dots over vowels
Julia Genyuk
I noticed that "intellectual" magazines like New Yorker always put
two dots over repeated vowels in words like cooperation, reelection etc.
I understand that it comes from French where this indicates that
vowels should be pronounced separately, but I haven't seen this spelling
anywhere else. Is there any rule behind this?
Julia
Billy D'Augustine
gen...@math.ohio-state.edu (Julia Genyuk) wrote:
I dunno, it sounds like they're trying to be "hap". Two dots over a
vowel is called an umlaut, and I've seen its usage mostly in German
languages. I forget its exact usage, but seem to recall it almost
turned the vowel into a dipthong? Of course, I could be wrong...
I've hardly ever heard anyone pronounce "cooperation" in this manner,
mostly I hear the co- part slurred into the rest of the word, or just
lengthening the o...
----
Billy D'Augustine
az...@worldnet.att.net
All is lost, none have won.
Bob Cunningham
gen...@math.ohio-state.edu (Julia Genyuk) wrote:
>
> I noticed that "intellectual" magazines like New Yorker always put
> two dots over repeated vowels in words like cooperation, reelection etc.
> I understand that it comes from French where this indicates that
> vowels should be pronounced separately, but I haven't seen this spelling
> anywhere else. Is there any rule behind this?
That convention was formerly used widely in American English. In
the 1909 G. & C. Merriam Company's _Webster's New International
Dictionary_ there were many main entries like "coöperate", "coördinate",
"reënter", "reënforce", "deëmanate", and "deënergize", (but "reunite"
rather than "reünite") with no alternative spellings given.
In the 1934 _Webster's Second New International Dictionary_ the
words are spelled with hyphens ("co-operate", "de-emanate"), which is
still the British practice, but alternative spellings, exemplified by
"coöperate" and "cooperate" are given.
In the 1966 _Webster's Third New International Dictionary_ some of
the words are given the closed spelling with no diaeresis ("cooperate",
"coordinate") and no alternative spellings, but others are hyphenated
("de-emanate", "de-energize") with no alternative spellings.
Interestingly enough, the 1920s OED has the main heading
"co-operate", but is has citations for "cooperate" from 1616, 1625, and
1649; a citation for "coöperate" from 1876; and citations for
"co-operate" from 1762, 1809, and 1879. This makes it look as though
the spelling "cooperate" has come full circle.
(Posted)
Steve MacGregor
gen...@math.ohio-state.edu (Julia Genyuk) wrote:
> I noticed that "intellectual" magazines like New Yorker always put
> two dots over repeated vowels in words like cooperation, reelection
etc.
> I understand that it comes from French where this indicates that
> vowels should be pronounced separately, but I haven't seen this
spelling
> anywhere else. Is there any rule behind this?
<31fb83cf...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> I dunno, it sounds like they're trying to be "hap". Two dots over a
> vowel is called an umlaut, and I've seen its usage mostly in German
> languages. I forget its exact usage, but seem to recall it almost
> turned the vowel into a dipthong? Of course, I could be wrong...
>
> I've hardly ever heard anyone pronounce "cooperation" in this manner,
> mostly I hear the co- part slurred into the rest of the word, or just
> lengthening the o...
Two dots over a vowel is a trema. It may be one of a set of other
things
as well, depending on the occurance.
In German, a trema over A, O, or U is an umlaut, and that is the only
time that it is an umlaut. There is not diacritical "umlaut" in any
other
language. Occasionally, there is a trema over E in German, in which case
it is a dieresis, as in Greek, French, Spanish, or English.
In English, it is acceptable to use a dieresis to mark the second of
two vowel-letters as =not= being part of a diphthong; it begins another
syllable. Thus, "coöperate" is four syllables, not three (with "coop"
being the first); reënlist is three. The word "naïve" is often typeset
this way in English, because the word is borrowed from French, where it
is always set this way, if possible.
In all of these cases, the trema is a diacritical, added to a letter.
That is, in the word "reënlist", the letter E occurs twice, once without
a trema (a dieresis, to be precise), and once with. The letter U occurs
in the German word "über", with a trema (an umlaut, to be precise). But
the letter O does not occur in the Swedish word "smörgåsbord", as the
trema there is not a diacritical, just as the dot on a lower-case I is
not
a diacritical added to some hypothetical character "dotless-I", and the
tail of a capital Q is not a diacritical added to a capital O. The
character is typographically identical to a German O-umlaut or an English
O-dieresis, but it is not any kind of O; it's another letter altogether.
