# Juwel



## Jana337

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Moderátorka machte aber Fehler.
> Jorge, der Buchladen heißt entweder Hugendubel oder Dussmann. Auch die Wohlthat'sche Buchhandlung war super. Und nicht zuletzt bei Jokers konnte man wirklich viele Juwele*n* billig erwerben... Quelle



Absichtlich habe ich es im Duden nachgeschlagen und erst dann zu Papier (Bildschirm) gebracht:


> Ju|wel,  das, auch: der; -s, -en <meist Pl.> [unter Einfluss von mniederl. juweel < afrz. joël, zu lat. iocus= Spaß, Scherz; also eigtl.= Kurzweiliges, Tändelei]: wertvoller Schmuckstein; kostbares Schmuckstück: funkelnde, blitzende -en; sie trägt viele -en.





> Ju|wel,  das; -s, -e (emotional): Person od. Sache, die für jmdn. besonders wertvoll ist: ihre Großmutter ist ein J.; sie ist ein J. von einer Köchin (ist eine sehr tüchtige Köchin); diese Kirche ist ein J. gotischer Baukunst.


Da ich keinen Schmuck gekauft habe, muss ich auf "Juwele" beharren. Oder macht da der Duden einen künstlichen Unterschied, der den Muttersprachlern unbekannt ist?

Ähnliches:


> Kleinod: Bei Kleinod unterscheidet man die schwache Pluralform die Kleinodien in der Bedeutung Schmuckstücke und die starke Pluralform die Kleinode im übertragenen Sinne von Kostbarkeiten.



Jana


----------



## Whodunit

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Absichtlich habe ich es im Duden nachgeschlagen und erst dann zu Papier (Bildschirm) gebracht:
> 
> 
> Da ich keinen Schmuck gekauft habe, muss ich auf "Juwele" beharren. Oder macht da der Duden einen künstlichen Unterschied, der den Muttersprachlern unbekannt ist?
> 
> Ähnliches:
> 
> 
> Jana



Stimmt, das habe ich nun zum zweiten Mal nachgeschlagen. Na ja,    doppelt hält besser!

Und bin zwar zu der Erkenntnis gekomme, dass du vollkommen recht hast, aber mir klang von Vornherein () schon "Juwele" falsch. Word jedoch erkennt keines von beiden als grammatisch falsch.   

Warten wir mal, was unsere Muttisprecher dazu zu sagen haben.


----------



## gaer

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Absichtlich habe ich es im Duden nachgeschlagen und erst dann zu Papier (Bildschirm) gebracht:
> 
> 
> Da ich keinen Schmuck gekauft habe, muss ich auf "Juwele" beharren. Oder macht da der Duden einen künstlichen Unterschied, der den Muttersprachlern unbekannt ist?
> 
> Ähnliches:
> 
> 
> Jana


Oh God!!! Is there any limit to the insanity of the German language? A different plural when a word is used figuratively?

Mad. Simply mad.  

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> Oh God!!! Is there any limit to the insanity of the German language? A different plural when a word is used figuratively?
> 
> Mad. Simply mad.
> 
> Gaer



No, if you use "Juwelen" for the plural, you'll be    on the safe side.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> No, if you use "Juwelen" for the plural, you'll be  on the safe side.


I understand, but "Juwele" is not rare either:

Potsdam hat das Problem, dass seine *Juwele*, die Schlösser und Gärten, sich an der Peripherie befinden und dass sie allesamt dem 18. und 19. Jahrhundert angehören. (Quelle: _Berliner Zeitung 2000_) 

I don't plan to be using this word in this way in this lifetime, but it's interesting to know that there is a difference, although it's also frustrating. What would you personally say if you were using "Juwel" to talk about things that are very valuable but that are not jewels? Would you use the different plural yourself, especially now that you know that rule? Or is this one of those "theoretical things" that most people simply ignore unless they are writing formally?

