#12: I wasn't aware that I was being impolite. I apologise if you think I was being personal somehow by voicing my own opinion. I actually find that you were being quite impolite towards papousek, but everybody has their own unique take on things. I suppose we all feel rather strongly about this subject, not just papousek, would you agree Sachs?
#11 and 12: I think you both might be misundersanding me on what I had to say about when to give weight to which authority. Perhaps I was unclear.
If the "Amt" we are speaking about is an authority on subject X, then obviously I would tend to believe what they have to say about subject X and it is common sense that I would also adhere to any laws, guidelines and directives that that particular Amt lays down.
My point is that this cannot seriously lead to the conclusion that any random Amt has authority to prescribe what words or terms are seen as politically correct. If you are going to site some Amt or other as an authority on prescriptive language usage, well that Amt better have some competency and authority in that field, wouldn't you agree? (And I am not talking about special jargon here by the way. Jargon (like Amtssprache) is a special case. It is specific to its own internal field and while seen as "correct" by dictionaries, as it should, it does not necessarily mean it will become what is considered "standard". If an Amt had coined the term "handicapped" and meant something very specific with it that is in no way derogatory, then that's fine. But this is not the case here. No Amt coined the word "handicapped" and therefore has absolutely no say in whether a group of people is allowed to find it politically incorrect and want it to be replaced by a better term that is accepted in the community).
Simply saying that "I believe what I see in the real world" to me is misdirected here in this context. The real world will yield many different instances of language usage, some standard, some non-standard, some correct, some incorrect. The frequency of a usage alone though does not decree whether it is seen as correct by linguists who compile dictionaries or to language experts who compile prescriptive style sheets.
The real world is a place where you can record many instances of language usage - in a descriptive manner.
If we are taking about prescriptive linguistics however I hold fast to the opinion that this the task of linguists and not the real world (though I am confused as to why anybody would say that a dictionary (mostly descriptive, but prescriptive in terms of grammar and qualifiers) or book on grammar or linguistic style sheet etc. is somehow unreal - the prescriptions are not pulled out of thin air. Examining descriptive language usage is a means to arrive at a prescriptive conclusion. Description alone does not dictate anything.).
"was sich irgendjemand in einem Wörterbuchverlag als "Wunschsprachanwendung" ausdenkt"
I can only assume you are not being serious here. This is not how dictionaries arrive at ther conclusions in the real world.
I think we may have to agree to disagree on this as a whole as I fail to see any sense in how you seem to think a dictionary is compiled assuming you are being serious.
I don't see myself as realitätsfremd either by the way. The way I see it, we are talking about linguistics here and while I may not be an amazing expert, I do have some training in linguistics, enough to know what descriptive and prescriptive linguistics are and where they differ from each other in their purpose or function.
Mimo, I think most of what you laid down is completely off topic to be completely honest, because I agree with everything you said.
Give me an example of when there has ever been a word or term coined by an Amt that a dictionary or prescriptive style or grammar sheet has refused to accept as correct language usage. This will normally not happen, but this does not lead to the conclusion that the ones that use a term are also the ones to prescribe whether its seen as the standard or as politically correct. Do you see what I am getting at?
What I mean is: If Group A (some Amt) uses a term for a Group B (disabled people), then it should be clear that Group A is not the one to prescribe if it is politically correct how Group B was labeled. The decision whether it is politically correct should fall to the ones being labeled, not to the ones doing the labeling - and it is then the task of a dictionary to reflect this with a qualifier such as (derogatory) or (outdated) to reflect what is considered standard and what isn't.
Dictionaries tend to have qualifiers like (colloquial), (derogatory), (humouristic) etc. So does it not stand to reason that I would want a dictionary to be an authority on how words are meant to be interpreted? As opposed to an Amt that arguably is simply using outdated language (that it did not even coin itself).