# Wie viel Busen darf eine Politikerin zeigen?



## Encolpius

ich habe Probleme diesen Satz ins Englische zu übersetzen, vielleicht: How much of her breast is a female politician allowed to show?


----------



## Demiurg

Encolpius said:


> ... vielleicht: How much of her breast is a female politician allowed to show?



Genau.


----------



## Encolpius

ja,ja...sehr interessanter Ausdruck "viel Busen zeigen".....kann man sagen sie hat nicht viel Bein gezeigt? usw....


----------



## berndf

Encolpius said:


> ja,ja...sehr interessanter Ausdruck "viel Busen zeigen".....kann man sagen sie hat nicht viel Bein gezeigt? usw....


Ja.


----------



## Encolpius

Ich verstehe es jetzt....vielen Dank...


----------



## Darth Nihilus

It would be interesting to read the opinion of a native on this, but I'd let go of _"of her_"

_How much breast is a female politician allowed to show?_

Not that there would be any semantic difference though.


----------



## djweaverbeaver

Hi,

I personally wouldn't use *breast *in this situation.  I'd probably opt for *chest*: * How much of her chest is a (female) politician allowed to show?*  It sounds a little nicer, less graphic.  I think the most  appropriate term would be cleavage, since you're more than likely talking about the area between a woman's breasts due to a low-cut neckline or an unbuttoned blouse.  *How much (of her) **cleavage **is a (female) politician allowed to show?*


----------



## Encolpius

Thank you DJ----


----------



## bearded

To native speakers:
In certain cases, _wieviel _can be used instead of _wieviele._  Now, is there a difference between _wie viel _and _wieviel?  _I imagine: _wieviel Busen darf sie zeigen? Einen oder zwei?_


----------



## berndf

No, that would be "wie viele/wieviele Busen darf man zeigen? Einen oder zwei?". Independently of whether you spell it as one or two words, the non countable "viel" and the countable "viele" are well distinguished.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Neither is there the word _*wieviel _(it fell victim to the spelling reform), nor is there a plural meaning of _​wie viel._


----------



## bearded

But I often heard phrases like 'Wie viel (einst w_ieviel) _Einwohner hat Deutschland?/ Wie viel Personen seid ihr?'.  So I thought it might sometimes be used as a plural. Is it perhaps a colloquial usage only?


----------



## perny

Ah, my most illogical German word friend yet: the MALE bosom...


----------



## Schimmelreiter

perny said:


> Ah, my most illogical German word friend yet: the MALE bosom...


_The chest of a human: *He* held the sleepy child to *his* bosom._
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bosom

_the human chest and especially the front part of the chest <hugged the child to *his* bosom_
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bosom


----------



## bearded

Zusätzlich zu meinem post #12:
Im Duden finde ich folgendes Beispiel:  _wie viele _oder _wie viel Personen nehmen  teil?....
//
English:  
Further to my post #12
_In the Duden online dictionary I found the following example:
_wie viele _or _wie viel Personen nehmen teil?_


----------



## Schimmelreiter

bearded man said:


> Zusätzlich zu meinem post #12:
> Im Duden finde ich folgendes Beispiel:  _wie viele _oder _wie viel Personen nehmen  teil?...._


That's extremely interesting and, to me at least, surprising.

Duden also says,
_viel/viele nützliche Hinweise_
_mach nicht so viel/viele Worte!_
_sie haben gleich viel/viele Dienstjahre_
http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/viel_zahlreich_vielerlei

I've got absolutely no explanation for that, other than a very far-fetched one, which would be the partitive genitive and is probably wrong: _viel [der] Personen/Hinweise/Worte/Dienstjahre_, and even then the singular _viel _is hardly explicable.

We might easily agree that the singular is colloquial but Duden doesn't mark it as such.

Can't wait to read comments.


----------



## bearded

And the same thing seems to occur also with _wenig:
_(from Duden):  plural, unflektiert . eine kleine Anzahl._  Mit wenig Worten...

