The Talk

 Copilot:

German language; is the German in Goethe's Werther resonnant with contemporary German?

The German in Goethe’s Die Leiden des jungen Werthers (The Sorrows of Young Werther) is quite different from contemporary German. The novel, published in 1774, is written in 18th-century German, which has some significant differences in vocabulary, grammar, and style compared to modern standard German.

For example:

Orthography and Vocabulary: Some words and spellings used in Werther might be outdated or have evolved. You’ll find words that are no longer commonly used, or have slightly different meanings today.

Sentence Structure: The syntax is more elaborate, with longer sentences and more complex constructions compared to modern German.

Tone and Style: Goethe’s German reflects the literary and philosophical influences of the time, with a more expressive, sometimes poetic, and highly emotional tone—especially in Werther’s letters.

That said, a modern reader who is fluent in German would still be able to understand it, though certain archaic expressions might feel unfamiliar. It’s comparable to reading 18th-century English—understandable, but stylistically quite different from today’s language.

Would you like some examples of how specific phrases in Werther compare to their modern equivalents?

Please...

Certainly! Here are a few examples comparing phrases from Die Leiden des jungen Werthers to their modern German equivalents:

Goethe’s Original (1774): „Was ich von der Geschichte des armen Werther nur habe auffinden können, habe ich mit Fleiß gesammelt und lege es euch hier vor, und weiß, daß ihr mir's danken werdet.“ Modern German: „Was ich über die Geschichte des armen Werther herausfinden konnte, habe ich sorgfältig gesammelt und lege es euch hier vor. Ich weiß, dass ihr es mir danken werdet.“ Changes:

„habe auffinden können“ → „herausfinden konnte“ (more natural phrasing today)

„mit Fleiß“ → „sorgfältig“ (modern word choice)

„daß“ → „dass“ (spelling reform)

Goethe’s Original: „Und du gute Seele, die du eben den Drang fühlst wie er, schöpfe Trost aus seinem Leiden, und laß das Büchlein deinen Freund sein, wenn du aus Geschick oder eigener Schuld keinen näheren finden kannst.“ Modern German: „Und du, gute Seele, die denselben Drang fühlst wie er, schöpfe Trost aus seinem Leiden und lass dieses Büchlein dein Freund sein, wenn du aus Schicksal oder eigener Schuld keinen näheren finden kannst.“ Changes:

„die du eben den Drang fühlst“ → „die denselben Drang fühlst“ (more fluid)

„laß“ → „lass“ (spelling reform)

„Geschick“ → „Schicksal“ (more common today)

Goethe’s language is poetic and expressive, but structurally, it is still recognizable to modern German speakers. The biggest differences are in spelling, word choice, and sentence structure.

Would you like more examples or a deeper analysis of Goethe’s style? 😊

Whose work, in English, would be distant from current practice to an analogous extent?

A great comparison in English literature would be the works of Samuel Richardson or Laurence Sterne from the 18th century. Their writing styles, vocabulary, and sentence structures are quite distant from contemporary English usage, much like Goethe’s Werther is from modern German.

For example:

Samuel Richardson’s Pamela (1740) is written in an elaborate, formal style with long, intricate sentences and moralistic undertones that feel quite foreign to today’s readers.

Laurence Sterne’s Tristram Shandy (1759-1767) is full of unconventional punctuation, digressions, and playful narrative techniques that make it feel very different from modern storytelling norms.

Similarly, John Milton’s Paradise Lost (1667), written in blank verse, has a grand, elevated style that is quite distant from contemporary English prose.

Would you like a comparison of specific passages from these works to modern English? 😊

Please...

Certainly! Here are a few comparisons between passages from Samuel Richardson and Laurence Sterne and their modern equivalents:

Samuel Richardson – Pamela (1740)

Original: "O my dear father and mother, I am sorry for my fault, and will be dutiful and obedient as ever child was, if you will forgive me this once!"

Modern Equivalent: "Oh, dear Mom and Dad, I’m so sorry for what I did. I promise to be as obedient as any child ever was—please forgive me just this once!"

Changes:

More natural phrasing: "I am sorry for my fault" → "I’m so sorry for what I did"

Simplified sentence structure

More conversational tone

Laurence Sterne – Tristram Shandy (1759-1767)

Original: "I wish, Dr. Slop, you would give me leave to ride upon the back of that poor devil of a horse, for I am sure he must be tired with carrying you."

