'Deutsch': Prolegomena zur neueren Wortgeschichte By Klaus-Hinrich Roth (review)

468 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 56, NUMBER 2 (1980) einer Deutschen Sprachkunst (14-26), and from J. Ch. Adelung's (1782) Grundgesetz der Deutschen Orthographie (38-47), we find F. G. Klopstock's (1778) highly deviant Ueber di deutsche Rechtschreibung (26-38). Jacob Grimm advocated the historical principle in orthography (47-62); he was against foolish (einfältige, 51) capitals, but favored sz instead of the ligature ß (61). In the 19th century, Rudolf von Raumer, Konrad Duden, and W. Wilmanns (63-116) were instrumental in consolidating the spelling standard as established by the end of the 18th century. The 20th century brought minor modifications of consonant spelling (cf. my Vom Urgermanischen zum Neuhochdeutschen [1975], 128-30), and various reform proposals (12437 , 176-88); in addition, orthography conferences resulted in the so-called ' Stuttgarter Empfehlungen' of 1954 (137-41), later the ' Wiesbadener Empfehlungen' of 1958 (164-5). Several very recent conferences with representatives from the Federal Republic, East Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (1962, 1973) are mentioned in the Einleitung. (One such meeting is reported by Wolfgang Mentrup, also an advocate of 'gemäßigte Kleinschreibung', in Wirkendes Wort 1979: 1-12; the reactions in Austria in particular were described by J. Knobloch in Jahrbuch für Internationale Germanistik 10:1.128-33 [1978].) Additional texts provide historical accounts of German spelling by O. Brenner in 1902 (117-22) and in detail for the Early New High German period by H. Malige-Klappenbach (142-59). Some writers argue for capitalization of nouns—e.g. E. Studer (188-95) or the late Eugen Wüster (195-204); others, for decapitalization, e.g. H. Moser (159-64)— and, with some emotional name-calling, S. Jäger (211-20) and Günther Drosdowski (220-24), the director of the Duden publishing house. Unfortunately, Rudolf Hotzenköcherle's classical article Großschreibung oder Kleinschreibung? (Deutschunterricht 7.30-49) was not included among the texts chosen. The various (in my opinion, important ) contributions published in the Jahrbuchfür Internationale Germanistik, beginning in 1974 (Jahrgang VI) by Hugo Moser, Leo Weisgerber, Paul Grebe, Eugen Wüster, Karl Korn, Michael Landmann, and Maria Hornung (Jahrgang IX) are not even mentioned in the bibliography. Drosdowski's 'Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer Reform der FremdWortorthographie' (VI:2.8-19) is probably the definitive treatment of this particular topic. But the reform enthusiasts consider loanwords, «-writing, and uniformity in the designation of vowel quantity as minor desiderata when compared to decapitalization. It is difficult for outsiders to comprehend why the comparatively insignificant flaws of German orthography should have created such excitement and constant discussion in German-speaking countries—while in the English-speaking world, saddled with a difficult orthography, the simplified spelling movement seems to be at an all-time low, and no serious tampering with traditional French spelling will ever be considered. It is even less clear why the capitalization of German nouns should have become such a shibboleth, particularly for some leftist educators (certainly not because of an etymological hang-up against capital). It is a great fallacy to assume that this spelling peculiarity constitutes any significant educational barrier for ' lower-class' students and adults: they are apt to mis-spell, even after 'decapitalization', any words that conflict in the standard shape with their dialect ('Mundart') forms. I personally consider any established orthography as sort of a national monument: a break with any tradition of centuries, e.g. through spelling reform by governmental fiat, could result, at least temporarily, in a sad cultural impasse. I fear there is truth in some recent private remarks by a sympathetic sociolinguist: if the reform should take place in German-speaking countries, it will be caused by (1) their recent internal permissiveness (based on a fallacy!), (2) their external submissiveness (to foreign orthographic habits), (3) and their unfortunate acceptance of external Sprachregelung instead of natural internal development, which is now typical for all language change in AngloSaxon countries and France. [Herbert Penzl, Berkeley.] 'Deutsch': Prolegomena zur neueren Wortgeschichte. By Klaus-Hinrich Roth. (Münchner germanistische Beiträge, 18.) München: Fink, 1978. Pp. 587. DM 48.00. In this lexical study, originally a Munich dissertation, Roth first illustrates his procedure of interpretation (Chap. I, 50-124); BOOK...