Fugue

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Compound without fugues-s

Joint sounds are in the German language in word compositions ( compositions ) as well as derivatives ( derivations ) at the joints ( joints of the originally separate words inserted) or can be inserted there.

Further names for "fugue" are fugue element , fugue sign , fugue morphem , composition fugue , fusem , interfix and epenthesis . This multitude of terms indicates that joints are valued differently in linguistics .

Demarcation

When viewed diachronically, joint elements can be associated with inflected endings from the plural (plural) or genitive (Wesfall) . Actually and therefore seen synchronously , the joint elements have lost this meaning: For example, a guest house is not an inn and a compatriot is not necessarily a country man .

Matching the plural ending can support the meaning of a compound word, but often it doesn't either. There are several children in the kindergarten , while the child mother is the mother of a certain child. But not every nanny and not every nanny has more to worry about as a child.

Also in the elimination of shares in the original words of the interface is called occasionally Fugenmorphemen, negative in the case, such as the Weck e man , a shaped as a man sweet Awakening.

Since word joints can only occur in languages ​​that can put words together , not all languages ​​have joint elements by far.

In German

Formation of compound words

When forming compound words in German , the foreword is changed or supplemented variously:

  • The front word appears as a mere root word : Crown Prince , Pastor …. The missing e is sometimes called Subtraktionsfuge , subtractive fugue , or Schwundfuge referred.
  • The foreword appears in its complete singular form : front door , inn ...
  • The front word appears in its plural form (with or without a substantive reason): house of cards , roast goose ...
  • The front word appears in the genitive form: Bundesbank , traffic signs , etc. - These cases have arisen from the Zusammenrückung two originally independent words ( "the Institute Director" → the Institútsdirektor ).
  • Likewise, in the genitive form the front words of formations stand like no es if , necessary en if , etc. They are also originally contractions (from “no case [e] s” , “necessary case [e] s” etc.).
  • After all, there is sometimes a pure fugue between the front and back words: Maus e loch u. Ä. This case is also found in words that no compound words but word derivations are intrinsically t Lich , essential t Lich , but tomorrow d Lich , (!) Hope t Lich (from * hoping-lich ) and many others. - All of this comes partly from pronunciation relief or partly from a “parasitic” -t (/ -d ) (as in “Saf -t ” , from Old High German “saf” ).
  • In rare cases, the changes dating form the front word after inserting the joint Loud t his form: my e t due , your e t due , etc. (from "from my e nt because of" , "of your e nt due" etc.).
  • The fugue-s , also called the connective -s , is the most common fugue sound and often resembles the genitive form of the front word. However, it also appears in words that s genitive know no such as wedding s dress , Love 's song , downhill s time , labor s office.

Overview of German joint elements

In the German language, the occurrence of joint elements is particularly pronounced, while in English it is limited to s . German joint elements are:
-e-, -s-, -es-, -n-, -en-, -er-, -ens-; the lack of a segmentable joint element is often referred to as a "zero joint" (also: "-ø-joint") for systematic reasons and added to the list of joint elements. Examples are: "House-ø-door", "Table-ø-ceiling", "Forest-ø-path".

If one understands purely phonetic phenomena also as fugues, one can add: -o- (only with compound words ) and -i- (very rarely). The list can be supplemented with comparable phenomena in the case of derivations, for example for -t- (will-t-lich) .

One example each in the order listed: Dog e leash, view s map, friend , it circle, certificate n fake, hero en did child he money, pain ens money; Front door (zero joint: house -ø -tür ); Electr o shock, bride i gam; intrinsically t Lich.

The joint elements occur:

  • Not with compound words in which an adjective comes first, but certainly with compound words of noun + adjective (e.g. success s- oriented, love s great, mouse e dead, person s centered) or of verb + adjective (werb e effective)
  • Exception: proper names (for example Alt en burg)
  • Also not with compound words that have an adverb or pronoun in the first place
  • For compound nouns with verbs in the first place only as -e- (for example Les e buch, Rat e fuchs)