Jens, I have the same question for you too. 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> I understand, but "Juwele" is not rare either:
> 
> Potsdam hat das Problem, dass seine *Juwele*, die Schlösser und Gärten, sich an der Peripherie befinden und dass sie allesamt dem 18. und 19. Jahrhundert angehören. (Quelle: _Berliner Zeitung 2000_)
> 
> I don't plan to be using this word in this way in this lifetime, but it's interesting to know that there is a difference, although it's also frustrating. What would you personally say if you were using "Juwel" to talk about things that are very valuable but that are not jewels? Would you use the different plural yourself, especially now that you know that rule? Or is this one of those "theoretical things" that most people simply ignore unless they are writing formally?
> 
> Jens, I have the same question for you too.
> 
> Gaer



Just out of curiosity: Try Googling both of them. The difference is interesting, isn't it?

I'd say "Meine Freunde sind meine Juwelen, ich habe nur sie, sonst nichts" etc. I wouldn't ever use "Juwele", promised! Let's wait for Jens' answer.


----------



## MrMagoo

Da schon mehrfach nach mir gefragt wurde...

_Bewußt_ nehme ich den Unterschied nicht wahr, allerdings scheint mir diese Unterscheidung durchaus logisch, da es noch einige andere Substantive mit einer ähnlich subtilen Differenzierung gibt, die auch durch eine doppelte Pluralform ausgedrückt wird:


das *Wort*

a) die _Worte_
-----> Worte im Zusammenhang, Rede 
z.B. "nicht viele Worte machen" => wenig sagen
"Seine Worte gingen mir zu Herzen" => Seine Rede war ergreifend.

b) die _Wörter_
-----> Viele, einzelne, Wörter ohne Zusammenhang
z.B. "Maskuline und feminine Wörter"
=> Deshalb heißt es auch "Wörterbuch", nicht "Wortebuch"!


ebenso: das *Ding*

a) die _Dinge_
-----> irgendwie zusammengehörige Eigenschaften, also "Ding" im übertragenen Sinn
z.B. "Dinge, die ich an ihr mag"

b) die _Dinger_
------> konkrete Gegenstände, Teile
z.B. "Diese Backformen sind aber komische Dinger"


das *Tuch*

a) die _Tücher_
-----> einzelne Tücher
z.B. "Gib mir mal bitte zwei Taschentücher!"

b) die _Tuche_
-----> Stoffarten
z.B. "Wir verkaufen nur die edelsten orientalischen Tuche"


Es gibt noch ein paar andere, aber I guess you get the idea


----------



## Whodunit

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> Es gibt noch ein paar andere, aber I guess you get the idea



Yes of course, we guess your idea. But ich muss dennoch nachfragen, ob du in der gesprochenen Sprache eher "Juwele" bei "Wertgegenständen" bevorzugen würdest.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Yes of course, we guess your idea. But ich muss dennoch nachfragen, ob du in der gesprochenen Sprache eher "Juwele" bei "Wertgegenständen" bevorzugen würdest.


Actually, I have the same question. I'm aware of the difference between Wörter and Worte, and "Band" is perhaps the worst of all, with different plurals AND different genders.

The difference between "Tüche" and "Tücher" is something I never learned.

The difference between "Dinge" and "Dinger" is also something I never learned.

First, staying on topic, it seems to me that this business of "Jewel" is more "fuzzy" than the others, and I wondered if people might not also use "Jewelen", informally, in speech. As we've all talked about repeatedly, the way people speak and they way they write are often quite different.

As for the other nouns, it might be good to start a new thread about nouns that have two different plurals but the same singular form and gender. I would not like to continue that here, since again it's going to lead to too many new ideas. 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> Actually, I have the same question. I'm aware of the difference between Wörter and Worte, and "Band" is perhaps the worst of all, with different plurals AND different genders.



Hm, one of them is English. "die Band":

das Band - die Bänder (tape/assembly line)
der Band - die Bänder (volume)
die Band - die Bands (band)

Good example, Gaer.   



