What a fricking language! The absolute precision and sonority are equalled by no other tongue in the world. German is simply the most masculine and cool Germanic language. Once you know the rules, it starts to make a lot of sense, unlike English. The only downside about German is that some Germans pronounce their Rs like in that homosexual and disgusting ape screech known as French. I want my Rs to sound like Rs, not like fricking sickening phlegms from subhuman throats! And also they sometimes don't finish their words! Think British English (the non-rhotic dialects). But then German literature is literally GODLIKE and it's worth the price of admittance alone, so it's all forgiven! Sadly the modern German person is a burgerized pussyllanimous bugman! Their literature should be the main focus, not the unworthy social aspect. Either way, this tongue is unparalleled. The thinking man's language. Latin of the 21st century.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
It might be a cool language but the only reason I would ever learn it is because a lot of Classical Greek commentary is from Germany
>and I speak German to my horse
>a lot of Classical Greek commentary is from Germany
Such as?
Thorwalde Franke writes a lot of it. I had to go down the Atlantis rabbit hole and he wrote a decent commentary on textual analysis over the centuries. That piece was translated to English though. There's others surely.
I read somewhere that classicists usually pick up German as a minor or secondary language - just enough to read - so that they can better analyze the ancients.
Why read all that ancient greek crap when you have access to Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Freud, Nietszche, Wittgenstein, etc?
very important reasons
Such as?
I don't care for moralistic philosophy or strict interpretations of reality. I like to shift through ancient myth and pick out the plausible history. I deal more in ancient history. The best historians of yesteryear were the Greeks and Romans. It's my personal interest. I'll personally get more out of reading 'Metamorphoses' than 'Critique of Pure Reason'.
Correct opinion
You're a fricking b***h, don't let men born 2000 years ago dictate the ways of your life.
>I like archaeology and myth
>you fricking b***h you let plato dick you down and not kant what is wrong with you
Unlike you, I am autonomous
Snuck Wittgenstein in there as if we would not notice.
???
Wittgenstein is the peak of western philosophy, you idiot.
lange leben Preussen
The other way around: Preußen leben lange
Speakinc german is like stones coming out of your mouth. Nothing bends.
try "blick" (look, glance). es ist ganz flexibel
Form follows function, but you're right.
Was du laberst
>german literature
It's just the world wars and nothing else. I sleep.
How do I learn German, bros
There's so much shit I want to read in German
I'm going to marry a german girl and make half aryan babies with her.
5/10 bait
It's copypasta.
The face of any fan of the german national football team for years.
didn't read and I disagree.
And my reason is simple, if it was a good language, people would not replace like half of the fricking words with english words.
That's a global problem. Can't blame a language for people being morons. Quite an irony that idiots are spouting nonsense about being replaced by whatever ethnic group but don't realize that the real replacement is happening on an linguistic level.
Sure but am I wrong in assuming that the reason why is that one language is simply more efficient in conveying meaning than another?
I am German and genuinely dislike communicating in German because It almost doesn't even mean the same thing as it does in English - despite 1:1 translation.
I'm German as well, quite ironic that we're having this talk in English. Anyway, I don't believe that English is necessarily better for conveying whatever you want to say (except for technological stuff). Off the top of my head I could say two things in defense of the german language: as stated above, German is very precise. The meme of "Germans have a word for everything" is true, you can in a lot of cases say with a single word what other languages can only do with lengthy descriptions. Another advantage (although a pain in the ass when you try to learn German) is the sentence structure, in particular the fact that in subordinate clauses the verb is at the end of the sentence. This forces the other to listen carefully until you finish speaking before he can answer, because until then he has no clue what you're talking about anyway. For the sake of discussion this is a big plus.
Have to admit I didn't know about that, slightly interesting. But I still believe that English is the more efficient language to the point of wanting to leave this country so I can stop having to speak german.
Imagine this, you're trying to talk to a friend that you want to meet up with. You say
>Wollen wir uns später treffen?
As opposed to
>Want to hang out later?
Immediately the tone of the conversation is much more relaxed.
Sure you can say
>Später treffen?
But now you have butchered it, and English has the comfies one anyway which is just
>Wanna hang out?
Now imagine having to use English terms that you have to use a german translation for because the translation is just the same
>I post on 4chin
>Ich poste auf IQfy
That's why I disagree with OP, it actually sounds feminine instead of masculine
Those are some very subjective points
anon, I love you.
>Ich liebe dich
yuck
In english it feels very elegant and dignified but in german there is no poetry to hide behind and it conveys the somewhat vulnerable nature of the sentence much better.
Do you happen to have a PhD in mental gymnastics because this is impressive.
I am not trying to convince you of anything, its just the thoughts that came up when I read your post. It's not like most people get a yucky feeling when they read "Ich liebe dich".
