German questions

[Travis B.]

I not long ago learned that StG has short tense vowels, as found in d/e/mokratisch and P/o/litiker, for instance. Am I right in thinking that these are typically found in Latinate, Romance, or Greek loans, where words of Germanic origin would tend to have short lax vowels in similar positions?

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I've encountered that description of the language before.

[WeepingElf]

Indeed, native words don't have them, and they may be analyzed as unstressed long vowels. But the question is indeed whether it is length or tenseness that phonologically distinguishes "long" from "short" vowels.

[cedh]

I not long ago learned that StG has short tense vowels, as found in d/e/mokratisch and P/o/litiker, for instance. Am I right in thinking that these are typically found in Latinate, Romance, or Greek loans, where words of Germanic origin would tend to have short lax vowels in similar positions?

Yes. It seems to me, however, that these vowels can probably also be analysed as allophones of the long tense vowels in unstressed position (or the other way around, that syllables with tense vowels are allophonically lengthened in stressed position). At least I can't think of any minimal pairs. Also note stress-dependent lengthening in the pair Demonstration [de.mɔn.stʁa.ˈtsjoːn] vs. the short form Demo [ˈdeː.mo].

[Travis B.]

I not long ago learned that StG has short tense vowels, as found in d/e/mokratisch and P/o/litiker, for instance. Am I right in thinking that these are typically found in Latinate, Romance, or Greek loans, where words of Germanic origin would tend to have short lax vowels in similar positions?

Yes. It seems to me, however, that these vowels can probably also be analysed as allophones of the long tense vowels in unstressed position (or the other way around, that syllables with tense vowels are allophonically lengthened in stressed position). At least I can't think of any minimal pairs. Also note stress-dependent lengthening in the pair Demonstration [de.mɔn.stʁa.ˈtsjoːn] vs. the short form Demo [ˈdeː.mo].

If the underlying distinction were tenseness, though, what about StG [ɛ] versus [ɛː] then (yes, I know northern varieties of StG often lack this distinction)?

[cedh]

I not long ago learned that StG has short tense vowels, as found in d/e/mokratisch and P/o/litiker, for instance. Am I right in thinking that these are typically found in Latinate, Romance, or Greek loans, where words of Germanic origin would tend to have short lax vowels in similar positions?

Yes. It seems to me, however, that these vowels can probably also be analysed as allophones of the long tense vowels in unstressed position (or the other way around, that syllables with tense vowels are allophonically lengthened in stressed position). At least I can't think of any minimal pairs. Also note stress-dependent lengthening in the pair Demonstration [de.mɔn.stʁa.ˈtsjoːn] vs. the short form Demo [ˈdeː.mo].

If the underlying distinction were tenseness, though, what about StG [ɛ] versus [ɛː] then (yes, I know northern varieties of StG often lack this distinction)?

I don't think it matters, because [ɛ] does not really contrast (much?) with [e] in pre-stress position (and would typically lengthen to [eː] if it received stress, I believe). But I'm personally inclined to say that [ɛː] is itself tense, because it typically appears in open syllables, whereas [ɛ] is lax and typically appears in closed syllables.

(That said, I tend to favor the length analysis.)

[Travis B.]

Yes. It seems to me, however, that these vowels can probably also be analysed as allophones of the long tense vowels in unstressed position (or the other way around, that syllables with tense vowels are allophonically lengthened in stressed position). At least I can't think of any minimal pairs. Also note stress-dependent lengthening in the pair Demonstration [de.mɔn.stʁa.ˈtsjoːn] vs. the short form Demo [ˈdeː.mo].

If the underlying distinction were tenseness, though, what about StG [ɛ] versus [ɛː] then (yes, I know northern varieties of StG often lack this distinction)?

I don't think it matters, because [ɛ] does not really contrast (much?) with [e] in pre-stress position (and would typically lengthen to [eː] if it received stress, I believe). But I'm personally inclined to say that [ɛː] is itself tense, because it typically appears in open syllables, whereas [ɛ] is lax and typically appears in closed syllables.

(That said, I tend to favor the length analysis.)

Can one analyze StG as having closed syllables with short vowels and open syllables with long vowels, since there are closed syllables with long vowels in, say, monosyllables, and Middle German (as opposed to Upper German), which StG falls under, at least has long lost its former geminates which were present in MHG?

[Raphael]

Ok, I am very, very, very embarrassed to ask this question, because it is a question about my own first language, and I really should know the answer myself. Thing is, it's a question about internet German, specifically internet forum German, and ever since I first got internet access, more than 20 years ago, I spent most of the internet forum time on English-language internet forums, so I'm not that familiar with the idiosyncrasies of German-language internet forums.

So, my question is: when people address each other on German-language internet forums, do they usually write the "d" in "du", "dir", "dich" etc. in uppercase, which used to be the norm back in the days of letters written on paper, or in lowercase?

[Creyeditor]

I would say in emails and on the internet, I never capitalize 'du', etc.

[Raphael]

Thank you!

[azhong]

(Maybe I should post my questions in this thread?)

(Wir sprechen noch darüber, aber ich wollte mit jemanden, dem über die Besonderheiten vielleicht mehr weiß, darüber, was zu tun ist, mehr sprechen.)
(We will still be talking about it, but I was wanting to talk more about what to do with someone who might know more about the specifics.)

Gibt es zwei darüber ("over it")? I kann den zweiten nicht verstehen.
(Are there two darübers? I can't understand the second one.)

Thank you.

[hwhatting]

(Are there two darübers? I can't understand the second one.)

Whether the two darüber are one and the same word or two different ones, is a philosophical question or depends on your theories about German grammar.
The first one refers back to what Znex said before ("about it"), the second is anticipatory to the relative clause "was zu tun ist". In German, you cannot make a relative clause directly dependent of a preposition like in English, you need an anticipatory pronoun (über das, was , and any combination of preposition and neuter pronouns "es / ihm, das /dem" can be replaced by da(r)-preposition - here, über das, was -> darüber, was.

