing the slogan in Germany:  Süddeutsche Zeitung:  Man muß es täglich lesen.  What does the "es" refer to, since "Zeitung" is feminine?


----------



## Zundung

Are you sure that is the right slogan? I've tried to google it but found nothing.


----------



## srk

I am sure (although I can't Google it either, and I don't find reference to it at Süddeutche Zeitung's website).  I saw the slogan frequently in southern Germany in the early '60s and wondered about it at the time.  (I was stationed there and had taken elementary courses in German beforehand.)  I took an intermediate course afterward and asked the instructor the same question.  He rattled something off to indicate that the use of "es" was quite correct in that instance.

I didn't understand his reason.  It was close to the end of the semester, and I'm afraid I felt my grade might suffer if I said I didn't understand and kept asking.

He also gave a quiz on noun genders, and said that he'd hoped we'd realize that Käse is a masculine noun, because "Limburger Käse" was a familiar pairing.  It wasn't until much later that I realized that any city name used as an adjective ends in "er" regardless of the gender of the noun that follows.  I was never confident after that that his explanation of the slogan was valid (whatever it was).


----------



## Vulpe

Man muß es (das Zeitungs*blatt*) täglich lesen.
I can't tell you the specific meaning of the "es" because it could also refer to what they're reporting on. In an abstract way.
Example:
"Man muß *es *täglich lesen, *was *wir berichten."


By the way, it's not orthographically correct anymore.
-Man muss es täglich lesen.-


----------



## srk

Thanks, Vulpe,

I should have been clearer.  The slogan was displayed on small billboards about 5 feet wide and 1 or two feet high and supported in frames on posts maybe 3 feet off the ground, typically at railway stations in the middle of boarding platforms between sets of tracks.  That is to say, they weren't reporting on anything.  They were just advertising the newspaper.

I've written to the online version of the paper to ask if anyone remembers the slogan or whether there are records of it being used.

My understanding is that government publications are strict about the new orthography, but that many institutions (newspapers in particular) thumb their noses at it.  Maybe that has changed too, and I'm unaware of it.


----------



## berndf

I remember the slogan "Man muß *sie* täglich lesen" from my childhood days but it was not the Süddeutsche and I didn' remember where I read it. I had to look it up and it was a slogon of the "Deutsche Zeitung" (doesn't exist any more) and was taken up by the "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" ("Schon vor 20 Jahren sagte man von der Frankfurter Zeitung': 'Man muß sie täglich lesen'. Das gilt heute von der, Frankfurter Allgemeinen'."; Source). What you read might have been sum kind of a word play we can't understand because we are missing some context.





srk said:


> My understanding is that government publications are strict about the new orthography, but that many institutions (newspapers in particular) thumb their noses at it.  Maybe that has changed too, and I'm unaware of it.


It was correct at the time. The change was in 1996.


----------



## Hutschi

"Es" in German is used as replacement in many cases.
It is similar to "das" or in English to "this", "that" or "it".

Sure is "es" does not refer directly to "Zeitung".

There is also a similar slogan: Ich muss es wissen. = Ich muss das wissen.
Ich muss es lesen. = (approximately) Ich muss das lesen.

So I agree with Vulpe (#4).


----------



## srk

Thank you, all,

I'll accept the expert advice from Vulpe and Hutschi that "es" can be used abstractly and refer to stuff in general, regardless of the fact that the pronoun is used immediately after the word "Zeitung".  This is easier to swallow than that I should go looking for some neuter noun like Zeitungsblatt to account for the "es".  (If they had used "sie", I would be obligated to search around for a noun like "Nachrichten" to justify "sie".)  Over the years, I've pored over Lederer's grammar reference looking for a justification for an abstract "es" in the slogan, but I haven't found it, so I'm glad if you have settled the issue for me.

After my original post, I found a 1960's article online that talked about "Man muß *sie* täglich lesen" as a slogan for Deutsche Zeitung.  If berndf hadn't talked about that slogan in his reply, I was not going to, because it argues for my simply having misremembered the slogan I referred to.  I also found the headline "Zeitung muss man täglich lesen" at this link. (I'll wrestle with why that isn't "Zeitungen" on my own.)

