# Wenn wir älter sind, werden wir weiser (sein)



## Cathurian

Ich habe Fragen über "sein". Wann soll ich es sagen?

Zum Beispiel:

Wenn ich jünger wäre, würde ich ein Kind (sein).
Wenn wir älter sind, werden wir weisere (sein).

Sage ich da "sein", oder?


----------



## MrMagoo

Hallo Cathurian,

bei Deinem ersten Beispiel mußt Du das "sein" dazusagen:
"Wenn ich jünger wäre, würde ich ein Kind sein" --> möglich ist hier auch, nochmals den Konjunktiv zu verwenden: "Wenn ich jünger wäre, wäre ich ein Kind".

Im zweiten Beispiel muß ebenfalls das "sein" dazugesagt werden, denn es bezieht sich auf eine Handlung, die in der Zukunft stattfindet:
"Wenn wir älter sind, werden wir weiser sein".

Wenn der Ausgangssatz einen Dauerzustand in die Zukunft darstellt (--> "werden" (als Vollverb) anstatt "sein"), dann kann das sein fehlen. In diesem Fall ist das zweite "werden" ebenfalls ein Vollverb:

"Wenn wir älter werden, werden wir weiser".


----------



## Whodunit

Just for the correctness' sake, I corrected your old spelling. Please don't mind, Mr. Magoo.



			
				MrMagoo said:
			
		

> Hallo Cathurian,
> 
> bei *d*einem ersten Beispiel mu*ss*t *d*u das "sein" dazusagen:
> "Wenn ich jünger wäre, würde ich ein Kind sein" --> möglich ist hier auch, nochmals den Konjunktiv zu verwenden: "Wenn ich jünger wäre, wäre ich ein Kind".
> 
> Im zweiten Beispiel mu*ss* ebenfalls das "sein" dazugesagt werden, denn es bezieht sich auf eine Handlung, die in der Zukunft stattfindet:
> "Wenn wir älter sind, werden wir weiser sein".
> 
> Wenn der Ausgangssatz einen Dauerzustand in die Zukunft darstellt (--> "werden" (als Vollverb) anstatt "sein"), dann kann das sein fehlen. In diesem Fall ist das zweite "werden" ebenfalls ein Vollverb:
> 
> "Wenn wir älter werden, werden wir weiser".



So, now let's cut to the chase. I'm going to clear it up. German is totally unlike English    regarding conditional clauses:

Wenn ich jünger wäre, würde ich ein Kind (sein).´
(If I were younger, I would be a child.)

Wenn wir älter sind, werden wir weisere (sein).
(If we are older, we will be wiser.)

Although the second example doesn't really work. I'd say "When we'll be older, we'll be wiser" in English, but nevertheless it sounds a bit stiff, doesn't it? In German you could say "Wäre wir älter, so wäre wir auch weiser" which means "If we were older, we'd be wiser as well."


----------



## MrMagoo

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Just for the correctness' sake, I corrected your old spelling. Please don't mind, Mr. Magoo.


 
---> *lol* No, I don't mind - but I warn you: You'll get a lot to correct if you insist on the new spelling in my postings. 
The new spelling will only be obligatory for schools and office departments from August this year. Most people in Germany refuse the new spelling anyway and go on using the old one even though the new spelling is said to be the 'standard' one. 
This means you will find old and new spelling side by side for at least the next 50 years... 
The way of spelling you use is also a kind of "personal habit" and can also be assured to somebody, e.g. when it comes to authors who publish new books.
The known German author Günther Grass e.g. has announced he will go on using the old spelling and publishing companies have to assure that his works will be published in old spelling at least for 70 more years after he dies.

The capital "D" in Du, Dir, Dich, Dein, etc. has always been a sign of respect and therefore still the common form used esp. when it comes to personal addresses - and I don't want to sound disrespectful. 
This is my attitude towards the spelling reform so far.

Back to the question:



> So, now let's cut to the chase. I'm going to clear it up. German is totally unlike English  regarding conditional clauses:
> 
> Wenn ich jünger wäre, würde ich ein Kind (sein).´
> (If I were younger, I would be a child.)
> 
> Wenn wir älter sind, werden wir weisere (sein).
> (If we are older, we will be wiser.)
> 
> Although the second example doesn't really work. I'd say "When we'll be older, we'll be wiser" in English, but nevertheless it sounds a bit stiff, doesn't it? In German you could say "Wäre wir älter, so wäre wir auch weiser" which means "If we were older, we'd be wiser as well."


 
1st example:

The "sein" is necessarily needed here - either in its conjunctive form or in its paraphrasing würde-construction:

a) Wenn ich jünger wäre, wäre ich ein Kind
b) Wenn ich jünger wäre, würde ich ein Kind *sein*
--> If I were younger, I would be a child.

In case the "sein" is dropped in example b), "werden" becomes a full verb - which is also possible, but then "werden" has to occur as a full verb in the if-clause as well, otherwise it wouldn't make sense:
c) "Wenn ich jünger würde, würde ich ein Kind"
This conjunctive form of "werden" can be paraphrased with a würde-construction in this case as well:
d) "Wenn ich jünger würde, würde ich ein Kind werden".

Greetings
-MrMagoo


----------



## Whodunit

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> ---> *lol* No, I don't mind - but I warn you: You'll get a lot to correct if you insist on the new spelling in my postings.
> The new spelling will only be obligatory for schools and office departments from August this year. Most people in Germany refuse the new spelling anyway and go on using the old one even though the new spelling is said to be the 'standard' one.
> This means you will find old and new spelling side by side for at least the next 50 years...
> The way of spelling you use is also a kind of "personal habit" and can also be assured to somebody, e.g. when it comes to authors who publish new books.
> The known German author Günther Grass e.g. has announced he will go on using the old spelling and publishing companies have to assure that his works will be published in old spelling at least for 70 more years after he dies.
> 
> 
> The capital "D" in Du, Dir, Dich, Dein, etc. has always been a sign of respect and therefore still the common form used esp. when it comes to personal addresses - and I don't want to sound disrespectful.
> This is my attitude towards the spelling reform so far.



