Spelling Variants in German Documents

In this day and age of high literacy and standardization, we are used to, indeed expect, that what we see in print will be uniform. For example, we can look up words in dictionaries to find the ‘correct spelling.’ However, such has not always been the case. Centuries ago, there were no dictionaries available to dictate ‘correct spelling’ and most dictionaries that were available were designed to give definitions, not spelling. Most writers from before the 18th century would have found the idea of a single spelling for any particular word rather odd. If several possible spelling variants are available, why should one be limited to only one choice? Early writers certainly took advantage of the many possibilities available to them. After all, variety is the spice of life. In modern German, the sound represented by the English word ‘I’ can be rendered by ‘ei, ai, ey,’ and ‘ay.’ Again, writers from previous centuries could and did use any of these to render the ‘I’ sound.

In this article we will look at spelling that deviate from standard modern German that appear in genealogical documents. In the vast majority of cases, the variant spellings represent the same pronunciation as the standard form. We will not consider personal names or words that have Latin endings, such as ‘Aprilis.’ (Click here to see articles on Low Germanand dialect basis of spelling variation in German surnames). We will, however, consider some place names. So, the researcher should not be alarmed, nor think the scribe ‘did not know how to spell,’ when he encounters these variants. Many of these variants will be found well into the 19th century.

* This is the standard form in Austria

Often, very old verb forms appear. For example, today we spell ‘scheint,’ but you might find ‘scheinet,’ with an extra ‘e.’ This list will grow in time as the writer finds more variants to add.

Although the following is not a spelling variation, we mention it here: gewesene              geweste