--
==----= Steve MacGregor
([.] [.]) Phoenix, AZ
--------------------------oOOo--(_)--oOOo--------------------------------
Larry Krakauer
In article <31fb83cf...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
Billy D'Augustine <az...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I dunno, it sounds like they're trying to be "hap".
I haven't got a clue what "hap" means - is this some new usage?
>I've hardly ever heard anyone pronounce "cooperation" in this manner,
>mostly I hear the co- part slurred into the rest of the word, or just
>lengthening the o...
Gee, where are you from? I *only* hear cooperation said with
the two "o" sounds quite distinctly pronounced; in fact, they're
not even pronounced the same way! The first "o" rhymes with "go",
and the second syllable, the "op", is pronounced like "top" without
the "t". I have several dictionaries that list "co-operation" as
an alternative spelling, and an older dictionary that lists
"cooperation" with a diaeresis over the second "o" as another
alternate spelling, but my most recent dictionary has dropped the
diaeresis completely.
In a way it would be a shame to lose it; it's a helpful guide to
non-native speakers. After all, by changing a single letter,
"cooperate" becomes
"cooperage" , meaning "The work or business of a cooper",
in which the "oo" is pronounced as a digraph, as in "coop".
-- Larry Krakauer (lar...@kronos.com)
Rob Pegoraro
In article <4tfsuo$a...@math.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
gen...@math.ohio-state.edu (Julia Genyuk) wrote:
> I noticed that "intellectual" magazines like New Yorker always put
> two dots over repeated vowels in words like cooperation, reelection etc.
> I understand that it comes from French where this indicates that
> vowels should be pronounced separately, but I haven't seen this spelling
> anywhere else. Is there any rule behind this?
Other people have addressed the underlying rule, and why you don't see it
anywhere else (except, curiously, at roughly the polar opposite of
American culture, in heavy-metal band names--for instance, Mötley Crüe).
But I doubt it has much to do with French; the only vowels I recall seeing
with that diacritical in French are the i and the e, and both very rarely
at that.
One reason, incidentally, why you don't see diacriticals of any kind in
other publications is the limitations of the typesetting systems used. The
system most people (but not, thank God, my own section) use at work
requires unfathomably cryptic keyboard combinations to generate umlauts
and such.
ro...@cais.com ====================================================
Rob Pegoraro At work, I'm r...@twp.com, but
Washington, D.C., USA I'm only speaking for myself here
======================================== http://www.cais.com/robp/
Benjamin D Lukoff
az...@worldnet.att.net (Billy D'Augustine) writes:
>gen...@math.ohio-state.edu (Julia Genyuk) wrote:
>> I noticed that "intellectual" magazines like New Yorker always put
>> two dots over repeated vowels in words like cooperation, reelection etc.
>> I understand that it comes from French where this indicates that
>> vowels should be pronounced separately, but I haven't seen this spelling
>> anywhere else. Is there any rule behind this?
>I dunno, it sounds like they're trying to be "hap". Two dots over a
>vowel is called an umlaut, and I've seen its usage mostly in German
>languages. I forget its exact usage, but seem to recall it almost
>turned the vowel into a dipthong? Of course, I could be wrong...
>I've hardly ever heard anyone pronounce "cooperation" in this manner,
>mostly I hear the co- part slurred into the rest of the word, or just
>lengthening the o...
In this case, the two dots are not an umlaut, but a dieresis, defined by
Random House as the sign "placed over the second of two adjacent vowels to
indicate separate pronunciation." Its effect is actually the opposite of
turning the vowels into a diphthong -- it is supposed to prevent them from
being pronounced this way. The dieresis over the 'i' in 'naive'
indicates that both the 'a' and the 'i' are to be sounded, rather than
combining the two to come up with the pronunciation [nayv]. A dieresis is
(by some) placed over the second 'o' in 'zoological' and in
'cooperative', to indicate that there is a syllable break between the two
o's and that the words are not to be prounced as if they began [zuw..] and
[kuwp..].
BDL
David Vanecek
Billy D'Augustine (az...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: gen...@math.ohio-state.edu (Julia Genyuk) wrote:
: >
: > I noticed that "intellectual" magazines like New Yorker always put
: > two dots over repeated vowels in words like cooperation, reelection etc.
