# German contractions



## Tino_no

Hallo.
I'd like to know if German uses contractions like in english, ie: I am =I'm /// What's this= What is this?
because I finished a german course last week and the course didn't mention it, despite it was very explicit.


----------



## Jana337

Tino_no said:
			
		

> Hallo.
> I'd like to know if German uses contractions like in english, ie: I am =I'm /// What's this= What is this?
> because I finished a german course last week and the course didn't mention it, despite it was very explicit.



Yes but don't use them in formal written texts.

Ich hab's gesehen (sometimes also Ich habs gesehen).
Stimmt's?
Hat's Spaß gemacht?
Was gibt's zum Abendessen?

I can think of any without "es".

Well, if this falls in your category of contraction: You can say drum, drauf, dran etc. instead of darum, darauf, daran etc.

Jana


----------



## Tino_no

Gracias, pero no entendi muy bien,
"Ich hab's gesehen" significa "Ich habe es gesehen"?

<Perdón por escribir en español pero hay algunas frases que no puedo expresar  bien en inglés>


----------



## gaer

Tino_no said:
			
		

> Gracias, pero no entendi muy bien,
> "Ich hab's gesehen" significa "Ich habe es gesehen"?
> 
> <Perdón por escribir en español pero hay algunas frases que no puedo expresar bien en inglés>


 
Sí. 

"Ich hab's gesehen" bedeutet "Ich habe es gesehen".

Bedeuten=to mean=significar

Stimmt's? = Stimmt es?

darum=drum (nicht d'rum), darauf=drauf (nicht d'rauf), herum=rum, und so weiter (etc.)

Leider verstehe ich fast kein Spanisch. 

Gaer


----------



## Jana337

Tino_no said:
			
		

> Gracias, pero no entendi muy bien,
> "Ich hab's gesehen" significa "Ich habe es gesehen"?
> 
> <Perdón por escribir en español pero hay algunas frases que no puedo expresar  bien en inglés>


Yes, of course, in all examples above 's stands for es. Please feel free to ask!

Jana


----------



## Tanuki

Ebenfalls häufig, aber noch stärker umgangssprachlich/dialektisch wie die Kontraktion mit "es" sind die Kontraktionen mit "ein/einen" ( 'n, 'nen ).

"Ich trinke jetzt noch'n Bier." (ein)
"Ich hab'n verstauchten Knöchel." / "Ich hab' nen verstauchten Knöchel." (einen)
"Das is'n echtes Problem." (ist, ein)

Dabei sieht man auch gleich noch die sehr häufige Verbkürzung, bei der der Endvokal 'e' abgeschnitten wird (habe-->hab', springe-->spring', etc.) das geht aber nur bei der 1. Person Singular.
Und zu guter letzt noch die Verkürzung von "ist" zu "is'"... ("Das is' richtig schwer.")

Mehr fällt mir im Moment auch nicht ein. Und wie die anderen schon gesagt haben, in der Schriftsprache haben alle diese Formen nicht viel suchen. 

-T


----------



## Jana337

Tanuki said:
			
		

> Mehr fällt mir im Moment auch nicht ein. Und wie die anderen schon gesagt haben, in der Schriftsprache haben alle diese Formen nicht viel *zu* suchen.
> 
> -T


Einen herzlichen Glückwunsch zum Senior Member. 

Jana


----------



## Whodunit

Ganz häufig werden Verbabkürzungen verwendet. Nehmen wir das Wort "haben" und deklinieren wir es umgangssprachlich:
Verb abbreviations are very common in colloquial speech. So let's decline "haben" (to have) in German slang:

ich hab' (< habe)
du hast
er hat
wir ha'm (< haben)
ihr habt
sie ha'm (< haben)
Hab'! (< Habe!)
Habt!

Diese vier veränderten Formen werden bei fast allen Verben so verkürzt. Auch bei "gehen" (ich geh', wir geh'n, sie geh'n, geh'), "schlafen" (ich schlaf', wir schlaf'n, sie schlaf'n, schlaf') usw. Ich muss dich aber dennoch darauf hinweisen, dass sie niemals in der Schriftsprache verwendet werden sollten, eben nicht wie "I'm", sonder eher wie "gotta", "ain't" usw.
You can actually shorten almost every verb according to the above pattern. For example "gehen" (to go) (ich geh', wir geh'n, sie geh'n, geh'), "schlafen" (to sleep) (ich schlaf', wir schlaf'n, sie schlaf'n, schlaf') etc. However, I really have to inform you that you should never use them in writing, so they are not treated like "I'm", but more like "gotta" and "ain't", for instance.


----------



## gaer

One more, and I know it from this phrase. (Did anyone mention it?)

Ich fress ´nen Besen ...

There "einen" is shortened at the beginning. 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> One more, and I know it from this phrase. (Did anyone mention it?)
> 
> Ich fress ´nen Besen ...
> 
> There "einen" is shortened at the beginning.
> 
> Gaer


 
Tanuki was faster.  



			
				Tanuki said:
			
		

> Ebenfalls häufig, aber noch stärker umgangssprachlich/dialektisch wie die Kontraktion mit "es" sind die Kontraktionen mit "ein/einen" ( 'n, 'nen ).


----------



## MrMagoo

Soweit ich weiß sind die einzig wirklichen Zusammenziehungen, die es (sogar ohne Apostroph) in die Schriftsprache geschafft haben die der Präpositionen+Artikel:

zu + der = zur

an + das = ans
auf + das = aufs
in + das = ins
über + das = übers
unter + das = unters
vor + das = vors
hinter + das = hinters

bei + dem = beim
unter + dem = unterm
über + dem = überm
in + dem = im
an + dem = am
von + dem = vom
vor + dem = vorm
hinter + dem = hinterm
zu + dem = zum

Das geht allerdings nicht mit allen Präpositionen.

Neben diesen Zusammenziehungen ist in der Schriftsprache eigentlich nur die mit dem Personalpronomen "es" (= 's) häufig anzutreffen, wie oben schon erklärt wurde.
Alle übrigen Zusammenziehungen sind im Grunde nur typisch für die gesprochene Sprache.

(Bei "stehen" und "gehen" sind es übrigens keine echten Zusammenziehungen; eigentlich sind _gehn_ und _stehn_ die ursprünglichen Infinitive; so wie es auch immer noch _tun_ und _sein _heißt, und nicht: "tuen" oder "seien". Dies nur nebenbei - für diejenigen, die's interessiert. Wird sonst zu unüberschaubar. )


----------



## Tino_no

Thank you all, that's what I need to know, because I learned a very polite german.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Ganz häufig werden Verbabkürzungen verwendet. Nehmen wir das Wort "haben" und deklinieren wir es umgangssprachlich:
> Verb abbreviations are very common in colloquial speech. So let's decline "haben" (to have) in German slang:
> 
> ich hab' (< habe)
> du hast
> er hat
> wir ha'm (< haben)
> ihr habt
> sie ha'm (< haben)
> Hab'! (< Habe!)
> Habt!
> 
> Diese vier veränderten Formen werden bei fast allen Verben so verkürzt. Auch bei "gehen" (ich geh', wir geh'n, sie geh'n, geh'), "schlafen" (ich schlaf', wir schlaf'n, sie schlaf'n, schlaf') usw. Ich muss dich aber dennoch darauf hinweisen, dass sie niemals in der Schriftsprache verwendet werden sollten, eben nicht wie "I'm", sonder eher wie "gotta", "ain't" usw.
> You can actually shorten almost every verb according to the above pattern. For example "gehen" (to go) (ich geh', wir geh'n, sie geh'n, geh'), "schlafen" (to sleep) (ich schlaf', wir schlaf'n, sie schlaf'n, schlaf') etc. However, I really have to inform you that you should never use them in writing, so they are not treated like "I'm", but more like "gotta" and "ain't", for instance.


 
"Gotta" und "ain't" sind aber ebenfalls in der geschriebenen Sprache *NICHT* zu verwenden.

Insofern gibt es überhaupt keinen Unterschied unter "gotta," "ain't," und die Abkürzungen.  Ich weiß also nicht, worauf du dich bezogen hast...


----------



## gaer

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> (Bei "stehen" und "gehen" sind es übrigens keine echten Zusammenziehungen; eigentlich sind _gehn_ und _stehn_ die ursprünglichen Infinitive; so wie es auch immer noch _tun_ und _sein _heißt, und nicht: "tuen" oder "seien". Dies nur nebenbei - für diejenigen, die's interessiert. Wird sonst zu unüberschaubar. )


I'm interested!

How ironic that the only contractions in German that are standard have no symbol to show that they are contracted, unlike English. 

Gaer


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> "Gotta" und "ain't" sind aber ebenfalls in der geschriebenen Sprache *NICHT* zu verwenden.
> 
> Insofern gibt es überhaupt keinen Unterschied unter "gotta," "ain't," und die Abkürzungen. Ich weiß also nicht, worauf du dich bezogen hast...


