Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How does English get by with so few diacritical marks?
108 views
Skip to first unread message
Berkeley Brett
May 24, 2013, 8:38:21 AM5/24/13
to
I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
In the interesting Wikipedia article on diacritical marks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diacritic
we find the following (in the section titled "English"):
=== begin quoted text ===
English is one of the few European languages that does not have many words that contain diacritical marks....
... In older practice (and even among some orthographically conservative modern writers) one may see examples such as élite and rôle.
English speakers and writers once used the diaeresis more often than now in words such as coöperation (from Fr. coopération), zoölogy (from Grk. zoologia), and seeër (now more commonly see-er), but this practice has become far less common; The New Yorker magazine is one of the few major publications that still use it.
A few English words can only be distinguished from others by a diacritic or modified letter, including animé, exposé, lamé, maté, öre, øre, pâté, piqué, rosé, and soufflé.
=== end quoted text ===
In the Wikipedia article referenced, there is also an extensive section on "Languages with letters containing diacritics."
And there is a related article, "English terms with diacritical marks"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_terms_with_diacritical_marks
So, my question is, how does English get by with so few diacritical marks?
As always, your feedback is most welcome....
--
Brett (in Berkeley, California, USA)
http://www.ForeverFunds.org/
My plan for saving the world!
(Micro-trusts & Micro-Endowments that survive you)
In the interesting Wikipedia article on diacritical marks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diacritic
we find the following (in the section titled "English"):
=== begin quoted text ===
English is one of the few European languages that does not have many words that contain diacritical marks....
... In older practice (and even among some orthographically conservative modern writers) one may see examples such as élite and rôle.
English speakers and writers once used the diaeresis more often than now in words such as coöperation (from Fr. coopération), zoölogy (from Grk. zoologia), and seeër (now more commonly see-er), but this practice has become far less common; The New Yorker magazine is one of the few major publications that still use it.
A few English words can only be distinguished from others by a diacritic or modified letter, including animé, exposé, lamé, maté, öre, øre, pâté, piqué, rosé, and soufflé.
=== end quoted text ===
In the Wikipedia article referenced, there is also an extensive section on "Languages with letters containing diacritics."
And there is a related article, "English terms with diacritical marks"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_terms_with_diacritical_marks
So, my question is, how does English get by with so few diacritical marks?
As always, your feedback is most welcome....
--
Brett (in Berkeley, California, USA)
http://www.ForeverFunds.org/
My plan for saving the world!
(Micro-trusts & Micro-Endowments that survive you)
Message has been deleted
Swifty
May 24, 2013, 10:32:15 AM5/24/13
to
On 24/05/2013 13:38, Berkeley Brett wrote:
> So, my question is, how does English get by with so few diacritical marks?
I'm no expert, but when foreign words are imported into English, they
> So, my question is, how does English get by with so few diacritical marks?
nearly always end up with an angicised pronunciation. Nearly everything
pronounced in English can be spelled without the diacritical remarks.
Yes, ambiguity can set in (is "rose" a flower or a wine?) but these
sorts of problems are rife even with "native" English words. We use
clues from the context.
I like the diacritical marks (e.g. r�le) and have mastered how to enter
them on my EN-UK keyboard (AllChars) but they do cause the ocasional
raised eyebrow. They enhance your pedant rating though.
--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/
Don Phillipson
May 24, 2013, 1:28:11 PM5/24/13
to
"Berkeley Brett" <roya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc621307-e4ff-4462...@googlegroups.com...
> . . . my question is, how does English get by with so few diacritical
> marks?
The simple answer is that when English spelling stabilized
(in the 18th century) it used no diacritical marks, except for
recognized loan-words. There were exceptions to this,
notably cooperation printed with a diaeresis rather than a
hyphen) but too few to challenge the general rule.
A more recent change is the most familiar foreign language,
nowadays French (in Britain), different from the 19th century
when Latin or Greek words appeared in English more often
than French loan-words. The necessity for diacritical marks
in Greek never ented English printing conventions, but their
frequency in French has indeed affected English fashions
in printing. Most recently of all, 16-bit to 64-bit computers
make diacriticals easier to print, whereas 8-bit computers
(the first applied to newspaper production etc.) made them
too expensive or laborious to consider.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
news:cc621307-e4ff-4462...@googlegroups.com...
> . . . my question is, how does English get by with so few diacritical
> marks?
The simple answer is that when English spelling stabilized
(in the 18th century) it used no diacritical marks, except for
recognized loan-words. There were exceptions to this,
notably cooperation printed with a diaeresis rather than a
hyphen) but too few to challenge the general rule.
A more recent change is the most familiar foreign language,
nowadays French (in Britain), different from the 19th century
when Latin or Greek words appeared in English more often
than French loan-words. The necessity for diacritical marks
in Greek never ented English printing conventions, but their
frequency in French has indeed affected English fashions
in printing. Most recently of all, 16-bit to 64-bit computers
make diacriticals easier to print, whereas 8-bit computers
(the first applied to newspaper production etc.) made them
too expensive or laborious to consider.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
David Hatunen
May 24, 2013, 3:24:47 PM5/24/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 14:21:05 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>In message <cc621307-e4ff-4462...@googlegroups.com>
>> �re, �re, p�t�, piqu�, ros�, and souffl�.
>
>And yet, are almost never spelled with any of those.
>
>I have never seen anime used with an accent, nor have I ever seen �re or
>�re out in the wild. ros� and souffl� are reserved for the menus of
>expensive restaurants.
>
>In fact, about the only word that I see other people use, on occasions,
>with an accent, is resum�.
Since it would seem that English simply doesn't need them, I would
reckon the former and not the latter.
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>In message <cc621307-e4ff-4462...@googlegroups.com>
> Berkeley Brett <roya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A few English words can only be distinguished from others by a
>> diacritic or modified letter, including anim�, expos�, lam�, mat�,
>> A few English words can only be distinguished from others by a
>> �re, �re, p�t�, piqu�, ros�, and souffl�.
>
>And yet, are almost never spelled with any of those.
>
>I have never seen anime used with an accent, nor have I ever seen �re or
>�re out in the wild. ros� and souffl� are reserved for the menus of
>expensive restaurants.
>
>In fact, about the only word that I see other people use, on occasions,
>with an accent, is resum�.
>
>> So, my question is, how does English get by with so few diacritical marks?
>
>Laziness and xenophobia?
>> So, my question is, how does English get by with so few diacritical marks?
>
Since it would seem that English simply doesn't need them, I would
reckon the former and not the latter.
jgharston
May 24, 2013, 3:24:51 PM5/24/13
to
Lewis wrote:
> > So, my question is, how does English get by with so few diacritical marks?
>
> Laziness and xenophobia?
> > So, my question is, how does English get by with so few diacritical marks?
>
With dipthongs, tripthongs, doubbled consonants, modifying 'e's and
'i'/'y' swapping.
JGH
J. J. Lodder
May 24, 2013, 5:12:13 PM5/24/13
to
Berkeley Brett <roya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>
> In the interesting Wikipedia article on diacritical marks
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diacritic
>
> we find the following (in the section titled "English"):
>
> === begin quoted text ===
>
> English is one of the few European languages that does not have many words
> that contain diacritical marks....
>
> ... In older practice (and even among some orthographically conservative
> modern writers) one may see examples such as �lite and r�le.
> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>
> In the interesting Wikipedia article on diacritical marks
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diacritic
>
> we find the following (in the section titled "English"):
>
> === begin quoted text ===
>
> English is one of the few European languages that does not have many words
> that contain diacritical marks....
>
> ... In older practice (and even among some orthographically conservative
>
> English speakers and writers once used the diaeresis more often than now
> in words such as co�peration (from Fr. coop�ration), zo�logy (from Grk.
> English speakers and writers once used the diaeresis more often than now
> zoologia), and see�r (now more commonly see-er), but this practice has
> become far less common; The New Yorker magazine is one of the few major
> publications that still use it.
So next you get books with titles such as:
> publications that still use it.
There Is No Zoo in Zoology; And Other Beastly Mispronunciations,
by Charles Harrington Elster
> A few English words can only be distinguished from others by a diacritic
> or modified letter, including anim�, expos�, lam�, mat�, �re, �re, p�t�,
> piqu�, ros�, and souffl�.
>
> piqu�, ros�, and souffl�.
>
> So, my question is, how does English get by with so few diacritical marks?
Excepting of course the glorious umlaut on M�nster cheeese,
(which shouldn't be there)
Jan
Message has been deleted
Mike L
May 24, 2013, 6:39:28 PM5/24/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:32:15 +0100, Swifty <steve....@gmail.com>
wrote:
There are so many distinct pronunciations that no system of
diacriticals would work for all English-speakers. It seems, too, that
the culture is uncomfortable with imposed standardisation in any
sphere.
--
Mike.
wrote:
diacriticals would work for all English-speakers. It seems, too, that
the culture is uncomfortable with imposed standardisation in any
sphere.
--
Mike.
Christian Weisgerber
May 24, 2013, 6:51:05 PM5/24/13
to
jgharston <j...@mdfs.net> wrote:
> > > So, my question is, how does English get by with so few diacritical marks?
> >
> > Laziness and xenophobia?
>
> With dipthongs, tripthongs,
I think you mean digraphs and trigraphs.
> > > So, my question is, how does English get by with so few diacritical marks?
> >
> > Laziness and xenophobia?
>
> With dipthongs, tripthongs,
> doubbled consonants, modifying 'e's and 'i'/'y' swapping.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Robert Bannister
May 24, 2013, 9:36:53 PM5/24/13
to
On 24/05/13 8:38 PM, Berkeley Brett wrote:
> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>
> In the interesting Wikipedia article on diacritical marks
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diacritic
>
> we find the following (in the section titled "English"):
>
> === begin quoted text ===
>
> English is one of the few European languages that does not have many
> words that contain diacritical marks....
>
> ... In older practice (and even among some orthographically
> conservative modern writers) one may see examples such as �lite and
> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>
> In the interesting Wikipedia article on diacritical marks
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diacritic
>
> we find the following (in the section titled "English"):
>
> === begin quoted text ===
>
> English is one of the few European languages that does not have many
> words that contain diacritical marks....
>
> ... In older practice (and even among some orthographically
> r�le.
>
> English speakers and writers once used the diaeresis more often than
> English speakers and writers once used the diaeresis more often than
> now in words such as co�peration (from Fr. coop�ration), zo�logy
> (from Grk. zoologia), and see�r (now more commonly see-er), but this
> practice has become far less common; The New Yorker magazine is one
> of the few major publications that still use it.
>
> A few English words can only be distinguished from others by a
> of the few major publications that still use it.