: > I understand that it comes from French where this indicates that
: > vowels should be pronounced separately, but I haven't seen this spelling
: > anywhere else. Is there any rule behind this?
: I dunno, it sounds like they're trying to be "hap". Two dots over a
: vowel is called an umlaut, and I've seen its usage mostly in German
: languages. I forget its exact usage, but seem to recall it almost
: turned the vowel into a dipthong? Of course, I could be wrong...
: I've hardly ever heard anyone pronounce "cooperation" in this manner,
: mostly I hear the co- part slurred into the rest of the word, or just
: lengthening the o...
That's not an Umlaut in English; it's a dieresis or diaeresis, and as
you suggest, indicates that the second vowel is pronounced separately.
In German, OTOH, a vowel letter with Umlaut represents a separate,
distinct vowel, not a dipthong. Without benefit of special keyboard,
they are often written as -Ve- where V is the vowel; a+" = ae,
oe, ue. AE is the sound similar to the a in English "hat", OE,
like a in "made" but with rounded lips, UE, like "ee" in "need", but
with rounded lips. (Those are *approximate* pronunciations.)
Umlaut in German means "sound change" more or less.
Use of the diaeresis in English was once more common than it is now,
and will probably be abandoned in the future, since English tends
to abhor diacritical marks, a trait that, among major European languages,
I believe it shares only with Latin and Russian.
D.V.
Keith C. Ivey
The modern spelling--at least in the US--of words in which a
prefix produces a double "e" or double "o" (like "reenlist" and
"cooperate") uses no hyphen or dieresis, even though the "ee" or
"oo" could be mistaken for a digraph. In similar words that
would have a double "a" or double "i" (like "meta-analysis" and
"anti-inflammatory"), the hyphen seems to be obligatory, even
though no such misinterpretation is possible. Wouldn't it make
more sense the other way around?
By the way, chemical nomenclature gets by without such hyphens:
"tetraammonium", "triiodide", "cyclooctane".
Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> Washington, DC
Contributing Editor/Webmaster
The Editorial Eye <http://www.eei-alex.com/eye/>
Keith C. Ivey
gen...@math.ohio-state.edu (Julia Genyuk) wrote:
> I noticed that "intellectual" magazines like New Yorker always put
> two dots over repeated vowels in words like cooperation, reelection etc.
Out of curiosity, what other "intellectual" magazines are you
referring to? I thought the dieresis was an affectation
peculiar to the New Yorker among modern publications.
See also http://www.webcom.com/kcivey/engusage/umlaut.html (but
please ignore the embarrassingly unmaintained English Usage Page
associated with it).
[posted and mailed]
Benoit Evans
Julia Genyuk wrote:
>
> I noticed that "intellectual" magazines like New Yorker always put
> two dots over repeated vowels in words like cooperation, reelection etc.
> vowels should be pronounced separately, but I haven't seen this spelling
> anywhere else. Is there any rule behind this?
>
The "two dots" are called a "diaeresis" (or "dieresis"). Some words are
still sometimes spelled with a diaeresis, such as naive (on the i) and
Bronte (on the final e).
Previously, it was common practice to use them in compound words like
the ones that you mentioned.
Nowadays, such words are usually written with no special marks or
sometimes with a hyphen (cooperation, co-operation). In Webster's _New
Collegiate Dictionary_ (2nd ed., c.1960), cooperation was listed with
three spellings, including one using the diaeresis. Today, _Webster's
Collegiate_, (10th ed.; they dropped the "New") no longer admits either
the diaeresis form or the hyphenated form.
The diaeresis was commonly used in English from the 17th C. to the mid-
20th C.
Regards,
K.-Benoit Evans
Certified Translator (OTIAQ)
Quebec, Canada
Bob Cunningham
(This posting uses "/...\" in quoted material to indicate that the
bracketed expression was in italics in the source.)
Benoit Evans <benoit...@rrq.gouv.qc.ca> wrote:
[...]
>In Webster's _New Collegiate Dictionary_ (2nd ed., c.1960), cooperation
>was listed with three spellings, including one using the diaeresis.
To keep the record straight, that is not a valid dictionary-title.
