"Autor" is more specific than "Verfasser". E.g. you could use 'Verfasser' for a composer ("Der Verfasser dieses Liedes war erst zwanzig Jahre alt"). 'Autor' does only apply to writers, journalists,...
I don't think so. I just think of Verfasser as Writer, and Autor as Author, even though they mean pretty much the same thing to me in English.
Übrigens, wo wir gerade von Autoren sprechen, könnte mir jemand erklären was der Unterschied zwischen einem Schriftsteller und einem Schreiber ist? Danke im Voraus.
Sorry für die verspätete Antwort: Ein Schriftsteller ist eine Person, die (meist beruflich) Bücher schreibt, um damit Geld zu verdienen. Das Wort ,,Schreiber'' wird im heutigen Deutsch eigentlich nicht mehr benutzt. Damit wurden im Mittelalter, vor allem aber im alten Ägypten und Griechenland Menschen bezeichnet, dessen Beruf es war Bücher (ab)zuschreiben. Da damals nur die wenigsten Menschen schreiben konnten, waren Schreiber meist angesehen und wohlhabend. Heutzutage gibt es das in dieser Form nicht mehr, allerdings gibt es Menschen, die z.B. während einer Versammlung mitschreiben (ich glaube allerdings nicht, dass sie das beruflich machen). Ich weiß auch nicht, ob der Name dafür wirklich Schreiber ist. Ich hoffe, meine Antwort hat dir geholfen.
Is there a reason for Verfasser be this way? I mean, ver=... fasser=...
There is, but it is rather verfass(en) = to compose, write + -er = indicating someone (or something) that accomplishes the action (same meaning and origin as the English -er in "singer" and similar words). As for why ver- + fassen (to grab) should mean "compose", there is certainly a complex and convoluted history of metaphors and meaning shifts involved, I am sure that they both had similar meanings at a certain point in history. The same happens in practically any language, the first English example that comes to mind is the "-ceive" family of verbs (receive, conceive, deceive, perceive), which (through French) all came from the Latin capere (to grab, to catch, hence "captive" = caught) affixed with a variety of prefixes (re- = again, con = with, de = from, per = through) and took on very different meanings with time.
could verfasser be author in the sense of someone who wrote or did something without necessarily being someone who writes stories or books or is an author by profession?
Sure. You could also be a 'Verfasser' of a letter. Es ist jemand, der einen Text verfasst [hat].
I am not certain, but I believe that since bin is a copula rather than a proper transitive verb, nicht goes immediately after it: "Ich bin nicht der Verfasser."
i think 'nicht' can be placed in the last position if the second word is a verb. But I'm not so sure about it..
The sein verb takes Nominative
Ich bin nicht der* Verfasser (Nominative )
I hope that's helps
Because "Ich bin kein Verfasser" would mean "I am not an author" rather than "I am not the author".
ver = be done (making a verb passive) fassen = take So I guess, Ver-fasser = someone or something being taken away
Umm, it sees not exact here.
No, someone else explained that ver as a prefix gives the reverse meaning of what comes after. For example “Verkäufer“ means seller or vendor while “Käufer“ means buyer. So reverse “takes away“ and this is someone who gives or creates something for people. Composer or Writer...
What grammatical rule says here it should not be written as "Vervasser"? Just curious.
More sophisticated languages, unlike English, usually tend to have rules on how to write words down; Even if some vocals sound the same, they are in fact written differently.in different cases. For example: Volkswagen could be potentially written "Folkswagen" and it'd sound just (about) the same. And usually in cases like these a rule might come in use, such as "if there's a vowel after the sound "F" then we write it as V" ... so ... .here is where I tried to get a potential rule one might use to decide easier on which letter to use for which vocal.
Please watch your language. If it were spelled 'Folkswagen' it'd sound exactly the same. There's no distinction between the f-/f/ sound and the v-/f/ sound. (But note that sometimes v is pronounced as /v/). Spelling is a matter of convention. You never have a one to one correspondance between spelling and sound, in any language. Whether 'v' or 'f' is used to represent the /f/ depends on etymology, linguistic context and other factors. For all pratical purposes: whether to use 'f' or 'v' is an arbitrary convention just as it is in the rule/rool case. Bottom line: there is no such rule.
Like you stated, whether 'f' or 'v' is used to represent the /f/ sound is due to etymological reasons. Because of these reasons, there are actual rules for when the German V is to be pronounced /v/: -in the middle of a word stem -in the beginning of words that are foreign in origin -in family and place names not of German or Dutch origin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronunciation_of_v_in_German
So, there is a distinction between F and V, which means that it is not arbitrary, and that the two letters are not interchangeable, as you seem to be suggesting.
If I somehow misrepresented what you said, or made an incorrect statement, please correct me. I do not want to take anything you said out of context. Thank you.
What I am saying is that there is no 1:1 correspondence between sound and orthography and that you can't deduce the spelling from the sound, not that you can use whichever spelling you want.
There is no specific current reason, but there is a very specific historical one: initially all these /f/-words were pronounced, as today, with a "hard" /f/ sound and spelt accordingly. If I remember correctly there was no /v/ sound in German yet―‹w› was still pronounced /w/, as in English today. At a certain point in the history of the German language, prevocalic /f/ came to be pronounced /v/, and the spelling started to reflect that by writing ‹v› in this position. This change, however, soon reverted, but the spelling was being standardised by that time, so the v spelling stuck, although not in all words, as you can see from fassen, fürchten and similar words. The fact that the /f/ > /v/ changed occurred only before vowels is the reason why /f/ is always spelt ‹f› before consonants and the spellings ‹vr›, ‹vl› do not exist (if not, maybe, in some foreign loanwords, however I have never encountered such a word yet).