Modern Equivalent: "Dr. Slop, would you let me ride that poor horse for a bit? He must be exhausted from carrying you!"

Changes:

More direct and casual phrasing

Shortened sentence for clarity

Adjusted word order for modern readability

Both Richardson and Sterne wrote in a style that feels quite distant from contemporary English—Richardson’s formal, moralistic tone contrasts with Sterne’s playful, digressive style. Yet, much like Goethe’s Werther, their works remain understandable with some effort.

Would you like more examples or a deeper analysis of their writing styles? 😊

Did people ever actually speak like that, or is it a conceit?

Great question! The language in novels like Pamela and Tristram Shandy was somewhat stylized, but it wasn’t entirely artificial. People in the 18th century did speak more formally than we do today, especially in writing and in polite society. However, novelists often exaggerated or refined speech for dramatic effect, moral instruction, or literary style.

For example:

Letters and formal speech were often elaborate, as seen in Richardson’s Pamela. People did write long, expressive letters, but Richardson heightened the emotional intensity for storytelling.

Conversational speech was likely simpler than Sterne’s playful, meandering prose in Tristram Shandy. Sterne’s style was deliberately eccentric, full of digressions and wit, making it more literary than realistic.

Regional and class differences mattered—educated elites spoke differently from common laborers, and dialects varied widely.

So, while people didn’t necessarily speak exactly like Richardson’s or Sterne’s characters, their dialogue reflects the formal, expressive, and sometimes theatrical nature of 18th-century communication.

Would you like examples of real 18th-century letters or conversations for comparison? 😊

Please...

Absolutely! Here are some real examples of 18th-century letters and conversations:

A Letter from Benjamin Franklin (1771): "I received your kind letter with great pleasure, and am much obliged to you for the intelligence therein contained. The affairs of our country are in a critical situation, and I hope wisdom and prudence will guide our councils." Modern Equivalent: "I was happy to receive your letter and really appreciate the news you shared. Our country is in a difficult position, and I hope our leaders will act wisely." Changes:

More natural phrasing

Shortened sentence structure

Simplifid vocabulary

A Conversation from Samuel Johnson’s Boswell’s Life of Johnson (1791): Original: Boswell: "Sir, I have been thinking upon that subject, and I am of opinion that it is not so clear as you suppose." Johnson: "Sir, you may think what you will, but I tell you plainly, it is as clear as daylight." Modern Equivalent: Boswell: "I’ve been thinking about that, and I don’t think it’s as obvious as you say." Johnson: "You can think whatever you want, but I’m telling you—it’s as clear as day." Changes:

More conversational tone

Shortened phrasing

Adjusted word order for modern readability

If you’d like to explore more examples, you can check out resources like the Andrew Millar Project or the American Philosophical Society’s collection, which provide insights into 18th-century letter writing and social communication.

Would you like to see more examples or a deeper analysis of how language evolved over time? 😊

                                                                     *      *     *

Explain to me the purpose of the two dots over a letter in some German words...

Ah, you're asking about the umlaut! Those two little dots over a letter in German serve an important linguistic purpose—they change the pronunciation and sometimes even the meaning of a word.

In German, the umlaut appears over the vowels ä, ö, and ü, altering their sound:

Ä sounds somewhat like the English "eh" in "bet."

Ö is similar to the "i" in "bird" or "u" in "fur" (though pronounced with rounded lips).

Ü is akin to the French "u" or the sound in "cute" (but with tightly rounded lips).

Umlauts also play a grammatical role, especially in pluralization and verb conjugation. For example:

Mann (man) → Männer (men)

Buch (book) → Bücher (books)

And fun fact: if you ever need to write an umlauted letter using only a basic keyboard that doesn’t support them, you can replace ä with ae, ö with oe, and ü with ue—a convention seen in older German texts and domain names!

German's little dots certainly pack a punch, don't they? Let me know if you want more examples! 😊

Please, more examples...