You are apparently speaking of a G. & C. Merriam Company or
Merriam-Webster, Inc. (same company, new name) dictionary, because the
word "Collegiate" is a trademark that only they can use. However, my
Fifth Edition of _Webster's Collegiate Dictionary_ was published in
1937, so the "2nd ed." was published several decades before 1960. My
copy of _Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary_ was published in
1965.
>Today, _Webster's Collegiate_, (10th ed.; they dropped the "New")
They also began using "Merriam-Webster's" instead of "Webster's" in
the titles of their works. The correct title of the 10th edition is
_Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition_.
_The Oxford Companion to the English Language_ (OCEL) says "The
first /Collegiate\ (1898) was published to be used by college students".
Later on, they say: "Subsequent editions appeared in 1910, 1916, 1931,
1936, 1946, 1963, 1973 [...] and 1983 (the 9th Edition)". The Tenth
Edition (my copy, anyway) appeared in 1993.
It has been explained before in a.u.e. that dictionaries may be
published in new versions that have a sufficient number of revisions to
justify a new copyright, but not enough to call it a new edition. This
apparently explains the difference in dates for the seventh edition
between my copy (1965) and the number given by OCEL (1963). (This
practice came to light in the discussion that followed the discovery
that "dysphemism" appears in later versions of the ninth Collegiate but
not in my copy of the ninth.)
Tangentially speaking, I'm surprised to find the following
statement in OCEL: "The term /collegiate\ is now used to describe not
only the Webster products but similar desk dictionaries produced by
other publishers." When I first read that I thought it was a gross
error, but I see now that they didn't say it was correctly used. They
probably should have said "The term /collegiate\ is now informally, but
incorrectly, used to describe ... ".
On the copyright page of the tenth Collegiate it says:
"COLLEGIATE is a registered trademark of Merriam-Webster, Incorporated".
(Posted)
Thomas Scharle
In article <31FD1B...@lunemere.com>, Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> writes:
|> Billy D'Augustine wrote:
[...]
|> > Two dots over a
|> > vowel is called an umlaut, and I've seen its usage mostly in German
|> > languages. I forget its exact usage, but seem to recall it almost
|> > turned the vowel into a dipthong? Of course, I could be wrong...
|>
|> dieresis (that's the American spelling) and it is simply old-fashioned;
|> it probably started its fall into disuse when typewriters became
|> commonplace because typewriters couldn't do it. It indicates that two
|> adjacent vowels are to be pronounced independently.
|> >
|> > I've hardly ever heard anyone pronounce "cooperation" in this manner,
|> > mostly I hear the co- part slurred into the rest of the word, or just
|> > lengthening the o...
|>
|> if that isn't an adequate example for you, try "reelect" or "naive."
The double-o in "zoology" is a special case.
In the family name "Bronte", there is a dieresis over the final
"e" to indicate that it is pronounced.
I believe that the name "Spinal Tap" has a dieresis over the "n"
... is that right?
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
"among Rebels, Theists, Atheists,
Philologers, Wits, Masters of Reason,
Puritanes" E. Martin, Five Letters
Berna
lar...@kronos.com (Larry Krakauer) wrote:
>In article <31fb83cf...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Billy D'Augustine <az...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
^^^^
>>I dunno, it sounds like they're trying to be "hap".
>I haven't got a clue what "hap" means - is this some new usage?
>>I've hardly ever heard anyone pronounce "cooperation" in this manner,
>>mostly I hear the co- part slurred into the rest of the word, or just
>>lengthening the o...
>Gee, where are you from?
"Azog" is the name of an orc. With the possible exception of trolls,
orcs are the most uneducated "people" in Middle-Earth. They were bred
(by perverting some of the noble elves) originally in Utumno, the
abode of Morgoth, the dark enemy of the world - i.e., in Hell...
--
Berna Slikker /\_/\ Please correct
bsli...@bart.nl =( @ @ )= any errors in
http://www.bart.nl/~bslikker > - < this post.
Curtis M. Smith
Benoit Evans wrote:
> =
> Julia Genyuk wrote:
> >
> > I noticed that "intellectual" magazines like New Yorker always put
> > two dots over repeated vowels in words like cooperation, reelection et=
c.
Just last Friday, I converted my a press release for my firm from
Word format to HTML. In the process, I added a diaeresis in the
word "coordinator" before posting it. I guess that makes me an
"intellectual"! And, to think, I was afraid folks might deem it a
little strange.
