German questions

[Raphael]

I'm extremely embarrassed that I even have to ask this, given that German is my, you know, first language, but as it happens, there are some topics - mainly, but not only, political topics - that I learned about mainly from the English-language internet, so I might not know German terms for things connected to them, if any exist.

So, what's the most commonly used German equivalent for what in English is called "consensual sex"? My speculation comes down to either "freiwilliger Sex" or "einvernehmlicher Sex", but the former sounds simply weird to me, and the latter sounds like the kind of legalese that people wouldn't usually use outside of legal and maybe journalistic contexts.

[WeepingElf]

To me (also a native German speaker), it is einvernehmlicher Sex (or, in legalese, einvernehmlicher Geschlechtsverkehr). But I know your problem; there are things where I know the English word better than the German one.

[Travis B.]

einvernehmlicher Geschlechtsverkehr

Yes, that just screams "German legalese" to me.

[jal]

Is "einvernehmlich" a common word for "consensual" or "voluntarily", or is is mostly legalese? In Dutch they'd both be "vrijwillig", which is cognate with German "freiwillig".


JAL

[Raphael]

Is "einvernehmlich" a common word for "consensual" or "voluntarily", or is is mostly legalese? In Dutch they'd both be "vrijwillig", which is cognate with German "freiwillig".


JAL

It does sound like legalese to me, but I'm not completely sure about that. I can't rule out that other people might see things differently.

[WeepingElf]

Is "einvernehmlich" a common word for "consensual" or "voluntarily", or is is mostly legalese? In Dutch they'd both be "vrijwillig", which is cognate with German "freiwillig".


JAL

It does sound like legalese to me, but I'm not completely sure about that. I can't rule out that other people might see things differently.

It is indeed mostly legalese, but has recently filtered into the colloquial language by frequent use in the news media.

[hwhatting]

Just to be clear, einvernehmlich is"consensual", "voluntary" is freiwillig.
I agree with Weeping Elf - it has a bit of a legal / contractual ring, but it has seeped into colloquial discourse.

[Raphael]

It is indeed mostly legalese, but has recently filtered into the colloquial language by frequent use in the news media.

Just to be clear, einvernehmlich is"consensual", "voluntary" is freiwillig.
I agree with Weeping Elf - it has a bit of a legal / contractual ring, but it has seeped into colloquial discourse.

Thank you!

[Raphael]

It's Sylvester, so let's talk the usual German New Year-related greetings, with a question at the end.

The German language, at least where I live, has two different standard phrases related to New Year, one used while it's still the old year, and one used when it's already the new year.

Until the stroke of midnight between New Year's Eve and New Year's Day, the well-wish is "Guten Rutsch ins neue Jahr!", or simply "Guten Rutsch!", that is, "Good Glide into the New Year!", or just "Good Glide!"

Starting immediately after the stroke of midnight, the well-wish is "Frohes Neues Jahr!", or just "Frohes Neues!", that is, "Happy New Year!", or simply "Happy New One!"

Or at least that how most people talk. My Mom, for one, hates the phrase "Guten Rutsch!", because she thinks it is very unfriendly and not at all nice to wish people that they should break their bones.

Which leads me to my question: How unusual is my Mom's stance? Do you know of anyone else with a similar attitude?

[Travis B.]

I've never heard anyone in English object to the thespians' well-wishing "break a leg" even though it is quite literally wishing that one, well, break one's leg.

[hwhatting]

Asking on an English-language forum like this is liable to give you a very small sample size... personally, I never met anyone objecting to that greeting on these grounds.
In any case, a Happy New Year to all ZBBers!

[Raphael]

Can anyone think of a German word that has more or less the same meaning as the English word "fabulous"? Specifically, a word that is stereotypically used by the German-speaking Gay Community in more or less the way in which "fabulous" is stereotypically used by the English-speaking Gay Community?

[hwhatting]

"fabulous" is stereotypically used by the English-speaking Gay Community

Is it? Do you have examples?

[Emily]

"fabulous" is stereotypically used by the English-speaking Gay Community

Is it? Do you have examples?

none from the past 20 years lol

[Raphael]

So that stereotype is outdated? Thank you for the heads-up.

[Travis B.]

I have a question about the reconstruction of EMHG sibilant fricatives. Modern MHG editions typically have three sibilant fricative phonemes marked, written as <s>, <ȥ>*, and <sch>, with <ȥ> typically being reconstructed as [s] and <sch> typically being reconstructed as [ʃ], while the reconstruction of <s> is uncertain (but I have seen [ɕ] posited for it based on the evidence of pre-consonantal initial positions in most of NHG and Alemannic and Hungarian evidence).

However, to me a more sensible analysis would be that in EMHG <s> would have been [ʃ] or [ɕ] while <sch> would have been a cluster rather than a single phoneme (like with initial <sch> in StD), while <ȥ> would be [s]. At some point by LMHG/ENHG <sch> would have collapsed into [ʃ], but only after <s> would have fronted (and, in Central German, voiced) prevocalically and, outside Alemannic, fronted postvocalically. Positing <sch> as a cluster eliminates the problem of a palatal <s> having to 'pass through' [ʃ] and avoids having to explain how a postalveolar <s> didn't merge with <sch> by the outset of the MHG period. It also is plausible because [sx] was the fate of PWGmc *sk in early Middle Dutch (even though by later MD the [x] was elided finally even when it was still spelled as <sch>). Finally, it explains why it was written out as with the trigraph <sch> in MHG.

* For those not aware (I assume the Germans here are aware), the spelling with <ȥ> is specifically an ahistorical feature of modern MHG editions; in the originals this was written either as <z> or sometimes <s> (even though it was considered poor form to rhyme what we write as <ȥ> with <s>, implying there was a difference in most MHG dialects at the time); the purpose of this ahistorical spelling is to differentiate it from original <z> pronounced as [ts].

[jal]

while <sch> would have been a cluster rather than a single phoneme (like with initial <sch> in StD)

What kind of cluster? Any ideas for the phonetic realization? (and with StD you mean "standard Dutch"?)


JAL

[Travis B.]

while <sch> would have been a cluster rather than a single phoneme (like with initial <sch> in StD)

What kind of cluster? Any ideas for the phonetic realization? (and with StD you mean "standard Dutch"?)

Probably something like [ʃx]. And by StD I mean Standard Dutch.

[Travis B.]

Positing [ʃ] for <s> and [s] for <ȥ> is consistent with modern Hungarian orthography (where <sz> for /s/ is taken directly from German <ß>), but that is not particularly strong evidence with the complexities of Hungarian orthographic history.

[Travis B.]

Also, slight clarification -- PWGmc *sk was preserved at least in some positions as [sk] (or reverted from [sx] to [sk]?) in some parts of Low Franconian (e.g. West Flemish), but not in the dialects StD is descended from.