I believe Who was making the same point, with different structure, that the shortened forms with " ' ", in German, are not to be used in writing (other than in dialogue, of course), and that "gonna" and "ain't" are not used, for the same reason. Whearas "I'm" and other English contractions like these are proper (which you could link with beim, zur, etc.)

Unless I misread Who's German, that was very clear to me.

Gaer


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Tanuki was faster.


Ah, so he was! 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> I believe Who was making the same point, with different structure, that the shortened forms with " ' ", in German, are not to be used in writing (other than in dialogue, of course), and that "gonna" and "ain't" are not used, for the same reason. Whearas "I'm" and other English contractions like these are proper (which you could link with beim, zur, etc.)
> 
> Unless I misread Who's German, that was very clear to me.
> 
> Gaer


 
You hit the nail on the head. That's exactly how I meant it. So, please correct my English if it didn't sound that way.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> You hit the nail on the head. That's exactly how I meant it. So, please correct my English if it didn't sound that way.



Ok, I see now.  Nevertheless, contractions are not to be used in the written language, so whether they have a written form is really a moot point.  They're all equally informal...


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Ok, I see now. Nevertheless, contractions are not to be used in the written language, so whether they have a written form is really a moot point. They're all equally informal...


 
Yes, but in English we can (sorry, MAY ) write "I'm" in informal textes (be it letters or stories), whereas in German you should (you could, but it wouldn't be polite) stick with the normal verb form, for instance.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Yes, but in English we can (sorry, MAY ) write "I'm" in informal textes (be it letters or stories), whereas in German you should (you could, but it wouldn't be polite) stick with the normal verb form, for instance.


 
You can also write "gotta" and "ain't" in an informal text.  There is no difference there.


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> You can also write "gotta" and "ain't" in an informal text. There is no difference there.


 
In stories like a "public diary" (auto-biographies) as well?


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> In stories like a "public diary" (auto-biographies) as well?


 
Depending on the tone that the writer wishes to use.  In a formal autobiography, you would use neither contractions not non-words ("gotta," "ain't," etc.).  In a less formal one, you _might_ get away with using a few contractions, I guess.

For all intents and purposes, however, both are to be avoided in formal contexts, and they are both permissible in most informal contexts.


----------



## Tino_no

So, one can't use contractions in formal writting, right?
Unlike english, if I write: I'm Hungry, I don't sound informal. But in German, if I wirite : Ich hab's gesehen, is informal.
Am I wrong?


----------



## Whodunit

Tino_no said:
			
		

> So, one can't use contractions in formal writting, right?
> Unlike english, if I write: I'm Hungry, I don't (thinking mistake) sound informal. But in German, if I wirite : Ich hab's gesehen, is informal.
> Am I wrong?


 
You're right. Best you never use contractions in writing, unless you write in something like this forum. Contractions are for colloquial *speech*.


----------



## Tino_no

Thank you Who!

-Tino


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> You're right. Best you never use contractions in writing, unless you write in something like this forum. Contractions are for colloquial *speech*.


Who, this is correct.

Unlike english, if I write: I'm Hungry, I don't sound informal.

He is saying, I believe, that in German, unlike in English, using certain contractions are informal, but these are not.

I'm, don't, won't…

This is why I would say that the German equivalent would be words like these:

zur, beim…

Perhaps they are not quite the same though. You would probbably see "I am", "do not", "will not" rather often. I don't remembe seeing "zu der", "bei dem", "

It's really hard to make a direct comparison between German and English.

We have contractions that are very common, and you will see them in formal writing.

We have "made up words" that are used a great deal in dialogue, but otherwise you do not normally see them, even in informal writing.

There are a few of these "make up words"—"gonna" is one—that you might see in informal writing, but it does not happen often. And if you don't do it in an effective way, it's very easy to appear stupid. It's a matter of "feel".

One other thing: "chat" is a special case. People communicate differently in that "mode", and I would not call that informal.

It's really complicated. As for German, I only know what I've seen. I would personally avoid most contractions, because I don't feel I have the mastery to use them without looking rather silly. 

Gaer


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> You're right. Best you never use contractions in writing, unless you write in something like this forum. Contractions are for colloquial *speech*.


Which language are you talking about? Which contractions?

You need to be more specific. 

Gaer


----------



## Tino_no

I think I should be more specific when I'm speaking a language I don't know at 100%, what I meant was, that you can write "I'm hungry" in english and it won't sound informal, but if you write in German: Ich hab's gesehen, it WILL sound informal as far as I know.

_feel free to correct me_


----------



## Tino_no

gaer said:
			
		

> Which language are you talking about? Which contractions?
> 
> You need to be more specific.
> 
> Gaer



He's talking about German, I think.


----------



## gaer

Tino_no said:
			
		

> I think I should be more specific when I'm speaking a language I don't know at 100%, what I meant was, that you can write "I'm hungry" in english and it won't sound informal, but if you write in German: Ich hab's gesehen, it WILL sound informal as far as I know.
> 
> _feel free to correct me_


Okay. Now you've made your point much clearer. I believe you're trying to say that a contraction such as "I'm" will show up in formal writing, but "hab's" will not show up in formal writing. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing (although I believe you are right), but now we know what you meant. 

Gaer


----------



## elroy

Contractions shouldn't be used in formal writing.

I also agree that that the original statement was correct; Who's "correction" was the "thinking mistake."


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> Contractions shouldn't be used in formal writing.
> 
> I also agree that that the original statement was correct; Who's "correction" was the "thinking mistake."


Elroy, are you saying that all contractions in ENGLISH should never be used in formal writing? 

Very confused.  

Gaer


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> Elroy, are you saying that all contractions in ENGLISH should never be used in formal writing?
> 
> Very confused.
> 
> Gaer


 
Yes, I think they should be avoided.

In formal writing, "do not" is usually better than "don't."


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> Yes, I think they should be avoided.
> 
> In formal writing, "do not" is usually better than "don't."


Your meaning is clear to me, but you might want to define what you mean by formal writing, just to make it clear to others. 

Gaer


----------



## Jana337

gaer said:
			
		

> Your meaning is clear to me, but you might want to define what you mean by formal writing, just to make it clear to others.
> 
> Gaer


Whenever I had to sit an English exam, teachers or supervisers stressed that contractions would detract from one's performance.

Jana


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> Your meaning is clear to me, but you might want to define what you mean by formal writing, just to make it clear to others.
> 
> Gaer


 
That's a very good question.  I guess something that is not meant to be too "personal" in the sense that it focuses more on the content than the writer.  It transcends familiarity and acquaintance.  Even if you are writing about yourself, your essay can be formal if the intent is more academic than jovial, the style more elevated than familiar.

It's really hard to explain; I guess formality is evaluated on a case-by-case basis...


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> That's a very good question. I guess something that is not meant to be too "personal" in the sense that it focuses more on the content than the writer. It transcends familiarity and acquaintance. Even if you are writing about yourself, your essay can be formal if the intent is more academic than jovial, the style more elevated than familiar.
> 
> It's really hard to explain; I guess formality is evaluated on a case-by-case basis...


I see. I focused immediately on books, which mislead me. I think of most books (thought not all) as following formal rules in narration. We had discussed this before in the English Forum, although it was really in the wrong thread. There are countless traditions in narrative writing that are used by almost all authors.

My reading always focuses on entertainment, which is why I read fiction almost all the time. This is not to say that such writing can't be very serious, because it can, but my reason for reading is to enjoy myself, to relax.

Non-fiction probably has different rules, and the kind of writing you mentioned (essays for example) apparently has even stricter rules. However, I would tend to view eliminating all contractions as more conservative than formal. Some other time, when we both have more time, it might be interesting to discuss this in the English forum. 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> I'm, don't, won't…
> 
> This is why I would say that the German equivalent would be words like these:
> 
> zur, beim…
> 
> Perhaps they are not quite the same though. You would probbably see "I am", "do not", "will not" rather often. I don't remembe seeing "zu der", "bei dem"


 
Let me compare it to Spanish and French. In French there ARE cases when it's good to use "de les" (Je me décide de les laisser le pain) and "de le" etc., but they're actually linked to "des" and "du". Same in Spanish: "a el" is linked to "al", which sounds much better, by the way. I can't remember ever having seen "a el" except in "Benvenido a El Salvador", so I suppose "a el" would ever be considered impolite or wrong.



> It's really hard to make a direct comparison between German and English.


 
Right, because we use different construction than you. "Wir wiss'n nich'" isn't equal to "we don't know" and vice versa.



> We have contractions that are very common, and you will see them in formal writing.