> =
> The "two dots" are called a "diaeresis" (or "dieresis"). Some words are
> still sometimes spelled with a diaeresis, such as naive (on the i) and
> Bronte (on the final e).
> =
Also, formerly, you would see it sometimes on ae or oe to emphasise =
the fact that it should not be printed as a ligature, but since many
people pronounce aerial as three syllables (not four), it doesn't
really indicate a separate syllable.
Example: aerial might be a=EBrial (but never =E6rial).
e with diaeresis ^ ^ ae ligature
(BTW, "diaeresis" should never have a diaeresis over the "e".)
Curtis Smith
M. Murray
Steve MacGregor (Stev...@InDirect.Com) wrote:
: Two dots over a vowel is a trema. It may be one of a set of other
: things as well, depending on the occurance.
: In German, a trema over A, O, or U is an umlaut, and that is the only
: time that it is an umlaut. There is not diacritical "umlaut" in any
: other language.
: The letter U occurs
: in the German word "über", with a trema (an umlaut, to be precise). But
: the letter O does not occur in the Swedish word "smörgåsbord", as the
: trema there is not a diacritical, just as the dot on a lower-case I is
: not
: a diacritical added to some hypothetical character "dotless-I", and the
: tail of a capital Q is not a diacritical added to a capital O. The
: character is typographically identical to a German O-umlaut or an English
: O-dieresis, but it is not any kind of O; it's another letter altogether.
This is hair-splitting of an outrageous kind. It reminds me of the
Spanish claim that ll and ch are not digraphs, but separate letters. The
Latin alphabet has 26 letters, most of which have diacriticals added in
various languages. Some languages have additional characters (German and
Icelandic spring to mind). Swedish and German ö are both the same letter
o with the same diacritical. The idea that the distinction between o and
ö in Swedish and German is somehow fundamentally different seems bizarre
to me.
--
Martin Murray :: School of Chemistry, Bristol University, BS8 1TS, England
Louis-D. Dubeau
dvan...@third-wave.com (David Vanecek) writes:
> That's not an Umlaut in English; it's a dieresis or diaeresis, and as
> you suggest, indicates that the second vowel is pronounced separately.
> In German, OTOH, a vowel letter with Umlaut represents a separate,
> distinct vowel, not a dipthong. Without benefit of special keyboard,
> they are often written as -Ve- where V is the vowel; a+" = ae,
> oe, ue. AE is the sound similar to the a in English "hat",
AE is almost exactly like French e` (that's e with the grave accent),
similar to the English 'e' in president (but the French sound is much
closer). German a is like in English "hat".
> OE,
> like a in "made" but with rounded lips,
OE is almost exactly like French eu. "ee" is more like 'a' in "made".
> UE, like "ee" in "need",
UE is exactly like French u, Latin y, Attic Greek u. "ie" is more like
"ee" in "need" (although it differs.)
> but
> with rounded lips. (Those are *approximate* pronunciations.)
> Umlaut in German means "sound change" more or less.
In all the examples above, the French example is closer to the German
pronunciation.
I don't know where you got your pronunciation but it differs greatly
than what I learned in my German classes. (In which we learn the
"standard" German pronunciation which surely differs from the many
other dialects spoken.)
Regards,
ldd
--
-- Louis-Dominique Dubeau == Home page: http://step.polymtl.ca/~ldd/ --
Roy Lakin
In article <01bb7cd7$0360a9a0$0618...@indirect.indirect.com>,
Steve MacGregor <Stev...@InDirect.Com> wrote:
[...]
> In German, a trema over A, O, or U is an umlaut, and that is the only
>time that it is an umlaut. There is not diacritical "umlaut" in any
>other
>language. Occasionally, there is a trema over E in German, in which case
>it is a dieresis, as in Greek, French, Spanish, or English.
Umlauts also occur in modern Turkish and have the same sound as in German
(which is probably why they are there). They "Latinised" Turkish
script in the 1920s. The written text also uses cedillas under S and C
to turn them into SH and CH respectively, and the undotted I is a schwa.
So, Turkey is Tu"rkiye and a Doner Kebab is a Do"ner Kebab.
When I was last there it was 13 Lira to the Pound and it was 50 kurus, for
the metro (and England was winning the world cup!).