origin

In the relevant literature, two possible sources for joint elements are usually mentioned: on the one hand stem-forming suffixes, on the other hand inflection suffixes. In Germanic, stem-forming suffixes combined the so-called word root with inflectional suffixes and word-forming elements, e.g. B. ðag-az 'Tag': The root ðag and the suffix -a together form the word stem, the inflectional suffix -z marks nominative singular. In Old High German, a fugue element was created from the former stem-forming suffix, which connects the word-forming constituents in so-called actual compounds (the first link does not have an inflection ending), e.g. B. tag + a + sterro 'Morgenstern'. The hypothesis that all fugue elements except - (e) s can be traced back to stem-forming suffixes, however, does not stand up to empirical examination: only a few -e- joints in contemporary German can be traced back to stem-forming suffixes; however, this joint element rarely occurs and is no longer productive. The second source, namely preceding genitive attributes, is therefore the much more important one, e.g. As the day light > daylight . From a synchronous point of view, however, the fugue elements have lost this genitive meaning. It is true that in many cases the first members of the group agree with the genitive or plural form of the corresponding free word: of day - of daylight ; the chickens - the hen's egg . In such cases, one speaks of paradigmatic joint elements. Therefore, sometimes attempts are made to explain the productive use of joint elements at least partially semantically. Psycholinguistic evidence, however, suggests that the genitive or plural meaning is not activated in the processing of available compounds. From unparadigmischen joint elements is when the first member jointed corresponds to no inflection of the free word. In some cases, unparadigmic fugitive elements can be traced back to historical genitive forms (e.g. swan song : old genitive form of the swan , today: the swan ); especially in the case of numerous feminines with -s-, however, this is neither historically nor synchronously included in the paradigm (e.g. freedom of religion ).

Frequency and regularity of the fugues in noun compounds

The joint elements are represented in German compound words (compositions) with significantly different frequencies, depending on whether one examines spoken or written language, common or technical / scientific language and so on. As an example, the following table shows the distribution of the fugues in noun compounds in technical articles of different origins. The table also contains the adaptation of the 1-shifted Singh-Poisson distribution , which shows that the frequencies with which the individual joints occur follow a special form of the law of diversification .

rank Joint element n (x) proportion of NP (x)
1 -ø- (invisible joint) 2405 72.8% 2402.76
2 -(it- 489 14.8% 532.87
3 - (e) n- 321 9.7% 258.66
4th -e- 43 1.3% 83.71
5 -he- 23 0.7% 20.32
6th other 22nd 0.7% 4.68

In total, there are 3303 compositional fugues, of which 2405 or 72.8% are not expressed by a segmentable unit in the word (which can be spoken or written). In the table, n (x) stands for the observed frequency of the joint element in question; % indicates what percentage of all observed joints these are; NP (x) is the frequency of the joint element in question, which is calculated when the 1-shifted Singh-Poisson distribution is fitted to the observed data. Result: the 1-shifted Singh-Poisson distribution is a good model for this database with the test criterion C = 0.0068 (= discrepancy coefficient), whereby C is considered good if it is less than or equal to 0.01. Ranks 4–6 were combined to adapt the model.

The relative frequency with which the various grout elements are used is by no means always the same. In the study by Wellmann and others (1974) it was found that in Max Frisch's Homo Faber the joint element - (e) n- occurs almost twice as often as - (e) s-. This finding was also obtained from the analysis of neologisms in women's magazines in 1996.

Even in the case of a story by Gabriele Wohmann , the 1-shifted Thomas distribution can be adapted to the fugues of the noun compounds with very good results:

rank Joint element n (x) proportion of NP (x)
1 -ø- (invisible joint) 75 70.09% 75.33
2 -n- 14th 13.08% 14.00
3 -s- 11 10.28% 10.20
4th -e- (+ umlaut) 4th 3.74% 4.56
5 - 2 1.87% 1.81
6th -it- 1 0.93% 1.10

In total, there are 107 compositional fugues, of which 75 or 70.09% are not expressed by a segmentable unit in the word (which can be spoken or written). In the table, n (x) stands for the observed frequency of the joint element in question; % indicates what percentage of all observed joints these are; NP (x) is the frequency of the joint element in question, which is calculated when the 1-shifted Thomas distribution is fitted to the observed data. Result: the 1-shifted Thomas distribution is a good model for this database with the test criterion P = 0.98 (= probability of exceeding the chi-square), where P is considered good if it is greater than / equal to 0.05. (+ Umlaut): The -e fugue occurred with and without umlaut. (For more detailed explanations, please refer to the literature given.)