>
> A few English words can only be distinguished from others by a
> diacritic or modified letter, including anim�, expos�, lam�, mat�,
> �re, �re, p�t�, piqu�, ros�, and souffl�.
>
> �re, �re, p�t�, piqu�, ros�, and souffl�.
>
> === end quoted text ===
>
> In the Wikipedia article referenced, there is also an extensive
> section on "Languages with letters containing diacritics."
>
> And there is a related article, "English terms with diacritical
> marks"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_terms_with_diacritical_marks
>
> So, my question is, how does English get by with so few diacritical
> marks?
My feeling is that it doesn't get by very well, and that words like
>
> In the Wikipedia article referenced, there is also an extensive
> section on "Languages with letters containing diacritics."
>
> And there is a related article, "English terms with diacritical
> marks"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_terms_with_diacritical_marks
>
> So, my question is, how does English get by with so few diacritical
> marks?
caf�, r�sum�, na�f, etc. need them, but a large number of English
speakers feel (a) why should I be bothered with foreign muck just to
make myself clear? and (b) I just couldn't be arsed.
Some English speakers have similar ideas about a whole range of
unfamiliar ideas. Come to think of it, it's not entirely confined to
English speakers.
--
Robert Bannister
Swifty
May 25, 2013, 1:30:23 AM5/25/13
to
On 24/05/2013 22:12, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Excepting of course the glorious umlaut on M�nster cheeese,
> (which shouldn't be there)
You remind me of the umlaut in the kitchen fitters, M�ben (a company
> Excepting of course the glorious umlaut on M�nster cheeese,
> (which shouldn't be there)
with no obvious connections with Germany). They were ordered to remove
it, but I've seen it making a comeback in the past few years.
J. J. Lodder
May 25, 2013, 3:31:12 AM5/25/13
to
Swifty <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/05/2013 22:12, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Excepting of course the glorious umlaut on M�nster cheeese,
> > (which shouldn't be there)
>
> You remind me of the umlaut in the kitchen fitters, M�ben (a company
> with no obvious connections with Germany). They were ordered to remove
> it, but I've seen it making a comeback in the past few years.
According to
> On 24/05/2013 22:12, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Excepting of course the glorious umlaut on M�nster cheeese,
> > (which shouldn't be there)
>
> You remind me of the umlaut in the kitchen fitters, M�ben (a company
> with no obvious connections with Germany). They were ordered to remove
> it, but I've seen it making a comeback in the past few years.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2006/apr/20/features11.g2>
they won.
British sillyness at its best.
What will be next, an attempt to outlaw H�agen-Dazs?
It remains very ironic.
All this Made in ... (Germany) labelling
was introduced at the insistence of British manufacturers,
who thought that the Brits would recognise foreigh products
as inferior, and refuse to buy them.
It backfired immediately, with British consumers
looking for 'Made in Germany' as a sign of quality.
So now it has gone full circle,
with Brits trying to be taken for Germans,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
May 25, 2013, 3:38:14 AM5/25/13
to
The cause is different though,
it's mostly pressure from he Belgians.
(who have an equal say in the spelling reforms)
Their rule seems to be: If it looks like French in origin
the spelling must be changed (if at all possible)
This includes dropping of accents,
Jan
Guy Barry
May 25, 2013, 4:30:10 AM5/25/13
to
On May 25, 6:30 am, Swifty <steve.j.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/05/2013 22:12, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Excepting of course the glorious umlaut on M nster cheeese,
> > (which shouldn't be there)
>
> You remind me of the umlaut in the kitchen fitters, M ben (a company
> with no obvious connections with Germany). They were ordered to remove
> it, but I've seen it making a comeback in the past few years.
Really? The company was closed down in 2011:
> On 24/05/2013 22:12, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Excepting of course the glorious umlaut on M nster cheeese,
> > (which shouldn't be there)
>
> You remind me of the umlaut in the kitchen fitters, M ben (a company
> with no obvious connections with Germany). They were ordered to remove
> it, but I've seen it making a comeback in the past few years.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/06/557-staff-axed-by-moben-kitchens-administrators
--
Guy Barry
Odysseus
May 25, 2013, 4:00:32 PM5/25/13
to
In article <b0aitn...@mid.individual.net>,
> > So, my question is, how does English get by with so few diacritical
> > marks?
>
> My feeling is that it doesn't get by very well, and that words like
> café, résumé, naïf, etc. need them, but a large number of English
reading mentioned elsethread. It's too late for some, though, e.g. the
name Irene, which is always disyllabic IME.
--
Odysseus
Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> On 24/05/13 8:38 PM, Berkeley Brett wrote:
> > I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
<snip>
> On 24/05/13 8:38 PM, Berkeley Brett wrote:
> > I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
> > So, my question is, how does English get by with so few diacritical
> > marks?
>
> My feeling is that it doesn't get by very well, and that words like
> speakers feel (a) why should I be bothered with foreign muck just to
> make myself clear? and (b) I just couldn't be arsed.
The spelling "Hermionë" would likely have prevented the Her-me/my-own
> make myself clear? and (b) I just couldn't be arsed.
reading mentioned elsethread. It's too late for some, though, e.g. the
name Irene, which is always disyllabic IME.
--
Odysseus
James Silverton
May 25, 2013, 4:21:33 PM5/25/13
to
how the name of Galsworthy's heroine seems to be pronounced and what was
used in the very successful dramtization of "The Forsyte Saga".
--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
Extraneous "not." in Reply To.
![Peter Duncanson [BrE]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjU1GGYFBCZgBCNB-pRgkosMu-ej0qpnECw3jc8uGYOTiF8a=s40-c)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
May 25, 2013, 6:39:11 PM5/25/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 14:00:32 -0600, Odysseus
<odysseu...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
>In article <b0aitn...@mid.individual.net>,
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
>> On 24/05/13 8:38 PM, Berkeley Brett wrote:
>> > I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>
><snip>
>
>> > So, my question is, how does English get by with so few diacritical
>> > marks?
>>
>> My feeling is that it doesn't get by very well, and that words like
>> caf�, r�sum�, na�f, etc. need them, but a large number of English
<odysseu...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
>In article <b0aitn...@mid.individual.net>,
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
>> On 24/05/13 8:38 PM, Berkeley Brett wrote:
>> > I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>
><snip>
>
>> > So, my question is, how does English get by with so few diacritical
>> > marks?
>>
>> My feeling is that it doesn't get by very well, and that words like
>> speakers feel (a) why should I be bothered with foreign muck just to
>> make myself clear? and (b) I just couldn't be arsed.
>
>The spelling "Hermion�" would likely have prevented the Her-me/my-own
>> make myself clear? and (b) I just couldn't be arsed.
>
>reading mentioned elsethread. It's too late for some, though, e.g. the
>name Irene, which is always disyllabic IME.
The English actress Irene Handl was a trisyllabic Irene.
>name Irene, which is always disyllabic IME.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irene_Handl
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Robert Bannister
May 25, 2013, 8:13:34 PM5/25/13
to
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
May 25, 2013, 8:15:18 PM5/25/13
to
--
Robert Bannister
Robin Bignall
May 25, 2013, 9:09:28 PM5/25/13
to
quality of the units was extremely high, but they did not have their own
installers; they subcontracted installation to any cowboy outfit that
was local to the customer. The local idiots installed our dishwasher
next to a wall that had a radiator a couple of feet away so that you
couldn't open its door, and they were incapable of assembling the
drawers. We complained, and the area supervisor brought in a team to
uninstall the units and reinstall them properly. This time around we
chose Wickes; half the price, same quality.
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England (BrE)
Swifty
May 26, 2013, 2:32:52 AM5/26/13
to
On 25/05/2013 21:00, Odysseus wrote:
> The spelling "Hermionë" would likely have prevented
It would probably have rescued my wife, who never encountered the name
> The spelling "Hermionë" would likely have prevented
in written form before reading it in Harry Potter. She thought the name
was "Hermi-one".
I'm not being scornful. Reading books on trees and shrubs, I encountered
the "Cotton-Easter" — Cotoneaster — and used that pronunciation in my
head until my wife poured scorn on me at Westonbirt Arboretum, when I
encountered one with a label, and read it aloud.
fabzorba
May 26, 2013, 4:44:10 AM5/26/13
to
On 25 May, 07:12, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> Excepting of course the glorious umlaut on Münster cheeese,
when you said that?
>
> Excepting of course the glorious umlaut on Münster cheeese,
> (which shouldn't be there)
>
Speaking of "shouldn't be there", was someone taking a photo of you
>
when you said that?
fabzorba
May 26, 2013, 5:21:41 AM5/26/13
to
I am quite surprised that no one has made any comment on the very
quintessence of the matter.
1. Look at the following words:
tough, through, thorough, sough, cough.
2.Note the way in which the "ough" in each is pronounced differently
to the others.
3. Now tell me where are the umlauts, diereses, accents grave and
acute, and ligatures to signify how each is to be correctly
pronounced.
There are none, are there? So tell me why we should clog up our
keyboards with special symbols to disambiguate between pronunciations
far more subtle than the above? And why should we clog up our schools
re-introducing such symbols to take up firstly the time of teachers
who will have to be taught them all over again, and then the time of
the students who they must bore with this irrelevant slop? If we were
to be consistent with this, then the whole of English would have
special symbols above and below in just about every word. And for no
purpose.
Do not we all pronounce ''cooperate'' properly even without a dieresis
above the second o? Who amongst us talks of ''naves'' when they see
''naive''? Don't we all pronounce ''genre'' with complete finesse,
honking like some Gallic goose with a cold? And Sweet Mystery! How can
we do that when the word has no special signs to tell us how to do it?
And why on Earth would we want to resurrect the dinosaur of the
ligature in ''encyclopedia'' when there are scores of other words
which we use all the time, with exactly the same pronunciation, and
which have never been shackled to each other in this way?
To reintroduce these fossils reminds me of moves by some Britons to
reclaim the billion as a million million. There are very good reasons
why we and the world in general have opted for the American practice
in this case, and there are excellent reasons why we should get rid of
the few unsightly moles which still infect English today. If we can
write Muenchen for Munich, why then superfroupers, make a good fist
and tell me this – what is wrong with animay, exposay, lamay, and
soufflay? And surely we can do something with that unpronounceable
''genre''?
quintessence of the matter.
1. Look at the following words:
tough, through, thorough, sough, cough.
2.Note the way in which the "ough" in each is pronounced differently
to the others.
3. Now tell me where are the umlauts, diereses, accents grave and
acute, and ligatures to signify how each is to be correctly
pronounced.
There are none, are there? So tell me why we should clog up our
keyboards with special symbols to disambiguate between pronunciations
far more subtle than the above? And why should we clog up our schools
re-introducing such symbols to take up firstly the time of teachers
who will have to be taught them all over again, and then the time of
the students who they must bore with this irrelevant slop? If we were
to be consistent with this, then the whole of English would have
special symbols above and below in just about every word. And for no
purpose.