And it would be important for me to know:
_Dear SR, didn't you ever hear such expressions (wie viel Personen, mit wenig Worten) in the real world - I mean outside of Duden - or did you regard them as mistakes when you heard them?
Thank you.


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> That's extremely interesting and, to me at least, surprising.
> 
> Duden also says,
> _viel/viele nützliche Hinweise_
> _mach nicht so viel/viele Worte!_
> _sie haben gleich viel/viele Dienstjahre_
> http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/viel_zahlreich_vielerlei
> 
> I've got absolutely no explanation for that, other than a very far-fetched one, which would be the partitive genitive and is probably wrong: _viel [der] Personen/Hinweise/Worte/Dienstjahre_, and even then the singular _viel _is hardly explicable.
> 
> We might easily agree that the singular is colloquial but Duden doesn't mark it as such.
> 
> Can't wait to read comments.


_Viel Worte_ seems ok and logical to me. This can be analysed as non-countable. This is rooted in the distinction between the plurals _Wörter_ and _Worte_.

I have always understood _wie viel Personen_ as a colloquial elision,  i.e. as _wie viel' Personen_ or _wie vie' Personen_, and not as uninflected. Maybe these other cases also have non-countable interpretation? E.g. _Dienstjahre_ meaning _Dienstzeit gemessen in (vollendeten) Jahren_.


----------



## Hutschi

I do not regard it as mistake when I hear it. I prefer "wie viel Personen" when I want to know it approximately, and "wie viele Personen" when I want to get an exact number. But this difference is vague. When I think about it, it corresponds to the bosom example. "Wie viel" refers to the area, "wie viele" to the number.  (But this is not strict.)

In written text "wie viel" looks wrong to me but this is because of the new spelling. It also suggests a wrong pronunciation (there is a difference between one word and two words.).


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> I do not regard it as mistake when I hear it. I prefer "wie viel Personen" when I want to know it approximately, and "wie viele Personen" when I want to get an exact number.


That would point us in the direction of a non-countable interpretation. I.e. _etwa 1000 Personen_ is like _etwa 10 Liter Wasser_.


----------



## bearded

I think that in Duden's example, though, a countable number is meant (wie viel Personen nehmen teil?).


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Even canoo supports Duden:



Im Plural meistens flektiert (im Genitiv immer flektiert):
_Mit_ _wenigen_ _Ausnahmen_
seltener:
_Mit_ _wenig_ _Ausnahmen_
_Ich mache mir nicht_ _viele_ _Gedanken._
seltener:
_Ich mache mir nicht_ _viel_ _Gedanken._
_Ich mache mir nur_ _wenige_ _Gedanken._
seltener:
_Ich mache mir nur_ _wenig_ _Gedanken._
_Er besitzt nur_ _wenige_ _Bücher._
seltener: 
_Er besitzt nur_ _wenig_ _Bücher._
_Nach Ansicht_ _vieler_ _Leute._
 
 


http://www.canoo.net/services/OnlineGrammar/Wort/Adjektiv/Zahlen/Unbestimmt.html



I've repeatedly warned against overdescriptivism mistaking bad German for German. They wouldn't listen.


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> I've repeatedly warned against overdescriptivism mistaking bad German for German. They wouldn't listen.


I drink to that.


----------



## Hutschi

> Ich mache mir nur wenige Gedanken.    seltener:    Ich mache mir nur wenig Gedanken.



In this case I can find a  difference in he sentence structure: Ich mache mir nur *wenige Gedanken*.    

Ich *mache mir* nur *wenig/selten* Gedanken.

But this is not a general rule, and it may be fuzzy due to the other examples. So "wenig Gedanken" is valid as one phrase, while "selten Gedanken" is not one phrase.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Hutschi said:


> Ich *mache mir* nur *wenig/selten* Gedanken.


Please follow my canoo link. It's all under _Die unbestimmten Zahladjektive_. No adverbs! (Yours, explained as _selten_​, is an adverb.)


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> Please follow my canoo link. It's all under _Die unbestimmten Zahladjektive_. No adverbs! (Yours, explained as _selten_​, is an adverb.)


I think he is saying that the form is acceptable; but canoo's explanation is wrong. _Wenig _should be analysed as an adverb.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

So let's concentrate on canoo accepting _mit wenig Ausnahmen_. I call it wrong. Who's game?

PS
Don't say it's colloquial. My language is colloquial enough. I want it to be correct from time to time. Second-language learners share this sentiment normally.


----------



## Hutschi

Hi,

I do not know whether it is colloquial.
But in my mind it is like a double word.

When I read the sentence, I feel "wenig" in "Ich mache mir nur wenig Gedanken" switching between "(Ich mache mir nur wenig) (Gedanken)" and "Ich mache mir nur (wenig Gedanken)". I added "selten" to make clear which kind of word I mean here, it does not have the same meaning, only a similar meaning.
This is not the case and even not possible with "wenige Gedanken".
In oral language there is a clear difference between the sentences, making it clear.
I am not sure whether this is a regional usage, but it was rather common.

Duden says:
http://www.duden.de/suchen/dudenonline/wenig

Adverb - 1. kaum, selten, in geringem Maße; …2. in geringem Grad, nicht sehr, …

So I could replace the first meaning: "Ich mache mir nicht sehr Gedanken/kaum Gedanken darüber." 

I think I gave my point very clear now. 
I do not know exactly which level it has (coll., regional or standard)

I think, this fuzziness blocks "wenig" a little bit, if "wenige" is meant, and "wenige Gedanken" seems to be more standard, less coll.


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> So let's concentrate on canoo accepting _mit wenig Ausnahmen_. I call it wrong. Who's game?


And Hutschi calls it correct but with a different explanation. I can't see how we can ignore that. After all, you want to know, if the form is right, not if canoo's explanation is right.


Schimmelreiter said:


> Don't say it's colloquial. My language is colloquial enough. I want it to be correct from time to time. Second-language learners share this sentiment normally.


I am afraid, I can't do you the favour. I don't have the slightest hesitations saying _Wievie* Stück Zucker möchten Sie?_ even in relatively formal situations. But I would always write _Wie viele Stück Zucker möchten Sie?_
____________
*Ein Wort mit der Betonung auf der ersten Silbe, so wie _WiFi _deutsch ausgesprochen.


----------



## perny

Fascinating discussion! 

As a language learner, I find these two troubling examples:

_Mit wenig Ausnahmen
__Er besitzt nur wenig Bücher.

_In the first even if _wenig _or the phrase were being used adverbially somehow, having the word equivalent of "exception" as plural would make no sense at all to me currently unless it is a fixed phrase. The function or meaning of the entire phrase would be called into question. So, without more information, I would be forced to consider that an outright error.

In the second, there's nothing more countable than _Buch _so, I would never write it myself but I can still immediately understand the sentence and just mentally "skip" it. This kind of grammatical "bump" is most common in speech and in this particular case feels quite small. I would not mark it as an error, but I would notice it.


----------



## Hutschi

Hi,
countability is a strange thing.
Does "wenig Bücher" refer to a countable number?
What is the case with grains of sand? Two or three are countale, if you have a heap, it is not countable.

In principal they are countable, actually they are mostly not countable, or the number is not important.

If you have three books, they are countable, of course. 
If you have fourty books, they are countable somehow.
If you have some books, may be you can count them, or not. You define "some". This is not a number but a fuzzy amount and depends on context.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Countability is a grammatical concept rather than a practical one. In _Am Himmel sieht man viele Sterne_, for all their practical uncountability, the stars are grammatically countable. May I drop dead if _viel Sterne _​be correct!


----------



## Frieder

Weißt du, wie viel Sterne stehen ...


----------



## perny

Frieder said:


> Weißt du, wie viel Sterne stehen ...



Oh dear, its a book and a song!