distribution

Since a semantic motivation, if at all, can only be assumed for some of the compound words, the question arises as to which criteria decide on the assignment. As a rule, native speakers of German have "a clear intuition about when and which joint elements are to be put in compound words." At the same time, however, there are many cases of fluctuation and doubt such as inheritance (s?) Tax , advanced seminar (s?) Work or names ( s?) research ; examples. "in the hundreds" were the sometimes expressed in popular scientific literature, partly in scientific literature assumption that joint elements of the debate relief applies not to all joint elements: Just highly productive crevice s rather complicates the debate, because it leads "To an increase in the complexity of the syllable coda , often even to extrasilbic units: majority + s + opinion, science + s + market ." In the more recent linguistic discussion, two main positions can be distinguished: a) joint elements as indicators of morphological complexity, b) joint elements as indicators of bad phonological words.

Joint elements as markers of morphological complexity

According to Fuhrhop, joint elements indicate the morphologization of compound words , which conversely can also be described as desyntactization . She differentiates between “syntactic” and “morphological” composition, whereby the former “largely corresponds to the 'syntactic' construction” z. B. Wash (the / a) car - the car wash . The joint element makes it clear that it is a compound word and not a syntactic construction, which is why it is to be expected even with increasing lexicalization of a compound word (e.g. directional > directional ). "Jointed connections are always unambiguous compounds." Accordingly, joint elements indicate that a former syntactic joining has, as it were, completed the way into morphology.

Joint elements as indicators of “bad” phonological words

In a number of more recent works, Nübling and Szczepaniak advocate interpreting fugue elements as a prosodic means of optimizing the phonological word. They assume that German has developed from a syllable to a verbal language in the course of its history: While syllable languages ​​tend to optimize the syllable as a phonological unit (with the ideal of CV syllables, i.e. an alternation of consonants and vowel as in Mama ), a verbal language profiles the phonological word, which is regulated in its size and shape (Trochäus as a prototypical phonological word: e.g. mother, jug ). In compound words, the fugue-s makes the coda of the first member more complex and thus emphasizes the end edge of the phonological word more clearly. As a result, the first term is used if the first term represents a “bad” phonological word, for example a first term with an unstressed prefix (which is diametrically opposed to the Trochean ideal), e.g. B. Distribution - Distribution-s-costs . Call, on the other hand, is a prototypical phonological word with a trochaic structure and is therefore not available: answering machine , not * answering machine . Corpus analyzes based on the archive W of the IDS corpora confirm this tendency: While first members with an unstressed prefix (type Berúf ) are grouted in 85%, with emphasized prefixes (type Ánruf ) a joint element is only set in 36% of cases.

Other aspects of using joint elements

This article or the following section is not adequately provided with supporting documents ( e.g. individual evidence ). Information without sufficient evidence could be removed soon. Please help Wikipedia by researching the information and including good evidence.
The sections on regional distribution and technical language use are not adequately documented.

The use of the fugues follows the feeling of language and is not always uniform (see section Distribution ). If there are several different joints for a first member, can neoplasms are often carried out with one of them, the other forms are lexicalized (about: virility, but not man 's pants, but only men pants ). First members with certain suffixes such as -keit , -heit , -ion (with the exception of the first member communion ), -ung and others form compounds with fugues-s . Compounds, in which the first part itself is complex, often have an s as a joint element ( train station s -halle, but Hof-hund ).

In the law 's language in Germany, the joint-s is common:

The official naming of taxes in Germany, Austria and Switzerland takes place without joints. Examples:

Incidentally, the fugue-s becomes active again in the case of compositions with taxation.

There are also regional differences: There is a north-south difference in Fugen-s. It sometimes occurs in Austria, southern Germany and Switzerland ( Upper German language area) with words of which are in Northern Germany ( Low German does not occur speaking region), Example: Pig e fry and pig 's fry (whereas the import specialty pig s haxe quite well in Hannover, or in place of the native Rheinland Eisbeins or Hämmchens on a meat s card may appear elsewhere as Food e card is valid). In other words, a joint volume in Austria does not occur, Example: Advent calendar against Advent 's calendar, or in Switzerland is not on, as year number compared with the year it paid . In some cases, however, terms that differ only in the fugue-s have different meanings in Germany and Austria. So the German train driver does not correspond to the Austrian train driver .