 
For me, an informal writing is a form, application, or petition. In those I'd write "do not", "will not" "I am" etc. An exam isn't formal, so I can write "don't", but never "ain't", since that would be marked red as slang (not necessarily colloquial or informal!).



> It's really complicated. As for German, I only know what I've seen. I would personally avoid most contractions, because I don't feel I have the mastery to use them without looking rather silly.


 
You should actually always avoid them, unless you're 100% certain when and if to use at all - and if it really necessary. For example, here I feel comfortable using "I'm" and "don't" as well as "siehste" or "Wir könn'" (although I don't use them as much as the English contractions).


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> Which language are you talking about? Which contractions?
> 
> You need to be more specific.
> 
> Gaer


 
About every language. Be it German or English, no matter.


----------



## Whodunit

Tino_no said:
			
		

> I think I should be more specific when I'm speaking a language I don't know at 100%, what I meant was, that you can write "I'm hungry" in english and it won't sound informal (yes, you would!), but if you write in German: Ich hab's gesehen, it WILL sound informal as far as I know.
> 
> _feel free to correct me_


 
I'm sorry I misunderstood your statement.However, I have to disagree with you. See above. If you said "I'm hungry", you'd sound informal for sure. If you'd say "Ich bin hungrich (from hungrig)", you'd sound "slangy". BUT if you said "I am hungry", you wouldn't sound informal. Got it?

"I'm", "don't", "gonna" etc. are all informal (no matter if slang or just colloquial). I'm sorry I can't compare it to Spanish, since I don't know colloquial Spanish, but I'm sure Elroy can (is able to ).


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Contractions shouldn't be used in formal writing.
> 
> I also agree that that the original statement was correct; Who's "correction" was the "thinking mistake."


 
Why? If I said to you "I'm hungry", you'd consider it informal, wouldn't you? I'd be very surprised if you considered it formal.


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> That's a very good question. I guess something that is not meant to be too "personal" in the sense that it focuses more on the content than the writer. It transcends familiarity and acquaintance. Even if you are writing about yourself, your essay can be formal if the intent is more academic than jovial, the style more elevated than familiar.
> 
> It's really hard to explain; I guess formality is evaluated on a case-by-case basis...


 
So, you have several "letters" where you should keep formal words plus non-contractions:
- application
- petition
- complaint letter
- official signs (Do not touch!)
- composition (in school)
- and so on and so forth


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Why? If I said to you "I'm hungry", you'd consider it informal, wouldn't you? I'd be very surprised if you considered it formal.


This is really a very poor example. The problem is not "I'm". You would be very unlikely to write "I'm hungry" in narration or in any formal writing.

You would be equally as unlikely to write "I am hungry."

The question is whether or not the contraction *itself* is "forbidden" in formal writing.

According to what Elroy explained to me, it depends on the definition of "formal writing".

According to him, you simply don't use contractions in essays. Period. Considering the fact that he has no doubt written several (or many), and I've written none, I'm going to take his word for it. 

Gaer


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Let me compare it to Spanish and French. In French there ARE cases when it's good to use "de les" (Je me décide de les laisser le pain) and "de le" etc., but they're actually linked to "des" and "du". Same in Spanish: "a el" is linked to "al", which sounds much better, by the way. I can't remember ever having seen "a el" except in "Benvenido a El Salvador", so I suppose "a el" would ever be considered impolite or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because we use different construction than you. "Wir wiss'n nich'" isn't equal to "we don't know" and vice versa.
> 
> 
> 
> For me, an informal writing is a form, application, or petition. In those I'd write "do not", "will not" "I am" etc. An exam isn't formal, so I can write "don't", but never "ain't", since that would be marked red as slang (not necessarily colloquial or informal!).
> 
> 
> 
> You should actually always avoid them, unless you're 100% certain when and if to use at all - and if it really necessary. For example, here I feel comfortable using "I'm" and "don't" as well as "siehste" or "Wir könn'" (although I don't use them as much as the English contractions).


 
Your example with "de les" doesn't work because that it is a different meaning of "les."  When "les" means them, you *have* to say "de les."  When it means "the," you *have* to say "des."  It has nothing to do with formality. 

By the way, contractions are also frowned upon on an exam.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> I'm sorry I misunderstood your statement.However, I have to disagree with you. See above. If you said "I'm hungry", you'd sound informal for sure. If you'd say "Ich bin hungrich (from hungrig)", you'd sound "slangy". BUT if you said "I am hungry", you wouldn't sound informal. Got it?
> 
> "I'm", "don't", "gonna" etc. are all informal (no matter if slang or just colloquial). I'm sorry I can't compare it to Spanish, since I don't know colloquial Spanish, but I'm sure Elroy can (is able to ).


 
Who, I think Tino's point was pretty clear.  He was saying that "I'm hungry" doesn't sound too informal to him, at least not as informl as "Ich hab's gesehen."  By opposing that you are contradicting yourself in a way, because you yourself were stressing that the contractions aren't as informal as the "non-words."

I believe you and Tino were saying the same thing in different ways.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Why? If I said to you "I'm hungry", you'd consider it informal, wouldn't you? I'd be very surprised if you considered it formal.


 
No, it's not formal.  However, I explained what I believe Tino's intentions were in my previous post.


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> This is really a very poor example. The problem is not "I'm". You would be very unlikely to write "I'm hungry" in narration or in any formal writing.
> 
> You would be equally as unlikely to write "I am hungry."
> 
> The question is whether or not the contraction *itself* is "forbidden" in formal writing.
> 
> According to what Elroy explained to me, it depends on the definition of "formal writing".
> 
> According to him, you simply don't use contractions in essays. Period. Considering the fact that he has no doubt written several (or many), and I've written none, I'm going to take his word for it. ;(
> 
> Gaer


 
Yes, that's exactly right.  Contractions are to be avoided in formal writing.


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> Yes, that's exactly right. Contractions are to be avoided in formal writing.


For your interest and the benefit of all others, here is what I found out:

There are some publications that allow SOME contractions. It is not a universal rule that contractions are forbidden.

BUT

_*The majority of people who teach formal writing do enforce an absolute rule: No contractions.*_

Keeping this in mind, the only safe rule to use while in high school or college/university is to avoid them in any formal writing. 

Gaer


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> For your interest and the benefit of all others, here is what I found out:
> 
> There are some publications that allow SOME contractions. It is not a universal rule that contractions are forbidden.
> 
> BUT
> 
> _*The majority of people who teach formal writing do enforce an absolute rule: No contractions.*_
> 
> Keeping this in mind, the only safe rule to use while in high school or college/university is to avoid them in any formal writing.
> 
> Gaer


 
That's right.  That's why I kept saying "should be avoided" as opposed to "are strictly forbidden."


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> That's right. That's why I kept saying "should be avoided" as opposed to "are strictly forbidden."


Exactly. 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Your example with "de les" doesn't work because that it is a different meaning of "les." When "les" means them, you *have* to say "de les." When it means "the," you *have* to say "des." It has nothing to do with formality.
> 
> By the way, contractions are also frowned upon on an exam.


 
I didn't mean it that way. I just wanted to say that there're some situations where you *have* to use a contraction and where you *shouldn't* or where it is *forbidden*.

That said, I hope you got my intention that I was aiming at the use of "zur" and "zu der". In German, it's like in English. "der" can have several meanings. If I used "Ich gehe zur Schule", I'd translate it as "I'm going to school" or "I go to school". However, the other meaning is implied with "zu der"; using "Ich gehe zu der Schule" would carry the idea of "I'm going to this school" or "I go to this school" (whatever the speaker's intention is).

I hope you got that. In one way, you use "der" as an article which *should* always be linked (like des in French) and on the other hand "der" is a demonstrative pronoun where you *may not* use a contraction, otherwise it sounds like an article.


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Who, I think Tino's point was pretty clear. He was saying that "I'm hungry" doesn't sound too informal to him, at least not as informl as "Ich hab's gesehen." By opposing that you are contradicting yourself in a way, because you yourself were stressing that the contractions aren't as informal as the "non-words."
> 
> I believe you and Tino were saying the same thing in different ways.


 
Okay, now I get it. Either I was misreading everything here or Tino didn't make it clear enough to me. But I think it was the former, since y'all (allowed contraction? ) knew what he was talking about.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> I didn't mean it that way. I just wanted to say that there're some situations where you *have* to use a contraction and where you *shouldn't* or where it is *forbidden*.
> 
> That said, I hope you got my intention that I was aiming at the use of "zur" and "zu der". In German, it's like in English. "der" can have several meanings. If I used "Ich gehe zur Schule", I'd translate it as "I'm going to school" or "I go to school". However, the other meaning is implied with "zu der"; using "Ich gehe zu der Schule" would carry the idea of "I'm going to this school" or "I go to this school" (whatever the speaker's intention is).
> 
> I hope you got that. In one way, you use "der" as an article which *should* always be linked (like des in French) and on the other hand "der" is a demonstrative pronoun where you *may not* use a contraction, otherwise it sounds like an article.


 
Of course.  I understand completely.  I was just pointing out that there is no flexibility: certain situations require contractions, and others require the full form.  That's what I felt made the example irrelevant.

Just to expand on your "zur/zu der" example - the full form is required in a relative clause.

*Das ist die Schule, zu der* (never zur!  ) *ich gehe.*


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> y'all (allowed contraction? )


 
Er...more like regionalism.  It's pretty much used only in the southern US.


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Of course. I understand completely. I was just pointing out that there is no flexibility: certain situations require contractions, and others require the full form. That's what I felt made the example irrelevant.
> 
> Just to expand on your "zur/zu der" example - the full form is required in a relative clause.


 
And that's what I meant. You can't say if contraction are allowed or not for certain situations in German, in French, and maybe in other languages, too. So, I think we're in agreement ().



> *Das ist die Schule, zu der* (never zur!  ) *ich gehe.*


 
Correct. Once again, here you have another meaning of "der", so that you can't use a contraction.


----------



## gaer

Who,

I only have a few thoughts right now. We really need a clear definition of what a contraction is, in both German and English.

At the moment I can't think of a single contraction, in English, that must be "uncontracted" into two words, as in your German example.

Furthermore, using Elroy's definition of formal writing, I can't think of any contraction that would be appropriate in such writing. Unless all words such as "zur, beim" and so on have to be separated into two words, in formal writing in the German language (which I don't think is true), our languages are very different in this way.

Gaer


----------



## elroy

I don't think we're talking about "zur" and "beim" when we discuss contractions in German, but rather things like "habs" in "Ich habs gesehen."


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> I don't think we're talking about "zur" and "beim" when we discuss contractions in German, but rather things like "habs" in "Ich habs gesehen."


Okay, but no one has made that clear. That may be your perception. I'm not sure that is what Who was discussing (not the only thing).

I don't care. I'd just like some agreement. Is "zur" a contraction or not? It certainly seems so to me. I think you are limiting your concept of a contraction in German to something that either uses an apostrophe or that omits it, in dialogue.

I'd like to see a consensus. If hab's or habs is a contraction, and zur is not, I'd like to find out what the latter is. 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> I don't think we're talking about "zur" and "beim" when we discuss contractions in German, but rather things like "habs" in "Ich habs gesehen."


 
No, this is wrong, I think. "Zur" and "beim" are contractions as well as "hab's" or "das's" or whatever. The former ones are "official contractions" and the latter ones are "slangy contractions". Let me devide them in a list:

slangy:

hab's
komm'n
seh'n
is's (= ist es)
Or'ginal (don't know if someone uses this contraction, but this is how I say it)
official:

vorm
hinterm
zur
durchs
deswegen (don't know if this is a contraction for "wegen dieses ...")
 
I hope I clarified my understanding of "contraction" with those lists, if not I will explain further. "Wanna" in English I'd categorize into the "slangy" and "I'm" into the "official" list. However, Gaer is completely right that our languages are totally different in this topic. We can't compare them to each other, so that I declare this topic for closed concerning English contractions, unless someone has to say something very important related to English contractions.


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> Okay, but no one has made that clear. That may be your perception. I'm not sure that is what Who was discussing (not the only thing).


 
No, that was not my intention at all. I have to disagree with Elroy, and I want to say what he has to say. 



> I don't care. I'd just like some agreement. Is "zur" a contraction or not? It certainly seems so to me. I think you are limiting your concept of a contraction in German to something that either uses an apostrophe or that omits it, in dialogue.


 
We're not in agreement yet, unfortunately. Maybe Elroy will make his point a bit clearer or explain why my version doesn't apply; well, then we can come to an agreement. 



> I'd like to see a consensus. If hab's or habs is a contraction, and zur is not, I'd like to find out what the latter is.


 
The problem is that I can't consent yet. I think both of them ARE contractions, but "zur" is an official *which can be used in formal things*, whereas "hab's" is a colloquial, slangy, or home-grown contraction *which should not be used in petitions, official letters, exams, or applications*. I hope I made my intention much clearer now.


----------



## MrMagoo

Es sind natürlich alles "Contractions", egal ob mit oder ohne Apostroph.

Im Deutschen wird ein Apostroph immer dann gesetzt, wenn ein oder zwei Buchstaben ausgelassen werden - es ist also in diesen Fällen eine Art "Hilfszeichen", das anzeigt, daß ein oder zwei Buchstaben fehlen, die eigentlich geschrieben werden müßten - mehr nicht. 
Meistens ist der ausgelassene oder einer der beiden ausgelassenen Buchstaben ein "e".
Ein Apostroph wird allerdings nicht benutzt bei der Zusammenziehung von Präposition und Artikel und zwar deswegen nicht, weil diese Zusammenziehungen als "eigenständige" Wörter aufgefaßt werden können - dies wiederum daher, weil auf eine Präposition sehr häufig ein Artikel folgt und weil die Präposition nicht dekliniert werden kann.

Ein 's hingegen kann nicht mit einem vorangehenden Verb zusammengezogen werden, da das Verb konjugiert wird, d.h. im Falle einer Verschmelzung beider Wörter zu einem hätten wir bei der Konjugation später ein "Infix". 

Ich weiß zwar nicht, ob das wirklich der Grund ist, aber für mich klingt das grad völlig plausibel, was ich da geschrieben habe.


----------



## gaer

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> Es sind natürlich alles "Contractions", egal ob mit oder ohne Apostroph.


Let's agree to follow this principle, in German. I think it's reasonable. As I tried to suggest, in English we tend to associate contractions with the use of an apostrophe. It is ironic, when you think about it, that the majority of English contractions that use apostrophes (I'm, you're, isn't, etc.) are standard words used in narrative, while those words we have talked about that have traditionally used apostrophes in German (hab's, 'nen, stimmt's, etc.) have not been standard in narrative. Only in dialogue. I think that's generally correct.

For the time being we need to skip the additional problem of "formal vs. informal" writing for our standard contractions. I will repeat, for the benefit of all, that Elroy's statement that all contractions are generally avoided in formal writing, in English, is 100% correct. The problem is that there are many levels of "formality", or perhaps we might better call these levels "modes".


> Im Deutschen wird ein Apostroph immer dann gesetzt, wenn ein oder zwei Buchstaben ausgelassen werden - es ist also in diesen Fällen eine Art "Hilfszeichen", das anzeigt, daß ein oder zwei Buchstaben fehlen, die eigentlich geschrieben werden müßten - mehr nicht.
> Meistens ist der ausgelassene oder einer der beiden ausgelassenen Buchstaben ein "e".


I think this is clear to all of us. Once again, it is ironic that such words are normally only written in dialogue—or in very informal writing.


> Ein Apostroph wird allerdings nicht benutzt bei der Zusammenziehung von Präposition und Artikel und zwar deswegen nicht, weil diese Zusammenziehungen als "eigenständige" Wörter aufgefaßt werden können - dies wiederum daher, weil auf eine Präposition sehr häufig ein Artikel folgt und weil die Präposition nicht dekliniert werden kann.


Regardless, the bottom line is that those contractions that are written in formal German don't seem to use an apostrophe. I am also assuming—and this may be wrong—that even in very formal writing, such contractions such as "zur, beim, im" etc. are permitted. I don't read any formal German, so I don't know.


> Ein 's hingegen kann nicht mit einem vorangehenden Verb zusammengezogen werden, da das Verb konjugiert wird, d.h. im Falle einer Verschmelzung beider Wörter zu einem hätten wir bei der Konjugation später ein "Infix".


Can you think of any German contraction, using an apostrophe, that is used in either formal or "standard" writing? 

Gaer


----------



## Jana337

gaer said:
			
		

> Can you think of any German contraction, using an apostrophe, that is used in either formal or "standard" writing?
> 
> Gaer


Grimm'sche Märchen, Sant' Agata, Grass' Blechtrommel.
Sagt mir nicht, dass es nicht gilt, ich weiß es selber

Jana


----------



## gaer

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Grimm'sche Märchen, Sant' Agata, Grass' Blechtrommel.
> Sagt mir nicht, dass es nicht gilt, ich weiß es selber
> 
> Jana


I'm lost. 

The first is the new form of Grimmsche, right? But I was not talking about names, and I don't know what these other 'words" are. Names?

(Very confused)  

Gaer


----------



## Jana337

gaer said:
			
		

> I'm lost.
> 
> The first is the new form of Grimmsche, right? But I was not talking about names, and I don't know what these other 'words" are. Names?
> 
> (Very confused)
> 
> Gaer



The first one was new to me:


> Ein Apostroph kann bei Ableitungen aus Eigennamen stehen, der Eigenname wird dann großgeschrieben:
> mozartsche  /  Mozart'sche Sonate
> heusssche  /  Heuss'sche Schriften
> grimmsche / Grimm'sche Märchen
> (c) Dudenverlag 1998



The second one is simply St. Agata and the third one is the book Blechtrommel by Günter Grass.