Okay, I assume you're older than 20 or even 30 years, because that is how my parents consider the new spelling reform. I really don't want to discuss it with you here, because it doesn't make sense. I only wanted to correct it because this is a forum for German learners who want to learn our CURRENT language and not the language used 10 years ago. The spoken language is still the same, but the written one (we do use here) has changed a lot. If ever, we should keep discussing this topic in the "Rechtschreibung etc." thread. I really don't want us to end up in a senseless argument. You're an adult, I'm a student; it's obvious that I do not prefer the old spelling and vice versa.

I can see your point about the capitalization of the informal addressing, but since it IS informal here (and we're really informal here), you don't have to show personal overemphasizing respect. I know you respect my replies and the other way round, but if you really wanted to show tremendous respect, you could use "Sie" which is rightly upper-cased, because you show total respect. I assume you'd never address a rival of yours with "Sie", would you?



> In case the "sein" is dropped in example b), "werden" becomes a full verb - which is also possible, but then "werden" has to occur as a full verb in the if-clause as well, otherwise it wouldn't make sense:
> c) "Wenn ich jünger würde, würde ich ein Kind"
> This conjunctive form of "werden" can be paraphrased with a würde-construction in this case as well:
> d) "Wenn ich jünger würde, würde ich ein Kind werden".



Do you really say "Wenn ich jünger würde"? This way of forming a conditional clause sounds SO archaic. I've really never heard this sentence before.


----------



## MrMagoo

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Okay, I assume you're older than 20 or even 30 years, because that is how my parents consider the new spelling reform. I really don't want to discuss it with you here, because it doesn't make sense. I only wanted to correct it because this is a forum for German learners who want to learn our CURRENT language and not the language used 10 years ago. The spoken language is still the same, but the written one (we do use here) has changed a lot. If ever, we should keep discussing this topic in the "Rechtschreibung etc." thread. I really don't want us to end up in a senseless argument. You're an adult, I'm a student; it's obvious that I do not prefer the old spelling and vice versa.


 
You must have very young parents 
The spelling reform caused (and still causes) a lot of trouble anyways - there are a lot of arguments for the new spelling and at least as many against it. You're right as this is not our topic here and it would lead to senseless arguments... the only thing I'd like to add is that "the spoken language is not(!) still the same" - it is the spoken language that changes every day, not the written one. Compare to English spelling which was set to be standard about 400 or 500 years ago and didn't really change at all and noone complains...
Back to German: There are not that many rules that changed from old to new spelling, but most of them are totally messed up now and that is why the commission for spelling will take back or at least 'correct' some of the new rules in the near future. (The rules for when to use ss and when to use ß is one of the very few that indeed is logical and makes sense).
Even though you prefer the new spelling you won't be able to avoid being confrontated with the old spelling for at least 50 years...






> I can see your point about the capitalization of the informal addressing, but since it IS informal here (and we're really informal here), you don't have to show personal overemphasizing respect. I know you respect my replies and the other way round, but if you really wanted to show tremendous respect, you could use "Sie" which is rightly upper-cased, because you show total respect.


 
It is at least that formal in here, that a personal address is to be capitalized. That's not overemphatizing respect - it doesn't matter how well you know your discussion partner or how much you like or dislike him: A form of "Du" is capitalized whenever it is used to be a direct address.
"Sie" hardly occurs when it comes to forum postings as internet doesn't demand it. Most people would not "siezen" their conversation partner as long as they chat or post via internet - even the age doesn't really loom large.
Even in case people meet in real, who know each other only by internet before, would not change over to "Sie" but remain with "Du".




> I assume you'd never address a rival of yours with "Sie", would you?


 
I hope you don't think I regard you to be a rival?! I'm sorry if I might have given you that impression - but that's not true, honestly!!

It might surprise you, but indded, I would address a rival with "Sie" (not when it's in an internet forum, but in real life I would), a "Sie" is entitled to every adult... 




> Do you really say "Wenn ich jünger würde"? This way of forming a conditional clause sounds SO archaic. I've really never heard this sentence before.


 
Yes, I would say that. It doesn't sound archaic, actually it's just the other way around:
The actual conjunctive (here: "wäre") gives more and more way to the "würde-construction". This is a tendency that is economically influenced, i.e. it simplifies ways of speech.
A construction of "helping verb + full verb" is usually easier to handle as its opposite part that consists of one verb form only - that's a reason btw why the Perfect tense becomes more and more common in German and the Simple Past tense tends to be less used.


Have a great evening - ttys hopefully 
And please do tell me whenever there's anything that you're bothered by - I don't want you to be a rival of mine some time... *lol*

All the best
-MrMagoo


----------



## Whodunit

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> You must have very young parents
> The spelling reform caused (and still causes) a lot of trouble anyways - there are a lot of arguments for the new spelling and at least as many against it. You're right as this is not our topic here and it would lead to senseless arguments... the only thing I'd like to add is that "the spoken language is not(!) still the same" - it is the spoken language that changes every day, not the written one. Compare to English spelling which was set to be standard about 400 or 500 years ago and didn't really change at all and noone complains...



Well, I think the English language has changed a lot. Look here for the German version, and choose "English" in order to get many more information. But you're completely right that the German language has changed so much, so that we couldn't even read "Sütterlin", the language written 200-300 years ago.
The old spelling is much more confusing for me, because one couldn't see the relation between "aufwendig" and "Aufwand", and Stengel" and "Stange", but indeed it exists. Please tell me if you want more examples.



> Back to German: There are not that many rules that changed from old to new spelling, but most of them are totally messed up now and that is why the commission for spelling will take back or at least 'correct' some of the new rules in the near future. (The rules for when to use ss and when to use ß is one of the very few that indeed is logical and makes sense).
> Even though you prefer the new spelling you won't be able to avoid being confrontated with the old spelling for at least 50 years...



Yes, of course, and I tolerate everyone using the old spelling reform. But I just want to make him and all the other people understand that there's a more up-to-date version, you should learn. My parents and grandparents always come to me if they have a problem with a word. The Duden that is most up-to-date is the one I have at home. I'm afraid, though, that the new one (Auflage 24) will contain many more words. Not only because the number spoken words has increased, but also because it contains both ways (old and new spelling) of always every word. For example, in my current Duden I can find "kennen lernen" and nothing more. The new one will contain "kennen lernen; _auch möglich_: kennenlernen", in my humble opinion.