On the point of remembering:  If I had sat around one recent day, 50 years after the fact, trying to remember the wording on an arbitrary advertisement at a railway station, I would have conceded to Zundung that I probably got it wrong.  What I remember instead was my confusion at the time and having committed the source of my confusion to memory.

Thanks again.


----------



## berndf

srk said:


> ...so I'm glad if you have settled the issue for me.


I am afraid it is not really settled. As educated as Vulpe's and Hutschi's guesses might be, the eventually remain exactly that: guesses. There is a high probability that the true reason for this "es" (assuming you remember it correctly) is buried in some little detail in that advertisement that might have escaped your attention at the time. We can't truly call the matter _settled _until we've seen all of the advertisement.


----------



## Hutschi

Indeed, it may be depend on further context. 
Only if there is no other context I read it in this way.
If the context is wrong it is hard to understand it correctly.
"Es" can refer to another noun. But in the original sentence I do not see any noun it can refer to. So it can only refer to the information, given in the newspaper.
"Man muß *es *täglich lesen, *was *wir berichten." is a possible interpretation and has the same content as:  "Man muß täglich lesen, *was *wir berichten." 
So it may refer to a picture or a noun in the picture.

At the moment, without additional context, I see only this abstract sense. In this sense it remains a guess, but this is how I understood it.


----------



## srk

Because of your replies about context for the slogan I asked about, I’m taking one more shot at making what I saw clear to you.  I prepared this image for the purpose.  This is supposed to show what these small billboards looked like (perhaps from a train window).  There was no context for the slogan on the signs — no drawing, no photograph, no additional text.

It occurs to me that there might have been context elsewhere — say, in ads appearing in magazines as part of an ad campaign in which the wordplay you talked about would have been evident.

I don’t think this thread deserves much more of your attention.  Your answers have been clear.  What I’d like to understand is what your first reaction would have been on seeing these signs.  Would it have been, “I wonder what they’re trying to say by using “es”?  Or would it have been, “I get it.  They must mean “was wir berichten, oder so was”?


----------



## ablativ

I would understand what the sign is supposed to mean. But at the same time the bad style would astonish me (period is missing, too) and I would start thinking about it - maybe that's what they want me to do.


----------



## srk

Ablativ,

Thanks.  There may have been a period for all I know.  I elected not to include one in the picture I made, because there was none in the slogan for Deutsche Zeitung as quoted in the Source that berndf provided.  It also seemed to me that the slogan was a headline of sorts, and that headlines don't normally contain much in the way of punctuation.

I'm not quite clear on what you're saying by "I would understand what the sign is _supposed_ to mean" and "bad style".  Are you referring to the use of "es" rather than "sie" or to something else that offends you in the slogan.  If it is the former, that's the kind of information I'm after.  Others have suggested what "es" might mean, but I'm trying to get a feel for how the pronoun would strike someone on first consideration:  "That's strange!" is the way it struck me, and I guess you're saying that's how it would strike you.  Vulpe's and Hutshi's answers about how the phrasing _could_ be interpreted were important information for me, but so is the idea that, lacking any further context, one would not _quickly_ assume that those interpretations were correct: that it takes some squirming to accept the grammar.


----------



## ablativ

Re-reading my own post, I  should probably have written _I would (_past tense_) understand what the sign *was *supposed to mean.  _And yes, it's the wrong pronoun "es" that does not refer to _die Zeitung. _And I would start thinking:  *Was* muss man täglich lesen? It can't be _die Zeitung. _What else could they mean? Or is it just a *big *grammatical error? <----- (my thoughts)

I would certainly not "accept" the grammar. Let alone when it's about the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" which has a good reputation Germany-wide.


----------



## Hutschi

If "es" is related to "die Zeitung" it is simply wrong.

So it cannot be related to "die Zeitung".

In my mind it builds "man muss das Zeug täglich lesen." or "Man muss täglich lesen, was da so geschrieben wird" or "Man muss täglich lesen, was so passiert."


----------



## Hamlet2508

Ich würde meinen,dass dieser "Fehler" bewusst eingebaut wurde , um die Aufmerksamkeit der Passanten zu wecken , eben weil ein offensichtlicher Bezug fehlt. Es bleibt also jedem Passanten(?)  überlassen , sich seinen eigenen Reim darauf zu machen , worauf sich "es" nun tatsächlich bezieht (auf das Geschmiere, das Geschriebene,....)