Jana


----------



## gaer

Jana337 said:
			
		

> The first one was new to me:


I don't even know what "Mozart'sche Sonate" means. For instance, is "eine Mozartsche Sonate" simply "a Mozart sonata?"


> The second one is simply St. Agata and the third one is the book Blechtrommel by Günter Grass.


All new to me, and here both the old and new rules are new.

Thank you, Jana. 

Gaer


----------



## Jana337

gaer said:
			
		

> I don't even know what "Mozart'sche Sonate" means. For instance, is "eine Mozartsche Sonate" simply "a Mozart sonata?"


Yes, exactly.  But it yields extremely few hits in Google. Grimmsche Märchen fare better.

Jana

P.S. Check also this link. Don't be intimidated by the first couple of lines in Russian.


----------



## gaer

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Yes, exactly.  But it yields extremely few hits in Google. Grimmsche Märchen fare better.
> 
> Jana
> 
> P.S. Check also this link. Don't be intimidated by the first couple of lines in Russian.


 
Results *1* - *10* of about *818* for *Mozartsche*. (*0.05* seconds)
Results *1* - *10* of about *3,470* for *Mozartschen*. 

I found this interesting. Grimm appears much more often than Mozart, in general. 

The link is interesting, although I don't think I could remember all those rules if my life depended it on it!

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Grimm'sche Märchen, Sant' Agata, Grass' Blechtrommel.
> Sagt mir nicht, dass es nicht gilt, ich weiß es selber
> 
> Jana


 
Das Ohm'sche Gesetz, der rutherford'sche Streuversuch, der Ohm'sche Widerstand ... (to be added)

in English it's very easy "Ohm's law", "Rutherford scattering", "Ohm's resistance" ...

And they are very formal, Gaer.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Das Ohm'sche Gesetz, der rutherford'sche Streuversuch, der Ohm'sche Widerstand ... (to be added)





			
				Whodunit said:
			
		

> in English it's very easy "Ohm's law", "Rutherford scattering", "Ohm's resistance" ...
> 
> And they are very formal, Gaer.



rutherford'sche—Es wurden keine Ergebnisse gefunden. 

rutherfordsche—Es wurden keine Ergebnisse gefunden.

Wegen der Ausstrahlung kann die Bahn des Elektrons nicht stationär sein, so daß ohne einschneidende Änderung das *Rutherfordsche* Atommodell eine mit der Erfahrung übereinstimmende Beschreibung von Atombau und Lichtemission nicht zuläßt. (Quelle: _Kindler Literaturlexikon_) 

Who, I'm not disagreeing with you for a second. Google will show a different story. The Leipzig site is searching for examples in magazines and publications. For this reason it MAY reflect recent changes in the rules MORE, or it may reflect them LESS. I simply don't know. 

There are two results for "mozartsche", many for "Mozartsche". None for "Mozart'sche" (upper or lower case).

However, "Grimmsche"  is shown this way: alte Rechtschreibung von: Grimm'sche

So I'm confused, not about the idea, but about usage that is so far dominating.

I could not find one usage of "Grimm'she", listed as the new spelling. Not on that site. And with Google:

Results *1* - *10* of about *9,130* for *Grimmsche*.
Results *1* - *10* of about *1,720* for *Grimm'sche*. 

Results *1* - *10* of about *708* for *Ohm'sche Gesetz*
Results *1* - *10* of about *13,500* for *Ohmsche Gesetz*.

Do you see my confusion? Regardless of what is being recommended, this change does not seem to be followed either in publications, newspapers or in common usage. I think it's counter-intuitive, and it frankly offends my eyes.

Do you like the apostrophe here? I really don't! 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> Do you like the apostrophe here? I really don't!


 
Yes, I do. I, personally, prefer this way: "Grimm'sche Märchen", "Rutherford'sche Streuung" etc. and why?

First of all, the name of a famous person should always be upper-cased. Second, I know that "...'sche" is no genitive form at all, but nevertheless it's used as a genitive for names. But this wouldn't work:

Gaer'sche Beiträge

I think it's a matter of fame and the following action. "Rutherford'sche Einkäufe" wouldn't work at all, this would simply be "Rutherfords Einkäufe".


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Yes, I do. I, personally, prefer this way: "Grimm'sche Märchen", "Rutherford'sche Streuung" etc. and why?
> 
> First of all, the name of a famous person should always be upper-cased.


How does that differ from "Grimmsche", which seems to be much more common everywhere, as I said?  


> Second, I know that "...'sche" is no genitive form at all, but nevertheless it's used as a genitive for names.


I understand that too. But I don't see why the apostrophe needs to be added. Most people do not seem to use it now, and that includes people writing in major publications. Do you disagree that this new rule does not seem to be followed much?


> But this wouldn't work:
> 
> Gaer'sche Beiträge


That's clear. All these things you are explaining I understand. The only thing I still don't understand is the addition of the "apostrophe", which is normally used in German to show missing letters. 

Gaer


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> No, this is wrong, I think. "Zur" and "beim" are contractions as well as "hab's" or "das's" or whatever. The former ones are "official contractions" and the latter ones are "slangy contractions". Let me devide them in a list:
> 
> slangy:
> 
> hab's
> komm'n
> seh'n
> is's (= ist es)
> Or'ginal (don't know if someone uses this contraction, but this is how I say it)
> official:
> 
> vorm
> hinterm
> zur
> durchs
> deswegen (don't know if this is a contraction for "wegen dieses ...")
> I hope I clarified my understanding of "contraction" with those lists, if not I will explain further. "Wanna" in English I'd categorize into the "slangy" and "I'm" into the "official" list. However, Gaer is completely right that our languages are totally different in this topic. We can't compare them to each other, so that I declare this topic for closed concerning English contractions, unless someone has to say something very important related to English contractions.


 
This is all clear to me.

All I said was that "zur" and "beim" are not the same as "habs"; they are accepted, standard, and in fact more common.  "Habs" is not standard.

Basically, "zur" does not indicate any informality; "habs" does.

Regarding English: I repeat, "I'm" is just as informal as "wanna" and should not be used in formal writing.  In that regard, it is _not_ like "zur."  That's the point I was trying to make!


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> No, that was not my intention at all. I have to disagree with Elroy, and I want to say what he has to say.
> 
> 
> 
> We're not in agreement yet, unfortunately. Maybe Elroy will make his point a bit clearer or explain why my version doesn't apply; well, then we can come to an agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that I can't consent yet. I think both of them ARE contractions, but "zur" is an official *which can be used in formal things*, whereas "hab's" is a colloquial, slangy, or home-grown contraction *which should not be used in petitions, official letters, exams, or applications*. I hope I made my intention much clearer now.


 
Here's my attempt at a clarification:

"Zur" is _originally_ a contraction, but it is *official* German, appropriate in both formal and informal contexts.

"Habs" is, as you said, colloquial and slang. It is not appropriate in formal contexts.

That's where the two *differ*. I'm trying to think of an English equivalent of "zur" - a contraction that has become acceptable in standard English.

The point is, as I said in my previous post, that "zur" does not indicate formality or informality. It can be used in any situation. "Habs" indicates informality, as do "wanna" *and* "I'm." 

You will *not* see "I'm" in a formal petition, but you *will* see "zur." 

Clear?


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> Here's my attempt at a clarification:
> 
> "Zur" is _originally_ a contraction, but it is *official* German, appropriate in both formal and informal contexts.
> 
> "Habs" is, as you said, colloquial and slang. It is not appropriate in formal contexts.
> 
> That's where the two *differ*. I'm trying to think of an English equivalent of "zur" - a contraction that has become acceptable in standard English.
> 
> The point is, as I said in my previous post, that "zur" does not indicate formality or informality. It can be used in any situation. "Habs" indicates informality, as do "wanna" *and* "I'm."
> 
> You will *not* see "I'm" in a formal petition, but you *will* see "zur."
> 
> Clear?


Your points are crystal clear to me, and I agree with you.

However, I would suggest that we divide our contractions into at least several classifications.

There are contractions that are never used in CONSERVATIVE formal writing. Remember, we have agreed that not all publications forbid all contractions at all times. People are still debating about the proper use of contractions in English. This argument has been going on a long time. However, we would never label contractions as such as "don't" or "won't" as sub-standard or as representing poor grammar. I think your point and mine is the same. These are not the same as "zur" or "beim", unless I have incorrectly understood the rules governing formal writing in German. (So far I'm not sure if anyone has said that such words are always acceptable in formal writing. I'm still waiting for an answer to this and several other questions.)