> It is at least that formal in here, that a personal address is to be capitalized. That's not overemphatizing respect - it doesn't matter how well you know your discussion partner or how much you like or dislike him: A form of "Du" is capitalized whenever it is used to be a direct address.
> "Sie" hardly occurs when it comes to forum postings as internet doesn't demand it. Most people would not "siezen" their conversation partner as long as they chat or post via internet - even the age doesn't really loom large.
> Even in case people meet in real, who know each other only by internet before, would not change over to "Sie" but remain with "Du".



Well, I think you persist in your opinion, and I do in mine. But I okay it using the lower-cased letter for "du and the upper-cased one for "Sie". I think it's the same in Spanish with "tú" and "Usted", isn't it? I welcome this kind of spelling. And you're right that there're some useless changes. If I met someone I know from the Internet, the du" would remain indeed.



> I hope you don't think I regard you to be a rival?! I'm sorry if I might have given you that impression - but that's not true, honestly!!
> 
> It might surprise you, but indded, I would address a rival with "Sie" (not when it's in an internet forum, but in real life I would), a "Sie" is entitled to every adult...



Haha, I'm totally sorry that I sounded as if I considered you a rival of mine. Never!!! I'm so sorry, it was just an example to show what I mean. I don't understand you why you address a person with "Sie" you don't repect. I show respect to someone by using "Sie". The same goes for "sie" and "die":

"Die hat keine gute Art."

instead of

"Sie hat keine gute Art."



> Yes, I would say that. It doesn't sound archaic, actually it's just the other way around:
> The actual conjunctive (here: "wäre") gives more and more way to the "würde-construction". This is a tendency that is economically influenced, i.e. it simplifies ways of speech.
> A construction of "helping verb + full verb" is usually easier to handle as its opposite part that consists of one verb form only - that's a reason btw why the Perfect tense becomes more and more common in German and the Simple Past tense tends to be less used.



That is completely correct, but that wasn't what I was referring to at all. I mean it's very outdated (at least in my region) to use "würde" without "sein" in this context. I would definitely have said "Wenn ich jünger sein würde" instead of this without "sein". Do you understand what I mean? I hope yes. I don't want to repeat the whole topic once again.


----------



## MrMagoo

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Well, I think the English language has changed a lot. here for the German version, and choose "English" in order to get many more information. But you're completely right that the German language has changed so much, so that we couldn't even read "Sütterlin", the language written 200-300 years ago.


 
Uhh... don't mess up written and spoken language now!
Spoken English has changed a lot as well as Spoken German has, Written English though remained almost the same for about 400 years while Written German as we know know it exists since 1901 when Duden reformed and standardized the spelling.

Our handwriting has not really changed either, "Sütterlin" is the handwriting that was used until the 1930s (my grandmother wrote in Sütterlin) and then substituted by the handwriting we use today which is more or less the Latin way of writing.






> The old spelling is much more confusing for me, because one couldn't see the relation between "aufwendig" and "Aufwand", and Stengel" and "Stange", but indeed it exists. Please tell me if you want more examples.


 
Oh, I know these examples, but if you conclude logically, you have to spell "aufwenden" with an ä, too = aufwänden, as it comes from Aufwand as well.
Now, if that sounds logical, then why not spelling "dänken" (as we have the form dachte) or "sänden" (as there is sandte)? How about kännen (from kannte), brännen (from Brand and brannte), nännen (from nannte), and also of course "die Ältern" (from alt), etc?
All these cases have not been changed, so in how far are these rules "better"? 







> Yes, of course, and I tolerate everyone using the old spelling reform. But I just want to make him and all the other people understand that there's a more up-to-date version, you should learn. My parents and grandparents always come to me if they have a problem with a word. The Duden that is most up-to-date is the one I have at home. I'm afraid, though, that the new one (Auflage 24) will contain many more words. Not only because the number spoken words has increased, but also because it contains both ways (old and new spelling) of always every word. For example, in my current Duden I can find "kennen lernen" and nothing more. The new one will contain "kennen lernen; _auch möglich_: kennenlernen", in my humble opinion.


 
As long as you know about the different spelling it's all fine. I won't force anybody to use the old or new spelling - it's good to know about the rules and ways of both forms, but the decision which of them you use finally, is your own one. 

What is more confusing for students than learning that there are at least 2 possibilities in writing (kennen lernen and kennenlernen)? 
This is really one of the dumbest rules of the spelling reform.
(I could now say that we live in a democracy, everyone may spell how he desires... this would be an equal situation - and probably lead into total chaos!)

"Duden" btw is just ONE grammar that helps you in cases of spelling etc, there are many more. Even though Duden is the standard of all grammars doesn't know it is perfect or right in all cases [Just look up "Keiler" in the newest edition and you'll see that in the interpretament, Duden spells "agressiv" with only one "g"].







> Well, I think you persist in your opinion, and I do in mine. But I okay it using the lower-cased letter for "du and the upper-cased one for "Sie". I think it's the same in Spanish with "tú" and "Usted", isn't it? I welcome this kind of spelling. And you're right that there're some useless changes. If I met someone I know from the Internet, the du" would remain indeed.


 
See 
Yes, it's the same in Spanish - and in English, nothing is capitalized.
German is also the only remaining language of Germanic and Romance that keeps capitalisation of nouns. The last one to drop these rules was Danish in the 60s.
Jacob Grimm was aiming to introduce the small letter for all our nound already (except proper names, etc) as in English, but he didn't succeed. 
Would you also think dropping the capitalisation would be a good solution?






> Haha, I'm totally sorry that I sounded as if I considered you a rival of mine. Never!!! I'm so sorry, it was just an example to show what I mean. I don't understand you why you address a person with "Sie" you don't repect. I show respect to someone by using "Sie".


 
Well, I guess you will notice this latest when you get older. 
I doubt that you'll refer with "Du" to any of your teachers even if you don't like him/her?! I'd actually be shocked if you would...






> The same goes for "sie" and "die":
> 
> "Die hat keine gute Art."
> instead of
> "Sie hat keine gute Art."


 

This is a different case as no direct address is involved, you're just speaking "about" someone else, not "with" someone.





> That is completely correct, but that wasn't what I was referring to at all. I mean it's very outdated (at least in my region) to use "würde" without "sein" in this context. I would definitely have said "Wenn ich jünger sein würde" instead of this without "sein". Do you understand what I mean? I hope yes. I don't want to repeat the whole topic once again.