I think at this time grammatical harakiri may be required... It's either that or the German equivalent of, "I can't even!" (which is what, anyone, please? Taking a stab at it with, _Ich kann aber nicht mal_!)


----------



## Frieder

"Ich kann nicht mehr!" 
Or more colloquial : "Boah, geh bloß wech!" 

Back on topic: I don't count that as a valid objection.


----------



## osa_menor

What about this?
Wieviel Sterne hat die Nacht?

Außerdem muss ich bekennen, dass "Wieviel Sterne hat dieses Hotel" mir erheblich leichter über die Lippen kommt als "Wie viele Sterne hat dieses  Hotel. Vielleicht liegt es am mitteldeutschen Sprachraum.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Frieder said:


> Weißt du, wie viel Sterne stehen ...


Further to





Schimmelreiter said:


> I've got absolutely no explanation for that, other than a very far-fetched one, which would be the partitive genitive and is probably wrong


_ursprünglich mit partitivem genitiv_
_wieviel der schwerter könnt ihr aus dem frieden noch ziehn _
http://woerterbuchnetz.de/DWB/?sigle=DWB&mode=Vernetzung&lemid=GW20739#XGW20739


----------



## manfy

Schimmelreiter said:


> _ursprünglich mit partitivem genitiv_
> _wieviel der schwerter könnt ihr aus dem frieden noch ziehn _
> http://woerterbuchnetz.de/DWB/?sigle=DWB&mode=Vernetzung&lemid=GW20739#XGW20739



Exactly! 
Evolution from AHD to 1900 (aside from other aspects): "Wieviel der Sterne" becomes "Wieviel Sterne"

And it seems almost justifyable:
"Wieviel Sterne gibt's da?" = "Welche Menge Sterne gibt's da?" -> 'Wieviel/welche Menge' describes an unquantified amount (be it countable or not)
BUT
"Wie viele Sterne gibt's da?" -> 'viel' is an indefinite number, as such an adjective, hence needs to be inflected according to its reference noun.

But that's where the orthography reform has put a wrinkle into the whole idea:
The current-day spelling of 'wie viel' disables this distinction, hence it actually invalidates the uninflected use of indefinite numbers!


----------



## perpend

djweaverbeaver said:


> I personally wouldn't use *breast *in this situation.  I'd probably opt for *chest*: * How much of her chest is a (female) politician allowed to show?*  It sounds a little nicer, less graphic.  I think the most  appropriate term would be cleavage, since you're more than likely talking about the area between a woman's breasts due to a low-cut neckline or an unbuttoned blouse.  *How much (of her) **cleavage **is a (female) politician allowed to show?*



I thought this thread was all about the boobage? 

I agree with DJ's opinion and new formulation. Maybe also (using the "neckline" idea): How low should a female politician's neckline go?


----------



## perny

manfy said:


> Exactly!
> Evolution from AHD to 1900 (aside from other aspects): "Wieviel der Sterne" becomes "Wieviel Sterne"
> 
> And it seems almost justifyable:
> "Wieviel Sterne gibt's da?" = "Welche Menge Sterne gibt's da?" -> 'Wieviel/welche Menge' describes an unquantified amount (be it countable or not)
> BUT
> "Wie viele Sterne gibt's da?" -> 'viel' is an indefinite number, as such an adjective, hence needs to be inflected according to its reference noun.
> 
> But that's where the orthography reform has put a wrinkle into the whole idea:
> The current-day spelling of 'wie viel' disables this distinction, hence it actually invalidates the uninflected use of indefinite numbers!



That's very interesting. So, by "normalizing" _Wieviel _into _Wie viel_ they actually interfered, or at least did not replace, all the functions of the word, essentially killing the word. So, the language found another way to do the same thing while keeping within the most forced "rules"...

Die Sprache macht erfinderisch?


----------



## manfy

perny said:


> That's very interesting. So, by "normalizing" _Wieviel _into _Wie viel_ they actually interfered, or at least did not replace, all the functions of the word, essentially killing the word. So, the language found another way to do the same thing while keeping within the most forced "rules"...
> 
> Die Sprache macht erfinderisch?