The omission of a fugue, which is common in everyday language and perceived as correct, is characteristic of official German and is used except in authorities, especially in the insurance industry. So there is officially the talk of claims management , first aid kit , triangular cloth , food stamp, officers' home society and job seekers .

The question of whether the joint-s in constitutional s legislative power , as in the Preamble of the Constitution is, is tolerable, was subject to directed petitions with which the Federal Government and the Bundestag have for years engaged.

At the beginning of the 19th century, the writer Jean Paul suggested that the fugue-s should be abolished, because he considered the s-sound to be ugly and considered the fugue-s to be irregular and unnecessary. So he had all fugues eliminated in the later editions of his works. His plan met with massive opposition from the Brothers Grimm , who defended Fugen-s as a historically evolved part of the German language.

In English

In the English language , the occurrence of grout elements is limited to s . There are also some adopted fugue morphemes in foreign words, such as kind er garten . In most cases, words in English are not assembled, but ranked: the Danube Steamship Company Ltd. is the Danube Steamboat Company ltd. And real compositions no linking element is predominantly used (or null morpheme , depending on the perspective), for example, flint and stone become flintstone .

See also

literature

  • Gerhard Augst: Investigations into the morphemic inventory of contemporary German. Narr, Tübingen 1975, ISBN 3-87808-625-3 .
  • Susanne Bartke: Experimental studies on inflection and word formation. Niemeyer, Tübingen 1998, ISBN 3-484-30376-X .
  • Henning Bergenholtz, Joachim Mugdan: Introduction to Morphology . Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1979, ISBN 3-17-005095-8 .
  • Donalies, Elke: Day dream, daylight, day thief - a corpus linguistic experiment on varying word forms and fugitive elements in compound nouns. With an excursus and numerous statistics by Noah Bubenhofer. IDS, Mannheim 2011 (amades 42).
  • Nanna Fuhrhop: Borderline cases of morphological units. Stauffenburg, Tübingen 1998, ISBN 3-86057-447-7 (thorough scientific presentation of the joint elements).
  • Eike Christian Hirsch : German for know-it-alls , Chapter Flea Circus, dtv 1976, ISBN 3-423-10952-1 (only available in second-hand bookshops ).
  • Sascha Michel: 'Or + en + wurm', 'tag + s + letter', 'kelb + er + arzet'. Joint elements in N + N compounds of early New High German . In: PBB. Contributions to the history of the German language and literature 132/2. Pp. 177-199.
  • Sascha Michel: 'damage-0-replacement' vs. 'Damages'. An attempt to explain synchronous fluctuations in the formation of joints in N + N compounds . In: German language 4/09. Pp. 334-351.
  • Sascha Michel: On the systematics of the composition stem form formation in N + N compounds - implications for GFL lessons . In: German as a Foreign Language 4/2011. Pp. 221-231.
  • Heide Wegener: The chicken egg in front of the dog house. On the necessity of historical knowledge in German grammarography. ( PDF )
  • Fugues are described in the Duden (grammar) chapter on word formation .