Roy
Steve MacGregor
M. Murray <co...@zeus.bris.ac.uk> wrote in article
<DvCtL...@fsa.bris.ac.uk>...
> This is hair-splitting of an outrageous kind. It reminds me of the
> Spanish claim that ll and ch are not digraphs, but separate letters.
But they =are= separate letters. Look in a Spanish dictionary, and
you'll see that all words beginning with a C come in the "C" section of
the dictionary, followed by all words beginning with a CH, which come in
the "CH" section.
(Note, though, that for cybernetic reasons, future editions of Spanish
dictionaries may alphabetize the letters CH and LL as though they were
C-H and L-L, but these, along with Ñ, will remain separate letters. The
agencies in charge of the language say so, and thus it is so.)
> The
> Latin alphabet has 26 letters, most of which have diacriticals added in
> various languages. Some languages have additional characters (German
and
> Icelandic spring to mind).
So far, so good.
> Swedish and German ö are both the same letter o with the same
diacritical.
No, the umlaut is a German diacritical. That is, a German text with
the character Ö in it has the letter O in it (with a diacritical). It is
alphabetized as an O, because it is an O.
But a Swedish word with the character Ö in it is not alphabetized as
though it were an O, because it is a separate letter (the last letter of
the alphabet, to be precise, following Z, Å, and Ä, just as the Icelandic
letters Ð and Þ are true letters, with their own places in the alphabet.
> The idea that the distinction between o and
> ö in Swedish and German is somehow fundamentally different seems
bizarre
> to me.
Maybe so, but that doesn't make it bizarre in fact. And your opinion
has no effect on the definitions of the language formulated by those
actually in charge. (Unlike English, some languages actually have
government agencies in charge of them.)
Roy Lakin
In article <31fc348...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
Billy D'Augustine <az...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[...]
>Northern NJ. Perhaps it's just my pronounciation, but I don't, and I
>don't hear other people saying it distictly. What I hear is a sound
>where the vowel "o" is doubled. What you are saying is that people
>would pronounce both "o"s seperately...
Separately, even.
>
>>The first "o" rhymes with "go",
>>and the second syllable, the "op", is pronounced like "top" without
>>the "t".
>
>Of course I understand that, I am merely stating that what I have
>stated above, and in my previous posting.
The nearest you might hear in the UK is pronounced "kwop" where the first "o"
is unstressed and starting to merge into the second.
In the UK the "Co-op" is the local co-operative store, now called "Discount
Giant" or "The Late Shop". Without the hyphen (or diaeresis) it could be
confused with a home for chickens.
Roy
Jack Hammond
Steve MacGregor said:
> tually in charge. (Unlike English, some languages actually have
government agencies in charge of them.)
candidates to promise to create an Academy to decide what is correct
English. Then we could tell all smaller countries which _claim_
English as their national language a thing or two.
Bill Fisher
In article <31fb83cf...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, az...@worldnet.att.net (Billy D'Augustine) writes:
> gen...@math.ohio-state.edu (Julia Genyuk) wrote:
>
> >
> > I noticed that "intellectual" magazines like New Yorker always put
> > I understand that it comes from French where this indicates that
> > vowels should be pronounced separately, but I haven't seen this spelling
> > anywhere else. Is there any rule behind this?
>
> vowel is called an umlaut, and I've seen its usage mostly in German
If the dots indicate that the vowel is to be pronounced with the
tongue more toward the front of the mouth than usual, it's an umlaut.
If the dots indicate that two consecutive vowel letters are to be
pronounced as two separate vowel sounds instead of as one, it's a
dieresis (alternately spelled "diaeresis"). It does seem kind of
old-fashioned now in English, but it might still be useful to alert
newscasters that the first syllable of "cooperation" is *not*
to be pronounced like that of Mr. Cooper.
- billf
Daan Sandee
In article <DvCtL...@fsa.bris.ac.uk>, co...@zeus.bris.ac.uk (M. Murray) writes:
|>
|> This is hair-splitting of an outrageous kind. It reminds me of the
|> various languages. Some languages have additional characters (German and
|> o with the same diacritical. The idea that the distinction between o and
|> to me.
The difference between Swedish ö and German ö is of fundamental importance
to Swedes, Germans, and linguists. Since it is apparent that you do not
belong to any of these groups, your statement is at best an opinion, which
better-informed people are free to ignore. Steve MacGregor's post was
correct.