Well, to be honest, my explanation is just useful and reasonably viable for the specific word 'wieviel'. It does not immediately explain why 'viel' can be used on plural, countable nouns as shown in some of the other posts (and that was also so before the latest orthography reform).
My guess is that this usage has just evolved this way over 1000 years and during the first standardization in 1900 they must have had good reasons for retaining it. 
I can see good reasons for the change in the latest reform, as well as several good reasons against it. In the end it doesn't affect me. We'll have to wait at least 2 generations to see whether these changes benefited the language as a whole.



perpend said:


> I agree with DJ's opinion and new formulation. Maybe also (using the "neckline" idea): How low should a female politician's neckline go?



And I particularly like the built-in political correctness! When you remove the optional bits you get the gender-indiscriminate "*How much cleavage is a politician allowed to show?*".
After all, moobs (man boobs) are a factual reality these days -- although men's fashion hasn't quite caught up in exploiting it as well as the fashion industry for women...!


----------



## perpend

Yeah, you can neutralize it, but the OP did ask about a woman. 

I agree about the man-boobs, and there are man-bras, as far as I know. I think companies are still unsure of how market this new segment, but the segment is THERE, and hanging. 

But, as far as a politician goes, we would wonder about man-boobs and a plunging neckline. Men wear ties.


----------



## Hutschi

In practical usage, after reading the examples, I think, rhythm and intonation plays a rule, too.
(Spelling reform had some influence to this. I see a difference between "wie viel" and "wieviel".

Wieviel man auch darüber nachdenkt. 

Wie viele Gedanken man sich darüber auch macht.

See:
Wievielmal man das auch betrachtet. (Correct spelling after reform. The did not switch to "wie viel Mal" or some such things. Some of the reformers seem to think.)


----------



## bearded

After the long discussion, can anyone please reply - with yes or no - to my question, namely whether
_wie viel Busen darf eine Politikerin zeigen
_also can mean ''how many breasts...'' , besides ''how much breast...''.
Thank you.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

bearded man said:


> After the long discussion, can anyone please reply - with yes or no - to my question, namely whether
> _wie viel Busen darf eine Politikerin zeigen
> _also can mean ''how many breasts...'' , besides ''how much breast...''.
> Thank you.


That's an easy one: No.
In _wie viel Busen_, _Busen _is necessarily singular since any human being has only and precisely got one _Busen.


_PS
Duden calls it obsolete in relation to non-female humans.


----------



## bearded

Schimmelreiter said:


> In _wie viel Busen_, _Busen _is necessarily singular since any human being has only and precisely got one _Busen._


Well then, it is singular for that (I admit: important) reason only, since grammatically it could as well be plural, it seems.
Or - absurdly - _wie viel Busen? Zwei, den ihren und denjenigen einer Freundin._


----------



## djweaverbeaver

bearded man said:


> After the long discussion, can anyone please reply - with yes or no - to my question, namely whether
> _wie viel Busen darf eine Politikerin zeigen
> _also can mean ''how many breasts...'' , besides ''how much breast...''.
> Thank you.



As I already pointed out, *breast(s)* is the wrong word here.  No one would talk about one or both mammary glands in this way because no one would actually expect her to show the whole thing.


----------



## berndf

bearded man said:


> Well then, it is singular for that (I admit: important) reason only, since grammatically it could as well be plural, it seems.



Surely not for that reason alone. After all, wie would say (as already mentioned above) "Wie viel Bein darf eine Politikerin zeigen" even though she has two.


----------



## djweaverbeaver

berndf said:


> Surely not for that reason alone. After all, wie would say (as already mentioned above) "Wie viel Bein darf eine Politikerin zeigen" even though she has two.



We do the same thing in English:  How much leg...?  Maybe it's a Germanic thing.