 
Yes, I do - the problem here is that you have to decide between 2 verbs and 4 different ways of paraphrasing:

1st verb: "sein"
"Wenn ich jünger wäre... " (= Conjunctive of "sein")
"Wenn ich jünger sein würde..." (=würde-construction with "sein")

2nd verb: "werden"
"Wenn ich jünger würde..." (=Conjunctive of werden)
"Wenn ich jünger werden würde..." (=würde-construction of "werden")

Do you get what I mean?
In both cases the "würde-construction" tends to be more used than the "conjunctive" of the actual verb.

I'm off to bed now, ttys 
G'night
-MrMagoo


----------



## elroy

Just a few comments:

I thought that the real Konjunktiv was actually preferred for a few verbs, namely "sein," "haben, "kommen," and a few others.

I think it sounds a lot more natural to say "Wenn ich wäre" than "wenn ich sein würde."

As for "werden," whether or not to use "sein" depends on whether you're using "werden" as a verb to mean "to become, to get" or a helping verb to form the future.

Wir werden weiser sein. (We will be wiser.)
Wir werden weiser. (We are getting wiser.)
Wir werden weiser werden. (We will get wiser.)

As for the Konjunktiv, you can use either "würde" or "würde werden."  They are just two ways to say the exact same thing.

Wenn ich weiser würde = Wenn ich weiser werden würde.

Finally, Spanish does not capitalize "usted" unless it is abbreviated.


----------



## Whodunit

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> Uhh... don't mess up written and spoken language now!
> Spoken English has changed a lot as well as Spoken German has, Written English though remained almost the same for about 400 years while Written German as we know know it exists since 1901 when Duden reformed and standardized the spelling.
> 
> Our handwriting has not really changed either, "Sütterlin" is the handwriting that was used until the 1930s (my grandmother wrote in Sütterlin) and then substituted by the handwriting we use today which is more or less the Latin way of writing.



Well, it HAS changed a lot. Look at this page. I don't want to keep discussing it, because it's useless, because both of us didn't live 100 years ago. I mean we could read Sütterlin under great pain, but it's possible. The spelling has changed, too. Try to read this.



> Oh, I know these examples, but if you conclude logically, you have to spell "aufwenden" with an ä, too = aufwänden, as it comes from Aufwand as well.
> Now, if that sounds logical, then why not spelling "dänken" (as we have the form dachte) or "sänden" (as there is sandte)? How about kännen (from kannte), brännen (from Brand and brannte), nännen (from nannte), and also of course "die Ältern" (from alt), etc?
> All these cases have not been changed, so in how far are these rules "better"?



That is what I was getting at. The old spelling considered "aufwendig" being correct, but since it derives from "Aufwand", it's wrong. The correct from has to use an umlaut. But the other examples of yours are not well thought-out, in my opinion. Everything goes back to its infinitive. And the infinitive is "nennen" and not "nannen". It's not my fault that the language uses "er nannte" instead of "er nennte". We tend to use more irregular than regular verbs. If so, what about "sein", shouldn't it be "waren", "er war" etc.? It's useless again to discuss this topic, because we're not (at least I'm not) etymologists.



> As long as you know about the different spelling it's all fine. I won't force anybody to use the old or new spelling - it's good to know about the rules and ways of both forms, but the decision which of them you use finally, is your own one.



Correct and agreed. But I suggest we should use either "Fluss" or "Fluß" here, because otherwise our German learners would get confused. And I really don't want to discourage them.



> What is more confusing for students than learning that there are at least 2 possibilities in writing (kennen lernen and kennenlernen)?
> This is really one of the dumbest rules of the spelling reform.
> (I could now say that we live in a democracy, everyone may spell how he desires... this would be an equal situation - and probably lead into total chaos!)



Well, some day, I think, we will live in a spelling democracy, but I'm going to concentrate myself on the new spelling reform - doesn't matter if hard or easy.



> "Duden" btw is just ONE grammar that helps you in cases of spelling etc, there are many more. Even though Duden is the standard of all grammars doesn't know it is perfect or right in all cases [Just look up "Keiler" in the newest edition and you'll see that in the interpretament, Duden spells "agressiv" with only one "g"].



Well, okay, that seems to be a typo. I found another error. Do you know www.duden.de? It's the main page of the Duden. Duden turned 125 years, so they play the "Dudenspiel". Once there was a question how to spell correctly "die über 80 Jährigen". The correct answer wasn't "die über Achtzigjährigen", as you could see at page 989 under "über" in the newest Duden.



> Jacob Grimm was aiming to introduce the small letter for all our nound already (except proper names, etc) as in English, but he didn't succeed.
> Would you also think dropping the capitalisation would be a good solution?



Well, not. Consider "der gefangene floh", "eine schale suppe", and "weise reden". How the heck should we know what those expressions mean, if we did't capitalize the letters?



> Well, I guess you will notice this latest when you get older.
> I doubt that you'll refer with "Du" to any of your teachers even if you don't like him/her?! I'd actually be shocked if you would...



Hard question. I would like to. But I must not. There're several students who really detest their teachers, and guess how  the address her/him: "Du kannst mir gar nix" etc.




> This is a different case as no direct address is involved, you're just speaking "about" someone else, not "with" someone.



But if you respect the person you speak about, why shouldn't you say ""Ich weiß, dass Sie sehr vernünfigt ist."?



> Yes, I do - the problem here is that you have to decide between 2 verbs and 4 different ways of paraphrasing:
> 
> 1st verb: "sein"
> "Wenn ich jünger wäre... " (= Conjunctive of "sein")
> "Wenn ich jünger sein würde..." (=würde-construction with "sein")
> 
> 2nd verb: "werden"
> "Wenn ich jünger würde..." (=Conjunctive of werden)
> "Wenn ich jünger werden würde..." (=würde-construction of "werden")
> 
> Do you get what I mean?
> In both cases the "würde-construction" tends to be more used than the "conjunctive" of the actual verb.



Hm, never heard of that. But I will reply to this statement with quoting Elroy in my next post.


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Wenn ich weiser würde = Wenn ich weiser werden würde.



Hm, the first example seems very out-dated to me. I have really never heard it before.



> Finally, Spanish does not capitalize "usted" unless it is abbreviated.



Ok, good to know. But why only as an abbreviation?