[azhong]

Got it. Thank you.

Wir sprechen noch darüber.

Ich wollte ... darüber ... mehr sprechen.

[azhong]

Auch erst jetzt weiß ich den Unterschied zwischen "crossroad" und "crossroads".
Also not till now do I know the difference between "crossroad" and "crossroads".

I have a bit of trouble to understand what you want to say here - you still don't know the difference or you only now learnt the difference?

I meant the latter: I didn't know it but I do now. I didn't know the difference between, in German, "Querstraße" and "Kreuzung", and I also didn't know the difference between, in English, "crossroad" and "crossroads".

I was actually also unsure if my English sentence was correct. I didn't know where to place the "also" if I use the inverted sentence pattern "not until... do I...".

In any case:
auch doesn't fit here well, I'd use außerdem
If you have a noun (like "difference") as object of "to know", almost always kennen is the correct German equivalent; that is true here ass well.

außerdem: besides, in addition

Mmm...I didn't use "in addition". If adding "in addition", I will revise my sentence as,

in addition, I also didn't know the difference between "crossroad" and "crossroads" till now.

How about if
Ich habe es erst jetzt gekannt.
(I didn't know it till now.)
Ich habe es auch erst jetzt gekannt.
(I also didn't know it till now.)
Außerdem habe ich dieses auch erst jetzt gekannt.
(In addition, I also didn't know that till now.)

Außerdem habe ich den Unterschied zwischen "crossroad" und "crossroads" auch erst jetzt gekannt.
(In addition, I also didn't know the difference between "crossroad" and "crossroads" till now.)

Thank you.

[Raphael]

How about if
Ich habe es erst jetzt gekannt.
(I didn't know it till now.)
Ich habe es auch erst jetzt gekannt.
(I also didn't know it till now.)
Außerdem habe ich dieses auch erst jetzt gekannt.
(In addition, I also didn't know that till now.)

Außerdem habe ich den Unterschied zwischen "crossroad" und "crossroads" auch erst jetzt gekannt.
(In addition, I also didn't know the difference between "crossroad" and "crossroads" till now.)

Thank you.

In each of these cases, I'd replace "gekannt" with either "erkannt" ("recognized"), or "gewusst" ("known"), or "gelernt" ("learned").

"Kennen" is generally used with reference to people or things, not facts.

Aside from that, your first two and your last sentence are fine, but in the third one, "dieses" sounds stilted to me.

[hwhatting]

Let's go back to your original sentence:

Auch erst jetzt weiß ich den Unterschied zwischen "crossroad" und "crossroads".
Also not till now do I know the difference between "crossroad" and "crossroads".

Knowing now what you wanted to say, I'd reword the English this way:
Also, until now I didn't know the difference between "crossroad" and "crossroads".
German:
Außerdem kannte ich bisher nicht den Unterschied zwischen "crossroad" und "crossroads"
You can also use the perfect or past perfect:
Außerdem habe / hatte ich bisher nicht den Unterschied zwischen "crossroad" und "crossroads" gekannt.
In my dialect, only the past perfect would be appropriate here, because you know the difference now, but the present perfect may be appropriate in Southern variants that simply don't use the simple past.
If you want to use auch, put it inside the sentence (Bisher kannte ich auch den Unterschied … nicht or Bisher kannte ich den Unterschied … auch nicht. Leading with auch sounds very stilted / almost obsolete.

Raphael's remarks are correct when you look at your sentences in isolation, where "es" would be interpreted as referring to a fact. If, on the other hand, you meant "es" as referring to "difference", then you should use kennen and ihn as pronoun, because Unterschied is a male noun. And erst jetzt is "only now", not "till now", and indeed is not compatible with either wissen or kennen in this context, but with the verbs Raphael recommends.
(Unlike Raphael, I wouldn't use gewusst in your sentences with erst jetzt. That may be a regional difference.)

[azhong]

Aber ich kann ihn ihn dir ihn nicht auch leihen...
(But I can't also lend it because I’m missing it.

I guess WeepingElf wanted to tell me that the "dir" can't be omitted if I use "leihen" (to lend something to somebody).

Hm, I would use ausleihen in that context. Could that be a regional difference?

I guess Raphael wanted to add a comment that, if I use "ausleihen" (to lend sth out), "dir" can be omitted then.
Aber ich kann ihn nicht ausleihen.

And I guess my guesses are probably correct? XD

[hwhatting]

I guess WeepingElf wanted to tell me that the "dir" can't be omitted if I use "leihen" (to lend something to somebody).

That sounds right.

Hm, I would use ausleihen in that context. Could that be a regional difference?

I guess Raphael wanted to add a comment that, if I use "ausleihen" (to lend sth out), "dir" can be omitted then.
Aber ich kann ihn nicht ausleihen.

That is wrong; for ausleihen the default Interpretation, if you leave out dir, is "to borrow for oneself". (At least in my dialect; there seems to be quite some bit of regional and inter-personal variation with these verbs.)

[azhong]

"Sie" wird in Briefen großgeschrieben, aber nicht, wenn man andere Texte aufschreibt.
"Sie" is capitalized in letters, but not when writing down other texts.

Und so ist Ihnen auch, rate ich?
(And so is "Ihnen", I guess?)

[Raphael]

"Sie" wird in Briefen großgeschrieben, aber nicht, wenn man andere Texte aufschreibt.
"Sie" is capitalized in letters, but not when writing down other texts.

Und so ist es auch mit ihnen, vermute ich mal?
(And so is "Ihnen", I guess?)

Ja.
Yes.