Talk:Die Kinder der Heide

Name

Is the word "Haide" in the title correct? In current spelling at least, the word is "Heide" for "heath". I don't think the word "Haide" exists in any German dictionary. I realise that many English sources do use "Haide", but I'm not convinced that has any basis. The German Wikipedia also uses "Heide" in its listing at de:Anton Grigorjewitsch Rubinstein. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting this. I took the info from the source noted, but have now double-checked in Grove and you are right. I am moving the article accordingy. Best regards--Smerus (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How preposterous to assume that Rubinstein (or rather Mosenthal) would have employed modernized German spelling in 1860! Shows again that Wikipedia is NOT about knowledge and culture, but peddling its shallow bowdlerized 21st century version of it... If you CAN read German, please see a scan of the original libretto here: "Haide" it is indeed! http://libretti.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb00056022_00005.html 95.90.241.154 (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that link. Ad rem: Grimm's Deutsches Wörterbuch doesn't know "Haide" (its headword refers to "Heide"). There are very few occurrences of "Haide" recorded in literature, although L. V. Jüngst argues, somewhat qixotically, for its increased usage in his Die deutsche Rechtschreibung (1843). Why Anton Pichler's widow and her son in Vienna in 1861 decided to use "Haide" remains anyone's guess. Intentional archaicism, poetic heightening? Whatever … there's no good reason to use that spelling now, except in a footnote. After all, "Thür" and "Thor" are no longer spelled with "th" anywhere, and they had real currency (unlike "Haide"). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]