Web links

Wiktionary: fugue  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations
Wiktionary: Fugue  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations
Wiktionary: Fugenelement  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations
Wiktionary: fugue morpheme  - explanations of meanings, word origins , synonyms, translations
Wiktionary: Composition fugue  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c d Hadumod Bußmann (ed.) With the collaboration of Hartmut Lauffer: Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft. 4th, revised and bibliographically supplemented edition. Kröner, Stuttgart 2008, ISBN 978-3-520-45204-7 , Lemma: "Fugenelement".
  2. ^ Peter Eisenberg: Outline of the German grammar. Volume 1: The Word. Metzler, Stuttgart / Weimar 1998, ISBN 3-476-01639-0 , p. 227.
  3. ↑ Answering a question to the Society for German Language. In: Der Sprachspiegel 54, 2010, pp. 112–113. Quote: p. 113. Printed in italics: e .
  4. ↑ Because of: Genitive or Dative? belleslettres.eu . Website by Belles Lettres - German for poets and thinkers. Retrieved October 21, 2012.
  5. ^ Peter Eisenberg: Outline of the German grammar. Volume 1: The Word. Metzler, Stuttgart / Weimar 1998, ISBN 3-476-01639-0 , p. 228.
  6. ↑ Lorelies Ortner, Elgin Müller-Bollhagen, Hanspeter Ortner, Hans Wellmann, Maria Pümpel-Mader, Hildegard Gärtner: German word formation. Types and tendencies in contemporary language. Fourth main part: noun compounds. de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 1991, ISBN 3-11-012444-0 , p. 103.
  7. ↑ See Damaris Nübling, Renata Szczepaniak: Linking elements in German Origin, Change, Functionalization. In: Morphology 23 : 67-89 (2013); here: 68f.
  8. ↑ See Damaris Nübling, Renata Szczepaniak: Linking elements in German Origin, Change, Functionalization. In: Morphology 23 : 67-89 (2013); here: 69.
  9. ↑ See Heide Wegener: The Regrammaticalization of Linking Elements in German. In: Elena Seoane, María José López-Couso (Eds.): Theoretical and Empirical Issues in Grammaticalization. Amsterdam, Philadelphia 2008, 333-355.
  10. ↑ See Damaris Nübling, Renata Szczepaniak: Linking elements in German. Origin, change, functionalization. In: Morphology 23 : 67-89 (2013); here: 70f.
  11. ↑ Cf. Duden Vol. 4: The grammar. 7th edition, Mannheim u. a. 2006, p. 722.
  12. ↑ Cf. Duden Vol. 4: The grammar. 7th edition, Mannheim u. a. 2006, p. 722.
  13. ↑ So z. B. Nanna Fuhrhop: Do joint elements show the morphologization of composites? In: Rolf Thieroff et al. (Ed.): German grammar in theory and practice. Tubingen 2000, 201-213; here: p. 203, about the joint elements -en- and -e- : "They are used productively in a paradigmatic way with plural meanings such as Schilderwald (vs. Schildbürger ), Ärztekongress (vs. doctor's practice )."
  14. ↑ See e.g. B. Wolfgang U. Dressler, Gary Libben, Jacqueline Stark, Christiane Pons, Gonia Jarema: The processing of interfixed German compounds. In: Geert Booij, Jaap van Marle (Ed.): Yearbook of Morphology . Dordrecht 2001, 185-220.
  15. ↑ Cf. Damaris Nübling, Renata Szczepaniak: Feature (s?) Analysis, seminar (s?) Work and food (s?) Edition: Cases of doubt about the disposition as indicators of language change. In: Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 30 (2011), pp. 45–73; here: p. 54.
  16. ↑ The observation values ​​come from: Hans Wellmann, Nikolaus Reindl, Annemarie Fahrmeier: On the morphological regulation of noun composition in today's German. In: Journal for German Philology 93, 1974, pp. 358–378. Data: p. 365.
  17. ↑ The adaptation of the Singh-Poisson distribution comes from: Karl-Heinz Best: Distributions of joint elements in German. In: Göttinger Contributions to Linguistics 16, 2008, pp. 7–16; Model adaptation p. 11. The article gives overviews of the frequency of joint elements in 10 texts or text corpora.
  18. ↑ Hans Wellmann, Nikolaus Reindl, Annemarie Fahrmeier: On the morphological regulation of noun composition in today's German. In: Journal for German Philology 93, 1974, pp. 358–378. Data: p. 365.
  19. ↑ Patricia Girzig: The "Fugue" in German. Staatsexamensarbeit, Göttingen 1996, p. 71. Data with adaptation of the 1-shifted Thomas distribution in: Karl-Heinz Best: Distributions of joint elements in German. In: Göttinger Contributions to Linguistics 16, 2008, pp. 7–16; Data with model adaptation p. 14.
