Zeitung/Zeitschrift: in der Zeit / in "Die Zeit"

< Previous | Next >

Jana337

Senior Member
čeština
Was ist besser?
Ich habe es in der Zeit gelesen.
Ich habe es in "Die Zeit" gelesen.

Jana
 
  • Ralf

    Senior Member
    German
    Dobré jitro, Jana,

    Ich habe es in "Die Zeit" gelesen - ist sachlich und in geschriebener Form sicherlich in Ordnung, gesprochen klingt es aber wunderbar falsch. Da "Die Zeit" eine renommierte Tageszeitung ist, wird "Ich habe es in der 'Zeit' gelesen" auf jeden Fall 100%-ig richtig verstanden und daher allgemein auch so gesprochen. Um ganz sicher zu gehen, kannst du auch sagen: "Ich habe es in der Zeitung 'Die Zeit' gelesen". Aber das klingt umständlich - ist es auch und wird daher seltener verwendet als dein erster Vorschlag.

    Einen schönen Tag noch,

    Ralf
     

    gaer

    Senior Member
    US-English
    Ralf said:
    Dobré jitro, Jana,

    Ich habe es in "Die Zeit" gelesen - ist sachlich und in geschriebener Form sicherlich in Ordnung, gesprochen klingt es aber wunderbar falsch. Da "Die Zeit" eine renommierte Tageszeitung ist, wird "Ich habe es in der 'Zeit' gelesen" auf jeden Fall 100%-ig richtig verstanden und daher allgemein auch so gesprochen. Um ganz sicher zu gehen, kannst du auch sagen: "Ich habe es in der Zeitung 'Die Zeit' gelesen". Aber das klingt umständlich - ist es auch und wird daher seltener verwendet als dein erster Vorschlag.

    Einen schönen Tag noch,

    Ralf
    Ralf, I believe I understood your explanation perfectly. I just would like to ask you if I understand the rule. I was told that it is fine to use titles without changing case when they are in quotes, which natually can only happen in writing. (Ich habe es in "Die Zeit" gelesen.)

    But without quotes, the case must be changed, and then it conforms to spoken German. You did something else: Ich habe es in der "Zeit" gelesen. I think that's how it would be spoken (have I understood correctly?), but the quotes around only one word are necessary to show that you are talking about a newspaper. From context this would be clear without the quotes, so I'm also assuming this is a subtle step necessary to make make your writing style 100% correct. Am I on the right track?

    <Whew…>

    Gaer
     

    Ralf

    Senior Member
    German
    gaer said:
    .... I'm also assuming this is a subtle step necessary to make make your writing style 100% correct. Am I on the right track?
    Gaer,

    you are absolutely right about that. As I pointed out in my previous post 'Die Zeit' is a well-know newspaper in Germany. Thus the sentence in question would be understood without further explanation and without the article 'Die'. So I omitted this article for stylistic reasons and, as you correctly assumed, used the quotation marks to indicate that my writing was indeed about that newspaper.

    Futher to your question I can assure you understood the general rule perfectly. The case of titles in quotations is normally not changed. For example:
    "I've read about that in (the novel) 'The Unvanquished' " would be in German "Ich habe darüber in (dem Roman) 'Die Unbesiegten' gelesen", but never "Ich habe darüber in den 'Unbesiegten' (or even more worse ...in 'Den Unbesiegten') gelesen".

    Please note, .... normally! As an exception to this rule you may find sentences like this: "I've read about that in H. C. Andersen's 'Roman Diaries' ", which would be according to this rule in German: "Ich habe darüber in 'Römische Tagebücher' von H. C. Andersen gelesen". On the other hand you will as quite as frequently hear: "Ich habe darüber in den 'Römischen Tagebüchern' von Andersen gelesen". This sounds fine, too, and implies that the one using this expression might be more familar with Andersen's writing.

    Summing up: stick to the rule to be on the save side.

    Cheers,

    Ralf
     

    gaer

    Senior Member
    US-English
    Ralf said:
    Gaer,

    you are absolutely right about that. As I pointed out in my previous post 'Die Zeit' is a well-know newspaper in Germany. Thus the sentence in question would be understood without further explanation and without the article 'Die'. So I omitted this article for stylistic reasons and, as you correctly assumed, used the quotation marks to indicate that my writing was indeed about that newspaper.
    Ralf,

    Many thanks for your thorough reply. I won’t quote it, but I think I understood all of it, and I very much appreciate the time you took to do. I would have answered immediately, but for some strange reason I did not get a notice that anyone had responded to the thread.

    Let me just follow up with another example:
    I [recently] read “The Little Prince”.
    Ich habe [in letzter Zeit/vor kurzem] “Der Kleine Prince” gelesen.