I wonder, though, why you single out German as having additional characters
after first asserting (correctly) that the German ö is not a letter in
its own right. FYI, the ß, or Eszett, is not a letter either (or so the
Germans say) ; it is a digraph. The German alphabet has 26 letters.
Daan Sandee
Burlington, MA san...@think.com
Bob Cunningham
"Steve MacGregor" <Stev...@InDirect.Com> wrote:
>M. Murray <co...@zeus.bris.ac.uk> wrote in article
><DvCtL...@fsa.bris.ac.uk>...
>
>> This is hair-splitting of an outrageous kind. It reminds me of the
>> Spanish claim that ll and ch are not digraphs, but separate letters.
>
> But they =are= separate letters. Look in a Spanish dictionary, and
>you'll see that all words beginning with a C come in the "C" section of
>the dictionary, followed by all words beginning with a CH, which come in
>the "CH" section.
> (Note, though, that for cybernetic reasons, future editions of Spanish
>dictionaries may alphabetize the letters CH and LL as though they were
>C-H and L-L, but these, along with Ñ, will remain separate letters. The
>agencies in charge of the language say so, and thus it is so.)
I have long been under the impression that years ago Spanish
dictionaries treated "rr" as a separate letter. When I try to verify
that now, though, I find that all of my Spanish dictionaries--even one
published in 1940--have "rr" alphabetized as we would expect it to be
(e.g. "corsario" follows "corrusco"). Have I been deluded all these
years, or was "rr" once a separate letter?
Steve MacGregor
Bob Cunningham <exw...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<31fe95bd....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> I have long been under the impression that years ago Spanish
> dictionaries treated "rr" as a separate letter. When I try to verify
> that now, though, I find that all of my Spanish dictionaries--even one
> published in 1940--have "rr" alphabetized as we would expect it to be
> (e.g. "corsario" follows "corrusco"). Have I been deluded all these
> years, or was "rr" once a separate letter?
You know, I vaguely remember hearing that myself, but never from any
actually authoritative source.
I see not need to call it a separate letter, though, since it's
pronounced exactly like an initial R, and generally says that the word is
to be pronounced with the extended sound, not the single-flap of a
non-initial lone R.
M. Murray
Larry Krakauer (lar...@kronos.com) wrote:
: In article <31fb83cf...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,: >I dunno, it sounds like they're trying to be "hap".
: I haven't got a clue what "hap" means - is this some new usage?
: >I've hardly ever heard anyone pronounce "cooperation" in this manner,
: >mostly I hear the co- part slurred into the rest of the word, or just
: >lengthening the o...
: Gee, where are you from? I *only* hear cooperation said with
: the two "o" sounds quite distinctly pronounced; in fact, they're
: not even pronounced the same way!
The "Where are you from ?" is irrelevant. The point is that two people,
from the same place, and with the same accent, may well _hear_ the same
sounds quite differently. I am sure that lots of people say "kwoperate",
with the first o merged in, just as Billy says. Larry hears exactly the
same sound, but knowing how it is spelt, hears the first o sign as
distinct. Remember that perception depends on the observer, not on what
is being observed.
Kullervo Nurmi
"Steve MacGregor" <Stev...@InDirect.Com> wrote:
[snip]
> In German, a trema over A, O, or U is an umlaut, and that is the only
>time that it is an umlaut. There is not diacritical "umlaut" in any
>other
>language.
[snap]
Ok, you go tell that to any speaker of Estonian, Finnish, Swedish...
The least you get are some very round eyes 8-)
Well, in Finnish we do not use u-umlaut, we write 'y' instead. There
are other letters with diacritical marks, but they have not the
positional shift of the umlaut.
--Kultsi
Steve MacGregor
"Steve MacGregor" <Stev...@InDirect.Com> wrote:
> In German, a trema over A, O, or U is an umlaut, and that is the only
>time that it is an umlaut. There is no diacritical "umlaut" in any
>other
>language.
Kullervo Nurmi <kullerv...@pp.inet.fi> wrote in article
<4tob40$s...@kuikka.inet.fi>...
> Ok, you go tell that to any speaker of Estonian, Finnish, Swedish...