> The difference between "T*u*che" and "Tücher" is something I never learned.



I think, Tuche is a very rare word in speech. You should concentrate on "Tücher", the plural of Tischtuch, for instance.



> The difference between "Dinge" and "Dinger" is also something I never learned.



This is what you should learn: Distiguishing between Dinge and Dinger, but that's actually easy.



> As for the other nouns, it might be good to start a new thread about nouns that have two different plurals but the same singular form and gender. I would not like to continue that here, since again it's going to lead to too many new ideas.



Okay, do that. We'll be glad to help you.


----------



## MrMagoo

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Hm, one of them is English. "die Band":
> 
> das Band - die Bänder (tape/assembly line)
> der Band - die Bänder (volume)
> die Band - die Bands (band)
> 
> Good example, Gaer.




Jap, der Plural von "Band" (= volume) ist allerdings _"Bände"_, nicht Bänder;
zu "Band" (= tape/ assembly line) gehört zusätzlich noch der poetische Plural "Bande", z.B. in Wendungen wie 
"Bande der Freundschaft" etc.


----------



## gaer

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> Jap, der Plural von "Band" (= volume) ist allerdings _"Bände"_, nicht Bänder;
> zu "Band" (= tape/ assembly line) gehört zusätzlich noch der poetische Plural "Bande", z.B. in Wendungen wie
> "Bande der Freundschaft" etc.


I think this would make a good topic. I'm going to open one, otherwise our previous discussion of "Juwel" will be lost. We could, of course, just continue here, but I think we have stumbled across a larger problem. 

Let's go here

to continue talking about problem nouns. 

Gaer


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity: Try Googling both of them. The difference is interesting, isn't it?


In fact, I did, and I also checked the results out in the Leipzig site I use. 


> I'd say "Meine Freunde sind meine Juwelen, ich habe nur sie, sonst nichts" etc. I wouldn't ever use "Juwele", promised! Let's wait for Jens' answer.


I'm still waiting for Jens answer! (I'm interested because what I say and what I write are not always the same, even informally, and we already talked about the use of "das" vs. "die" for "Partikel". 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> I'm still waiting for Jens answer! (I'm interested because what I say and what I write are not always the same, even informally, and we already talked about the use of "das" vs. "die" for "Partikel".
> 
> Gaer



Well, now we both    long for our Gemanist Jens. And he isn't coming.


----------



## MrMagoo

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Well, now we both  long for our Gemanist Jens. And he isn't coming.


 

Oh dear, seems that I've been missed...

What would I say - honestly, I don't know, 

"Meine Freunde sind Juwele" sounds definitely better to me, so I guess I'd prefer that one.
Of course, it's a very subtile difference in these plural forms, but I would say that I use "Juwele" hier, not "Juwelen" - yep.


----------



## Whodunit

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> Oh dear, seems that I've been missed...
> 
> What would I say - honestly, I don't know,
> 
> "Meine Freunde sind Juwele" sounds definitely better to me, so I guess I'd prefer that one.
> Of course, it's a very subtile difference in these plural forms, but I would say that I use "Juwele" hier, not "Juwelen" - yep.



Hm, I can't say if I agree or not. Just Google "meine Juwele" and "meine Juwelen". I have no idea if I would say it, but I can ask my relatives, maybe they know what the plural of "Juwel" is.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Hm, I can't say if I agree or not. Just Google "meine Juwele" and "meine Juwelen". I have no idea if I would say it, but I can ask my relatives, maybe they know what the plural of "Juwel" is.


That's why I always compare Google to the "Leipzig" site.

http://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de/

Unless I'm wrong, if you look for Juwele and Juwelen, it's pretty clear that "Juwele" is figurative, used for anything priceless, but not jewels, but Juwelen is used only for jewels.