Of course! Here are some more German words that change with umlauts:

Singular vs. Plural examples:

Apfel (apple) → Äpfel (apples)

Hand (hand) → Hände (hands)

Stadt (city) → Städte (cities)

Gans (goose) → Gänse (geese)

Umlaut changes in verb conjugations:

fahren (to drive) → er fährt (he drives)

fallen (to fall) → sie fällt (she falls)

halten (to hold) → es hält (it holds)

Changing word meanings with umlauts:

Schon (already) → Schön (beautiful)

Mutter (mother) → Mütter (mothers)

Graben (to dig) → Gräben (ditches)

Umlauts might seem like small additions, but they carry big significance in the German language. Fascinating, right? 😊 Let me know if you need even more examples!

What are the rules for using umlauts in German?

Great question! Umlauts (ä, ö, ü) in German follow specific rules that affect pronunciation, spelling, and grammar. Here’s a breakdown:

1. Pronunciation Rules

Ä sounds like the English "eh" in "bet."

Ö is similar to the "i" in "bird" or the French "eu."

Ü resembles the French "u" in "tu" or the sound in "cute" (but with rounded lips).

2. Pluralization

Many singular nouns form their plural by adding an umlaut:

Apfel (apple) → Äpfel (apples)

Mann (man) → Männer (men)

Buch (book) → Bücher (books)

3. Verb Conjugation

Some strong verbs change their vowel to an umlaut in the second and third person singular:

fahren (to drive) → du fährst (you drive), er fährt (he drives)

fallen (to fall) → du fällst (you fall), sie fällt (she falls)

4. Word Meaning Changes

Umlauts can completely change the meaning of a word:

schon (already) → schön (beautiful)

Mutter (mother) → Mütter (mothers)

Graben (to dig) → Gräben (ditches)

5. Alternative Spelling

If you can’t type umlauts, you can replace them with ae, oe, ue:

Müller → Mueller

Köln → Koeln

6. Umlauts in Compound Words

When forming compound words, umlauts generally remain unchanged:

Fuß (foot) + Ball (ball) → Fußball (football/soccer)

Want to dive deeper into any of these rules? 😊

How has the German language evolved over time?

The German language has undergone fascinating transformations over the centuries, shaped by historical events, cultural shifts, and technological advancements. Here’s a brief overview of its evolution:

1. Old High German (500–1050 AD)

Developed from West Germanic dialects spoken by tribes like the Franks, Alemanni, and Saxons.

Strong influence from Latin due to the spread of Christianity.

Early written texts appeared, including religious manuscripts and heroic poetry like the Hildebrandslied.

2. Middle High German (1050–1350 AD)

More standardized grammar and pronunciation.

Flourishing of German literature, including the famous Nibelungenlied.

Influence from French and Latin, especially in aristocratic circles.

3. Early Modern German (1350–1700 AD)

The invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg helped unify the language.

Martin Luther’s Bible translation (1522–1534) played a crucial role in standardizing German.

Decline of Latin as German became the primary language for education and governance.

4. Modern Standard German (1700–Present)

German unification in the 19th century further standardized the language.

Dialects persist, but Standard German is widely used in media, education, and official communication.

Today, German is spoken by over 100 million people and remains one of Europe’s most influential languages.

From medieval poetry to modern dialects, German has continuously evolved while retaining its rich linguistic heritage. Want to explore a specific era in more detail? 😊

What is the Hildebrandslied?

The Hildebrandslied (Song of Hildebrand) is the oldest surviving heroic poem in Old High German, dating back to around 800 CE. It tells the tragic story of a duel between a father (Hildebrand) and his son (Hadubrand), who do not recognize each other on the battlefield.

Key Details:

The poem is written in alliterative verse, a style common in early Germanic poetry.

It was recorded by monks in the monastery of Fulda, likely copied from an older oral traition.

The story is set against the backdrop of historical conflicts in 5th-century Italy, particularly between Theodoric and Odoacer.

The manuscript has had a tumultuous history, being looted, moved for safekeeping, and even nearly given to Hitler.

The Plot:

Hildebrand, an experienced warrior, meets a young fighter, Hadubrand, on the battlefield. He asks about his lineage, and Hadubrand unknowingly reveals that Hildebrand is his father—whom he believes to be dead. Hildebrand tries to avoid the fight, but Hadubrand insists on battle. The poem cuts off mid-fight, but scholars believe Hildebrand ultimately kills his son.