There are contractions that are attempts to show proper English, the same as would be used in formal writing, as it is pronounced by people speaking quickly, slurring sounds. "Gonna" is such a contraction". It represents "going to", which is not wrong. "Watcha want" merely means "What do you want". Such contractions are normally only correct when used in dialogue, to represent speech. Even the most liberal people I know would not allow "gonna" to be used in narrative. In formal writing it would be the  "kiss of death". I believe this is much like "fress 'nen Bessen", which I would expect to see in only in dialogue.

Finally, there are contractions such as "ain't" that are clearly the mark of sub-standard English. We would expect educated people to use such words only humorously.

There are probably more distinctions we could make, but I think the important thing is that contractions, in English, are complicated. The number one reason why conservative people may forbid their use at all times in formal writing could be that they are so tricky to master. A superb writer might use one now and then without sounding flippant of informal. Someone of lesser talent would not be able to  "pull it off".


----------



## nic456

Ein Apostroph kann bei Ableitungen aus Eigennamen stehen, der Eigenname wird dann großgeschrieben:
mozartsche / Mozart'sche Sonate
heusssche / Heuss'sche Schriften
grimmsche / Grimm'sche Märchen
(c) Dudenverlag 1998   
Gaer,
May be the idea becomes clearer if you think of a possessive *genitive* (genetivus subjectivus, to be precise).
Mozart's sonata = the sonata of Mozart = sonatas written by Mozart

In German the apostrophe is frequently used for marking genitive if a word terminates on s/x, (generally terminating on consonant?), indicating a missing s: Marx' Mutter, Marxens Mutter, Fritz' Bruder, Hans' Schwester

As for the examples above, I would describe them as adjectives derived from names indicating possession (das Grass'sche Werk, das Werk von Grass, Grassens Werk).
There are also some in English, in particular when referring to an era: Dickensian novel, Elizabethan theatre, Victorian mill, Edwardian theatre, Newtonian physics, Augustan peace, Palladian style,... 

 What about making a distinction between *contraction* - joining 2 different words
and merely using an *apostrohe* to indicate missing letters?

 Thus,
1 apostrohpe
I'm, you're, it's, father's, ain't 

habs [actually hab's], geh'n [writing mirroring pronunciation], 'reinkommen [hereinkommen]


2 contraction
won't/don't (will/do not), wanna/gonna (want/going to), hiya/gotcha (hi you, got you)

zur (zu der), beim (bei dem), durchs (durch das), vorm (ugs vor dem), fürs (für das)

It looks like a substantial number of German contractions are linked to the use of prepositions and articles, which is no surprise, bearing in mind that articles vary according to gender and case.

Beware, some are colloquial (vorm), others are formal and necessary if you do not want to emphasise the noun they refer to (zur, beim;fürs contentious)


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> This is all clear to me.
> 
> All I said was that "zur" and "beim" are not the same as "habs"; they are accepted, standard, and in fact more common. "Habs" is not standard.


 
Did I ever deny that, Elroy?



> Basically, "zur" does not indicate any informality; "habs" does.


 
Clear.



> Regarding English: I repeat, "I'm" is just as informal as "wanna" and should not be used in formal writing. In that regard, it is _not_ like "zur." That's the point I was trying to make!


 
So, this is the difference: "wanna" is slangy and "I'm" is colloquial, both are informal, right?


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Here's my attempt at a clarification:
> 
> "Zur" is _originally_ a contraction, but it is *official* German, appropriate in both formal and informal contexts.
> 
> "Habs" is, as you said, colloquial and slang. It is not appropriate in formal contexts.
> 
> That's where the two *differ*. I'm trying to think of an English equivalent of "zur" - a contraction that has become acceptable in standard English.
> 
> The point is, as I said in my previous post, that "zur" does not indicate formality or informality. It can be used in any situation. "Habs" indicates informality, as do "wanna" *and* "I'm."
> 
> You will *not* see "I'm" in a formal petition, but you *will* see "zur."
> 
> Clear?


 
I have to nothing to add or comment on that.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> So, this is the difference: "wanna" is slangy and "I'm" is colloquial, both are informal, right?



"Colloquial" is a tricky word to use, because it does not ONLY mean "used in speech".

(here)

Please read the part about "unacceptably informal".

The contraction "I'm" has been around a long time. Most standard contractions are like this. If you assume they are only appropriate in conversation, not in writing, you are never going to understand written English. They are NOT only used in speech.

The problem, in my opinion, comes from our rather loose usage of the words "formal" and "informal".

We have never defined them well. Elroy, in my opinion, is talking about a particular kind of writing that is serious, scholarly and often academic in nature. It tends to be conservative, and he is quite right when he says that contractions of all kind are usually forbidden. But remember that the people who publish this kind of writing make the rules that must be followed. For the moment, let's continue to call this "formal writing". I don't really like the label, but let's use it, since it's convenient.

Now, look at the previous sentence: 

"…but let's use it, since it's convenient".

 What do we call this kind of writing? I used "let's" and it's". Is this sub-standard? Informal? Colloquial? Something that would only be used in conversation.

No. You would then have to assume that all such contractions would only show up in dialogue. This is simply false. Period.

So let's talk about a different "modes" of writing. First, let's consider narration. Think of the parts of books that describe what is happening but that contain no dialogue. When you think of this style, you will soon see that we are now obeying different rules. We don't have to label it "more or less formal". We can do that if you wish. But the important thing to remember is that narration follows slightly different rules or conventions. I do not view narration as less formal. I view it as a different style of writing, with its own rules. Some authors do have a rather informal narrative style. But others do not.

I don't know if this same distinction exists in German, since I read nothing in German that corresponds to what Elroy has called formal writing. I don't read non-fiction. I don't like newspapers, magazines, etc. I loathe everything to do with politics. I don't like formal debates. Academic writing puts me to sleep. It's a personal thing. 

For this reason, almost all the German I have read has been in books and in letters. When I have read anything factual, it has been related to music or one of my hobbies.

My favorite English authors (meaning authors who write in the English language) often use contractions in narrative. If anyone were to assert that these authors are in any way using substandard English, or even English that is too "informal", I would argue until I got kicked out of the forum. 

"Gonna" is entirely different. You will NOT see this word in narrative unless it is a first-person narrative. (Think of Huckleberry Finn…) If the main character is telling the story, then he (or she) speaks in his own style. Then you will see slang frequently, since the narrative is meant to reflect the way the character speaks.

But in third person narrative, words such as "gonna", "ain't", "watcha", "hafta" and thousands more are simply not going to be found. 

I think if we can agree on terms, we might be able to compare German and English better. So far we have been   "spinning our wheels". 

Gaer


----------



## gaer

nic456 said:
			
		

> Ein Apostroph kann bei Ableitungen aus Eigennamen stehen, der Eigenname wird dann großgeschrieben:
> mozartsche / Mozart'sche Sonate
> heusssche / Heuss'sche Schriften
> grimmsche / Grimm'sche Märchen
> (c) Dudenverlag 1998


Nic, I think you missed my point. I don't care what rule Duden is recommending unless it is being followed.

This was too long to answer in the box. I had to use another program, so some graphics may be gone. Sorry about that. 

Google shows "Grimmsche Märchen" appearing much more frequently without the apostrophe. This by itself shows only frequency of usage, and we all know that sometimes proves that the incorrect form is used more than the correct one.

But please check out this site:

here

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

Type in "Grimmsche". Check the results, check the sources and check the dates. (I believe "Grimm'sche" is not being found, so the results are not fully accurate.

But two examples:
====
Das hochmittelalterliche Wort schîn stand für Sichtbarkeit, Bild, sichtbaren Beweis; schînbrief für schriftlichen Ausweis, und "scheinbar" bedeutete dementsprechend, so das *Grimmsche* Wörterbuch, "glänzend, klar, offenbar". (Quelle: _Die Zeit 2002_) 

Zur Auswahl gehört der Sechsminüter "Hase & Igel" von Sebastian Winkels, in dem afrikanische, japanische und andere Teilnehmer eines Deutsch-Intensivkurses das *Grimmsche* Märchen mit ihren Worten und Gesten nacherzählen. (Quelle: _Berliner Zeitung 2000_) 
====
I can't find sources or examples there that are from 2005. It is possible that since this time, the apostrophe has taken over. But I suspect people are resisting this change. 

"Heuss'sche", on the other hand, appears more frequently than the form without the mark. I believe this is logical, because of the third "s". I suspect that Duden is attempting to standardize all such forms, requiring them all to use the mark (apostrophe).

I remain skeptical simply because is seems more and more self evident that not all the proposed Duden changes will be followed, as Jens has repeatedly mentioned. 


