Talk:Nachlass

Esszett spelling is not obsolete

Indeed, it seems to be quite dominant:

So I'm putting back the former wording.
Opus33 (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, ß certainly not in general obsolete. I haven't looked at the G-ref, which may lack authority. And in fact i was about to change the article with the summary

Nachlaß is a German word; Nachlass is an anglicization.

But i went to German WP instead, where i found that Nachlaß is an exception to what i had believed to be a Germanically exception-free rule: that in German, at the end of a word ß, always occurs in place of ss. I.e., i found that i was mistaken, and German WP spells it Nachlaß only where when quoting another work, or citing the title of a work, and i take it to be a (for me) unexplained idiom.
This is a separate matter from (my own distillation -- not so much from instruction as from instructors' incidental examples and from reading) the matter of ss prevailing when the word being spelled is a verb, e.g. essen and verlassen, i.e. eat and leave.
--Jerzy•t 01:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is more. Look at this: German orthography reform of 1996. It appears that "Nachlass" is one of the words affected by the reform; in standard German it is now required to spell it with ss, in order to render the short vowel. This would explain two things: (i) why the Google NGrams figure ([2]]) shows an upward blip for "Nachlass" in recent years, and also your observation for why the German Wikipedia uses Nachlaß only when quoting other sources -- for prose they write themselves, they are complying with the orthography reform. Or so I would guess. Opus33 (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

+1, see Duden or Wiktionary:Nachlaß (deprecated). -Kolja21 (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Opus33 (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nachlass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091007221204/http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2519 to http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2519

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]