----------



## manfy

bearded man said:


> Well then, it is singular for that (I admit: important) reason only, since grammatically it could as well be plural, it seems.
> Or - absurdly - _wie viel Busen? Zwei, ihren und denjenigen einer Freundin._



Right, it seems singular/plural is not entirely straightforward here.
"Brust"
- always singular for men with meaning 'chest' ("Er hat eine behaarte Brust")
- singular for women with meaning 'chest' (incl. breasts)
- singular for women when you refer to the individual mammary gland ("Ihre linke Brust ist etwas größer als die rechte.")
- plural for women when you refer to the boobs ("Sie hat 'hervorragende' Brüste - im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes.")

"Busen"
- predominantly used in singular with meaning 'female breasts'
- it is occasionally used to refer to an individual breast ("Ihr linker Busen ist etwas größer als der rechte.") However, this might be considered colloquial.
- apparently in medical lingo, "Busen" does or did also refer to the cleft between the female breasts, i.e. cleavage. But I'd say, in common language use that is somewhat rare.

Nevertheless, "wie viel Busen" can never mean "wie viele Busen". If you have a need to make this more explicit, you could say "Wie viel an Busen darf eine Politikerin zeigen?" or "Wie viel von ihrem Busen darf eine Politikerin zeigen?", but normally that's unnecessary because the original phrasing is in no way ambiguous.


----------



## Gernot Back

Schimmelreiter said:


> (...) since any human being has only and precisely got one _Busen._


I disagree. If that were true, this individual would have two _Busen _if, like in case of a _Meerbusen, _you refer to the space beween the two objects in question.

Many, if not most German speaking people, use _Busen _as a synonym for _weibliche Brust_ (female breast) nowadays, of which every adult human female has no more than two. Well, here is another exception:


			
				moviepilot.de said:
			
		

> *Aufreger der Woche
> 
> Colin Farrell darf keine drei Busen sehen*


----------



## bearded

@ Gernot
Too bad that Schimmelreiter cannot reply, since he apparently has abandoned the Forum...


----------



## Kajjo

_Busen _is clearly the cleft between two breasts. However, nowadays it is used as slightly euphemistic synonym for _Brüste. _It doesn't really matter anyway, because not much cleft without the adjacent objects... I guesss, it is naturally male behaviour not to focus an nothing between, but on the objects itself. Anyway, the curves are formed by hills and valley...

_
_


----------



## manfy

Gernot Back said:


> ..., like in case of a Meerbusen, you refer to the space beween the two objects in question.


 
Moment, Moment, Moment - das ist jetzt eindeutig mehrdeutig!
Aus Sicht des Meeres ist diese Struktur ein einzelner Busen des Meeres, wie auf deinem Satellitenbild schön erkennbar. Aus Sicht der Landmasse ist es aber die Kluft zwischen 2 hervorragenden, explizit suggestiv geformten Landflächen.
Welche der beiden Ansichten die richtige ist, hängt davon ab, ob das Wort der Matrosensprache entspringt oder von Landratten erfunden wurde!


----------



## Kajjo

manfy said:


> Moment, Moment, Moment - das ist jetzt eindeutig mehrdeutig!


Ich weiß wohl, was du meinst -- aber das ist doch zu weit hergeholt. Ein Meeresbusen besteht aus dem Meer, nicht aus dem angrenzendem Land. Aber logisch, das eine bedingt das andere. Ohne Berge kein Tal. Dennoch muss man nicht darüber diskutieren, ob ein Tal nun doch die Berge sind.


----------



## Gernot Back

Kajjo said:


> _Busen _is clearly the cleft between two (... )





manfy said:


> Welche der beiden Ansichten die richtige ist, hängt davon ab, ob das Wort der Matrosensprache entspringt oder von Landratten erfunden wurde!


Kann ich also festhalten, dass du, @manfy als österreichische Landratte MehrBusen siehst denn du als Hanseat, @Kajjo? Verkehrte Welt!


----------



## Kajjo

Gernot Back said:


> Verkehrte Welt!


Hm, ich würde eher sagen, ich sehe das Wasser als namensgebend, nicht das Land. Passt also eigentlich schon, oder?