----------



## elroy

> Correct and agreed. But I suggest we should use either "Fluss" or "Fluß" here, because otherwise our German learners would get confused. And I really don't want to discourage them.



I disagree.  Learners of German should be aware of the differences, especially since they are so controversial.  They should know that "Fluss" is "post-reform" and "Fluß" is "pre-reform."  

Just like you learners of English want to know that "center" is American and "centre" is British.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Hm, the first example seems very out-dated to me. I have really never heard it before.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, good to know. But why only as an abbreviation?



I haven't heard it either, but it's technically the correct Konjunktiv II form of the verb "werden." 

I don't know why.  That's simply the way it is.  Perhaps you could ask in the Spanish forum.


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> I disagree.  Learners of German should be aware of the differences, especially since they are so controversial.  They should know that "Fluss" is "post-reform" and "Fluß" is "pre-reform."
> 
> Just like you learners of English want to know that "center" is American and "centre" is British.



Hm, okay. But it's you wants to know that. I think German is hard enough.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Hm, okay. But it's you wants to know that. I think German is hard enough.



Sticking to one set of rules here in the forum would make it more confusing when people see words spelled another way in real life, wouldn't you think?  Better to explain it all here than risk embarrassment/confusion later!


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Sticking to one set of rules here in the forum would make it more confusing when people see words spelled another way in real life, wouldn't you think?  Better to explain it all here than risk embarrassment/confusion later!



Hm, I really don't know.    But we should wait how things turn out.


----------



## MrMagoo

Hi again, whodunit - you're a harter Brocken! 



			
				Whodunit said:
			
		

> Well, it HAS changed a lot. Look at this page. I don't want to keep discussing it, because it's useless, because both of us didn't live 100 years ago. I mean we could read Sütterlin under great pain, but it's possible. The spelling has changed, too. Try to read this.


 
No, the hand-writing has NOT changed - handwritings have been replaced by other handwritings every once in a while but didn't change by themselves.
The "karolingische Minuskel" e.g. was created by Karl der Große (Karl the Great) as he wanted to have a unique writing within his large kingdom.
When printing became more and more popular in the 16th century, the Fraktur-writing became more and more popular, but again: this is a new-created writing that did not evolve itself out of an earlier writing.
Fraktur was more useful as special letters could be formed easier with this type than with the former types, the Fraktur writing again was exchanged by the Antiqua and the other ones listed in your link.

The spelling has not changed after 1901.
Before 1901, every German kingdom (about 200 or 220) has had its own spelling until a unitary spelling was created and standardized by Duden.
Spelling always bases on normative rules, therefore it can't change itself, cannot "evolve", but is changed by constitutions or whoever to be set as a standard until it will be changed again.





> That is what I was getting at. The old spelling considered "aufwendig" being correct, but since it derives from "Aufwand", it's wrong. The correct from has to use an umlaut. But the other examples of yours are not well thought-out, in my opinion. Everything goes back to its infinitive. And the infinitive is "nennen" and not "nannen". It's not my fault that the language uses "er nannte" instead of "er nennte". We tend to use more irregular than regular verbs. If so, what about "sein", shouldn't it be "waren", "er war" etc.? It's useless again to discuss this topic, because we're not (at least I'm not) etymologists.


 
An "e" has been used to show the Umlaut of a in former times when a special letter "ä" had not been created yet.
I know as much about these special verbs that I can tell you the "e" here indeed *is* an Umlaut! 
The verb "nennen" is derived from the noun "Name" and therefore means "to call" in the sense of "to name".
Its former form was "namnjan" and changed to "nannjan" out of economical reasons later on. The *j* is responsible for the Umlaut of a to "e", it has vanished later on and the form turned out to be "nennen".

What we see in its past tense form is its not-umlauted stem form "nann" (from name) which remained as the past tense form did not have an Umlaut-causing "j".
The same is true for all the verbs brennen (from brannjan), kennen (from kannjan), wenden (from wandjan), rennen (from rannjan), etc.






> Correct and agreed. But I suggest we should use either "Fluss" or "Fluß" here, because otherwise our German learners would get confused. And I really don't want to discourage them.


 
Oh I'm pretty sure you don't.
But German learners now have to know that the form "Fluß" does exist and is not wrong! 
I don't want them ending up looking up the word "Fluß" in a dictionary and can't find it just because they don't know it is just another way of spelling.





> Well, some day, I think, we will live in a spelling democracy, but I'm going to concentrate myself on the new spelling reform - doesn't matter if hard or easy.


 
The spelling democracy was just meant to be ironically to show that the new spelling is more confusing than you might think.
Offering several options for how to spell something is less helpful than having a single standardized form.





> Well, okay, that seems to be a typo. I found another error. Do you know duden . de? It's the main page of the Duden. Duden turned 125 years, so they play the "Dudenspiel". Once there was a question how to spell correctly "die über 80 Jährigen". The correct answer wasn't "die über Achtzigjährigen", as you could see at page 989 under "über" in the newest Duden.


 
This was just an example as well to show you that not even the Duden can be considered to be the only "correct" grammar or dictionary. It is just one of some hundreds.





> Well, not. Consider "der gefangene floh", "eine schale suppe", and "weise reden". How the heck should we know what those expressions mean, if we did't capitalize the letters?


 
There are many equal examples also for English 
The correct meaning is clear as soon as you know the context and that's how English works. 
It wouldn't be a problem for German either - just go ahead and pick one of Jacob Grimm's original books (e.g. his German Grammar or his German Dictionary). You'll see he spelled all the nouns with a small letter and you won't have any problems reading it.





> Hard question. I would like to. But I must not. There're several students who really detest their teachers, and guess how the address her/him: "Du kannst mir gar nix" etc.


 
That's sad to hear to be honest! 
This shows that some younger people really don't know how to behave towards other people. Statements like "Du kannst mir gar nichts" only show a deep disrespect and is not friendly in any way.
When I was at school (and that's not that long ago!), I wasn't even to think about "duzen" one of my teachers!! 






> But if you respect the person you speak about, why shouldn't you say ""Ich weiß, dass Sie sehr vernünfigt ist."?


 
As this is not a direct address! The "sie" here is the personal pronoun for the 3rd person singular and is never capitalized. Don't confuse "er, sie" with the formal pronoun "Sie".