> In German the apostrophe is frequently used for marking genitive if a word terminates on s/x, (generally terminating on consonant?), indicating a missing s: Marx' Mutter, Marxens Mutter, Fritz' Bruder, Hans' Schwester


This I did not know. I've probably seen this ending without thinking about it, since the rule is quite close to the one use in English. There was a long debate about whether is should be "Chris's house" or "Chris' house." There was no clear consensus.


> As for the examples above, I would describe them as adjectives derived from names indicating possession (das Grass'sche Werk, das Werk von Grass, Grassens Werk).
> There are also some in English, in particular when referring to an era: Dickensian novel, Elizabethan theatre, Victorian mill, Edwardian theatre, Newtonian physics, Augustan peace, Palladian style,...


That's a good point. You will also see "Mozartian", although you will not see "Mozartian Sonata" unless it is a sonata in the STYLE of Mozart but written by someone else. However, I do think Who also made an excellent point when he suggested that the "sche" ending is linked to famous people. 


> What about making a distinction between *contraction* - joining 2 different words
> and merely using an *apostrohe* to indicate missing letters?
> 
> Thus,
> 1 apostrohpe
> I'm, you're, it's, father's, ain't


This is a problem. "Ain't" is not two joined words. "n't" stands for "not". What does "ai" stand for? Father's does not indicate a missing letter. The apostrophe shows the difference in function in this manner: fathers (plural), father's (possessive singular), fathers' (possessive plural).


> habs [actually hab's], geh'n [writing mirroring pronunciation], 'reinkommen [hereinkommen]


I have a question: such words, mirroring pronunciation only, are used only in dialogue, in English. Is the same thing true in German? I'm assuming they are not used in narrative writing. I don't recall see them except in "first-person narrative", which is really the spoken words of a character, written down.


> 2 contraction
> won't/don't (will/do not), wanna/gonna (want/going to), hiya/gotcha (hi you, got you)


Again, you are mixing two different things. Three, in fact. "Will not" changes to "won't", which changes "will" to "wo". However, this is a standard contraction and is used in narrative writing. It is not reserved for speech. "Don't" belongs with "I'm" and "you're", since it merely omits a letter.

"Yiya" is an informal word. We don't say, "Hi you". "Gotcha" is like "gonna". Both are representations of correct English with words and sounds clipped away ("I gotcha" = "I've got you." "Gonna" = "going to".


> zur (zu der), beim (bei dem), durchs (durch das), vorm (ugs vor dem), fürs (für das)
> 
> It looks like a substantial number of German contractions are linked to the use of prepositions and articles, which is no surprise, bearing in mind that articles vary according to gender and case.


Once again, I still have to ask: is there any rule forbidding the use of such contractions in any kind of "formal" writing? Because if there is not, they are different from our standard contractions for reasons Elroy has alreayd made clear.


> Beware, some are colloquial (vorm), others are formal and necessary if you do not want to emphasise the noun they refer to (zur, beim;fürs contentious)


Here I'm lost. Do you mean that some are used only in speech or in dialogue? Do you see how imprecise this has all become? 

Gaer


----------



## nic456

Gaer,

You have really taken your time to reply.  

I have had a look at the web site of Uni Leipzig and if I enter grimm'sche and untick the option case-sensitive, I get the following result:


*Wort: *Grimm'sche 
*Anzahl: *0
*Häufigkeitsklasse:* 24 (d.h. _der_ ist ca. 2^24 mal häufiger als das gesuchte Wort)
*Links zu anderen Wörtern:* 

neue Rechtschreibung von: Grimmsche
Personally, I don't think the apostrophe matters a lot and people tend to prefer it to separate multiple occurences of s. And, interestingly, Duden makes a suggestion and I believe it is good to admit more than one correct way of writing.

My suggestion about introducing the distinction between apostrophe and contraction was meant to make your classification of formal, colloquial, inacceptably colloquial (slang) or whatever else easier. 

Apostrophe would be used when there is NOT a single word as a result of using the apostrophe, though there may originally be two separate ones.
[Father's can indicate genitive or stand for for father is, e.g. father's not well, likewise he's not well]

Contraction results in joining two separate words into ONE. 

I am afraid I still cannot think of an easy way to help you out with speech versus writing. It looks like you will have to play a bit with what you read or write as in the earlier mention example of zur Schule/ zu der Schule, but this does not work for any of the three sentences taken from your link (plus 3 taken from plays, speech):  

*Beispiel(e):* 
1 Auch als Schröder die Kirche verließ, frotzelten manche Schüler, dass er jetzt "ruhig wieder gehen" könne: "Die Bilder *fürs* Fernsehen sind ja da, der Rest ist ihm doch eh egal." (Quelle: _Der Spiegel ONLINE_) 
2 Fest steht: Dem *fürs* internationale Kino zuständigen Auswahlkomitee von Cannes wurden mehr als ein halbes Dutzend Filme von deutschen Regisseuren wie Doris Dörrie und Werner Schroeter vorgeführt; keiner fand die Gnade der Vorjuroren. (Quelle: _Der Spiegel ONLINE_) 
3 Auch die Börsenkommission geht nun dem Verdacht nach, dass die Analysten fast wertlose Aktien zum Kauf empfahlen - und dabei hofften, dass die gepriesenen Firmen sich mit Aufträgen *fürs* Investment Banking revanchieren. (Quelle: _Der Spiegel ONLINE_) 

Vorm should definitely be used in speech only. If you look it up, you will notice that it is classified as colloquial (ugs).


----------



## nic456

There is a link with more information (but not that many examples) here


----------



## gaer

Hi Nic,

Once again, because of the length, I have to reply offline and then paste it back in. 


> You have really taken your time to reply.


Do you mean that I spent a lot of time replying (effort) or took a long time to do it (delay)? 


> I have had a look at the web site of Uni Leipzig and if I enter grimm'sche and untick the option case-sensitive, I get the following result:
> 
> Wort: Grimm'sche
> Anzahl: 0
> Häufigkeitsklasse: 24 (d.h. der ist ca. 2^24 mal häufiger als das gesuchte Wort)
> Links zu anderen Wörtern:
> neue Rechtschreibung von: Grimmsche


Yes. That is the same result I got. But I think there is a bug in the search, because there are no examples shown with "Grimm'sche". If that is right, then it would suggest that the apostrophe is not much used. I would not dare make that conclusion from the results of one site.


> Personally, I don't think the apostrophe matters a lot and people tend to prefer it to separate multiple occurences of s. And, interestingly, Duden makes a suggestion and I believe it is good to admit more than one correct way of writing.


Okay. Then that was my conclusion. "sssche" is harder to read than "ss'sche". As we have repeatedly discussed here in this forum, so much about the change to new rules is still under debate.


> My suggestion about introducing the distinction between apostrophe and contraction was meant to make your classification of formal, colloquial, inacceptably colloquial (slang) or whatever else easier.


I'm not sure that anything is going to make it easier in English. I tried to make a point about "narrative writing" following different rules than "formal writing", using the model I believe Elroy had in mind. But we need classifications of some kind, and I frankly do not know if they exist. English is so "slippery". It's not hard at all to write a book explaining what we may write and what we may not. Such books have been written for centuries. However, when famous writers ignore many of the rules written in such books, it makes it very difficult to come to a final decision about what is "good and bad English". 


> [Father's can indicate genitive or stand for for father is, e.g. father's not well, likewise he's not well]


Good point, and I totally overlooked that! I focused on possessive. In addition, "Father's" could either be "Father is" or "Father has". The same is true for many other contactions:

He's not told us yet. He has not told us yet.
He's not home. He is not home.

Normally "Father", "Mother" and other such words are capitalized when there is no article.

I stopped by her house, but Mother was not home.
I stopped by her house, but my mother was not home.

I believe this would be extremely unlikely: "The father's not well."

But this would be common, in dialogue: "Father's not well." So you really need the capital letter for your example, I think.

EDIT: Oops! I'm wrong. This would be common, in speech: "My father's not well". Sorry!


> I am afraid I still cannot think of an easy way to help you out with speech versus writing. It looks like you will have to play a bit with what you read or write as in the earlier mention example of zur Schule/ zu der Schule, but this does not work for any of the three sentences taken from your link (plus 3 taken from plays, speech):
> 
> Beispiel(e):
> 1 Auch als Schröder die Kirche verließ, frotzelten manche Schüler, dass er jetzt "ruhig wieder gehen" könne: "Die Bilder fürs Fernsehen sind ja da, der Rest ist ihm doch eh egal." (Quelle: Der Spiegel ONLINE)


Okay. That is obviously dialogue.


> 2 Fest steht: Dem fürs internationale Kino zuständigen Auswahlkomitee von Cannes wurden mehr als ein halbes Dutzend Filme von deutschen Regisseuren wie Doris Dörrie und Werner Schroeter vorgeführt; keiner fand die Gnade der Vorjuroren.
> (Quelle: Der Spiegel ONLINE)
> 
> 3 Auch die Börsenkommission geht nun dem Verdacht nach, dass die Analysten fast wertlose Aktien zum Kauf empfahlen - und dabei hofften, dass die gepriesenen Firmen sich mit Aufträgen fürs Investment Banking revanchieren. (Quelle: Der Spiegel ONLINE)


And that is obviously not dialogue. It gets rather complicated even in German, perhaps. In the US, different newspapers, for instance, use different sets of rules. I found that out very recently. I believe there is a "New York Times" standard and an "AP" standard. They are not the same. Perhaps we have hit a "middle ground" in German too. If, for instance, the rules about such words as "fürs" become more conservative when you are writing certain kinds of formal papers, there may be a correlation between English and German. Unfortunately, I would not dare come to any conclusions on my own, which is why I asked for more info from other "natives"—you and others. 


> Vorm should definitely be used in speech only. If you look it up, you will notice that it is classified as colloquial (ugs).


I don't need to look it up. You told me, I believe you. How bout vom? You are probably doing the same things we do when we consider English contractions. We try to remember what is used in narration and what is not. For me it is a very tricky matter, because what I think is used and what is really used are not always the same.

This whole subject is not easy, is it? 

Gaer


----------



## nic456

You are right, I forgot about 's short for has.

Still, if you make the categorisation first linguistically (apostrophe, contraction), and then pragmatically, it might allow you to get an order?

Anyway, I throw the towel, but I am thankful for a better, possibly inappropriate if limited to these options, categorisation: formal, speech, (you rightly pointed out the use of speech in writing), colloquial, slang (negative colloquial). The good thing about discussions is, I believe, to sharpen the usage of terms for a subject field (synonyms).


----------



## gaer

nic456 said:
			
		

> You are right, I forgot about 's short for has.
> 
> Still, if you make the categorisation first linguistically (apostrophe, contraction), and then pragmatically, it might allow you to get an order?
> 
> Anyway, I throw *in* the towel, but I am thankful for a better, possibly inappropriate if limited to these options, categorisation: formal, speech, (you rightly pointed out the use of speech in writing), colloquial, slang (negative colloquial). The good thing about discussions is, I believe, to sharpen the usage of terms for a subject field (synonyms).


You have to add "in" there. But that means give up, and I hope you don't mean that. My only point was that this is hard to narrow down, for either English or German.

For English, I would say (just as an example):

1. Formal writing, conservative, the kind demanded in publications that do not allow any contractions.

2. Narrative, a bit hard to define since it varies so much from author to author, but some contractions are definitely used.

3. A speaking style not containing slang or sub-standard usage. For instance, you might think of someone giving a lecture in a relaxed, intimate style, but for the most part he would probably not use much slang. But you would here things such as "gonna" and "gotta", reflecting "lazy" speech. (Here I'm talking about in the US.)

4. Dialogue in a book, in which case ANY style of language might be represented, from very formal speech to dialects.

And I'm sure anyone could pick apart those categories too. In the end, it all comes down to "feel", I think, and nothing I've said begins to say anything about the "rules" in German, which I still know very little about!

Gaer


----------



## nic456

Gaer,

Many thanks, I will always be thinking of throwing the towel INto some form of container now


----------



## nic456

Gaer,

My suggestion for a rule of thumb:
1 Most infinitives are used with contractions
2 If in doubt, try as an alternative preposition + article + word + hier
beim Kochen > bei dem Kochen hier


----------



## Icetrance

Well, what's the contraction all about in the German expression "Da haben wir's ja"?

Danke


----------



## StryKeRneL

But not all contractions in German are informal, right?

for example: "hier gibts 'nen Wagen" is totally informal
and "es ist hinterm Stuhl" is formal

am I right?


----------



## Forero

In English, I would only write _o'clock_ contracted, and I would hesitate to replace every _let's_ with a _let us_, even in formal writing.

In German:

Are these contractions optional, or obligatory: _beim_, _vorm_, _hinterm_, _zum_, _zur_, _durchs_?

Is _sehn_ for_ sehen_ a standard contraction?

Is _b'_ (as in _hab's_ or _geb's_) always pronounced as a _p_, or can it depend on the sound that follows?


----------



## sokol

Forero said:


> Are these contractions optional, or obligatory: _beim_, _vorm_, _hinterm_, _zum_, _zur_, _durchs_?


They aren't obligatory but some of them are so common that the full forms would sound very formal; for example "ich gehe zu dem Fest" sounds almost ridiculously formal. On the other hand, "hinter dem Haus" is probably more common in written standard language than "hinterm" but both are standard language (in colloquial language contractions are of course more common).



Forero said:


> Is _sehn_ for_ sehen_ a standard contraction?


You will find "sehn" in literature; I would consider it standard language - but some of my fellow foreros probably will not agree here.



Forero said:


> Is _b'_ (as in _hab's_ or _geb's_) always pronounced as a _p_, or can it depend on the sound that follows?


Well, don't think of German "voiced" plosives as "voiced" ones: because they rarely are voiced, and in Austrian German they are _never _voiced (exception: Carinthian dialect speakers - as they do have voiced plosives in their dialects which they also use when speaking standard language).

So the "b" in "habe" isn't voiced in the first place (except if pronounced colloquially as "hawe" in which case however it is not a plosive anymore), and it isn't voiced in contractions either.
In German standard language however "hab" would follow the rule of _Auslautverhärtung _= more precisely aspiration in word-final position, and this process is not taking place in contractions like those - when an "s" follows: there is no "phs" or "ths" cluster in German, here even aspirated plosives would drop aspiration.


----------



## Sidjanga

Forero said:


> (...) Are these contractions optional, or obligatory: _beim_, _vorm_, _hinterm_, _zum_, _zur_, _durchs_? (...)


_beim, zum_ und _zur _are the current grammatical standard.

In general, you separate them only if you want to further specify the noun that follows:
_Wir treffen uns *beim *Kino._ (there's only one, or it's clear from context at which)
but
_Wir treffen uns *bei dem* Kino, wo wir letztes Jahr mit Anna waren.

vorm, hinterm, durchs_ are, from my experience, (currently) rather colloquial.


----------



## Hutschi

nic456 said:


> neue Rechtschreibung von: Grimmsche
> Personally, I don't think the apostrophe matters a lot and people tend to prefer it to separate multiple occurences of s. And, interestingly, Duden makes a suggestion and I believe it is good to admit more than one correct way of writing.


 There are indeed two ways for this in the new spelling:

1. "grimmsche" without apostrophe and lower case beginning
2. "Grimm'sche" with appostrophe and uppercase beginning.

This does not cover proper names (Eigennamen) or trademarks (Markenzeichen) and possibly usage in science.


----------



## Hutschi

Sigianga said:


> _beim, zum_ und _zur _are the current grammatical standard.
> 
> In general, you separate them only if you want to further specify the noun that follows:
> _Wir treffen uns *beim *Kino._ (there's only one, or it's clear from context at which)
> but
> _Wir treffen uns *bei dem* Kino, wo wir letztes Jahr mit Anna waren._
> 
> _vorm, hinterm, durchs_ are, from my experience, (currently) rather colloquial.


 

Contrary to these examples, there are some words you cannot contract in the standard language in the same way.

"Nebem" - does not exist outside of "very" coll. language.
_ Vorm, hinterm, durchs_  are quite "normal".


----------



## Icetrance

Da haben wir's ja  = Da haben wir sie ja (there you are!)


----------



## LüLü333

> Da haben wir's ja = Da haben wir sie ja (there you are!)


 
Ich würde hier eher sagen:
Da haben wir's ja = Da haben wir es ja. 

(oder liege ich da falsch?) 



> "hier gibt*'*s 'nen Wagen"


----------



## nic456

Da haben wir's ja = Da haben wir es ja.


----------



## Icetrance

nic456 said:


> Da haben wir's ja = Da haben wir es ja.



Doesn't that mean "There you got/have it" (understand)?


----------



## Hutschi

No. "We is "I" or "we". (Or ist this the English meaning?)
It can mean:
"There we got it" 
"The result is as I expected and as I told you, but you did not believe it before."
"After a long time/after a lot of experiments I/we got the (long expected) result."
This depends on context. 

It is a seldom case were "wir" often is used for "ich", but with "ich" it is no idiom.


----------



## Icetrance

Hutschi said:


> No. "We is "I" or "we". (Or ist this the English meaning?)
> It can mean:
> "There we got it"
> "The result is as I expected and as I told you, but you did not believe it before."
> "After a long time/after a lot of experiments I/we got the (long expected) result."
> This depends on context.
> 
> It is a seldom case were "wir" often is used for "ich", but with "ich" it is no idiom.


 
"There we got it" can mean "you finally understood". But I understand your post. Thank you!


----------