    Without quotes, this might be grammatically correct, but it looks very wrong to me: Ich habe [in letzter Zeit/vor kurzem] Den Kleinen Princen gelesen.

    Unfortunately, the moment I begin writing German, all sense of what is right and wrong often disappears. :(

    Now, if I ran INTO him, then I might say: Ich habe den kleinen Prince gesehen, but most likely I wouldn’t be back here. Someone would be looking me up in a nut-house. :)

    Again, many thanks,

    Gaer
     

    Ralf

    Senior Member
    German
    gaer said:
    Let me just follow up with another example:
    I [recently] read “The Little Prince”.
    Ich habe [in letzter Zeit/vor kurzem] “Der Kleine Prince” gelesen.

    Without quotes, this might be grammatically correct, but it looks very wrong to me: Ich habe [in letzter Zeit/vor kurzem] Den Kleinen Princen gelesen.
    Well, this example is a little different from those above since we don't have a preposition to indicate the title. Although the first sentence is correct it sounds a bit strange. Therefore I would prefer to say:

    "Vor kurzem habe ich das Buch 'Der kleine Prinz" gelesen."
    or: "Ich habe vor kurzem (short pause in speech) 'Der kleine Prinz' von Saint-Exupery gelesen." As indicated in parenthesis a short pause will help to make unmistakably understood that a quotation follows.

    As for your second sentence, you are right either. It is grammatically correct and it may look wrong .... but the more I think about it the more I get convinced that is not too wrong;). Remember the example of "Römische Tagebücher". Here again, the name of the article could be changed when quoted to imply a certain familarity or some specific knowledge about the book or its contents. A teacher would ask the class: "Habt ihr alle den 'kleinen Prinzen' gelesen?" (Have all of you read 'The Little Prince'?). It might have been the students' homework, thus there is no doubt the teacher is actually referring to the book.

    However, in day to day language I would prefer to take some little pains and use some explanatory words as pointed out above.

    I hope this is not too confusing.

    Ralf
     

    gaer

    Senior Member
    US-English
    Ralf said:
    Well, this example is a little different from those above since we don't have a preposition to indicate the title. Although the first sentence is correct it sounds a bit strange.
    When I write German, that's exactly my problem. I write "Dinglisch". Seriously! People always understand me, and if people are kind enough to correct me, as you did, then I see and feel that the correct is better, smoother. But a better solution never occurs to me while I write.

    Therefore I would prefer to say: "Vor kurzem habe ich das Buch 'Der kleine Prinz" gelesen."
    That sounds much better. By the way, I understand that it is a slightly different problem when there is no preposition preceeding the title, but I thought the question is related to what we were talking about.

    or: "Ich habe vor kurzem (short pause in speech) 'Der kleine Prinz' von Saint-Exupery gelesen." As indicated in parenthesis a short pause will help to make unmistakably understood that a quotation follows.
    I follow that. We might do the same thing in other circumstances, but your next suggestion seems best to me:

    As for your second sentence, you are right either. It is grammatically correct and it may look wrong .... but the more I think about it the more I get convinced that is not too wrong… Remember the example of "Römische Tagebücher". Here again, the name of the article could be changed when quoted to imply a certain familarity or some specific knowledge about the book or its contents. A teacher would ask the class: "Habt ihr alle den 'kleinen Prinzen' gelesen?" (Have all of you read 'The Little Prince'?). It might have been the students' homework, thus there is no doubt the teacher is actually referring to the book.

    However, in day to day language I would prefer to take some little pains and use some explanatory words as pointed out above.

    I hope this is not too confusing.
    Not in the slightest. And I wanted to add that you are experiencing exactly what I experience when asked about "little" problems in English. Often something perfectly correct sounds awkward or "foreign" to me simply because I'm thinking too hard. If I come back to the problem later, the same thing that looked wrong suddenly looks fine. I think it's the abnormal focus we bring to bear on something that is normally insiginificant for us.

    "Habt ihr alle den 'kleinen Prinzen' gelesen?" looks perfectly smooth and fine to me. But if I wrote the same sentence, it would seem wrong. The reason, I think, is that when reading I absorb case completely subconsciously. When I write, I think about it continually (which is one of the reasons I so rarely write German).

    By the way, I wanted to mention one thing: "As for your second sentence, you are right either." Since your English seems to be flawless, I assume you changed you mind in "mid-stream", thinking:

    As for your second sentence, you are right there two. OR As for your second sentence, that's okay, so either might work. (Or something along that line)…

    Again, many thanks!

    Gaer
     

    Ralf

    Senior Member
    German
    gaer said:
    ... The reason, I think, is that when reading I absorb case completely subconsciously. When I write, I think about it continually (which is one of the reasons I so rarely write German).Gaer
    Well, that's at least one problem we have in common.:)


    As for your second sentence, you are right there ?two?. OR As for your second sentence, that's okay, so either might work. (Or something along that line)…
    Is it really 'two'?:confused:

    If it should be 'too' - I thougt about using it this way but finally decided against it since I felt that '..., too' would have the connotation that you were one among several others who were right about that. So I managed to confuse myself by, as you put it, thinking about it continually. Like I said above - one problem in common.:D

    Ralf
     

    gaer

    Senior Member
    US-English
    Ralf, I think this is where it all started, but I'm so confused now. :(

    I wrote:

    ... The reason, I think, is that when reading I absorb cases completely subconsciously. When I write, I think about it continually (which is one of the reasons I so rarely write German).

    Well, that's at least one problem we have in common.
    I think you write English much more fluently than I write German. My writing has actually continued to get worse as my reading has become more fluent, because I've gotten so used reading German and firing off answers in English, I've become extremely rusty. But I was never as good as you. This is not false modesty on my part. It's simply the truth.

    As for your second sentence, you are right there ?two?. OR As for your second sentence, that's okay, so either might work. (Or something along that line)…
    I was concentrating so hard on getting the quotes right that I missed that. Of course it should be "too". I was thinking of something like these ideas:

    That could be right too. Either one might be right. But I've lost track!

    Is it really 'two'?
    No. You will find that the best of us misspell pairs such as "here/hear", "two, too", not because we don't know which is correct but because we type too fast. It should be "too" as in "also". I type VERY fast, almost as fast as I speak. Unfortunately, my typing is horribly inaccurate.

    If it should be 'too' - I thought about using it this way but finally decided against it since I felt that '..., too' would have the connotation that you were one among several others who were right about that. So I managed to confuse myself by, as you put it, thinking about it continually. Like I said above - one problem in common.
    I confuse myself all the time. I have written such nonsense to my closest German contact, in English, that I've winced then next day when re-reading what I wrote. It comes about by re-thinking a sentence, then never quite completing the "rewrite". That's why I assumed you were thinking of two things, not having a problem with English.

    Now, if I've made more serious errors, it's because I'm too stupid to rest before typing after work, and I had a bear of a day. :)

    Gaer
     

    Ralf

    Senior Member
    German
    gaer said:
    ... Of course it should be "too".
    Gaer,

    I really don't want to extend this thread more than necessary. But when writing my post preceding your reply I had doubts about using either 'too' or 'either' in that sentence. Because mixing up both words in sentences like that ranks probably among the 'top-ten' of my errors in English. I had been pretty sure it was only a 'slip of your pen' and didn't want to make a point of it - except as far as my confusion about both words had been concerned. (Well, I don't know if the last sentence does make the sense I intended - perhaps it is a bit early in the morning to write stuff like that;).)

    Ralf
     

    Henryk

    Senior Member
    Germany, German
    herrkeinname said:
    Den Artikel habe ich in "Der/Dem Spiegel" gelesen.
    Er hat an "Der/Dem Prozess" gearbeitet.
    Den Artikel habe ich im "Spiegel" gelesen.

    Deinen zweiten Satz verstehe ich nicht. Ist "Prozess" ein Buch?
     

    Henryk

    Senior Member
    Germany, German
    Dann heißt es auch: "Er hat am "Prozess" mitgearbeitet." Klingt zwar komisch in meinen Ohren, bin aber auch alles andere als eine Leseratte. Die An- und Abführungsstriche sind jedoch essenziell.
     

    Whodunit

    Senior Member
    Deutschland ~ Deutsch/Sächsisch
    Henryk said:
    Den Artikel habe ich im "Spiegel" gelesen.

    Deinen zweiten Satz verstehe ich nicht. Ist "Prozess" ein Buch?
    Ja, beim "Spiegel" funktioniert es, weil es eben nur der "Spiegel" und nicht "Der Spiegel" ist. :)

    Allerdings geht das mit "Die Zeit" und "Die Bild" (was ja sowieso schon das falsche Geschlecht ist) nicht. Dort müssen die Artikel stehen.
     

    Henryk

    Senior Member
    Germany, German
    Whodunit said:
    Ja, beim "Spiegel" funktioniert es, weil es eben nur der "Spiegel" und nicht "Der Spiegel" ist. :)

    Allerdings geht das mit "Die Zeit" und "Die Bild" (was ja sowieso schon das falsche Geschlecht ist) nicht. Dort müssen die Artikel stehen.
    Die Zeitung heißt einfach nur "Bild". Bei ihr schreibt man gewöhnlich "in der "Bild"-Zeitung". Dagegen kann man in der "Zeit" oder in der "Welt" lesen.
     

    Whodunit

    Senior Member
    Deutschland ~ Deutsch/Sächsisch
    Henryk said:
    Die Zeitung heißt einfach nur "Bild". Bei ihr schreibt man gewöhnlich "in der "Bild"-Zeitung". Dagegen kann man in der "Zeit" oder in der "Welt" lesen.
    Die Zeitung heißt heute offiziell "Bild", das Wort "Zeitung" wird weggelassen, es war früher gebräuchlich. Dennoch liest man es in "Die Zeit" und in "Die Welt". Die Logos verraten, dass der Artikel unentbehrlich und unveränderlich ist:

    http://www.h-ref.de/literatur/r/remer/zeit.jpg
    http://www.transzendentale-meditation.de/images/presse/die_welt_050700.jpg
     

    Henryk

    Senior Member
    Germany, German
    Die Zeitung heißt heute offiziell "Bild", das Wort "Zeitung" wird weggelassen, es war früher gebräuchlich. Dennoch liest man es in "Die Zeit" und in "Die Welt". Die Logos verraten, dass der Artikel unentbehrlich und unveränderlich ist:

    http://www.h-ref.de/literatur/r/remer/zeit.jpg
    [URL="http://www.transzendentale-meditatio...elt_050700.jpg"]http://www.transzendentale-meditatio...elt_050700.jpg[/URL]
    Darum waren um "Zeitung" auch keine Anführungsstriche. ;)

    Ich empfinde "in "Die Zeit" stand ..." ziemlich holprig, da bringt der angepasste Kasus mehr Schwung rein.

    Ich werde das weiterhin so schreiben, wie ich das kenne. :)
     

    Whodunit

    Senior Member
    Deutschland ~ Deutsch/Sächsisch
    Henryk said:
    Ich empfinde "in "Die Zeit" stand ..." ziemlich holprig, da bringt der angepasste Kasus mehr Schwung rein.
    Wenn ich aber "in der Zeit habe ich gelsen, dass ..." sage, dann lässt das auf einen bestimmten Zeitpunkt schließen. Und wenn ich "in der Welt stand" so sage, dann halten mich alle im ersten Moment für nicht ganz da, weil es ja unverständlich ist, was wohl in der Welt rumgestanden haben mag. :)

    Ich werde das weiterhin so schreiben, wie ich das kenne. :)
    Daran hindert dich keiner. ;)
     

    MrMagoo

    Senior Member
    Westphalia, Germany; German
    Whodunit said:
    Okay, wir sprechen vom "Sagen", wie wäre es denn im Geschriebenen? Würdest du "In der "Zeit" stand ..." schreiben oder "In "Die Zeit" stand ..."? :)
    Dito -
    Ich schriebe
    In "der Zeit" stand..

    Die unflektierte Form paßt irgendwie nicht...
     

    herrkeinname

    Senior Member
    Polish
    Ich habe "Den Prozess" von Kafka gelesen.
    Ich habe "Der Prozess" von Kafka gelesen.

    Ich habe ein paar neue Lieder von "Die Firma" runtergeladen.
    Ich habe ein paar neue Lieder von "Der Firma" runtergeladen.

    Welche Sätze sind korrekt?
     

    magnus

    Senior Member
    Norwegian (Scandinavian), Norway
    Eine gute Frage, ich habe auch Probleme damit gehabt. Ich errinere mich doch an eine Diskussion hier im Forum über dieses Thema (kann es leider im Moment nicht finden).

    Damals war die Antwort, wenn ich mich nicht irre, das beides geht.

    Beispiel:
    Ich habe es in "der Zeit" gelesen. Ich habe es in "der Welt" gelesen. Aber man kann es auch im Nominativ mit großen Buchstaben schreiben, also - ich habe es in "DIE ZEIT" oder in "DIE WELT" gelesen.
     

    Paskovich

    Senior Member
    Germany - German
    Ich weiß nicht, was von beiden die logischere Variante ist, jedoch hört es sich für mich einfach mal unangenehm an, wenn sie nicht dekliniert werden.

    Aber vermutlich gehen, wie Magnus schon sagte, beide Varianten.
    Es ist wohl schlichtweg Geschmackssache, was man sagt.

    Nun ist es leider so, dass ich es hier in meiner Gegend sowieso immer seltener höre, dass überhaupt noch irgendetwas dekliniert wird, also gehen hier beide Varianten auf jeden Fall, d.h. die Frage, ob man es nicht deklinieren sollte, wird vermutlich gar nicht erst aufkommen. ;) :( (Ja irgendwie ist das eher traurig.)
     

    elroy

    Imperfect mod
    US English, Palestinian Arabic bilingual
    Hallo,

    ich habe die drei Fäden kombiniert, die sich mit diesem Thema befassen.

    Bitte vorm Erstellen eines neuen Fadens eine Suche machen, um herauszufinden, ob das Thema schon mal besprochen wurde. Manchmal vergisst man ja, dass man selbst mal die Frage gestellt hat. ;)
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top