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Hm, I really don't know.  But we should wait how things turn out.


But the point is that we don't HAVE to wait to find out what was correct in the past. We have to wait to find out what the bungling bureaucrats will end up TRYING to enforce. You have to know exactly what you are taught in school, so your teachers are going to teach you exactly what they think you need to make the highest possible test scores. That doesn't mean that even your teachers agree with some of the new rules themselves.

I don't know one single person in Germany, even under the age of 20, who likes all the changes.

I'm happy to find out that kennenlernen MAY permanently be changed to kennen lernen, and that "tut mir leid" MAY be permanently changed to "tut mir Leid". But to worry that people here (in this forum) are going to be "damaged" by seeing more than one spelling (daß, dass) and so on is not realisitic.

Your idea that only the newer spellings should be important is illogical unless you consider anything printed before about the year 1990 as worthless.

Let your own way of writing be a good example of how students right now are being taught to write. Those whose eyes are open will notice, Who. I do. When you type something that is different from what I remember, I immediately look it up to see if it is yet another change. I enjoy learning the new rules, but I'm also glad I know the old ones too. As I've discussed with your before, I'm not a good speller in any language, so frequently I don't even notice that the spelling of a word has been changed. But other good spellers will notice anything that is inconsistent. They will ask questions. And then we (or you) can alert them.

I think flexibility is always preferable to being too fixed. Let's not worry about a POSSIBLE problem. If we are going to make corrections, let's concentrate on the big things first. Do you see my point?

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> Hi again, whodunit - you're a harter Brocken!



Haha, I think I should try to shorten our messages here.



> No, the hand-writing has NOT changed - handwritings have been replaced by other handwritings every once in a while but didn't change by themselves.
> The "karolingische Minuskel" e.g. was created by Karl der Große (Karl the Great) as he wanted to have a unique writing within his large kingdom.
> When printing became more and more popular in the 16th century, the Fraktur-writing became more and more popular, but again: this is a new-created writing that did not evolve itself out of an earlier writing.
> Fraktur was more useful as special letters could be formed easier with this type than with the former types, the Fraktur writing again was exchanged by the Antiqua and the other ones listed in your link.



Okay, you really made me consider you an etymologist. I don't dare answer you now.   



> The spelling has not changed after 1901.
> Before 1901, every German kingdom (about 200 or 220) has had its own spelling until a unitary spelling was created and standardized by Duden.
> Spelling always bases on normative rules, therefore it can't change itself, cannot "evolve", but is changed by constitutions or whoever to be set as a standard until it will be changed again.



I'm afraid you're so clever so that I have no chance to justify myself.



> An "e" has been used to show the Umlaut of a in former times when a special letter "ä" had not been created yet.
> I know as much about these special verbs that I can tell you the "e" here indeed *is* an Umlaut!
> The verb "nennen" is derived from the noun "Name" and therefore means "to call" in the sense of "to name".
> Its former form was "namnjan" and changed to "nannjan" out of economical reasons later on. The *j* is responsible for the Umlaut of a to "e", it has vanished later on and the form turned out to be "nennen".



Again, you're too clever for this world.   



> What we see in its past tense form is its not-umlauted stem form "nann" (from name) which remained as the past tense form did not have an Umlaut-causing "j".
> The same is true for all the verbs brennen (from brannjan), kennen (from kannjan), wenden (from wandjan), rennen (from rannjan), etc.



You make me be frightened  of you.



> Oh I'm pretty sure you don't.
> But German learners now have to know that the form "Fluß" does exist and is not wrong!
> I don't want them ending up looking up the word "Fluß" in a dictionary and can't find it just because they don't know it is just another way of spelling.



Okay, maybe you're right. But we shouldn't discuss it too much so that our "valuable" German learners wouldn't be discouraged too much. I'd really hate it not to know what would be the correct spelling in Spanish, for instance, if even natives "fought" about it.



> The spelling democracy was just meant to be ironically to show that the new spelling is more confusing than you might think.
> Offering several options for how to spell something is less helpful than having a single standardized form.



Haha, I'm for spelling it in ONE way.   



> This was just an example as well to show you that not even the Duden can be considered to be the only "correct" grammar or dictionary. It is just one of some hundreds.



Do you some more?



> There are many equal examples also for English
> The correct meaning is clear as soon as you know the context and that's how English works.
> It wouldn't be a problem for German either - just go ahead and pick one of Jacob Grimm's original books (e.g. his German Grammar or his German Dictionary). You'll see he spelled all the nouns with a small letter and you won't have any problems reading it.



Well, I'm not satisfied yet. Could you give an example, please?



> That's sad to hear to be honest!
> This shows that some younger people really don't know how to behave towards other people. Statements like "Du kannst mir gar nichts" only show a deep disrespect and is not friendly in any way.
> When I was at school (and that's not that long ago!), I wasn't even to think about "duzen" one of my teachers!!



No? I'd really like to say "du" to my teachers I hate.



> As this is not a direct address! The "sie" here is the personal pronoun for the 3rd person singular and is never capitalized. Don't confuse "er, sie" with the formal pronoun "Sie".



You got me wrong. If I really RESPECT someone, I should capitalize him, as you said in your previous post. I'll capitalize "du" if I respect you, is how you expressed it.


----------



## MrMagoo

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Haha, I think I should try to shorten our messages here.
> 
> Okay, you really made me consider you an etymologist. I don't dare answer you now.
> 
> I'm afraid you're so clever so that I have no chance to justify myself.
> 
> Again, you're too clever for this world.
> 
> You make me be frightened of you.




Ehm... what?? *lol*




> Okay, maybe you're right. But we shouldn't discuss it too much so that our "valuable" German learners wouldn't be discouraged too much. I'd really hate it not to know what would be the correct spelling in Spanish, for instance, if even natives "*fighted*" about it.



This form should be "fought", even though I was told there is a regularisation in progress that even force some native speakers to say "fighted"...




> Do you some more?



Oh, there are so many, one of my professors sometimes says you can fill the river Rhine with those grammars.

You can find grammars written (or/and published) by Duden, Grimm, Paul, Wahrig, Brockhaus, Pons, Langenscheidt, Campe, Adelung, Helbig, Engel, Griesbach, Buscha, Klinger, Admoni, Baumann, Gallmann, Bertelsmann, etc. etc. etc........... 




> Well, I'm not satisfied yet. Could you give an example, please?



Yes, later on  I can't really think of any right now, they'll come up to me in a while... there are loads of.




> No? I'd really like to say "du" to my teachers I hate.



That shows that today's youth loses respect towards other people. I find that really sad.




> You got me wrong. If I really RESPECT someone, I should capitalize him, as you said in your previous post. I'll capitalize "du" if I respect you, is how you expressed it.



Yes, in case it IS a personal address. When it's used as a 3rd person pronoun only, then it's not a direct address, not even an indirect one. You're talking ABOUT someone else, not WITH someone else - that's a difference. 


Greetz
-MrMagoo


----------



## gaer

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> This form should be "fought", even though I was told there is a regularisation in progress that even force some native speakers to say "fighted"...


Where did you hear this? If the word "fighted" is even accepted as a proper alternative, I'll be shocked.

I feel safe in saying that the chances of English speakers being forced to use "fighted" in speech or writing is zero.

Or am I missing something here?  

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> This form should be "fought", even though I was told there is a regularisation in progress that even force some native speakers to say "fighted"...



Okay, sorry. I'm going to correct it. It was a logical flaw.   



> Oh, there are so many, one of my professors sometimes says you can fill the river Rhine with those grammars.
> 
> You can find grammars written (or/and published) by Duden, Grimm, Paul, Wahrig, Brockhaus, Pons, Langenscheidt, Campe, Adelung, Helbig, Engel, Griesbach, Buscha, Klinger, Admoni, Baumann, Gallmann, Bertelsmann, etc. etc. etc...........



Well, I misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about mistakes in the Duden. (btw, even Wikipedia uses "the Duden" with the definite article)



> Yes, later on  I can't really think of any right now, they'll come up to me in a while... there are loads of.



Okay, I can wait.



> That shows that today's youth loses respect towards other people. I find that really sad.



Hm, maybe. But the time changes everything.



> Yes, in case it IS a personal address. When it's used as a 3rd person pronoun only, then it's not a direct address, not even an indirect one. You're talking ABOUT someone else, not WITH someone else - that's a difference.



Okay, so you're right. Finally.


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> Where did you hear this? If the word "fighted" is even accepted as a proper alternative, I'll be shocked.
> 
> I feel safe in saying that the chances of English speakers being forced to use "fighted" in speech or writing is zero.
> 
> Or am I missing something here?
> 
> Gaer



I agree 100%.  I don't think I've ever seen, heard, read, or written that "word."


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> I thought you were talking about mistakes in the Duden. (btw, even Wikipedia uses "the Duden" with the definite article)


Regardless what Wikipedia uses, it sounds very strange to refer to "die Duden" in English unless you follow it with something more, for instance:

"According to the Duden dictionary…"

However, "the Duden" is used the way you mentioned. So I would say that in English either "Duden" or "the Duden" is correct. It's a choice.


> Hm, maybe. But the time changes everything.


I agree. "Time changes everything". But no article there.  (Just a little suggestion.)  

Gaer


----------



## MrMagoo

gaer said:
			
		

> Where did you hear this? If the word "fighted" is even accepted as a proper alternative, I'll be shocked.
> 
> I feel safe in saying that the chances of English speakers being forced to use "fighted" in speech or writing is zero.
> 
> Or am I missing something here?
> 
> Gaer


 

No you're not missing anything, not really - not yet... 

(I'm dealing with specially analysed language corporas of BE and AE sometimes and esp. for AE you can observe a regularisation tendency that also affects forms like e.g. "fought". It's a more complex thing that would take too much time to talk about right now...)

I didn't say that English speakers are forced to say "fighted", the _regularisation tendency_ may force some speakers to say so...

"Fighted" is still the only correct standard form, no worries!! 

-MrMagoo


----------



## gaer

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> No you're not missing anything, not really - not yet...
> 
> (I'm dealing with specially analysed language corporas of BE and AE sometimes and esp. for AE you can observe a regularisation tendency that also affects forms like e.g. "fought". It's a more complex thing that would take too much time to talk about right now...)


Could you give one example that is now being used regularly? Something that has "regularized"? I think I follow your logic.

But what about forms like "proven", irregular, which are being use MORE now? (The origin, I believe is Scottish.) At any rate, trying to predict how a language will change is tricky business. 


> I didn't say that English speakers are forced to say "fighted", the _regularisation tendency_ may force some speakers to say so...
> 
> "Fighted" is still the only correct standard form, no worries!!


You meant "fought" is the only correct standard form, right?  

Gaer


----------



## gaer

Mysteriously the list of topics does not show that I posted last here after 8 PM. Very strange. I had trouble posting. The system was glitching.

G


----------



## MrMagoo

gaer said:
			
		

> Could you give one example that is now being used regularly? Something that has "regularized"? I think I follow your logic.
> 
> But what about forms like "proven", irregular, which are being use MORE now? (The origin, I believe is Scottish.) At any rate, trying to predict how a language will change is tricky business.
> 
> You meant "fought" is the only correct standard form, right?
> 
> Gaer




This DA** computer!!!
I wrote a quite long answer to your posting and then it was all gone coz I was logged off in the meantime.... *grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr*

Ok, in short form then:

Yes, I meant "fought" of course (I don't know why I am so unconcentrated at the moment...)


"prove" has certainly been a strong verb once, even though standard English says it has to be regularly weak by now, these older forms still preserve in regional dialects. Also, these participle forms are treated as own adjectives sometimes rather than forms of the actual verb, therefore develop a kind of independant form. (In general you can say that past tense forms are more affected to switch over to the weak conjugation.).

There's a phenomen in AE as well, that is referred to as "colonial lag"; i.e. AE still uses older grammatical structures while BE developed in another direction, which is often, but not always a regularisation that AE did not take part in as a matter of the American independance in the 18th century from the British Empire that also affected language of course.
The most popular example here is "get": AE still prefers the older form of the past participle ("gotten") while BE shows a development towards the form "got".


Some examples that show a regularisation tendency in AE (which is a different development: no colonial lag!) is the use of forms like "burned, learned, spilled, dreamed, spoiled" etc. for the older forms "burnt, learnt, spilt, dreamt, spolt" that are still common in BE even though BE shows another tendency to follow AE in some cases (one reason here is the huge influence of media).