Do not we all pronounce ''cooperate'' properly even without a dieresis
above the second o? Who amongst us talks of ''naves'' when they see
''naive''? Don't we all pronounce ''genre'' with complete finesse,
honking like some Gallic goose with a cold? And Sweet Mystery! How can
we do that when the word has no special signs to tell us how to do it?
And why on Earth would we want to resurrect the dinosaur of the
ligature in ''encyclopedia'' when there are scores of other words
which we use all the time, with exactly the same pronunciation, and
which have never been shackled to each other in this way?
To reintroduce these fossils reminds me of moves by some Britons to
reclaim the billion as a million million. There are very good reasons
why we and the world in general have opted for the American practice
in this case, and there are excellent reasons why we should get rid of
the few unsightly moles which still infect English today. If we can
write Muenchen for Munich, why then superfroupers, make a good fist
and tell me this – what is wrong with animay, exposay, lamay, and
soufflay? And surely we can do something with that unpronounceable
''genre''?
Jerry Friedman
May 26, 2013, 10:30:31 AM5/26/13
to
read this poem:
http://www.recmusic.org/lieder/get_text.html?TextId=29625
I still had trouble believing it wasn't "cotton-easter", though.
("Crumb-outcaster"? Really, Tom.)
--
Jerry Friedman
Evan Kirshenbaum
May 26, 2013, 12:30:48 PM5/26/13
to
yesterday had "brätwurst" on the menu.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Ye knowe ek, that in forme of speche
SF Bay Area (1982-) | is chaunge
Chicago (1964-1982) |Withinne a thousand yer, and wordes
| tho
evan.kir...@gmail.com |That hadden prys now wonder nyce and
| straunge
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |Us thenketh hem, and yet they spake
| hem so
| Chaucer
Walter P. Zähl
May 26, 2013, 12:37:38 PM5/26/13
to
Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> writes:
>
>> On 25/05/13 4:30 PM, Guy Barry wrote:
>>> On May 25, 6:30 am, Swifty <steve.j.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 24/05/2013 22:12, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Excepting of course the glorious umlaut on M nster cheeese,
>>>>> (which shouldn't be there)
>>>>
>>>> You remind me of the umlaut in the kitchen fitters, M ben (a company
>>>> with no obvious connections with Germany). They were ordered to remove
>>>> it, but I've seen it making a comeback in the past few years.
>>>
>>> Really? The company was closed down in 2011:
>>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/06/557-staff-axed-by-moben-kitchens-administrators
>>
>> If only they had kept that umlaut they'd doubtlessly still be in business.
>
> I found one of the missing umlauts. The restaurant I had lunch at
> yesterday had "brätwurst" on the menu.
Incidentally, this should be the correct spelling of the German word as
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> writes:
>
>> On 25/05/13 4:30 PM, Guy Barry wrote:
>>> On May 25, 6:30 am, Swifty <steve.j.sw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 24/05/2013 22:12, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Excepting of course the glorious umlaut on M nster cheeese,
>>>>> (which shouldn't be there)
>>>>
>>>> You remind me of the umlaut in the kitchen fitters, M ben (a company
>>>> with no obvious connections with Germany). They were ordered to remove
>>>> it, but I've seen it making a comeback in the past few years.
>>>
>>> Really? The company was closed down in 2011:
>>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/06/557-staff-axed-by-moben-kitchens-administrators
>>
>> If only they had kept that umlaut they'd doubtlessly still be in business.
>
> I found one of the missing umlauts. The restaurant I had lunch at
> yesterday had "brätwurst" on the menu.
well.
The minced meat that goes into bratwurst is called "Brät", with the umlaut.
/Walter
Christian Weisgerber
May 26, 2013, 1:10:08 PM5/26/13
to
Berkeley Brett <roya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ... In older practice (and even among some orthographically conservative
> modern writers) one may see examples such as ï¿œlite and rï¿œle.
> ... In older practice (and even among some orthographically conservative
>
> English speakers and writers once used the diaeresis more often than now
> in words such as coï¿œperation (from Fr. coopï¿œration), zoï¿œlogy (from Grk.
> English speakers and writers once used the diaeresis more often than now
> zoologia), and seeï¿œr (now more commonly see-er), but this practice has
> become far less common; The New Yorker magazine is one of the few major
> publications that still use it.
>
> A few English words can only be distinguished from others by a diacritic
> or modified letter, including animￜ, exposￜ, lamￜ, matￜ, ￜre, ￜre, pￜtￜ,
> publications that still use it.
>
> A few English words can only be distinguished from others by a diacritic
> piquￜ, rosￜ, and soufflￜ.
Most "English" words with diacritics are loanwords from foreign
languages where the diacritics of the original language are simply
preserved in the English spelling.
The only somewhat natively used diacritc is the diaeresis in words
like "coￜperation" and "reￜlection". "Animￜ" and "sakￜ" would also
count, but I just don't see them in the wild.
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
May 26, 2013, 2:38:35 PM5/26/13
to
Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>
> The only somewhat natively used diacritc is the diaeresis in words
> like "co�peration" and "re�lection". "Anim�" and "sak�" would also
>
> The only somewhat natively used diacritc is the diaeresis in words
> count, but I just don't see them in the wild.
>
How about "learn�d" and "belov�d"?
>
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
Curlytop
May 26, 2013, 2:39:21 PM5/26/13
to
Christian Weisgerber set the following eddies spiralling through the
space-time continuum:
> The only somewhat natively used diacritc is the diaeresis in words
> like "coöperation" and "reëlection". "Animé" and "saké" would also
named the hydrocarbon of formula C8H16 where the eight carbon atoms form a
ring. I found cycloöctane, cyclo-octane and /cyclo/octane (the last one
means that the prefix "cyclo" was in italics, the "octane" in upright
letters).
You pays your £34.99 net and you takes your choice.
--
ξ: ) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
space-time continuum:
> The only somewhat natively used diacritc is the diaeresis in words
> count, but I just don't see them in the wild.
I once checked three different organic chemistry textbooks to see how they
named the hydrocarbon of formula C8H16 where the eight carbon atoms form a
ring. I found cycloöctane, cyclo-octane and /cyclo/octane (the last one
means that the prefix "cyclo" was in italics, the "octane" in upright
letters).
You pays your £34.99 net and you takes your choice.
--
ξ: ) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Christian Weisgerber
May 26, 2013, 1:29:36 PM5/26/13
to
Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> So, my question is, how does English get by with so few diacritical marks?
> >> So, my question is, how does English get by with so few diacritical marks?
> There are so many distinct pronunciations that no system of
> diacriticals would work for all English-speakers.
There are so many distinct pronunciations that no system of spelling
> diacriticals would work for all English-speakers.
would work for all English speakers. Oh, wait.
> It seems, too, that the culture is uncomfortable with imposed
> standardisation in any sphere.
one that was asked.
Curlytop
May 26, 2013, 4:30:10 PM5/26/13
to
Berkeley Brett set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:
> English is one of the few European languages that does not have many words
> that contain diacritical marks....
The only other one I can think of is Dutch.
Even Welsh has its tô-bach (literally "little roof") used to mark a long
vowel and for disambiguation purposes.
At the opposite end of the scale is probably Vietnamese. Why does that
tongue need so *many* diacritics?
continuum:
> English is one of the few European languages that does not have many words
> that contain diacritical marks....
Even Welsh has its tô-bach (literally "little roof") used to mark a long
vowel and for disambiguation purposes.
At the opposite end of the scale is probably Vietnamese. Why does that
tongue need so *many* diacritics?
James Silverton
May 26, 2013, 4:38:49 PM5/26/13
to
On 5/26/2013 4:30 PM, Curlytop wrote:
> Berkeley Brett set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
> continuum:
>
>> English is one of the few European languages that does not have many words
>> that contain diacritical marks....
>
> The only other one I can think of is Dutch.
>
> Even Welsh has its tô-bach (literally "little roof") used to mark a long
> vowel and for disambiguation purposes.
>
> At the opposite end of the scale is probably Vietnamese. Why does that
> tongue need so *many* diacritics?
>
Thinking about it, ASCII IPA can be regarded as lacking diacritics, can
> Berkeley Brett set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
> continuum:
>
>> English is one of the few European languages that does not have many words
>> that contain diacritical marks....
>
> The only other one I can think of is Dutch.
>
> Even Welsh has its tô-bach (literally "little roof") used to mark a long
> vowel and for disambiguation purposes.
>
> At the opposite end of the scale is probably Vietnamese. Why does that
> tongue need so *many* diacritics?
>
it not?
R H Draney
May 26, 2013, 4:45:35 PM5/26/13
to
Curlytop filted:
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>Christian Weisgerber set the following eddies spiralling through the
>space-time continuum:
>
>> The only somewhat natively used diacritc is the diaeresis in words
>> like "coöperation" and "reëlection". "Animé" and "saké" would also
>> count, but I just don't see them in the wild.
>
>I once checked three different organic chemistry textbooks to see how they
>named the hydrocarbon of formula C8H16 where the eight carbon atoms form a
>ring. I found cycloöctane, cyclo-octane and /cyclo/octane (the last one
>means that the prefix "cyclo" was in italics, the "octane" in upright
>letters).
>
>You pays your £34.99 net and you takes your choice.
Something has to be done with "paleooology", the study of old eggs....r
>Christian Weisgerber set the following eddies spiralling through the
>space-time continuum:
>
>> The only somewhat natively used diacritc is the diaeresis in words
>> like "coöperation" and "reëlection". "Animé" and "saké" would also
>> count, but I just don't see them in the wild.
>
>I once checked three different organic chemistry textbooks to see how they
>named the hydrocarbon of formula C8H16 where the eight carbon atoms form a
>ring. I found cycloöctane, cyclo-octane and /cyclo/octane (the last one
>means that the prefix "cyclo" was in italics, the "octane" in upright
>letters).
>
>You pays your £34.99 net and you takes your choice.
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Christian Weisgerber
May 26, 2013, 3:35:50 PM5/26/13
to
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In fact, about the only word that I see other people use, on occasions,
> with an accent, is resumￜ.
That should be "rￜsumￜ", but I understand why the first acute is
rather less pressing to English speakers than the second one.
> In fact, about the only word that I see other people use, on occasions,
> with an accent, is resumￜ.
That should be "rￜsumￜ", but I understand why the first acute is
rather less pressing to English speakers than the second one.
Christian Weisgerber
May 26, 2013, 3:33:39 PM5/26/13
to
Berkeley Brett <roya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, my question is, how does English get by with so few diacritical marks?
Poorly, would be the glib answer.