We've had many discussions in the English forum about informal vs. formal language, and what we all agreed on is this: language is used much more precisely and much formally in narrative. Fine writers are fairly conservative about what words they choose for narrative, in their novels, but the dialogue within the novels corresponds to relaxed, informal usage, even slang, and for that reason I think Google is much more likely to reflect very informal speech patterns. 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> We've had many discussions in the English forum about informal vs. formal language, and what we all agreed on is this: language is used much more precisely and much formally in narrative. Fine writers are fairly conservative about what words they choose for narrative, in their novels, but the dialogue within the novels corresponds to relaxed, informal usage, even slang, and for that reason I think Google is much more likely to reflect very informal speech patterns.
> 
> Gaer



Here's the next one joining the group "Narrative vs. Dialog" (isn't dialogue British?) who agrees that narrative languages is used much more precisely and more formally than in dialogs. Well, that's very true, but what does that have to do that Google doesn't reflect informal patterns? It's good THAT Google does it, otherwise we would only see formal phrases on Google.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Here's the next one joining the group "Narrative vs. Dialog" (isn't dialogue British?) who agrees that narrative languages is used much more precisely and more formally than in dialogs.


First, "dialogue" is 100% correct in AE. "Dialog" is also correct, but it is a variant.


> Well, that's very true, but does that have to do that Google doesn't reflect informal patterns? It's good THAT Google does it, otherwise we would only see formal phrases on Google.


Ah, but you see, I totally agree. That's why I think Google is an excellent tool to check informal usage. You have to know a lot about a language to use it that way though. I can't tell the difference between informal usage and what most people would call "uneducated usage" when I check German. I can only come to a meaningful when checking English.

Let me give you just three examples:

"I ain't done nothing wrong."

"I ain't finished yet"

"You ain't seen nothing yet"

Which one of those would sound most uneducated? Which would be used, humorously, by people who are fine speakers? 

Gaer


----------



## MrMagoo

gaer said:
			
		

> Let me give you just three examples:
> 
> "I ain't done nothing wrong."
> 
> "I ain't finished yet"
> 
> "You ain't seen nothing yet"
> 
> Which one of those would sound most uneducated? Which would be used, humorously, by people who are fine speakers?
> 
> Gaer


 

Actually, it's a pitty what the higher society has done with the word _ain't_.
It is - basically - a very old word that has been around in English a lot in former times, even 'fine speakers' have used it. 
Just because 'high-society-people' (or whatever you can call them), esp. authors of course, have proscribed the use of _ain't_ it has gotten such a bad reputation...


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> First, "dialogue" is 100% correct in AE. "Dialog" is also correct, but it is a variant.



I want to wait for Elroy, just to have it checked once more. I can't believe you have two acceptable variants that pretty much look like AE-BE difference.   



> Let me give you just three examples:
> 
> "I ain't done nothing wrong."
> 
> "I ain't finished yet"
> 
> "You ain't seen nothing yet"
> 
> Which one of those would sound most uneducated? Which would be used, humorously, by people who are fine speakers?



Let me tell you how I would say it (unless I were in an informal teen gang etc.):

1.) I haven't done anything wrong.

2.) I'm not ready yet./I haven't finished yet.

3.) You haven't seen anything yet.

I've already heard such a sentence:

You ain't gotta go nowhere. (Three times such a slang word ~ don't, have to, anywhere)


----------



## MrMagoo

Whodunit said:
			
		

> I want to wait for Elroy, just to have it checked once more. I can't believe you have two acceptable variants that pretty much look like AE-BE difference.


 

Gaer is a native speaker of American English, why would he tell you it's 100% correct, when it isn't??

I know btw. that Gaer is right, as I've dealt a lot with differences concerning British and American English in the passed months... .


----------



## Whodunit

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> Gaer is a native speaker of American English, why would he tell you it's 100% correct, when it isn't??
> 
> I know btw. that Gaer is right, as I've dealt a lot with differences concerning British and American English in the passed months... .



Yes, but gaer once admitted he speaks American English with British influence. Okay, thanks for the confirmation.


----------

