Learning German years before the advent of personal computers, we were told that the German “esszet” (ß) was equivalent to (s). This was a good thing to know if you were trying to type a German paper on an American typewriter.
Flash forward to this past weekend, when I acquired a German translation of The Lord Of The Rings.. I’ve read it many times in English, so I thought it might be fun to read it in German this time around. But I was surprised to notice that here the esszet is not used, but replaced with a double “ss”. Why was this done? Was the esszet not used in early printed German, and the producers of this book wanted to make it look artificially old?
Is it really not used at all?
The 1996 spelling reform eliminated one rule that was responsible for many eszetts. Now you can have “ss” at the end of a word.
Perhaps you have a Swiss edition - I have no idea if there is one - there it is often not used at all.
(btw. It should always be replaced by “ss”, not a single “s”)
A few years ago, Germany had a major spelling reform that, among other things, pretty much got rid of the esszets (which I see that Kellner already mentioned). Here’s a list of the changes.
A bit confused by that link - it says that “Until July 31, 2005, teachers, publishers and other official publications are allowed to use either the old or the new spelling rules.” Does this mean that after that date, anybody publishing a book according to the old spelling system could face sanctions of some sort? Will it actually be against the law to use the old spelling? What is meant by an “official publication?”
Beginning after World War II, German-speakers made serious efforts towards spelling reform, for example dropping the “h” in words containing “th” that were pronounced “t” (hence Neandert(h)al Man) and replacing the esszet with a double s. A large part of this effort was the discouragement of Fraktur typography that preserved the esszet, used the “long s” that looked like a barless “f,” and similar “spiky” letter-construction. (Fraktur was associated with the Nazi regime, whether validly or not.)
The esszet is still a standard usage in Fraktur (which is used extremely rarely), but is discouraged virtually to the point of being in error in Roman or Italic script.
In fact, “ß” is supposed to sort alphabetically as “ss”, too - it comes between “sch” and “st” at the same point in words, for instance. Proper collation rules based on locales don’t always work character by character, and can be a real pain in the butt.
I had a German math professor in college. Whenever he introduced a theorem, he would write the name of the person who first proved it on the blackboard. This resulted in me spending half the semester wondering who this “Gaub” fellow was and why I had never heard of someone who was obviously such an important mathematician.
(Just in case it isn’t obvious, Gaub is how I was reading Gauß, i.e., Gauss.)
Having to distinguish between long and short vowels in German spelling will be hell for English speakers learning German. Most of them don’t really understand the concept of vowel length. American primary grade teachers of reading tend to conflate “long vowel” with “diphthong”, as in *make, made, take, cake * and so on. When I was about six I remember the teacher saying that the final “e” “makes the vowel long” when it actually does nothing of the sort. Linguistically, those sounds are diphthongs.
I’d say it’s a Schlimmverbesserung par excellence.
In the book I mentioned in the OP, I’m noticing this most in the conjunction “daß”, but I’m quite sure I haven’t seen it in any other words, either.
Legally, it is only binding for use by the public sector (the state and federal governments, their various agencies…) However this includes the education system, so this is what students will learn in school or what is considered acceptable in universities. General use is encouraged, and many (but not all) private organisations - including publishers - switched to the new rules, but there will be no sanctions.
The “th” changes were in the reform of 1901, the most recent actual reform before the one in 1996.
Fraktur was abolished in 1941 by the nazis and today it is mostly limited to ornamental purposes. There were plans for a spelling reform in 1944 which was never put into action because of the war. Between that and 1996 there was no further reform.
No! it is still used. Although the reform eliminated many uses of the ß, it just made the distinction more regular so that it actually carries more information than before. Now it is always ß after long vowels or diphthongs and ss after short vowels. Before, the rule was the same, but with the exception that ss at the end of a word was replaced by ß. So you had e.g. “daß” despite the short vowel. Now it is the more sensible “dass”.
The eszett has not been “abolished”; neither is it discouraged. It is still mandated by the spelling rules in Germany.
However, it is used less frequently - the new rules are as kellner said.
Switzerland does not use the eszett at all in the German language.
Was the book you read a recent printing? If so, that is likely why it uses “dass” instead of “daß” - the rules have changed. However I would be surprised if it had no eszetts at all.
If there really are none at all, I wonder if it is a Swiss-published translation - as I said, Swiss German does not use the eszett.