> So, my question is, how does English get by with so few diacritical marks?
Another answer might point out that there actually are a number of
letters in the English alphabet that weren't in the original Latin
one, that English speakers have simply defined these as normal, and
over the last decades the rest of world has more or less come to
accept this.
Let's take a step back.
The Latin alphabet was designed to represent one language, Latin.
(That's not really true. The Ancient Roman's Latin alphabet was
already a somewhat labored adaptation of an Etrusco-Graecan alphabet
and not a precise match for Latin. But for argument's sake we can
pretend that it fit the language perfectly.)
So whenever people started using the Latin alphabet to write down
a language that was not Latin, and that distinguished different
sounds or more sounds than Latin did, they had a problem. They
came up with three basic solutions:
* Invent a new letter. You know, like ￜ and ￜ. Old English used
to have a few of these, but they fell out of use.
* Use a digraph or trigraph, i.e., assign a special meaning to the
combination of two or three letters, like <sh> or <th>. We are
so accustomed to this that we don't even realize what a strange
kludge it is.
* Add diacritics to an existing letter, e.g., make e, ￜ, ￜ stand
for [@], [e], and [E].
Most orthographies make use of more than one of those.
The three basic approaches also shade into each other in all
directions. To you, <ￜ> may be <a> with a diacritic. To a Swede,
it's a totally separate letter, the same way we consider C and G
to be different, although the latter started out as a modified
version of the former.
Various diacritics started out as digraphs or when one letter was
written on top or under another (nn > ￜ, ae > ￜ, cz > ￜ). A digraph
can also, by way of a ligature, turn into a new letter: <vv> became
<w>. This W is actually an exotic letter. Natively it is only
used in English, German, and Polish (and minor languages whose
orthography was modeled on those). Elsewhere it only pops up in
English loanwords like <whisky>. Chalk it up to Anglo-American
cultural hegemony if people accept it as a standard letter of the
Latin alphabet. Also, I/J and U/V used to be typographic variants
of the same letters, respectively, and were only split in Renaissance
times or thereabouts.
There are further orthographic tricks. You can use complex patterns,
e.g. English rod-rode, bit-bite, hat-hate, where a silent final -e
changes the vowel before the previous consonant--which is just
crazy, if you think about it. Then there is underspecification.
You simply leave it to the reader to figure out whether you meant
"read" or "read", or "present" or "present", or, systematically,
which <th> stands for [T] or [D] and which <s> for [s] or [z].
The Latin alphabet is a particular poor fit for languages rich in
vowels, like the Germanic languages, or those with distinctions
completely lacking in Latin, like palatalized vs. plain/velarized
consonants in Irish and some Balto-Slavic languages.
Diacritics are just one slice out of a complex set of workarounds
and the fact that English doesn't employ any while still making use
of other kludges is essentially a historical accident. (Somebody
with a better understanding of the development of English spelling
circa 15th century may want to jump in here.)
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
May 26, 2013, 6:08:03 PM5/26/13
to
Curlytop wrote:
>
[...]
- g�ne
- sc�ne, h�?
- h�!, ��n, voork�men, v��rkomen, bet�len!, d��r, m��, d��r
and many more.
>
[...]
>
>> English is one of the few European languages that does not have
>> many words that contain diacritical marks....
>
> The only other one I can think of is Dutch.
>
- vacu�m, moza�ek, ge�igend, knie�n
>> English is one of the few European languages that does not have
>> many words that contain diacritical marks....
>
> The only other one I can think of is Dutch.
>
- g�ne
- sc�ne, h�?
- h�!, ��n, voork�men, v��rkomen, bet�len!, d��r, m��, d��r
and many more.
David Hatunen
May 26, 2013, 6:29:25 PM5/26/13
to
On Sun, 26 May 2013 02:21:41 -0700 (PDT), fabzorba
<myles....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Do not we all pronounce ''cooperate'' properly even without a dieresis
>above the second o? Who amongst us talks of ''naves'' when they see
>''naive''? Don't we all pronounce ''genre'' with complete finesse,
>honking like some Gallic goose with a cold? And Sweet Mystery! How can
>we do that when the word has no special signs to tell us how to do it?
I believe many people refer to the local cooperative store the "coop",
<myles....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Do not we all pronounce ''cooperate'' properly even without a dieresis
>above the second o? Who amongst us talks of ''naves'' when they see
>''naive''? Don't we all pronounce ''genre'' with complete finesse,
>honking like some Gallic goose with a cold? And Sweet Mystery! How can
>we do that when the word has no special signs to tell us how to do it?
as in "chicken coop".
Guy Barry
May 27, 2013, 2:53:42 AM5/27/13
to
On May 26, 8:33 pm, na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
> This W is actually an exotic letter. Natively it is only
> used in English, German, and Polish (and minor languages whose
> orthography was modeled on those).
What about Welsh, where it's a vowel?
> This W is actually an exotic letter. Natively it is only
> used in English, German, and Polish (and minor languages whose
> orthography was modeled on those).
--
Guy Barry
J. J. Lodder
May 27, 2013, 4:01:38 AM5/27/13
to
Reinhold {Rey} Aman <am...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Curlytop wrote:
> >
> [...]
> >
> >> English is one of the few European languages that does not have
> >> many words that contain diacritical marks....
> >
> > The only other one I can think of is Dutch.
> >
> - vacu�m, moza�ek, ge�igend, knie�n
The trema is standard Dutch.
> Curlytop wrote:
> >
> [...]
> >
> >> English is one of the few European languages that does not have
> >> many words that contain diacritical marks....
> >
> > The only other one I can think of is Dutch.
> >
> - vacu�m, moza�ek, ge�igend, knie�n
The rule for it is that it is used whnever needed
because mispronunciation without ik iis likely.
The same would be useful in English too,
instead of writing books about "no zoo in zoology".
> - g�ne
> - sc�ne, h�?
in the long run.
H� is genuine.
> - h�!, ��n, voork�men, v��rkomen, bet�len!, d��r, m��, d��r
These are optional emphasis signs,
indicating in print that something was said,
(or should be said) with an emphasis there.
H��l Galli�?
Jan
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
May 27, 2013, 5:27:00 AM5/27/13
to
On Sun, 26 May 2013 16:38:49 -0400, James Silverton
<not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
>On 5/26/2013 4:30 PM, Curlytop wrote:
>> Berkeley Brett set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
>> continuum:
>>
>>> English is one of the few European languages that does not have many words
>>> that contain diacritical marks....
>>
>> The only other one I can think of is Dutch.
>>
>> Even Welsh has its t�-bach (literally "little roof") used to mark a long
<not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
>On 5/26/2013 4:30 PM, Curlytop wrote:
>> Berkeley Brett set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
>> continuum:
>>
>>> English is one of the few European languages that does not have many words
>>> that contain diacritical marks....
>>
>> The only other one I can think of is Dutch.
>>
>> vowel and for disambiguation purposes.
>>
>> At the opposite end of the scale is probably Vietnamese. Why does that
>> tongue need so *many* diacritics?
>>
>
>Thinking about it, ASCII IPA can be regarded as lacking diacritics, can
>it not?
I'm not sure. It does not have diacritics in the sense of symbols above
>>
>> At the opposite end of the scale is probably Vietnamese. Why does that
>> tongue need so *many* diacritics?
>>
>
>Thinking about it, ASCII IPA can be regarded as lacking diacritics, can
>it not?
or below a character, but is does have symbols that follow a letter and
perform the same function:
http://www.alt-usage-english.org/ipa/ascii_ipa_combined.shtml#others
- Previous consonant syllabic as in "bundle" /'bVnd@l/ or
/'bVndl-/, "button" /bVt@n/ or /bVtn-/
~ Previous vowel nasalised, or previous consonant velarised
: Previous sound lengthened
; Previous sound palatalised
<h> Previous sound aspirated
And of course there is "." which distinguished between the sounds /A/
and /A./ for instance.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
May 27, 2013, 11:35:42 AM5/27/13
to
On 2013-05-26 22:30:10 +0200, Curlytop <pvstownse...@ntlworld.com> said:
> Berkeley Brett set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
> continuum:
>
>> English is one of the few European languages that does not have many words
>> that contain diacritical marks....
>
> The only other one I can think of is Dutch.
Serbian doesn't have any (in its Cyrillic manifestation). I don't
> Berkeley Brett set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
> continuum:
>
>> English is one of the few European languages that does not have many words
>> that contain diacritical marks....
>
> The only other one I can think of is Dutch.
suppose they often write Croatian in Cyrillic nowadays, but when they
do it doesn't have any either. (Written in the Roman alphabet they both
have them.) It's a bit arguable what counts as a diacritical mark: does
the dot on an i count? A Turk would say yes, why not, but most others
would say no. Does the top of й in Russian count, or is й just a letter
in its own right? If you accept that it's a letter, then I don't think
Russian uses diacritical marks except in stuff for children and Russian
learners.
>
> Even Welsh has its tô-bach (literally "little roof") used to mark a long
> vowel and for disambiguation purposes.
>
> At the opposite end of the scale is probably Vietnamese. Why does that
> tongue need so *many* diacritics?
I think it's because they want to mark the tones. Chinese rivals
> Even Welsh has its tô-bach (literally "little roof") used to mark a long
> vowel and for disambiguation purposes.
>
> At the opposite end of the scale is probably Vietnamese. Why does that
> tongue need so *many* diacritics?
Vietnamese if you write it in Pinyin, and it's for that reason.
--
athel
Christian Weisgerber
May 27, 2013, 10:56:28 AM5/27/13
to
Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > This W is actually an exotic letter. �Natively it is only
> > used in English, German, and Polish (and minor languages whose
> > orthography was modeled on those).
>
> What about Welsh, where it's a vowel?
I forgot Dutch.
> > This W is actually an exotic letter. �Natively it is only
> > used in English, German, and Polish (and minor languages whose
> > orthography was modeled on those).
>
> What about Welsh, where it's a vowel?
Welsh I'm inclined to dismiss as a minor language influenced by its
close contact with English, although that particular use is obviously
not patterned after English. Does anybody know its origin? Does
it continue earlier "uu" or was it a case of we need another letter,
let's pick a random unused one?
Christian Weisgerber
May 27, 2013, 11:41:20 AM5/27/13
to
Curlytop <pvstownse...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> At the opposite end of the scale is probably Vietnamese. Why does that
> tongue need so *many* diacritics?
Because its phonology makes distinctions ye olde Latin did not.
> At the opposite end of the scale is probably Vietnamese. Why does that
> tongue need so *many* diacritics?
Vietnamese distinguishes eleven simple vowels, which is rather more
than the five or six the Latin alphabet is equipped for, so you
already get diacritics on some basic vowels. On top of that, the
language has six tones, something the basic Latin alphabet has no
way to handle at all.