----------



## berndf

Diese Diskussion geht von der, meines Wissens nach missverständlichen, Annahme aus, dass


Kajjo said:


> _Busen _is clearly the cleft between two breasts.



_Der Busen_ (singular) bezeichnet die Wölbung (etymologisch ist Busen mit Beule verwandt und übersetzt das lateinische _sinus_, nicht _mamma_) der weiblichen Brust als Gesamtheit und nicht einen einzelnen Teil davon.


----------



## manfy

Gernot Back said:


> ..., dass du, @manfy als österreichische Landratte MehrBusen siehst ...


 
 In einem öffentlichen Forum sollte ich - auf Anraten meines Anwalts - möglichst keine verbindliche Aussagen zu dem Thema machen ... 

But seriously, nach weiterem Überlegen denke ich, dass das Wort Meerbusen nicht von direkter Beobachtung kommen kann. Es muss ein Resultat der Kartographie sein. Der Finnische Meerbusen in deinem link ist derart groß, dass man dies mit freiem Auge nicht sehen kann. Das heißt, der Begriff kann nur aus der Betrachtung der Küstenlinie auf einer Karte entstanden sein.

Die Frage, ob damit die Kluft oder die ' Beulen' (  !! ) gemeint sind, bleibt damit am Tisch.

Überlegenswerte persönliche Anmerkung: Auch wenn Busen im Singular gewöhnlich die Dualität der weiblichen Brust beschreibt, so ist der Busen bei Seitenansicht eine visuelle Singularität - und trotzdem spricht man von Busen (und nicht von einer Brust des Busens!)
Genau diese Idee, Seitenansicht eines Busens, kommt mir beim Satellitenphoto des finnischen Meerbusens.


----------



## Frieder

Zitat:
BUSEN: 1.weib. Brust 2.Inneres, Gesinnung 3.Ausbuchtung, bes. ins Ufer breit einschneidendes Wasser​aus Der Sprachbrockhaus. 6. Aufl., 1951

Zitat:
BUSEN: 1. allg.: die weibl. Brüste; Brust, Herz (als Sitz der Empfindung und des Gefühls, v.a. in der Dichtersprache) 2. Anatomie: Bez. für die Einbuchtung zw. der rechten und der linken weibl. Brust.​aus Brockhaus Enzyklopädie, 19. Aufl., 1987

Wie man sieht, gehen auch hier die Meinung auseinander, was ein Busen sei .

Es kommt wohl darauf an, ob man einen Dichter, einen Seemann oder einen Anatomen fragt.


----------



## berndf

manfy said:


> Die Frage, ob damit die Kluft oder die ' Beulen' (  !! ) gemeint sind, bleibt damit am Tisch.


_Meerbusen_ ist ein Calque des Lateinischen _sinus maritimus_.

Mit "Kluft" hat weder das lateinische _sinus _noch das deutsche _Busen _irgendwas zu tun.


----------



## Kajjo

@Frieder: Beide Brockhauszitate schildern durch die Einbuchtung oder das "dazwischen".

Es ist doch völlig unstrittig, dass zeitgenössisch korrekt mit Busen auch immer die Brüste gemeint sind. So verwendet man den Ausdruck heute einfach weit überwiegend. 

Was nichts daran ändert, dass ich überzeugt bin, dass die prüde Sichtweise eben eher vom Busen als von den Brüsten sprach...


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> etymologisch ist Busen mit Beule verwandt und übersetzt das lateinische _sinus_, nicht _mama_)


Vorsicht!  Das ist _mamma _mit langem m!  Wenn Du Dich sosehr bemühst wie bei den von Dir anderweitig zitierten _due a*nn*i, _so kannst Du es richtig aussprechen. Die weiblichen Brüste heißen auf Italienisch übrigens _mammelle _(Diminutiv von _mammae_).


----------



## berndf

bearded man said:


> Das ist _mamma _mit langem m!


Klar, sorry für den Typo. Ist oben behoben.


----------

