Talk:Sünn

MLG

@Korn: Sünne (or more properly Suͤnne) does occur in MLG, e.g.:

• De Nye Düdesche Psalter mit den Summarien. Mar Luther. Wittemberch. M. D. XXXVII. (from 1537, i.e. before 1600) [digital.wlb-stuttgart.de/purl/bsz355205122 digital.wlb-stuttgart.de]

  This has also ſuͤnne in it (on the page "[177] 74r" it's "so lange alse de ſuͤnne vnde maen waret" for which the edition below has "so lange de Suͤnne vnde de Mane waret")

• De Nye Düdesche Psalter, mit den Summarien. D. Mart. Luth. M. D. XCIII. (from 1593, i.e. before 1600) [books.google.com/books?id=HH9RAAAAcAAJ&q=%22Sünne%22 google books]

  With google you can easily search in this text - but the OCR isn't perfect.

As for the umlaut spelling: On the one hand, ë for MLG eͤ might look strangely or could be misinterpret. But on the other uͤ in NHG is usually replaced by ü, and this is likely also the practice for NLG. I went by the practice of NHG (and likely NLG) and replaced it.
Of course, real manuscripts and prints have real, non-normalised spellings in it. -84.161.20.120 17:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@84.161.20.120, is it capitalised in MLG ? Leasnam (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yea, I was more occupied with the capitalisation and long S should count as small per default. But on second thought, since we normalise the spelling (to minuscules) anyway, I'm actually fine with ſuͤnne as a citation for 'sünne'. 18:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Leasnam: In the text it is. "Suͤnne" above was not a normalisation by me, but the word as it appears in the text, and inside a sentence of course. "Sünne" however could be considered a normalisation, but it's common practice to replace the umlauts in Wiktionary. As stated above, in the older text it does also appear uncapitalised at "ſuͤnne". Normalised this could become "ſünne" or "sünne", maybe even "sunne" especially when rejecting or denying MLG umlauts.
Maybe this could make it more clear: Capitalisation rules changed over time. It first was usually uncapitalised, then it was inconsequent and then there was quite normal noun capitalisation. In Early NHG (starting 1500) nouns are still often uncapitalised similar to modern English. Luther's Das Newe Testament Deutzsch from 1522 is similar uncapitalised as modern English. Luther's bible from 1545 is inconsequent. Capitalisation became more common but was somewhat arbitrarily. Somewhere later, maybe with the publication of grammars of the German language, there was quite normal noun capitalisation. For MLG/NLG it should be somewhat similar: The MLG texts above are inconsequent while NLG since the 19th century has normal noun capitalisation. But well, it could be that at the end of the MLG period (1600) capitalisation was still inconsequent. That would mean that technically there were both "ſuͤnne" and "Suͤnne" used somewhat arbitrarily in later MLG.

@Korn: If it gets normalised, then "Suͤnne" should be good enough to attest normalised sünne. -84.161.20.120 19:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Capitalisation is a very late and thus very rare phaenomenon in Middle Low German. You could probably say that it's not really part of Middle Low German but of the Dark Ages. (~1600 'til ~1850) Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Irregular capitalisation occurs in 16th century MLG as in the above texts, and probably originates in the 16th century (maybe in the 1520s?). Regular noun capitalisation is part of NLG, and already Johann Heinrich Voß (1785, later editions from 1802 and 1825), Bornemann (1810s) and Jürgen Niklaas Bärmann (1820s) have [or at least seem to have] regular noun capitalisation. Maybe Lauremberg (17th century) already had regular noun capitalisation. A print from 1700, that is after his death, has. I'd guess that MLG did not have regular noun capitalisation, but I don't know for sure. If it had, then it would be very late. My guess is that noun capitalisation originates from NHG grammars of which the first appear in the 1570s (ignoring Ickelsamer and orthographies, which aren't grammars). From a google books result: "Die ersten Grammatiker, die generell Großschreibung der Substantive empfehlen, sind Johann Becherer (Jena 1596) und Stephan Ritter (Marburg 1616)". If MLG had regular noun capitalisation, then probably only the 1590s, that is less than ~10 years. -84.161.20.120 01:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think one cannot say that Middle Low German had even irregular noun capitalisation without having to adding some caveats which would make it more apt to simply say that it had none. Capitalisation, as far as I see it, appears when chancelleries in the respective area take up High German as a main official language, a change which is taken to signify the end of the MLG period. According to Lasch, this happens first at around 1500 (Berlin) and is complete by 1600 (coast, Ems), which is of course why we use 1600 as a rule of thumb date. I've never seen a piece from what Lasch calls 'the good time' (i.e. the time where authors were largely uninfluenced by High German styles and working on the basis of a common Low German standard) which uses capitalisation. Capitalised texts, when not reprints of older ones, in my experience always show at least some other telltale signs of Early Modern Low German. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)