You have an inventory of sixty-six simple vowel phonemes. Do you
think it would be easier to represent that with di- and trigraphs?
James Hogg
May 27, 2013, 2:05:35 PM5/27/13
to
that the same letter represents a vowel and a semivowel. At the front
the letter "i" is both the vocalic [i] and consonantal [j]. At the
front the letter "w" is both the vocalic [u] and consonantal [w]. You
might ask why they didn't use "u" for the two functions of "w". That was
because they chose to keep it for the [y] sound into which [u] often
developed (later [i]).
--
James
Curlytop
May 27, 2013, 2:55:59 PM5/27/13
to
R H Draney set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
Best to ask somebody from Invernessshire, or is that Inverness-shire?
James Silverton
May 27, 2013, 4:02:48 PM5/27/13
to
English dialect. There would be 30 vowel sounds represented by a, e, i,
o. u and all their digraphs, rather more using /r/.
Bob Cunningham's http://alt-usage-english.org/ipa/nutshell.shtml lists
only 17 different vowel sounds for US English but to deal with all
dialects you might need to use ASCII IPA.
Phonetic spelling might fix the language and that is not proven to be a
real advantage, in my opinion.
Christian Weisgerber
May 27, 2013, 3:08:24 PM5/27/13
to
Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> English is one of the few European languages that does not have many words
> >> that contain diacritical marks....
> >
> > The only other one I can think of is Dutch.
>
> Serbian doesn't have any (in its Cyrillic manifestation). I don't
> suppose they often write Croatian in Cyrillic nowadays, but when they
> do it doesn't have any either.
When Vuk Karadžić established the current version of the Serbian
> >> English is one of the few European languages that does not have many words
> >> that contain diacritical marks....
> >
> > The only other one I can think of is Dutch.
>
> Serbian doesn't have any (in its Cyrillic manifestation). I don't
> suppose they often write Croatian in Cyrillic nowadays, but when they
> do it doesn't have any either.
Cyrillic alphabet, he invented several new letters: Ђ Љ Њ Ћ.
(I would have guessed Џ as well, but Wikipedia says it's older.)
> It's a bit arguable what counts as a diacritical mark:
written without diacritics, although a few pop up in loanwords and
personal names.
> Does the top of й in Russian count, or is й just a letter
> in its own right? If you accept that it's a letter, then I don't think
> Russian uses diacritical marks except in stuff for children and Russian
> learners.
but again, diacritic or letter in its own right?
Mike L
May 27, 2013, 4:25:00 PM5/27/13
to
On Mon, 27 May 2013 14:56:28 +0000 (UTC), na...@mips.inka.de
(Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
>Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> > This W is actually an exotic letter. �Natively it is only
>> > used in English, German, and Polish (and minor languages whose
>> > orthography was modeled on those).
>>
>> What about Welsh, where it's a vowel?
>
>I forgot Dutch.
>
>Welsh I'm inclined to dismiss as a minor language influenced by its
>close contact with English,
What a dickhead!
(Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
>Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> > This W is actually an exotic letter. �Natively it is only
>> > used in English, German, and Polish (and minor languages whose
>> > orthography was modeled on those).
>>
>> What about Welsh, where it's a vowel?
>
>I forgot Dutch.
>
>Welsh I'm inclined to dismiss as a minor language influenced by its
>close contact with English,
>although that particular use is obviously
>not patterned after English. Does anybody know its origin? Does
>it continue earlier "uu" or was it a case of we need another letter,
>let's pick a random unused one?
--
R H Draney
May 27, 2013, 6:59:04 PM5/27/13
to
Christian Weisgerber filted:
combinations thereof that simply don't occur in speech?...r
>
>Vietnamese distinguishes eleven simple vowels, which is rather more
>than the five or six the Latin alphabet is equipped for, so you
>already get diacritics on some basic vowels. On top of that, the
>language has six tones, something the basic Latin alphabet has no
>way to handle at all.
>
>You have an inventory of sixty-six simple vowel phonemes. Do you
>think it would be easier to represent that with di- and trigraphs?
Are the eleven vowels and six tones fully orthogonal, or are there some
>Vietnamese distinguishes eleven simple vowels, which is rather more
>than the five or six the Latin alphabet is equipped for, so you
>already get diacritics on some basic vowels. On top of that, the
>language has six tones, something the basic Latin alphabet has no
>way to handle at all.
>
>You have an inventory of sixty-six simple vowel phonemes. Do you
>think it would be easier to represent that with di- and trigraphs?
combinations thereof that simply don't occur in speech?...r
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Christian Weisgerber
May 28, 2013, 9:59:49 AM5/28/13
to
R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
[Vietnamese]
Vietnamese also has a number of diphthongs and triphthongs; if I
understand correctly, these carry a single tone.
[Vietnamese]
> >You have an inventory of sixty-six simple vowel phonemes. Do you
> >think it would be easier to represent that with di- and trigraphs?
>
> Are the eleven vowels and six tones fully orthogonal,
Apparently so.
> >think it would be easier to represent that with di- and trigraphs?
>
> Are the eleven vowels and six tones fully orthogonal,
Vietnamese also has a number of diphthongs and triphthongs; if I
understand correctly, these carry a single tone.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
May 28, 2013, 11:38:50 AM5/28/13
to
Хрущев (and propaganda from the Soviet Embassy in London wrote him in
English as Khrushchov, though I don't think anyone else did), not as
Хрущёв; similarly with Горбачев. (Google Translate agrees, for what
it's worth). When I took Russian at school we were told that we
wouldn't find ё in ordinary Russian text for adults. I've looked at
some longish stretches of Russian on Russian web sites today without
any instances of ё, but many of й. That doesn't of course mean that
instances of ё don't exist, only that I haven't found them. However, my
recollection is that ещё, for example, is quite a common word, so one
might expect to find examples of it.
Correction: ещё does occur at http://www.kinopoisk.ru/film/38898/, so
you are right that ё is used sometimes.
--
athel
James Silverton
May 28, 2013, 1:09:54 PM5/28/13
to
language and then proceeded to demonstrate the falsehood by reading some
aloud. Nevertheless, I learned enough Russian to make my way around the
scientific literature but so much of it was rapidly translated that I
got little practice in Russian and have forgotten most of it.
Christian Weisgerber
May 28, 2013, 1:45:36 PM5/28/13
to
Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> When I took Russian at school we were told that we
> wouldn't find ё in ordinary Russian text for adults.
IIRC, we were told that it was highly optional.
> When I took Russian at school we were told that we
> wouldn't find ё in ordinary Russian text for adults.
> I've looked at some longish stretches of Russian on Russian web
> sites today without any instances of ё, but many of й.
is not optional. (BTW, the Belarusian alphabet has й but no и.)
> That doesn't of course mean that
> instances of ё don't exist, only that I haven't found them. However, my
> recollection is that ещё, for example, is quite a common word, so one
> might expect to find examples of it.
feminine third person singular personal pronoun and also used as
an invariable possessive. (In English terms: "her".)
> Correction: ещё does occur at http://www.kinopoisk.ru/film/38898/, so
> you are right that ё is used sometimes.
matching, exclude ru.wikipedia.org as pedantic, and you'll still
drown in results.
R H Draney
May 28, 2013, 6:18:01 PM5/28/13
to
Christian Weisgerber filted:
>
>The most common one should be eë, the accusative-genitive of the
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE0OGkCFQjw
....r
>
>The most common one should be eë, the accusative-genitive of the
>feminine third person singular personal pronoun and also used as
>an invariable possessive. (In English terms: "her".)
I wonder why one of the background singers kept saying it on this record:
>an invariable possessive. (In English terms: "her".)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE0OGkCFQjw
....r
Peter Moylan
May 26, 2013, 9:41:28 PM5/26/13
to
On 25/05/13 11:36, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 24/05/13 8:38 PM, Berkeley Brett wrote:
>> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>>
>> In the interesting Wikipedia article on diacritical marks
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diacritic
>>
>> we find the following (in the section titled "English"):
>>
>> === begin quoted text ===
>> conservative modern writers) one may see examples such as élite and
>> rôle.
>>
>> English speakers and writers once used the diaeresis more often than
>> now in words such as coöperation (from Fr. coopération), zoölogy
>> (from Grk. zoologia), and seeër (now more commonly see-er), but this
>> practice has become far less common; The New Yorker magazine is one
>> of the few major publications that still use it.
>>
>> A few English words can only be distinguished from others by a
>> diacritic or modified letter, including animé, exposé, lamé, maté,
>> öre, øre, pâté, piqué, rosé, and soufflé.
>>
>> === end quoted text ===
>>
>> In the Wikipedia article referenced, there is also an extensive
>> section on "Languages with letters containing diacritics."
>>
>> And there is a related article, "English terms with diacritical
>> marks"
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_terms_with_diacritical_marks
> café, résumé, naïf, etc. need them, but a large number of English
> speakers feel (a) why should I be bothered with foreign muck just to
> make myself clear? and (b) I just couldn't be arsed.
>
> Some English speakers have similar ideas about a whole range of
> unfamiliar ideas. Come to think of it, it's not entirely confined to
> English speakers.
There's never a problem with cafe, because there's no other English word
with which it can be confused.
Résumé is tricky, I concede, but the problem with using the accents is
that some people end up using the second one and ignoring the first,
which makes them look ignorant. This is not a good thing to do when
applying for a job.
How often do we need naïf? The version that's fully naturalised into
English is the feminine form "naive", and I don't know anyone who uses a
trema when writing that word in English.
(You will observe that my "trema" is also naked of accents. That's not
laziness, it's because I'm writing in English.)
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
> On 24/05/13 8:38 PM, Berkeley Brett wrote:
>> I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
>>
>> In the interesting Wikipedia article on diacritical marks
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diacritic
>>
>> we find the following (in the section titled "English"):
>>
>> === begin quoted text ===
>>
>> English is one of the few European languages that does not have many
>> words that contain diacritical marks....
>>
>> ... In older practice (and even among some orthographically
>> English is one of the few European languages that does not have many
>> words that contain diacritical marks....
>>
>> conservative modern writers) one may see examples such as élite and
>> rôle.
>>
>> English speakers and writers once used the diaeresis more often than
>> now in words such as coöperation (from Fr. coopération), zoölogy
>> (from Grk. zoologia), and seeër (now more commonly see-er), but this
>> practice has become far less common; The New Yorker magazine is one
>> of the few major publications that still use it.
>>
>> A few English words can only be distinguished from others by a
>> diacritic or modified letter, including animé, exposé, lamé, maté,
>> öre, øre, pâté, piqué, rosé, and soufflé.