Doesn't sound feminine though
I'm afraid you're comparing apples and oranges. Your german example is fairly formal while hanging out is informal. The direct translation would be "Would you like to meet up later?" which isn't much better than the german one. "Wollen wir später abhängen" would be the appropriate translation (sounds probably a bit dated but hey, slang never stays forever).
When it comes to modern technological terms like internet lingo, English definitely works better, but that's because most of technology today happens on an international level and English is the lingua franca here. Trying to artificially come up with german substitutes is top cringe. But more power to you, if you feel more comfortable speaking English. Personally I see English as Surfing, while German is deep-sea diving. Both has its charm.
>sounds probably a bit dated
I'm glad you said that because I feel that as well, there are options, but they are old to the point of younger people having to use English as a replacement. I don't disagree with the rest of your posts though, you're right that it has its charm, I just like how relaxed default english is, now use slang and it's a blast.
It's defiantly mostly a me thing. However like I said, people are starting to replace words with english to cope so there must be more to it.
English culture in general is very influential in germany so I'd say a lot of the anglicisms are a byproduct of that and the more relaxed feel of it simply makes the transition towards "denglisch" even more comfortable (while not being the actual cause).
It's all a question of taste probably. Personally I cringe when I hear people excessively using english words when there are perfectly fine german ones. But there's not much I can except slowly turning into a grumpy oldgay.
EEEEEEERIKAAAA
From Wagner's Public and Popularity:
>What then is the character of the Mediocre?
>By this term, I should say, we commonly signify that which brings us no new and unknown thing, but the known already in a pleasing and insinuating form. In a good sense, it would be the product of Talent—if we agree with Schopenhauer that Talent hits a mark we all can see, but cannot lightly reach; whilst Genius, the genius of "the Good," attains a goal we others do not even see.
>Hence Virtuosity proper belongs to Talent, and the musical virtuoso affords the clearest illustration of the preceding definition. The works of our great composers we have always with us; but he alone can perform them rightly, and in the master's spirit, who has the talent. To let his virtuosity sparkle solely for itself, the musician often trumps up pieces of his own: these belong to the class of the mediocre; whereas their virtuosity cannot in itself be strictly ranged in such a class, for we must candidly confess that a middling virtuoso is of no class at all.— A virtuosity very near of kin to that denoted, accordingly the exercise of Talent proper, we find most pronounced in the literary profession among the French. As instrument they possess a language that seems purposely built for it, whose highest law is to express oneself cleverly, wittily, and in every circumstance neatly and clearly. It is impossible for a French author to gain acceptance, if his work does not before all else comply with these requirements of his native tongue. Perhaps the very excess of attention he thus has to devote to his expression, to his style regarded in and for itself, makes it difficult for a French writer to have novelty of thought, to recognise a goal which others don't yet see; and for the simple reason, that he would be unable to find for these wholly new ideas the happy phrase that at once would strike all readers. This may account for the French having such unsurpassable virtuosi to shew in their literature, whilst the intrinsic value of their works—with the great exceptions of earlier epochs—seldom rises above the mediocre.
CONT
>Now, nothing more perverse can be imagined, than the adoption by German writers of that attribute which makes the French such brilliant virtuosi on the ground of speech. The attempt to treat the German language as an instrument of virtuosity could only occur to those to whom the German tongue is truly alien, and who therefore twist it to improper uses. None of our great poets and sages can be rated as virtuosi of speech: every one of them was in the same position as Luther, who had to ransack every German dialect for his translation of the Bible, to find the word and turn to popularly express that New he had discovered in the sacred books' original text. For what distinguishes the German spirit from that of every other culture-folk is this, that its creative sons had first seen something ne'er yet uttered, before they fell a-writing,—which for them was but a necessary consequence of the prior inspiration. Thus each of our great poets and thinkers had to form his language for himself; an obligation to which the inventive Greeks themselves do not appear to have been submitted, since they had at command a language always spoken by the living mouth, and therefore pliant to each thought or feeling, but not an element corrupted by bad pensters. In a poem from Italy how Goethe bewailed his being doomed by birth to wield the German tongue, in which he must first invent for himself what the Italians and French, for instance, found ready to their hand. That under such hardships none but truly original minds have risen to production among ourselves, should teach us what we are, and at any rate that there is something peculiar about us Germans. But that knowledge will also teach us, that if virtuosity in any branch of art is the evidence of talent, this Talent is denied in toto to the Germans, at least in the branch of Literature: who toils to acquire a virtuosity in this, will stay a bungler; if, following the musical virtuoso who composes pieces of his own, he trumps up poetical sketches for setting off his fancied virtuosity, however, they will not even belong to the category of the Mediocre, but simply of the Bad, the wholly null.
END
From Wagner's Shall We Hope?:
>I believe I may say without presumption that the thought worked out in that essay on "German Art and German Policy" was no idle caprice of a self-deluding fancy: it took shape within me from an ever plainer recognition of the powers and qualities peculiar to the German spirit, as witnessed by a lengthy roll of German masters all striving—in my way of feeling—for that spirit's highest manifestation in an Artwork national to the human race. The importance of such an Artwork for the very highest culture of this and all other nations, once it were tended as a living, ever new possession of our people, must strike the mind of him who has ceased to expect aught beneficial from the working of our modern State and Church machinery. If with Schiller we call them both "barbaric" by singular good fortune it is another great German who has rendered us the meaning of this word, and that from Holy Writ itself. Luther had to translate the eleventh verse of the fourteenth chapter of the first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. Here the Greek word "barbaros" is applied to him whose tongue we do not understand; the Latin translator—for whom the word had already lost its Greek significance and become a mere synonym for uncivilised and lawless foreign races—sets down a half unmeaning "barbarus", no longer to the point. All subsequent translators, in every language, have followed the Latin example; especially weak and formal seems the French translation of the text, "Si donc je n'entends pas ce que signifient les paroles, je serai barbare pour celui a qui je parle; et celui qui me parle sera barbare pour moi"—from which one might deduce a maxim that governs the French to this day, and not to their advantage, in their judgment of other nations. Even in this connection, on the contrary, Luther's rendering of "barbaros" by "undeutsch" gives a milder, unaggressive aspect to our attitude towards the foreign. To the dismay of all philologists he translates the verse as follows: "If I know not the meaning (Deutung) of the voice, I shall be undeutsch to him that speaketh, and he that speaketh will be undeutsch to me."—
CONT
>Anyone who carefully collates the Greek text with this frankly faithful rendering, will perceive that the latter gives us its inner meaning even more aptly than the original itself, for it sets "Deutung" and "Deutsch" in direct relation; and, kindled to a deep sense of the treasure we possess in our language, he will surely be filled with unspeakable sorrow when he sees its value shamefully debased. Yet it was recently said [by Nietzsche] that it would have been better if Luther had been burned at the stake, like other heretics; the Romish renaissance would then have taken root in Germany as well, and raised us to the same height of Culture with our reborn neighbours. I fancy this wish will strike many as not only "undeutsch", but also "barbarous" in the sense of our Romanic neighbours. Despite it we will cling to one last hope, and take Luther's "un-German" for a translation of Schiller's "barbaric", as applied to our State-and-Church machinery; then, seeking for the German Spirit's must, we perhaps may even light upon a glimmer of its realising.
END
From Cosima's diaries:
>The German language, he says, is now the only one which, as J. Grimm says, can be studied physiologically, not just in order to speak it or to read the classical writers (in contrast to French, English, and Italian).
>In the evening, coming back to the German language, he says the spirit of the language does not allow one to express oneself just in short sentences, the art lies in being clear and definite within the encapsulated structure of German.
>When I come down to supper, [R.] says, "I have been pursuing philology." He has looked to see how the passage in which Luther translates the word "barbaros" as "undeutsch" appears in Greek, Latin, English, and French—French the least felicitous with the abstract word "barbare," which is also so ambiguous, the English somewhat better; but Luther is splendid! R. cannot stress too strongly what this touch means to him; he returns to it once more late in the evening and says: "These young people! Do you remember how I once showed that passage to [Erwin] Rohde and Nietzsche, and they saw nothing in it? Such lack of understanding and imagination!"
>At lunch R. said that W. v. Humboldt was driving him to despair with all his drivel about his ideas, excellent as these may be in themselves. He also expresses his antipathy toward the English language; the fact that in it a Shakesp. has emerged does not disturb him—that is an anomaly; but imaginative writing is possible only in a language in-which one feels every word to be alive. The German language is still half alive. He cites the verb “sprechen’’ [“to speak”] as a living word, whereas “reden” [“to talk”] is a constructed, dead word. I think I understand correctly what he then added: that English was a created language (under H. VII), since before that time French was spoken, and that Shakespeare was able to work creatively with a language in the process of creation, rather like Dante; however, by the time the mixtum compositum was finally established, poetry was already dead.
There's something else about German that I see as an advantage. Our articles, which maybe randomly decide if something is male, female or neuter, give at the very least some kind of identity to things. The english language lacks here and personally I believe that it's at least one of the reasons why identity politics did start in english speaking countries.
>Prof. N. departed, having caused R. many difficult hours. Among other things, he maintains that the German language gives him no pleasure, and he would rather talk Latin, etc. R. mentions his own rules for treating the German language, says one should first look to see whether a foreign term is completely necessary to express the sense; if it is, then use it boldly, and untranslated.
That's the way
How do we send mo money to the israelitecrain?
how do we do it, bros?