----------



## srk

Thanks, ablativ, for your latest, and to you and Hamlet2508 for the suggestion that the error was purposeful and to make the passerby wonder and ruminate on the slogan.

As I woke up this morning, the word "Tageblatt" popped into my mind.  Could it be that the word is so common regionally that the association Süddeutsche Zeitung = Tageblatt would be automatic?

Hutschi, I have the idea that you're quite comfortable with the idea of substituting something like "Zeug" for "es" as a first reaction.

The other odd part about this is the separate existence of the slogan "...muß sie ... lesen" for Deutsche Zeitung.  If the two papers were not part of the same organization, I don't know how one could legally use a slogan so like the other's.

I'm beginning to feel a little Ahab-like, so it might be smart to let it go.

Thanks for all your help!


----------



## ABBA Stanza

srk said:


> As I woke up this morning, the word "Tageblatt" popped into my mind.  Could it be that the word is so common regionally that the association Süddeutsche Zeitung = Tageblatt would be automatic?


Good idea, but I think this is extremely unlikely. Indeed, I can't remember any situation where the wrong pronoun was intentionally used just because of the existence of an unmentioned synonym with a matching gender.

Cheers
Abba


----------



## srk

Thanks for setting me straight, Abba.

Oops!

When I wrote that thanks, I felt that I could somehow reconcile your opinion with Utschi's and Vulpe's.  That feeling has evaporated.

I'm not at all straight, but I'm glad to have your view of the possibilities.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

srk said:


> Oops!
> 
> When I wrote that thanks, I felt that I could somehow reconcile your opinion with Utschi's and Vulpe's.  That feeling has evaporated.


Thanks for not completely revoking the thanks. 

Let me illustrate by means of another example:

_A: Hast du das gesehen, was ich dir hingelegt habe?
B: Ich muss *es* noch lesen._

What I am saying is that in my opinion, the "es" here is completely generic, and does not correspond to any particular (unmentioned) neuter noun (such as _das Zeug_, _das Ding_ or _das Blatt_).

[Note: Another example (one of many) would be the following commonly-heard sentence: _Er/sie muss es noch lernen. _Again, without any further context, the "es" in this sentence does not implicitly refer to any particular neuter noun.]

Suppose, however, that person A instead had instead asked the question

_A: Hast du *die Zeitung* gesehen, *die* ich dir hingelegt habe?
_
In this case (which is getting closer to your original example), the corresponding answer should really be _"ich muss *sie* noch lesen"_, in order to match the gender of the noun referred to in the question. However, in my experience, it's not uncommon to hear a generic "es" in colloquial language instead (especially among foreigners, who tend to be more sloppy in this respect  ).

A similar situation occurs with people or animals where (analogously to the generic "es" for things) the natural gender is often used. For example:

_A. Hast du *das Mädchen* von nebenan gesehen?
B. Ja, *sie* war heute morgen schon da._

To be grammatically precise, one would use "es" instead of "sie" here, because "Mädchen" is neuter. However, it's common to encounter a switch to "sie" as above. Otherwise, if one keeps propagating the grammatical gender from one sentence to the next, one ends up with something that sounds like it's come from a Grimm fairy tale!

I'm not a native speaker, though, so I'll reserve the final judgement for the others. However, I just wanted to add the above examples and discussion to provide some more food for thought on this topic.

Cheers
Abba


----------



## Hutschi

I want to add some remarks regarding style.

Let me illustrate by means of another example:


> _A: Hast du das gesehen, was ich dir hingelegt habe?
> B: Ich muss *es* noch lesen._


this is absolutely normal style



> [Note: Another example (one of many) would be the following commonly-heard sentence: _Er/sie muss es noch lernen. _Again, without any further context, the "es" in this sentence does not implicitly refer to any particular neuter noun.]


It is seldom used without context but often with unspoken context in coll. language.
Example: She made a mistake and the meal became uneatable.
"Sie muss es noch lernen."
This has a vague connection, too: Das Kochen, den Herd bedienen usw. 