>>
>> === end quoted text ===
>>
>> In the Wikipedia article referenced, there is also an extensive
>> section on "Languages with letters containing diacritics."
>>
>> And there is a related article, "English terms with diacritical
>> marks"
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_terms_with_diacritical_marks
>>
>> So, my question is, how does English get by with so few diacritical
>> marks?
>
> My feeling is that it doesn't get by very well, and that words like
>> So, my question is, how does English get by with so few diacritical
>> marks?
>
> café, résumé, naïf, etc. need them, but a large number of English
> speakers feel (a) why should I be bothered with foreign muck just to
> make myself clear? and (b) I just couldn't be arsed.
>
> Some English speakers have similar ideas about a whole range of
> unfamiliar ideas. Come to think of it, it's not entirely confined to
> English speakers.
There's never a problem with cafe, because there's no other English word
with which it can be confused.
Résumé is tricky, I concede, but the problem with using the accents is
that some people end up using the second one and ignoring the first,
which makes them look ignorant. This is not a good thing to do when
applying for a job.
How often do we need naïf? The version that's fully naturalised into
English is the feminine form "naive", and I don't know anyone who uses a
trema when writing that word in English.
(You will observe that my "trema" is also naked of accents. That's not
laziness, it's because I'm writing in English.)
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
John Holmes
May 29, 2013, 8:04:28 AM5/29/13
to
R H Draney wrote:
>
> Something has to be done with "paleooology", the study of old
> eggs....r
It would have to be pal�o��logy, wouldn't it?
>
> Something has to be done with "paleooology", the study of old
> eggs....r
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
John Holmes
May 29, 2013, 8:13:02 AM5/29/13
to
Curlytop wrote:
> At the opposite end of the scale is probably Vietnamese. Why does that
> tongue need so *many* diacritics?
The Vietnamese blame it on some Portuguese monks who invented their roman
> At the opposite end of the scale is probably Vietnamese. Why does that
> tongue need so *many* diacritics?
alphabet spelling system.
Message has been deleted
Athel Cornish-Bowden
May 29, 2013, 9:53:40 AM5/29/13
to
On 2013-05-26 20:39:21 +0200, Curlytop <pvstownse...@ntlworld.com> said:
> Christian Weisgerber set the following eddies spiralling through the
> space-time continuum:
>
>> The only somewhat natively used diacritc is the diaeresis in words
>> like "coöperation" and "reëlection". "Animé" and "saké" would also
>> count, but I just don't see them in the wild.
>
> I once checked three different organic chemistry textbooks to see how they
> named the hydrocarbon of formula C8H16 where the eight carbon atoms form a
> ring. I found cycloöctane, cyclo-octane and /cyclo/octane (the last one
> means that the prefix "cyclo" was in italics, the "octane" in upright
> letters).
I wouldn't put either a hyphen or a diaeresis in that, any more than I
> Christian Weisgerber set the following eddies spiralling through the
> space-time continuum:
>
>> The only somewhat natively used diacritc is the diaeresis in words
>> like "coöperation" and "reëlection". "Animé" and "saké" would also
>> count, but I just don't see them in the wild.
>
> I once checked three different organic chemistry textbooks to see how they
> named the hydrocarbon of formula C8H16 where the eight carbon atoms form a
> ring. I found cycloöctane, cyclo-octane and /cyclo/octane (the last one
> means that the prefix "cyclo" was in italics, the "octane" in upright
> letters).
would put one (or two) in cyclooctatetraene, and I wouldn't italicize
anything (the IUPAC Blue Book doesn't). People who know some chemistry
don't need help for knowing where the syllables start (any more than
they need help for knowing that periodic acid and the periodic table
contain two unrelated words spelt the same but pronounced quite
differently).
--
athel
Swifty
May 29, 2013, 2:00:52 PM5/29/13
to
On 26/05/2013 10:21, fabzorba wrote:
> And why should we clog up our schools
> re-introducing such symbols to take up firstly the time of teachers
> who will have to be taught them all over again
With the loss of the possessive apostrophe, and almost extinction of the
semicolon, I'm afraid the re-introduction of diacritical marks is a lost
cause.
--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/
> And why should we clog up our schools
> re-introducing such symbols to take up firstly the time of teachers
> who will have to be taught them all over again
With the loss of the possessive apostrophe, and almost extinction of the
semicolon, I'm afraid the re-introduction of diacritical marks is a lost
cause.
--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/
Swifty
May 29, 2013, 2:03:55 PM5/29/13
to
On 26/05/2013 19:38, Reinhold {Rey} Aman wrote:
> How about "learn�d" and "belov�d"?
Touch�!
> How about "learn�d" and "belov�d"?
Touch�!
Whiskers
May 30, 2013, 5:29:20 PM5/30/13
to
On 2013-05-28, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <e235q8pkoht8atd1i...@4ax.com>
> David Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 02:21:41 -0700 (PDT), fabzorba
>> <myles....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Do not we all pronounce ''cooperate'' properly even without a dieresis
>>>above the second o? Who amongst us talks of ''naves'' when they see
>>>''naive''? Don't we all pronounce ''genre'' with complete finesse,
>>>honking like some Gallic goose with a cold? And Sweet Mystery! How can
>>>we do that when the word has no special signs to tell us how to do it?
>
>> I believe many people refer to the local cooperative store the "coop",
>> as in "chicken coop".
>
> Really? I've only heard it pronounced coöp, even though it is always
> spelt coop.
Apart from when it's spelt co-op, as in
<http://www.co-operativebank.co.uk/>
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
> In message <e235q8pkoht8atd1i...@4ax.com>
> David Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 02:21:41 -0700 (PDT), fabzorba
>> <myles....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Do not we all pronounce ''cooperate'' properly even without a dieresis
>>>above the second o? Who amongst us talks of ''naves'' when they see
>>>''naive''? Don't we all pronounce ''genre'' with complete finesse,
>>>honking like some Gallic goose with a cold? And Sweet Mystery! How can
>>>we do that when the word has no special signs to tell us how to do it?
>
>> I believe many people refer to the local cooperative store the "coop",
>> as in "chicken coop".
>
> Really? I've only heard it pronounced coöp, even though it is always
> spelt coop.
Apart from when it's spelt co-op, as in
<http://www.co-operativebank.co.uk/>
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Whiskers
May 30, 2013, 5:42:50 PM5/30/13
to
On 2013-05-27, Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> On 25/05/13 11:36, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 24/05/13 8:38 PM, Berkeley Brett wrote:
[...]
> On 25/05/13 11:36, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 24/05/13 8:38 PM, Berkeley Brett wrote:
> There's never a problem with cafe, because there's no other English word
> with which it can be confused.
cafe (both being superior to the cafeteria and caff, of course).
> Résumé is tricky, I concede, but the problem with using the accents is
> that some people end up using the second one and ignoring the first,
> which makes them look ignorant. This is not a good thing to do when
> applying for a job.
> How often do we need naïf? The version that's fully naturalised into
> English is the feminine form "naive", and I don't know anyone who uses a
> trema when writing that word in English.
>
> (You will observe that my "trema" is also naked of accents. That's not
> laziness, it's because I'm writing in English.)
Whiskers
May 30, 2013, 6:20:52 PM5/30/13
to
On 2013-05-26, Christian Weisgerber <na...@mips.inka.de> wrote:
> Berkeley Brett <roya...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> Diacritics are just one slice out of a complex set of workarounds
> and the fact that English doesn't employ any while still making use
> of other kludges is essentially a historical accident. (Somebody
> with a better understanding of the development of English spelling
> circa 15th century may want to jump in here.)
My guess would have been stingy (or economical) printers wanting to make do
with just the basic (medieval) Latin type. But it seems that ancient
scribes are responsible for the absence of "accents"
<http://athenalearning.com/programs/the-adventure-of-english/the-evolution-of-the-english-alphabet>
> Berkeley Brett <roya...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> Diacritics are just one slice out of a complex set of workarounds
> and the fact that English doesn't employ any while still making use
> of other kludges is essentially a historical accident. (Somebody
> with a better understanding of the development of English spelling
> circa 15th century may want to jump in here.)
My guess would have been stingy (or economical) printers wanting to make do
with just the basic (medieval) Latin type. But it seems that ancient
scribes are responsible for the absence of "accents"
<http://athenalearning.com/programs/the-adventure-of-english/the-evolution-of-the-english-alphabet>
erilar
May 30, 2013, 7:26:02 PM5/30/13
to
English is so non-phonetic in pronunciation that diacritical marks would
only add to the confusion. 8-)
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
only add to the confusion. 8-)
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Skitt
May 30, 2013, 8:23:14 PM5/30/13
to
erilar wrote:
> English is so non-phonetic in pronunciation that diacritical marks would
> only add to the confusion. 8-)
>
Having grown up with a language that is both quite phonetic and uses
> English is so non-phonetic in pronunciation that diacritical marks would
> only add to the confusion. 8-)
>
diacritical marks, I agree.
I have to note, however, that in the earlier days of the Internet, there
was no way to apply diacritical marks to Latvian text, and leaving them
out did not cause any particularly great problems for most
correspondents. There was a system that some used, which was to put an
apostrophe after a letter that should have had a diacritical mark. That
worked pretty well, as any letter requiring such mark could have only
one particular type of a mark, and apostrophes are not used in Latvian.
The Latvian letters, as sometimes modified with diacritical marks, are:
ā č ē ģ ī ķ ļ ņ š ū ž (and formerly ō and ŗ).
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/main.html
Robert Bannister
May 30, 2013, 9:02:19 PM5/30/13
to
scribes knew any.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
May 30, 2013, 9:05:08 PM5/30/13
to
On 31/05/13 7:26 AM, erilar wrote:
> English is so non-phonetic in pronunciation that diacritical marks would
> only add to the confusion.
Well, that would be fun. Obviously, the way apostrophes are stuck in all
> English is so non-phonetic in pronunciation that diacritical marks would
> only add to the confusion.
over the place indicates that people feel a need to decorate their
words. Perhaps "kite" and "kit" could be spelt the same, but the first
one would have a little heart over the i.
--
Robert Bannister
Skitt
May 30, 2013, 9:16:12 PM5/30/13
to
Robert Bannister
May 30, 2013, 11:15:34 PM5/30/13
to
On 31/05/13 9:16 AM, Skitt wrote:
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>> erilar wrote:
>
>>> English is so non-phonetic in pronunciation that diacritical marks would
>>> only add to the confusion.
>>
>> Well, that would be fun. Obviously, the way apostrophes are stuck in all
>> over the place indicates that people feel a need to decorate their
>> words. Perhaps "kite" and "kit" could be spelt the same, but the first
>> one would have a little heart over the i.
>
> Actually, the first could be spelled "kaite".
>
"kait" ought to be sufficient, except that English can't decide whether
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>> erilar wrote:
>
>>> English is so non-phonetic in pronunciation that diacritical marks would
>>> only add to the confusion.
>>
>> Well, that would be fun. Obviously, the way apostrophes are stuck in all
>> over the place indicates that people feel a need to decorate their
>> words. Perhaps "kite" and "kit" could be spelt the same, but the first
>> one would have a little heart over the i.
>
> Actually, the first could be spelled "kaite".
>
"ai" is the sound of "height" or "hate". A silent e that changes the
sound of the letter 2 spaces back makes any diacritic seem sensible.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
May 30, 2013, 11:16:20 PM5/30/13
to
--
Robert Bannister
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
May 31, 2013, 1:38:42 AM5/31/13
to
Berkeley "Little Miss Sunshine" Brett keeps writing:
>
> "As always, your feedback is most welcome...."
and
> "Thank you in advance for anything you might care to share."
>
O.K., Sunny, since you keep on asking us for our feedback and thanking
us for sharing our thoughts:
Knock off your goddamn obnoxious goody-goody, ingratiating, saccharine introduction
>
> "I hope you're all well & in good spirits."
>
as well as your two above-cited cloying phrases.
Lemme *share* something else: Whenever you use any of your three pukey
sentences, may you suffer from severe anal leakage!
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
>
> "As always, your feedback is most welcome...."
and
> "Thank you in advance for anything you might care to share."
>
O.K., Sunny, since you keep on asking us for our feedback and thanking
us for sharing our thoughts:
Knock off your goddamn obnoxious goody-goody, ingratiating, saccharine introduction
>
> "I hope you're all well & in good spirits."
>
as well as your two above-cited cloying phrases.
Lemme *share* something else: Whenever you use any of your three pukey
sentences, may you suffer from severe anal leakage!
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
May 31, 2013, 6:36:31 AM5/31/13
to
On Thu, 30 May 2013 22:29:20 +0100, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com>
wrote:
And even more widely:
http://www.co-operative.coop/corporate/aboutus/
The Co-operative Group is the UK’s largest mutual business, owned
not by private shareholders but by over six million consumers. The
Group operates 4,800 retail trading outlets, employs more than
100,000 people and has an annual turnover of more than GBP13bn.
Google Street View of a small Co-op food store about a mile from where
I'm sitting:
http://goo.gl/maps/jIJTn
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
wrote:
http://www.co-operative.coop/corporate/aboutus/
The Co-operative Group is the UK’s largest mutual business, owned
not by private shareholders but by over six million consumers. The
Group operates 4,800 retail trading outlets, employs more than
100,000 people and has an annual turnover of more than GBP13bn.
Google Street View of a small Co-op food store about a mile from where
I'm sitting:
http://goo.gl/maps/jIJTn
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Skitt
May 31, 2013, 1:06:11 PM5/31/13
to
Robert Bannister wrote:
> Skitt wrote:
>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>>> erilar wrote:
>>
>>>> English is so non-phonetic in pronunciation that diacritical marks
>>>> would
>>>> only add to the confusion.
>>>
>>> Well, that would be fun. Obviously, the way apostrophes are stuck in all
>>> over the place indicates that people feel a need to decorate their
>>> words. Perhaps "kite" and "kit" could be spelt the same, but the first
>>> one would have a little heart over the i.
>>
>> Actually, the first could be spelled "kaite".
>
> "kait" ought to be sufficient,
True. My bad.
> Skitt wrote:
>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>>> erilar wrote:
>>
>>>> English is so non-phonetic in pronunciation that diacritical marks
>>>> would
>>>> only add to the confusion.
>>>
>>> Well, that would be fun. Obviously, the way apostrophes are stuck in all
>>> over the place indicates that people feel a need to decorate their
>>> words. Perhaps "kite" and "kit" could be spelt the same, but the first
>>> one would have a little heart over the i.
>>
>> Actually, the first could be spelled "kaite".
>
> "kait" ought to be sufficient,
> except that English can't decide whether
> "ai" is the sound of "height" or "hate". A silent e that changes the
> sound of the letter 2 spaces back makes any diacritic seem sensible.
>
I'm using Latvian phonetics, naturally.
Whiskers
May 31, 2013, 11:21:58 AM5/31/13
to
diacritics.
Joe Fineman
May 31, 2013, 5:35:45 PM5/31/13
to
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
> In message <e235q8pkoht8atd1i...@4ax.com>
> David Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>> I believe many people refer to the local cooperative store the
>> "coop", as in "chicken coop".
>
> Really? I've only heard it pronounced coöp, even though it is always
> spelt coop.
For the university cooperative store, the pronunciation is "coop" at
> In message <e235q8pkoht8atd1i...@4ax.com>
> David Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>> I believe many people refer to the local cooperative store the
>> "coop", as in "chicken coop".
>
> Really? I've only heard it pronounced coöp, even though it is always
> spelt coop.
Harvard, "coöp" at Yale. (One of the ways you can always tell a
Harvard man.) The spelling is Coop at both.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: Never put off till tomorrow what you can put off till the :||
||: day after tomorrow. :||
Robert Bannister
May 31, 2013, 9:51:46 PM5/31/13
to
non-ambiguous way.
--
Robert Bannister
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Jun 1, 2013, 2:09:13 AM6/1/13
to
On 2013-05-27 20:25:00 +0000, Mike L said:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 14:56:28 +0000 (UTC), na...@mips.inka.de
> (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
>
>> Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> This W is actually an exotic letter. Natively it is only
>>>> used in English, German, and Polish (and minor languages whose
>>>> orthography was modeled on those).
>>>
>>> What about Welsh, where it's a vowel?
>>
>> I forgot Dutch.
>>
>> Welsh I'm inclined to dismiss as a minor language influenced by its
>> close contact with English,
>
> What a dickhead!
Could be, but I'm more inclined to see it as lack of maturity.
I don't know a great deal of Welsh, but what I've been struck by is how
_little_ sign of English influence it manifests. Maybe Curlytop could
comment.
>
>> although that particular use is obviously
>> not patterned after English. Does anybody know its origin? Does
>> it continue earlier "uu" or was it a case of we need another letter,
>> let's pick a random unused one?
--
athel
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 14:56:28 +0000 (UTC), na...@mips.inka.de
> (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
>
>> Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> This W is actually an exotic letter. Natively it is only
>>>> used in English, German, and Polish (and minor languages whose
>>>> orthography was modeled on those).
>>>
>>> What about Welsh, where it's a vowel?
>>
>> I forgot Dutch.
>>
>> Welsh I'm inclined to dismiss as a minor language influenced by its
>> close contact with English,
>
> What a dickhead!
Could be, but I'm more inclined to see it as lack of maturity.
I don't know a great deal of Welsh, but what I've been struck by is how
_little_ sign of English influence it manifests. Maybe Curlytop could
comment.
>
>> although that particular use is obviously
>> not patterned after English. Does anybody know its origin? Does
>> it continue earlier "uu" or was it a case of we need another letter,
>> let's pick a random unused one?
--
athel
Swifty
Jun 1, 2013, 3:48:19 AM6/1/13
to
On 31/05/2013 22:35, Joe Fineman wrote:
> For the university cooperative store, the pronunciation is "coop" at
> Harvard
So, the Harvard man sounds as if he were talking about barrel making?
> For the university cooperative store, the pronunciation is "coop" at
> Harvard
Mike Barnes
Jun 1, 2013, 3:47:46 AM6/1/13
to
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr>:
absorbed (and re-spelled).
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3253/2995908958_afa813a429.jpg
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2566/3791439897_7d85d75879_z.jpg?zz=1
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
>On 2013-05-27 20:25:00 +0000, Mike L said:
>
>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 14:56:28 +0000 (UTC), na...@mips.inka.de
>> (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
>>
>>> Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> This W is actually an exotic letter. Natively it is only
>>>>> used in English, German, and Polish (and minor languages whose
>>>>> orthography was modeled on those).
>>>> What about Welsh, where it's a vowel?
>>> I forgot Dutch.
>>> Welsh I'm inclined to dismiss as a minor language influenced by its
>>> close contact with English,
>> What a dickhead!
>
>Could be, but I'm more inclined to see it as lack of maturity.
>
>I don't know a great deal of Welsh, but what I've been struck by is how
>_little_ sign of English influence it manifests.
I can't help noticing the number of English words Welsh has apparently
>
>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 14:56:28 +0000 (UTC), na...@mips.inka.de
>> (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
>>
>>> Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> This W is actually an exotic letter. Natively it is only
>>>>> used in English, German, and Polish (and minor languages whose
>>>>> orthography was modeled on those).
>>>> What about Welsh, where it's a vowel?
>>> I forgot Dutch.
>>> Welsh I'm inclined to dismiss as a minor language influenced by its
>>> close contact with English,
>> What a dickhead!
>
>Could be, but I'm more inclined to see it as lack of maturity.
>
>I don't know a great deal of Welsh, but what I've been struck by is how
>_little_ sign of English influence it manifests.
absorbed (and re-spelled).
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3253/2995908958_afa813a429.jpg
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2566/3791439897_7d85d75879_z.jpg?zz=1
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Peter Young
Jun 1, 2013, 4:58:08 AM6/1/13
to
van the English names of things he stocks, and on the other side the
same parts in Welsh:
Battris
Siocs
Breics
Teiers.
Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Jun 1, 2013, 7:35:05 AM6/1/13
to
surprised by them than I am by learning that the Welsh for telephone
appears to be ffön.
--
athel
Mike Barnes
Jun 1, 2013, 7:45:34 AM6/1/13
to
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr>:
FSVO "modern". But if that's not English influence, what is it?
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Jun 1, 2013, 9:58:14 AM6/1/13
to
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 08:47:46 +0100, Mike Barnes <mikeba...@gmail.com>
wrote:
It's a fair bet that those are modern imported into Welsh.
I wonder about the origin of Welsh "porth" which has a similar range of
senses to English "port".
wrote:
I wonder about the origin of Welsh "porth" which has a similar range of
senses to English "port".
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Jun 1, 2013, 10:22:11 AM6/1/13
to
for modern artefacts of industry as "evidence of its close contact with
English".
If you read accounts of fútbol you can find plenty of uses of words
like gol, penalti, copa, etc., but they don't indicate a general
influence of English on Spanish; they indicate that Spanish has adopted
words from English for a very specific activity. No doubt if tyres had
been invented in a Welsh-speaking country they would have a more
Welsh-looking name that would have been anglicized, but that wouldn't
mean that there was a general influence of Welsh. I would be more
impressed if you told me that the Welsh words for brother, sheep,
mountain, sea, storm, etc. were obviously just Welsh respellings of
English words.
