Talk:Gott

German declension[edit]

Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Schottel mentions this declension of Bürger (ignoring ablative and vocative here): Bürger, Bürgers, Bürger, Bürger; Pl. Bürgere, Bürgerer, Bürgeren, Bürgere

[books.google.de/books?id=evROAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA17&dq="Bürgerer"] (17th century): says that it's "Bürger", not "Bürgerer", and as far as I saw it uses the same declension forms which are used today.
[books.google.de/books?id=tOc1AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA101&dq="Bürgerer"] (ca.1730): says that the plural "Bürgere" instead of Bürger" is rare -- anyway, the genitive plural might be Bürgere, so it would be declined in a "normal" way
[books.google.de/books?id=DtBbAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA159&dq="Bürgerer"] (19th century): says that he couldn't find a example for the genitive plural "Bürgerer"

Albertus mentions this declension of Gott (ignoring ablative and vocative here): Gott, Gottes, Gott, Gott; Pl. Götter, Götteren, Götteren ('ablative': (von denen) Göttern), Götter

[books.google.de/books?id=no9hAAAAcAAJ&dq="Götteren"]: has genitive and dative plural "Götteren" (genitive: "weder einen der Götteren", "der HERR der Götteren"; 'ablative': "von denen Götteren", "von euren Götteren", "von Götteren"), nominative plural "Götter", and also genitive singular GOttes, GOtt's (once), GOtts.
[books.google.de/books?id=wrpJAAAAcAAJ]: "arme und ohnmöchtige Götter", "Sohn der Götteren", "als Israel den Götteren"
[books.google.de/books?id=zkJCAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA104&dq="Götteren"]: similar to the above forms
[books.google.de/books?id=QF5CAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA622&dq="denen+Götteren"+"den+Götteren"]: "denen Götteren" "den Götteren"

So, while Schottel's declension of Bürger is unattestable, Albertus' declension of Gott is attestable. This would lead to this declension: Template:de-decl-noun But: The article is wrong or at least incomplete, as it is "derer (der) Götteren" and "denen (den) Götteren" -- both article do exists, though in (some) old grammar books usually just the longer form is used in declension tables, so the short forms might rather be colloquial contractions.
P.S.: The following example shows that genitive -n can be dropped (for dropping of genitive -en one can find better examples than this - there are 7 results searching for ""der Götteren" "der Götter""):

1732, Johann Jacob Junckherrott, Das Neue Testament Des HERREN Unserer JESU Christi, Eigentlich aus dem Griechischen Grund-Text gedollmetschet und in das Teutsche übersetzt, Offenbach, p.30:
11. Amen ich rede euch da nicht ist hinauffgerichtet worden in gezeugten (auß derer) weibere ein größerer § Johannis des tauchers da der aber kleinere in dem königreich derer Himmelen grösser § desselben ist da. [...] 12. Von aber derer tagen Johannis biß jetzt dem königreich derer Himmele wird § angelegt gedräng in der gewalt da auch die ss anlegende gedräng in der gewalt da reissen dasselbe dahin. [...]

Also: In [books.google.de/books?id=zps6AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA79] (ff.) (1740) it is stated that the declensions which are used today are the common/vulgar ones and that the other declensions aren't used in poetry. -eXplodit (talk) 22:09&14:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Genitive singular apostrophe[edit]

One can find the form "GOtt's" (e.g. see above).

Maybe here GOtt (= the God) was viewed like a proper noun, and maybe that's why the apostrophe was used. Then it wouldn't belong here as GOtt (the God) and Gott (a god) are different words.
(One can also find the spelling "Gott's" and maybe it refers to a pagan god...)
Maybe GOtt's/Gott's was viewed as a syncopic form of GOttes/Gotts, similar to the imperative geh' (often labeled incorrect nowadays; besides geh and gehe). But then, maybe the form Gott's doesn't belong here, as there should be more spellings like that (Bett's, König's) and as syncopic forms usually aren't mentioned in inflexion tables...

[So, how should it be handled?] -eXplodit (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Genitives with "'s" appended are a very common misspelling in German probably influenced by the English genitive. But the correct spelling of the genitive of Gott is "Gotts" even if it is used as a proper noun. --Zeitlupe (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

This applies to the current usage. Historically, genitives with "'s" exist, but it should be noted that before the mid-19th century, German spelling was not standardized in any way, so everyone used spellings as he liked anyway. --Zeitlupe (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

To Zeitlupe's comment I would add that in this case the -'s genitive isn't even "very common", despite its utility in poetry: Gotts is only 1 / 1 000th as common as Gottes, and Gott's is barely 1 / 10 000th. By comparison, Dietrich's is closer to 1/100th as common as Dietrichs in modern era (before 1900 it was almost 1/10th). I would handle uses of -'s on things other than personal names with usage notes in -s/-'s, not in individual entries like Gott. Compare how English present participles in -in' and past tense forms in bare -d and -'d where modern English has -ed are not generally listed in lemma entries (learn), though they may have entries (learnin', learnd, learn'd), and are mentioned in -in' and -d/-'d. (if anyone was curious: learn'd is 1 / 1 000th as common as learned, and learnd is 1 / 10 000th as common.) Many (most?) historical uses of Gott's are probably borne out of the same thing as uses of -'d: poets' metrical needs. - -sche (discuss) 08:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the Duden only lists "Gottes" as the currently used genitive, so maybe I was wrong to change the declension table from "es" to "(e)s". Feel free to undo it if you agree and also remove it from the head line (I also think that archaic spellings should not be listed there.) --Zeitlupe (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Zeitlupe (1st comment): I know, but thank very much.

@Zeitlupe (2nd comment): Well, Duden is prescriptive and often incomplete, but even Duden states "(selten in festen Wendungen: Gotts)", that is "rarely in fixed expressions: Gotts". So it is "(e)s", maybe with a note that "Gotts" is rare nowadays.

@-sche:

As far as I saw, Gott's/Gotts (resp. GOtt's/GOtts) also appears in prosa text, so it's not just a metrical thing. But it might be similar to "learn'd", which is similar to the imperative "gehe -> geh' / geh". Some people maybe said or thought that "Gottes" is the normal form (e.g. Albertus (16th century) has gen.sg. Gottes and dat.sg. Gott - he also mentions the short form Gotts, but it sounds like he says it is a syncopic form), and that "Gott's" is a syncopic form like "learn'd"/"geh'".
Ok, if more forms with genitive -'s existed, then it is better to mention it at -'s.

-eXplodit (talk) 14:33&14:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply