The question of which words (it is about words, not terms!) are not in use in Germany is hardly sufficient to answer.Even if a word has been taken out of the Duden, for example, this does not necessarily mean that it is no longer in use. There is a lexicon of old words and terms, and if you simply googling “extinct words,” you’ll find more.But this is not the aim of the question, but rather whether (!) political correctness has managed to eliminate the use of certain words in German. It seems to me that, despite massive pressure, it has not been able to do so and there is now growing resistance to language cleaners.
Here is an excerpt from a previously unpublished text from me on the problem:
Language cleaners in self-taught political correctness assignments have been on the move for a long time.Do not claim that this does not exist: once leading German daily newspapers have criticised the phenomenon and warned against the fact that they are now operating themselves as speech monitors. [1
For example, the S眉ddeutsche Zeitung, which was probably the first German newspaper to recognize the danger of this virtue terror,[2) but later defected to the virtue terrorists, explained why asylum seeker was a killer word.[ 3 The author’s concern is certainly honourable, namely to take action against discriminatory linguistic statements (i, however, miss an article that shows that populistism is also a killer word!). But it is not only, and not primarily, a language problem, as the author himself states: “Very many Germans exclude migrants. Simply by not admitting to them that they can also be Germans. This is shown by a recent study by the Humboldt University in Berlin[4. Thirty-eight percent believe that those who wear a headscarf cannot be German. ‘People with a migrant background’, this linguistic construct, which was coined more than 20 years ago by the pedagogy professor Ursula Boos-N眉nning, is to be dissolved, they recommend. It exacerbates the differences between Germans with and without a migrant background.” The question remains: why does a certain use of words exacerbate differences that are undeniably and undeniably present? Or should we stop talking about differences that do exist between different people? Or should we just talk about certain differences, not about others? Why are certain words allowed at certain times, then not later? It may be agreed that the word asylum seeker is less precise than the word asylumseeker. [5 The word refugee would have had a negative connotation in the past and should have a positive one today.
A journalist has written a brothel about “robbery of our language”. [6 He first complained in the first chapter that “us” (who please is this concrete?) “passed away at the beginning of the fun” during German lessons.He also listed with amusing desperation dissightings of the German language: pseudo-anglisms, genderization, kanak-sprak, SMS abbreviations, spelling reform, reform reform reforms, etc., etc. Well, especially with regard to the gender-quatsch and the bans on words sought by genderists, the genderists (Gender Mainstreaming in Hanover) have apparently prevailed in the city council (gender andlanguage: gender and language: Genderless in Hanover) – much said and written: People do not allow themselves to be banned from talking.The Stuttgarter Zeitung, which is now truly not a right-wing paper, titled gender and language ideology: the totalitarian language police of Hanover.
[1 See Christian Staas: Political Correctness. In: Zeitonline from 1.02.2017.URL: https://www.zeit.de/2017/04/poli….
[2 Multicultural Yoghurt.In: S眉ddeutsche Zeitung of 2.11.1991.
[3 Sebastian Gierke: Why “Asylum” is a killerword.http://www.sueddeutsche.de/polit….The following quotes from ebd.
[4 A source proof is missing here, unfortunately.
[5 However, the Neue Deutsche Medienmacher Glossary obviously considers the word asylum seeker to be problematic and would like to have replaced it, if possible, with the words refugees or those seeking protection, in order to distinguish between a legitimate and a “Asylum applicants are legally persons who have applied for recognition as politically persecuted, but whose proceedings at the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees have not yet been completed.Until the application is submitted, the authorities are considered to be “asylum seekers” or asylum seekers. However, the term ‘asylum seeker’ is misleading because there is a fundamental right to asylum; People don’t apply for fundamental rights, they just have them. Alternative terms: refugees or
Schutzsuchende .” (Zit.by URL http://glossar.neuemedienmacher….) The consequence of this argument is to stop all asylum procedures and to grant asylum to anyone who comes to Germany and demands asylum without further verification.
[6 Andreas Hock: Am I the only one here where German can ?On the decline of our language. Riva Verlag: Munich 2014.