Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Antonio Marques <no_email@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Official German spelling update
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 15:22:07 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <v7636u$1aoug$1@dont-email.me>
References: <slrnv8raos.7eh.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>
 <slrnv95gaj.17f0.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>
 <87o77158s5.fsf@parhasard.net>
 <slrnv960kk.1ch5.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>
 <v70abv$40o6$1@dont-email.me>
 <Vielen-20240714122028@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
 <pp789jppco8vfh98d2ik8tkddta7q108es@4ax.com>
 <v73nfh$q2r6$1@dont-email.me>
 <Vielen-20240715201141@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
 <vielen-20240715204349@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
 <esoc9jlf86ardum3ut1er7g9hrs07amdr1@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 17:22:07 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d27046cc651c0416f77990dac2845a34";
	logging-data="1401808"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19+7R8VB3atNrVFFaQ2Uh9yeBjVXj4/bD3yesDQcEmwEw=="
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wq49y+EACfeKalSs4CidT8+8fcM=
	sha1:T9VtHizaQWe1l5lJGwz6CwamDbs=
Bytes: 2396

Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com> wrote:
> 15 Jul 2024 19:46:05 GMT: ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
> scribeva:
> 
>> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote or quoted:
>>> understand the expression "Vielen Dank!" we can't analyze
>>> it further. It's opaque to us.
>> 
>> The "vielen" feels as if the formally singular "Dank" is taken
>> "semantically" to be a plural.
> 
> Why? It's a singular masculin accusative!

Be that as it may, that's precisely how I've felt about it for a long time,
and the mismatch is what prompted me to ask for clarification.

And to read it as a count noun, I'd need 'viel' rather than 'vielen'. Cf
'viel Glück', not 'vieles'.

So I rather thought it was a fossil form, possibly misanalyzed to the
mondegreen point, maybe even missing a syllable at the end, or /dank/ not
even being originally the noun form.

That some confusion does exist around it seems to be supported by Stefan's
quotations.