--
athel
Evan Kirshenbaum
Jun 1, 2013, 11:25:45 AM6/1/13
to
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> writes:
> If you read accounts of fútbol you can find plenty of uses of words
> like gol, penalti, copa, etc., but they don't indicate a general
> influence of English on Spanish; they indicate that Spanish has
> adopted words from English for a very specific activity.
Umm... "Copa" is perfectly normal Spanish for "cup". From Latin
> If you read accounts of fútbol you can find plenty of uses of words
> like gol, penalti, copa, etc., but they don't indicate a general
> influence of English on Spanish; they indicate that Spanish has
> adopted words from English for a very specific activity.
"cuppa". The DRAE lises "premio que se concede en algunos certámenes
deportivos" (prize awarded in some sporting events) as their ninth
sense of the word. The first is "vaso con pie para beber" (footed
drinking vessel).
The others come from English.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |It's not coherent, it's merely
SF Bay Area (1982-) |focused.
Chicago (1964-1982) | Keith Moore
evan.kir...@gmail.com
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Mike Barnes
Jun 1, 2013, 10:44:19 AM6/1/13
to
English influence it manifests". It doesn't seem that way to me.
Mike L
Jun 1, 2013, 3:38:44 PM6/1/13
to
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 15:44:19 +0100, Mike Barnes
"Teiars". Don't forget my favourite, "egsosts". I think those vans
belong to a UK-wide outfit (perhaps a franchise).
>>>> OK, but all those are words for items of modern technology.
>>> FSVO "modern". But if that's not English influence, what is it?
>>
>>Of course it is, but I wouldn't regard the existence of English words
>>for modern artefacts of industry as "evidence of its close contact with
>>English".
>
>I was actually responding to "struck by [...] how _little_ sign of
>English influence it manifests". It doesn't seem that way to me.
Most languages borrow vocabulary from other languages, but without
effect on their unique grammatical structure. That isn't really
_significant_ influence: it doesn't make either language closer to the
other. This is the French Academy misconception.
Mind you, "nativising" spellings can indeed lead to absurdities: the
scientific Greek word "pneumonia" didn't _really_ need to be reformed
as "niwmonia" in Welsh to avoid any taint of Englishness.
--
Mike.
belong to a UK-wide outfit (perhaps a franchise).
>>>> OK, but all those are words for items of modern technology.
>>> FSVO "modern". But if that's not English influence, what is it?
>>
>>Of course it is, but I wouldn't regard the existence of English words
>>for modern artefacts of industry as "evidence of its close contact with
>>English".
>
>I was actually responding to "struck by [...] how _little_ sign of
>English influence it manifests". It doesn't seem that way to me.
effect on their unique grammatical structure. That isn't really
_significant_ influence: it doesn't make either language closer to the
other. This is the French Academy misconception.
Mind you, "nativising" spellings can indeed lead to absurdities: the
scientific Greek word "pneumonia" didn't _really_ need to be reformed
as "niwmonia" in Welsh to avoid any taint of Englishness.
--
Mike.
Peter Young
Jun 1, 2013, 4:55:02 PM6/1/13
to
On 1 Jun 2013 Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 15:44:19 +0100, Mike Barnes
> <mikeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr>:
>>>On 2013-06-01 11:45:34 +0000, Mike Barnes said:
>>>
>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr>:
>>>>> On 2013-06-01 08:58:08 +0000, Peter Young said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1 Jun 2013 Mike Barnes <mikeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 15:44:19 +0100, Mike Barnes
> <mikeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr>:
>>>On 2013-06-01 11:45:34 +0000, Mike Barnes said:
>>>
>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr>:
>>>>> On 2013-06-01 08:58:08 +0000, Peter Young said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1 Jun 2013 Mike Barnes <mikeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3253/2995908958_afa813a429.jpg
>>>>>>> http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2566/3791439897_7d85d75879_z.jpg?zz=1
>>>>>> A dealer in car spare parts in Haverfordwest has on one side of his
>>>>>> van the English names of things he stocks, and on the other side the
>>>>>> same parts in Welsh:
>>>>>> Battris
>>>>>> Siocs
>>>>>> Breics
>>>>>> Teiers.
> "Teiars".
> Don't forget my favourite, "egsosts". I think those vans
> belong to a UK-wide outfit (perhaps a franchise).
days to go!) the potato farms have signs advertising "tatws newidd".
Very good they are, too.
Peter Moylan
Jun 1, 2013, 9:57:44 PM6/1/13
to
On 02/06/13 05:38, Mike L wrote:
> Mind you, "nativising" spellings can indeed lead to absurdities: the
> scientific Greek word "pneumonia" didn't _really_ need to be reformed
> as "niwmonia" in Welsh to avoid any taint of Englishness.
It needed to be reformed if the Welsh speakers placed a high priority on
> Mind you, "nativising" spellings can indeed lead to absurdities: the
> scientific Greek word "pneumonia" didn't _really_ need to be reformed
> as "niwmonia" in Welsh to avoid any taint of Englishness.
phonetic spelling. I don't know whether they do.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Swifty
Jun 2, 2013, 1:40:19 AM6/2/13
to
On 01/06/2013 09:58, Peter Young wrote:
> A dealer in car spare parts in Haverfordwest has on one side of his
> van the English names of things he stocks, and on the other side the
> same parts in Welsh
He's obviously hoping that the Welsh will convert to driving on the
> A dealer in car spare parts in Haverfordwest has on one side of his
> van the English names of things he stocks, and on the other side the
> same parts in Welsh
right before the English do.
Dr Nick
Jun 2, 2013, 12:32:40 PM6/2/13
to
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
> In message <e235q8pkoht8atd1i...@4ax.com>
> David Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
> In message <e235q8pkoht8atd1i...@4ax.com>
> David Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 02:21:41 -0700 (PDT), fabzorba
>> <myles....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Do not we all pronounce ''cooperate'' properly even without a dieresis
>>>above the second o? Who amongst us talks of ''naves'' when they see
>>>''naive''? Don't we all pronounce ''genre'' with complete finesse,
>>>honking like some Gallic goose with a cold? And Sweet Mystery! How can
>>>we do that when the word has no special signs to tell us how to do it?
>
>> <myles....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Do not we all pronounce ''cooperate'' properly even without a dieresis
>>>above the second o? Who amongst us talks of ''naves'' when they see
>>>''naive''? Don't we all pronounce ''genre'' with complete finesse,
>>>honking like some Gallic goose with a cold? And Sweet Mystery! How can
>>>we do that when the word has no special signs to tell us how to do it?
>
>> I believe many people refer to the local cooperative store the "coop",
>> as in "chicken coop".
>
> Really? I've only heard it pronounced coöp, even though it is always
> spelt coop.
Around Stoke I've heard something I can best render as "kwarp"
>> as in "chicken coop".
>
> Really? I've only heard it pronounced coöp, even though it is always
> spelt coop.
(non-rhotic).
Mike L
Jun 2, 2013, 3:35:39 PM6/2/13
to
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 21:55:02 +0100, Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk>
wrote:
Yes, Pembs new potatoes are highly esteemed: I think it's the maritime
climate.
--
Mike.
wrote:
climate.
--
Mike.
Mike L
Jun 2, 2013, 3:43:32 PM6/2/13
to
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 11:57:44 +1000, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>On 02/06/13 05:38, Mike L wrote:
>
>> Mind you, "nativising" spellings can indeed lead to absurdities: the
>> scientific Greek word "pneumonia" didn't _really_ need to be reformed
>> as "niwmonia" in Welsh to avoid any taint of Englishness.
>
>It needed to be reformed if the Welsh speakers placed a high priority on
>phonetic spelling. I don't know whether they do.
They do indeed: in fact they take some pride in it. So that could be
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>On 02/06/13 05:38, Mike L wrote:
>
>> Mind you, "nativising" spellings can indeed lead to absurdities: the
>> scientific Greek word "pneumonia" didn't _really_ need to be reformed
>> as "niwmonia" in Welsh to avoid any taint of Englishness.
>
>It needed to be reformed if the Welsh speakers placed a high priority on
>phonetic spelling. I don't know whether they do.
the real reason. Having a quick look in the Academy Dictionary, I find
that the Welsh for "pneumatological" is _ysbrydyddiaethol_; I find
from OED that the English for it is, perhaps unsurprisingly,
"[relating to] The doctrine of the Holy Spirit."
--
Mike.
Christian Weisgerber
Jun 6, 2013, 10:27:39 AM6/6/13
to
Christian Weisgerber <na...@mips.inka.de> wrote:
> The only somewhat natively used diacritc is the diaeresis in words
> like "coￜperation" and "reￜlection". "Animￜ" and "sakￜ" would also
> count, but I just don't see them in the wild.
... and last week I promptly walked past a "Japanese sakￜ bar & grill"
on Eglington in Toronto.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
> The only somewhat natively used diacritc is the diaeresis in words
> like "coￜperation" and "reￜlection". "Animￜ" and "sakￜ" would also
> count, but I just don't see them in the wild.
... and last week I promptly walked past a "Japanese sakￜ bar & grill"
on Eglington in Toronto.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Mark Brader
Jun 18, 2013, 4:11:43 AM6/18/13
to
Christian Weisgerber:
> on Eglington in Toronto.
Historical note: Eglington Av. was named after village of Eglington,
which in turn was named in honor of the Earl of Eglinton in Scotland.
Rather like the case of the Chicago Blackhawks, it took about 60 years
before someone noticed the discrepancy and about 1880 the spelling of
both the street* and the village was corrected to Eglinton.
(*It's about 300 feet from where I'm sitting.)
--
Mark Brader | The only trouble was, no despot had the resources to plan
m...@vex.net | every detail in his society's behavior. Not even planet-
Toronto | wrecker bombs had as dire a reputation for eliminating
| civilizations. --Vernor Vinge, "A Deepness in the Sky"
My text in this article is in the public domain.
>> The only somewhat natively used diacritc is the diaeresis in words
>> like "coöperation" and "reëlection". "Animé" and "saké" would also
>> count, but I just don't see them in the wild.
> ... and last week I promptly walked past a "Japanese saké bar & grill"
> on Eglington in Toronto.
Historical note: Eglington Av. was named after village of Eglington,
which in turn was named in honor of the Earl of Eglinton in Scotland.
Rather like the case of the Chicago Blackhawks, it took about 60 years
before someone noticed the discrepancy and about 1880 the spelling of
both the street* and the village was corrected to Eglinton.
(*It's about 300 feet from where I'm sitting.)
--
Mark Brader | The only trouble was, no despot had the resources to plan
m...@vex.net | every detail in his society's behavior. Not even planet-
Toronto | wrecker bombs had as dire a reputation for eliminating
| civilizations. --Vernor Vinge, "A Deepness in the Sky"
My text in this article is in the public domain.
0 new messages