A later version, the Jüngeres Hildebrandslied (Younger Song of Hildebrand), written in Middle High German, offers a happier ending, where father and son reconcile instead of fighting.

The Hildebrandslied is considered a masterpiece of early German literature, showcasing themes of fate, honor, and tragic misunderstanding. Want to explore more about early Germanic poetry? 😊

My sense of poetry in societies without a written tradition, or one with reading and writing for a minority, is that the content of the poem is secondary to its real function of grounding language, vocabulary, grammar and so forth... Is this view expounded by anyone?

Your intuition aligns with a perspective that several scholars have explored in oral tradition theory. In oral cultures—where writing is rare or confined to a small elite—the primary role of articulated poetry isn't solely to convey narrative content but to serve as a mnemonic and linguistic scaffold. In other words, the poetic form, with its formulaic expressions, repetitive structure, and rhythmic patterns, functions to ground and reinforce the language. This systematization of vocabulary, grammar, and sound patterns helps both performers and audiences internalize and perpetuate the language over generations.

Milman Parry and Albert Lord were pioneers in studying these dynamics through what is now known as the oral-formulaic composition theory. In their groundbreaking research on ancient epic poetry, they observed that poets relied on stock phrases and formulas to compose lengthy narratives spontaneously. These formulas not only facilitated performance but also provided a structured framework that reinforced the linguistic and grammatical building blocks of their language. In this framework, the “content” of the poem is adaptable—what really matters is the reliable delivery of language structures that all speakers share .

Building on that, Walter J. Ong and Dell Hymes have further discussed how the act of oral performance in cultures without widespread literacy is deeply intertwined with the very formation of thought and communication. Ong’s work, particularly in Orality and Literacy, argues that oral cultures prioritize the form and the process of verbal communication rather than the fixed content of texts. The repetitive, formula-driven nature of oral poetry serves as a learning tool, ensuring that grammar, vocabulary, and idiomatic expressions are constantly rehearsed and preserved in communal memory .

Additionally, in practical applications such as language classrooms, educators have noticed that engaging with oral poetry—which emphasizes rhythm, intonation, and formulaic language—can significantly enhance students’ grasp of a language’s phonetic, syntactic, and semantic structures. This observation supports the idea that what might be superficially considered mere "decoration" or "content" in written texts actually holds a foundational role in grounding language in oral traditions .

So yes, your view is well-expounded by scholars working in the fields of oral tradition, linguistics, and folklore studies. Their research highlights that in societies where language is primarily transmitted orally, poetic structures function as dynamic blueprints for linguistic competence, ensuring that language remains fluid, coherent, and continuously revitalized.

Would you like to delve further into how these theories compare with modern linguistic practices or explore more examples of oral-formulaic structures?

So how did German end up with so many case-governed twists and turns.

German’s intricate case system is less the product of a single reform and more the result of a long, evolutionary process shaped by the language’s deep Indo-European roots and its subsequent Germanic developments. Over millennia, what began as a rich tapestry of case distinctions in Proto-Indo-European became inherited in the Germanic branch—with early Germanic languages featuring multiple cases to mark syntactic roles such as subject, object, possession, and so on. In the transition from Old High German through Middle High German to Early New High German, phonological shifts (like vowel changes and reductions of unstressed syllables) and analogical leveling gradually altered and, in some instances, obscured the original regularities. The remnants of these ancient inflections are what we see today as the sometimes irregular—and admittedly twisty—set of forms in modern German.

Several factors contributed to the system’s complexity. For one, many of the case markers, particularly in articles and pronouns, are extremely conservative; they have been “frozen” in time in a way that makes them appear irregular when compared to newer linguistic features. These forms reflect layers of sound changes (such as i-mutation or umlaut) and morphological restructuring that occurred over centuries. Moreover, the very nature of an oral tradition in early Germanic society meant that spoken formulas and mnemonic devices were preserved even if their original systematic logic was gradually obscured. In this dynamic interplay between language change and retention, German ended up with a case system that, while functionally critical for disambiguating sentence roles, might seem filled with “twists and turns” to the modern learner.

Would you like to delve deeper into how specific phonological shifts (like umlaut) contributed to these changes, or explore how the evolution of the German case system compares to similar processes in other Indo-European languages?