----------



## MrMagoo

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Well, I misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about mistakes in the Duden. (btw, even Wikipedia uses "the Duden" with the definite article)




Yep, in case you think of "Duden" as the actual 'reference work'. 
In case you refer to the publisher or author, the article is dropped.

So the reference work "Der Duden" was published by "Duden" (i.e. the publisher and author Konrad Duden).


----------



## Whodunit

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> Yep, in case you think of "Duden" as the actual 'reference work'.
> In case you refer to the publisher or author, the article is dropped.
> 
> So the reference work "Der Duden" was published by "Duden" (i.e. the publisher and author Konrad Duden).



Well, that's what I mean. I meant the reference book, neither the autor nor the publisher or editor. Would you please have a look in this forum:

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:Md2r9oNQNGIJ:forum.leo.org/archiv/2003_02/03/20030203153356l_en.html+%22the+Duden%22&hl=de 

Scroll down, and you'll find the following:



> Sure, the original point of the discussion in the link above was that these words aren't in the Duden, but you can see where this sort of thing leads...



It seems to be written by a native English speaker.


----------



## Whodunit

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> I wrote a quite long answer to your posting and then it was all gone coz I was logged off in the meantime.... *grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr*



Sorry to interrupt your aggression   , but let me ask the natives of the English language:

Shouldn't it be "quite a long answer"?


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Sorry to interrupt your aggression   , but let me ask the natives of the English language:
> 
> Shouldn't it be "quite a long answer"?



Yes, it should be "quite a long answer" or "a relatively long answer."

"Aggression" is not a nice word, even in jest.


----------



## germinal

'As long as you know about the different spelling it's all fine. I won't force anybody to use the old or new spelling - it's good to know about the rules and ways of both forms, but the decision which of them you use finally, is your own one.' 


Is it safe to come out yet?  

Have you got a link to the German spelling reforms ?


Germinal.


.


----------



## Jana337

Zum Beispiel http://www.rechtschreibreform.com/

Jana


----------



## germinal

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Zum Beispiel http://www.rechtschreibreform.com/
> 
> Jana


 

Thanks Jana!    


Germinal


.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Sorry to interrupt your aggression  , but let me ask the natives of the English language:
> 
> Shouldn't it be "quite a long answer"?


"Sorry to interrupt your agression?" If you said that to me when I just lost a long reply because of the system, I'd instantly teach you some new English swear words you had never heard before.  

Yes, "a quite long answer" is slightly wrong. But it's understandable, and in a hurry, and in irritation, I might write that myself if I were thinking:

I just wrote a fairly long answer.
I just wrote a pretty long answer.
I just wrote a very long answer.

In other words, it could have been a glitch caused by thinking two sentences and being frustrated with this system. I've lost messages before and now copy them before I hit send, in case they disappear.

There is a time for correction, and there is a time for a little empathy, Who. In such a situation, I would have said:

"Oh, I'm sorry that happened to you. It's happened to me too."

Politeness has to come before correctness here, or soon we will have no members.

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> "Sorry to interrupt your agression?" If you said that to me when I just lost a long reply because of the system, I'd instantly teach you some new English swear words you had never heard before.
> 
> There is a time for correction, and there is a time for a little empathy, Who. In such a situation, I would have said:
> 
> "Oh, I'm sorry that happened to you. It's happened to me too."
> 
> Politeness has to come before correctness here, or soon we will have no members.
> 
> Gaer



Ah ok, thank you both, Gaer and Elroy, for clearing me up here. I think I really meant it sarcastically (that's why   ), but if you think (and I aprreciate your help) it is too strong, I'm going to omit it in the future.


----------



## MrMagoo

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Well, that's what I mean. I meant the reference book, neither the autor nor the publisher or editor. Would you please have a look in this forum:
> 
> http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:Md2r9oNQNGIJ:forum.leo.org/archiv/2003_02/03/20030203153356l_en.html+%22the+Duden%22&hl=de
> 
> Scroll down, and you'll find the following:
> 
> 
> It seems to be written by a native English speaker.


 

Ehm... I have no clue what you're aiming at right now, sorry ... 
Do you mean I used the definite article incorrectly?


----------



## MrMagoo

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Sorry to interrupt your aggression  , but let me ask the natives of the English language:
> 
> Shouldn't it be "quite a long answer"?


 

With that sentence ("Sorry to interrupt your aggression") you did not only interrupt my aggression... I'm rather speechless...
I didn't know you CAN interrupt an aggression *lol* -> but this sentence is one that I have to keep in mind.


I'm sorry for the "quite"-mistake 
As you all know, I'm not a native speaker, so I hope you let me off for a mistake sometimes... I'll do my best. 

Cheers
-MrMagoo


----------



## Whodunit

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> With that sentence ("Sorry to interrupt your aggression") you did not only interrupt my aggression... I'm rather speechless...
> I didn't know you CAN interrupt an aggression *lol* -> but this sentence is one that I have to keep in mind.



Haha. Well, sorry if I really annoyed you with my sentence, but please try to forget it as fast as possible.   



> I'm sorry for the "quite"-mistake
> As you all know, I'm not a native speaker, so I hope you let me off for a mistake sometimes... I'll do my best.



Of course. I didn't want to be over-correct, but I just wanted to take the opportunity to ask the natives here.


----------



## germinal

''I didn't know you CAN interrupt an aggression *lol* -> but this sentence is one that I have to keep in mind.'' 


Waffenstillstand? 


Germinal.


----------



## Whodunit

germinal said:
			
		

> Waffenstillstand?



Ja.


----------



## Jana337

Why so much empty space? 

Jana


----------



## Whodunit

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Why so much empty space?
> 
> Jana



I wondered, too.


----------



## MrMagoo

germinal said:
			
		

> ''I didn't know you CAN interrupt an aggression *lol* -> but this sentence is one that I have to keep in mind.''
> 
> 
> Waffenstillstand?
> 
> 
> Germinal.
> ...


 

Huh??!! Wie wer wo was wann und warum?!
Gab's Krieg?!


----------



## gaer

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> I'm sorry for the "quite"-mistake
> As you all know, I'm not a native speaker, so I hope you let me off for a mistake sometimes... I'll do my best.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, just this time I think we can "let you off with a light sentence".
> 
> Gaer
Click to expand...


----------