  20. ↑ Gabriele Wohmann: Finally alone - finally two. Eremiten-Presse publishing house, Düsseldorf 1976. Data with adaptation of the 1-shifted Thomas distribution in: Karl-Heinz Best: Distributions of joint elements in German. In: Göttinger Contributions to Linguistics 16, 2008, pp. 7–16; Data with model adaptation p. 14.
  21. ↑ Nanna Fuhrhop: Joint elements . In: Ewald Lang, Gisela Zifonun (Ed.): German - typologically . Berlin, New York 1996, pp. 525-550; here: p. 525.
  22. ↑ Damaris Nübling: The mutual benefit of historical linguistics and language typology - using the example of phonology, morphology and pragmatics. In: Péter Maitz (Ed.): Historical Linguistics. Interest in knowledge, basic problems, desiderata. Berlin, New York 2012, pp. 63-83; here: p. 66.
  23. ↑ Bastian Sick: Onion fish: fried potatoes and fried egg. In: Spiegel Online . April 7, 2004, accessed December 30, 2016 .
  24. ↑ Hans Altmann, Silke Kemmerling: Word formation for the exam. Göttingen 2005, p. 27.
  25. ↑ See Heide Wegener: The chicken egg in front of the dog house. On the necessity of historical knowledge in German grammarography. In: Elisabeth Berner, Manuela Böhm, Anja Voeste (Eds.): A big and scarred haffen. Festschrift for Joachim Gessinger. Potsdam 2005, pp. 157-169; here: p. 182.
  26. ^ Damaris Nübling, Renata Szczepaniak: Religion + s + freedom, stability + s + pact and subject (+ s +) pronouns: joint elements as markers of phonological word boundaries. In: Peter O. Müller (ed.): Studies on foreign word formation . Hildesheim u. a. 2009, pp. 195-221; here: p. 202.
  27. ↑ Cf. Nanna Fuhrhop: Do joint elements indicate the morphologization of compounds? In: Rolf Thieroff et al. (Ed.): German grammar in theory and practice. Tübingen 2000, pp. 201-213.
  28. ↑ Nanna Fuhrhop: Do joint elements indicate the morphologization of compounds? In: Rolf Thieroff et al. (Ed.): German grammar in theory and practice. Tübingen 2000, pp. 201-213; here: p. 211.
  29. ↑ Nanna Fuhrhop: Do joint elements indicate the morphologization of compounds? In: Rolf Thieroff et al. (Ed.): German grammar in theory and practice. Tübingen 2000, pp. 201-213; here: p. 210.
  30. ^ Damaris Nübling, Renata Szczepaniak: Religion + s + freedom, stability + s + pact and subject (+ s +) pronouns: joint elements as markers of phonological word boundaries. In: Peter O. Müller (ed.): Studies on foreign word formation . Hildesheim u. a. 2009, pp. 195-221; here: p. 206.
  31. ↑ See e.g. B. Damaris Nübling, Renata Szczepaniak: What does the diachrony explain the synchronicity of contemporary German? Using the example of fluctuating joint elements. In: Hans Ulrich Schmid (Ed.): Perspektiven der Germanistische Sprachgeschichteforschung. Berlin, New York 2010, pp. 205-224; Damaris Nübling, Renata Szczepaniak: characteristic (s?) Analysis, seminar (s?) Work and food (s?) Edition: doubtful cases of disposition as indicators of language change. In: Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 30 (2011), pp. 45–73; Damaris Nübling, Renata Szczepaniak: Linking elements in German Origin, Change, Functionalization. In: Morphology 23 (2013), 67-89.
  32. ↑ Cf. Renata Szczepaniak: The phonological-typological change of German from a syllable to a word language. Berlin, New York 2007.
  33. ↑ Cf. Damaris Nübling, Renata Szczepaniak: Feature (s?) Analysis, seminar (s?) Work and food (s?) Edition: Cases of doubt about the disposition as indicators of language change. In: Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 30 (2011), pp. 45–73.
  34. ↑ Cf. Damaris Nübling, Renata Szczepaniak: Feature (s?) Analysis, seminar (s?) Work and food (s?) Edition: Cases of doubt about the disposition as indicators of language change. In: Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 30 (2011), pp. 45–73; here: p. 64.
  35. ↑ Income Tax Act, Corporation Tax Act, etc. in the legal information system of the Republic of Austria (accessed December 8, 2019).
  36. ↑ Fluctuating Fugen-s . In: Der Spiegel . No. 41 , 2004 ( online - 4 October 2004 ).
  37. ↑ Fugen-s remains! ( Memento from October 5, 2018 in the Internet Archive ), blog of the counter petitioner from December 18, 2004.
  38. ^ Jean Paul Richter: About the German double words. In: projekt-gutenberg.org. 1996, accessed December 30, 2016 .