> Suppose, however, that person A instead had instead asked the question
> 
> _A: Hast du *die Zeitung* gesehen, *die* ich dir hingelegt habe?
> _
> In this case (which is getting closer to your original example), the corresponding answer should really be _"ich muss *sie* noch lesen"_, in order to match the gender of the noun referred to in the question. However, in my experience, it's not uncommon to hear a generic "es" in colloquial language instead (especially among foreigners, who tend to be more sloppy in this respect  ).


Absolutely true.





> ...
> 
> _A. Hast du *das Mädchen* von nebenan gesehen?
> B. Ja, *sie* war heute morgen schon da._


There are different opinoins, but it becomes more and more common. 



> To be grammatically precise, one would use "es" instead of "sie" here, because "Mädchen" is neuter. However, it's common to encounter a switch to "sie" as above. Otherwise, if one keeps propagating the grammatical gender from one sentence to the next, one ends up with something that sounds like it's come from a Grimm fairy tale!



In the original question it is used in an unusual way, and this is typical for ad language and partly for coll. language.

I would avoid this construction in scientific works - exept, of course - if it is the topic of the work.


----------



## srk

Wow!  That’s overwhelming.  Don’t you guys in Europe have Mondays?

I have to digest what you’ve said.  This is just a quick note to say that I appreciate the response.


----------



## srk

Abba,

I didn’t mean to take back any of my thanks, just the idea that I had become educated.  I expect that a smile with one eye closed says that you already knew that.

Abba, Hutschi,

Reading over all the exchanges in this thread, I see that I recognized early on that I was being told explicitly about a generic “es”, but that my focus drifted, and I started to look at “es” only as a pronoun for some neuter synonym in a rewording of the original statement.  I really can’t account for having missed the sense of your recent posts.  I suppose senility can be subtle to those afflicted.

Thanks for the additional examples.

_A. Hast du *das Mädchen* von nebenan gesehen?
B. Ja, *sie* war heute morgen schon da.
_
Is a new lesson for me.  I thought I had to wait attentively for the child’s name to be mentioned before I could use “sie”.

(No, dummy, that's for "das Kind" and a different context.  It's still news.)


----------



## dellen

Dear all,

I am new here and not a linguist. Therefore I cannot come up with a correct answer. 

Abba's answer sounds very convincing. Therefore I think that we are talking of a generic "es" as described above. 

But here is a last thought depicted by some examples from my newsroom. As I am a journalist myself and the slogan you mentioned sounds very familiar to me in a news reporting context.

"Hast Du es schon gelesen?"
"Es steht in allen Agenturen" 
"Die BILD Zeitung hat sogar damit aufgemacht"

In all these examples we refer to a topic, a piece of news. Although it is "die Neuigkeit" we are talking about, we usually use "es" the neuter. Therefore it may be also possible that we refer to the "Thema" which also is a neuter in German.

Cheers, dellen

When I read your entry I realized that for the first time. Thanx for that - it really gave me a brain twister


----------



## Hutschi

I hope this is not off topic, but there is a parallel construction:

Hast du's schon gehört? (Das und das ist passiert.) It also refers to a kind of News (Neuigkeiten)


----------



## srk

dellen,

I'm brand new too.  Thanks for a journalist's view. It sounds as though you wouldn't quit your job if a similar slogan were used by your publisher.

Hutschi,

I don't understand why you would think that off topic.


----------



## Hutschi

Ok, thank you.

I thought about it, and there are even more such constructions:

Hast du's schon gehört?/Hast du es schon gehört?/Hast du schon gehört?
Hast du's schon gelesen?/Hast du es schon gelesen?/Hast du schon gelesen?
Hast du's schon gesehen?/Hast du es schon gesehen?/Hast du schon gesehen?

These are completely parallel, and the last form (without "'s" or "es") in each line require to give the fact explicitely, in the other cases the context may be given by the situation.
In the first form it is not clear if "'s" is for "es" or for "das" (with unstressed "das", stressed "das" cannot be replaces this way.)
Unstressed "das" is (almost) equal to "es" in our context. Stressed "das" expresses surprise/astonishment. This cannot be expressed with "es".

All refer to some kind of news.

The forms like "Hast du schon gesehen?" is an idiom. It does not mean whether you was able to see but if you already have seen or observed  the news or facts.


----------

