Talk:erwägen

Irregular verb

"Erwägen" is an irregular german verb. Composed forms such as perfect, plusperfect or futur ii should be "erwogen" (i.e. "Ich hatte erwogen"). "Erwägen" ist unregelmäßig, was die Bildung der zusammengesetzten Zeitformen wie Perfekt, Plusquamperfekt oder Futur II angeht. Hier muss es "erwogen" heißen (z.B. "Ich hatte erwogen")! edit: i forgot preterite / Ich vergaß das Präteritum ("ich erwog, du erwogst,...") Gruß --sasell

You are correct, but I don’t know how this template works. I can’t get the proper output. Maybe it’s the wrong template. —Stephen 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Another meaning

With sich and genitive:

1. • 1582/1845, Bibliothek des literarischen Vereins in Stuttgart. XII. – Das Ambraser Liederbuch vom Jahre 1582. Herausgegeben von Joseph Bergmann, Stuttgart, 1845, p. 219:

     Jungfrewlein werth,    mich rewt auff erdt,
     sunst nichts denn du,    so ich mich nu,
     so gar mus dein erwegen,
     [...]

   • 1705, Ander Theil der ersten Haupt-Abtheilung des Hauß- und Kirchen-Schatz, so unter sich begreifft alle Evangelien, in den Son- Fest- und Apostel-Tagen, nebst dem zu End gesetzten Gebethen oder Gesängen, welche das vornehmste in den Predigten kürzlich in sich fassen, p. 609:

     Paulus war in so grosser Trübsal in Asia, daß er sich auch des Lebens erwogen, und bey sich geschlossen hatte, er müsse sterben, aber weil er auf GOtt hoffte, der die Todten aufferwecket, und die Gläubigen ihn halffen durch ihre Fürbitte, ist er beym Leben erhalten.

   • 1750, M. Zacharias Theobalds Hussitenkrieg oder Geschichte des Lebens und der Lehre Joh. Hussens ingleichen der Bömischen Kirche nebst einem Anhange des Bömischen Glaubensbekentnisses, p. 377:

     [...] ehrwürdige, tapfere, gelehrte Männer, die sich Leibes und Lebens erwogen haben, [...]

-80.133.103.117 20:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Citations Style (Question)

Hello @Jberkel ! Thanks for your great contributions here. As you are one of the most active editors in the German language, I would like to ask a couple of questions:

1) Should we always add “references” to citations or is it completely optional ? 2) Should the example sentences be short and simple for second language learners ?

Adding references is nice when someone wants to see the whole context of a citation. However, sometimes it makes little sense if the article is behind a paywall. I just added an article from "Die Zeit" and probably most people cannot access it. So, is it meaningful in such cases to add the reference if it is behind a paywall?

Thanks in advance for your guidance. I will try to add examples in German.... QuiverT123 (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Here we have three main ways to add examples to a sense:

1. Usage examples, see WT:USEX, to illustrate how a term is used. Typically, these are short, simple sentences that you make up on the spot. As you mentioned, these are good for learners, because of their length and simplicity.
2. Collocations, see WT:COLL. These are even shorter than usage examples and show typical word combinations. In erwägen, the first example, "erwägen, etwas zu tun" is a collocation, although it is not formatted as such.
3. Citations, see WT:QUOTE. These are snippets from published sources, and can be more than one sentence long, if it is helpful to understand the context.

Now, which one should be used? It depends on what your focus is. From a lexicographic perspective, real citations (3) are preferable, because they show actual usage and include a lot more information, such as time and place of publication and so on. Unfortunately, they take a little bit more time to add. We have a system to automatically create quotation templates for you, using the "Cite" button in the editor. (Unfortunately, it does not work properly for some paywalled sources). If you can find a citation from a non-paywalled source, that is obviously better, but these days most newspapers have some form of paywall restriction in place. For finding German citations, taz.de is a good non-paywalled alternative. And even if it is paywalled, always provide the source URL. There's a Wikipedia library program where editors can access some newspaper subscriptions (mostly English, though).

You also used the <ref> tag, which is not needed for citations.

The best way to format this is to use one of the quotation templates (here, {{quote-web}}):

{{quote-web|de|work=ZEIT ONLINE|title=Kirche: Gott, wie kompliziert|date=2022-12-17|author=Pauline Schinkels|url=https://www.zeit.de/digital/2022-12/kirche-digitaler-kirchenaustritt/komplettansicht|text=Obwohl immer mehr Menschen '''erwägen''', die Kirche zu verlassen, gibt es keine Möglichkeit, online auszutreten.|t=Although more and more people '''consider''' leaving the church, there is no way to leave online.}}

This gets rendered as:

2022 December 17, Pauline Schinkels, “Kirche: Gott, wie kompliziert”, in ZEIT ONLINE‎^[1]:

Obwohl immer mehr Menschen erwägen, die Kirche zu verlassen, gibt es keine Möglichkeit, online auszutreten.

Although more and more people consider leaving the church, there is no way to leave online.

One last thing: citations are prefixed with #*, usage examples and collocations with #:. With this formatting, citations are automatically collapsed behind a "quotations" link. Jberkel 10:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Jberkel for your kind reply. I will follow all your suggestions ! Have a nice day ! :D QuiverT123 (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)