There are no fewer than four errors in the certificate form for the Austrian school leaving examination.
For foreign language grades, for example, reference is made to the European Framework of Reference, which was agreed in a “Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers, R (98) 6,” in 1998. However, the Ministry of Education has been stubbornly moving this “recommendation” to 1989 for many years, although the official designation “R (98) 6” on the certificate actually clearly referred to 1998.
Where school law used to speak clearly and logically of “oral” and “written exams”, now instead of “written exam” it is swollen: “written exam”. According to Brockhaus-Wahrig, Duden, dwds.de etc., this compound does not exist for a good reason, because “Klausur” alone means, in addition to many other things (closed part of a monastery, closed session), in Germany: “written examination” . A “written exam” is as nonsensical as a “library of books” or an “automobile vehicle”. Apparently PR managers wanted to import a great-sounding word from Germany, although it is not common in Austria and is more at home in the university than in the school sector in Germany. And as it is with new, unknown words: for clarification, the same word in German is attached again. Perhaps one should have left it with the good old “oral and written exams”?
And it becomes philosophical when the term technicus is written: “general education school” on page 1 of the certificate forms. Until the spelling reforms around the turn of the millennium, the word was always written together, the text corpora on dwds.de only know this spelling in the collection of examples. However, Brockhaus-Wahrig, Duden, dwds.de etc. tolerate the separate writing as a “not recommended” form willy-nilly, because rule § 36.2.1 in the official regulations valid from 2006 may basically allow the separation by instead of the earlier The usual simple rules (aggregation) introduced a multitude of overlapping, contradicting and not precisely defined semantic and syntactic criteria, only to regulate nothing at all with supplementary rules and to release all alternatives: § 36.2.4, for example, would, because of the emphasis, nevertheless be aggregated desire! There is a good reason why “general” is written together unanimously in all dictionaries: both words result in a new unit of meaning with a new emphasis (general instead of: general), no component behaves as it would be for its original part of speech: “general “Cannot be increased or expanded by other expressions and“ forming ”no longer has the meaning of the basic verb, because it cannot be connected with objects, for example. In short: “general education” is a new word, has become a compound word and is the terminological contrast to “vocational school”.
An innovation in the secondary school leaving certificate shoots the bird: At the very end there is the famous “generic feminine”, which is only common in extreme feminist circles: “XY has thus acquired the right for graduates of a high school to attend a university in accordance with the university qualification ordinance.” Firstly, the addition: “for graduates from a secondary school” is redundant and grossly disruptive, it is not even included in the binding certificate form regulation, but was only added later in a mysterious way. And secondly, only the generic masculine in the plural would make sense because it is sexus-indifferent and includes men and women equally, ie “graduates” are men and women together, but “graduates” are just women. There is no genuinely exclusively male form in German. It is not women who are disadvantaged by the German language, but men!
–
–