Swedish, for instance, has only one diacritical that I know of: an
acute accent, and I'm not sure when it's used, but I've seen it
sometimes. If you're thinking of the letters Å, Ä, and Ö, then you're
wrong. As I pointed out, those are not letters with diacritals; they are
letters, plain and simple.
Finnish has letters Ä and Ö, but I'll bet you that their names for them
have nothing to do with umlauts.
I can't tell you about Estonian, but I believe it's not an
Indo-European language, so that's probably not their name for these
characters, either.
Keith C. Ivey
l...@step.polymtl.ca (Louis-D. Dubeau) wrote:
>dvan...@third-wave.com (David Vanecek) writes:
>> AE is the sound similar to the a in English "hat",
>AE is almost exactly like French e` (that's e with the grave accent),
>similar to the English 'e' in president (but the French sound is much
>closer). German a is like in English "hat".
I think the two of you are referring to different pronunciations
of English "hat". German "a" may be similar to the vowel in
some UK pronunciations of "hat", but it is not at all like that
in the usual US pronunciation of "hat", which uses the sound
represented in the IPA by an a-e ligature and in Kirshenbaum's
ASCII system as /&/. That sound is more like German "ae" than
it is like German "a".
But your description of the sound of German "ae" is closer to
what I've heard and been taught than David Vanacek's is. I
think his would be better for the Finnish pronunciation of
a-umlaut.
>> OE, like a in "made" but with rounded lips,
>OE is almost exactly like French eu. "ee" is more like 'a' in "made".
You missed the last four words. German "oe" (especially when
long) is similar to the sound he describes. It is also similar
to French "eu". You're right about "ee", but it's irrelevant.
>> UE, like "ee" in "need",
>UE is exactly like French u, Latin y, Attic Greek u. "ie" is more like
>"ee" in "need" (although it differs.)
Correct, but once again you ignored the last four words, which
are essential to the meaning:
>> but with rounded lips.
>I don't know where you got your pronunciation but it differs greatly
>than what I learned in my German classes.
I don't believe it differs as much as you think (except possibly
with regard to "ae").
Rainer Thonnes
In article <m2pw5dc3...@pcmd2.grm94.polymtl.ca>,
l...@step.polymtl.ca (Louis-D. Dubeau) writes:
> dvan...@third-wave.com (David Vanecek) writes:
> > oe, ue. AE is the sound similar to the a in English "hat",
Wrong. It is, however, similar to the way someone with a German accent
might pronounce the English "hat".
> AE is almost exactly like French e` (that's e with the grave accent),
Right.
> similar to the English 'e' in president (but the French sound is much
> closer).
Right.
> German a is like in English "hat".
Wrong. It's more like the 'u' in English "hut".
> OE is almost exactly like French eu.
Right.
> "ee" is more like 'a' in "made".
Wrong, except for certain dialects.
> UE is exactly like French u,
Right.
> Latin y, Attic Greek u.
?
> "ie" is more like "ee" in "need" (although it differs.)
Right, but how do you think it differs?
> I don't know where you got your pronunciation but it differs greatly
> than what I learned in my German classes. (In which we learn the
> "standard" German pronunciation which surely differs from the many
> other dialects spoken.)
I don't know where you got your pronunciation, but how do you know your
(presumably high school) teachers have absorbed the "standard" correctly?
From what I remember when I was at high school in Edmonton, the lady who
taught us French had an absolutely awful pronunciation.
Mark Brader
> The Latin alphabet has 26 letters, most of which have diacriticals
> added in various languages. Some languages have additional characters
> (German and Icelandic spring to mind).
Well, no. The Latin alphabet has 23 letters. Some languages have
additional letters, such as English with a total of 26 [1] and Swedish
with a total of 29 [2].
[1] Treating the variant forms J and U as separate letters distinct
from I and V, and also adding W.
[2] Adding the same three as English, plus Å (in case you're not reading
this in ISO 8859-1, it looks like A with a ring), Ä (which looks like
A-umlaut), and Ö (which looks like O-umlaut).
> The idea that the distinction between o and ö in Swedish and German is
> somehow fundamentally different seems bizarre to me.
Don't worry about it; lots of things that are fundamentally different
in foreign languages seem bizarre when you're new to them. Once you
get your head wrapped around them, they simply become all the more
interesting instead.
--
Mark Brader, m...@sq.com| The real trouble with this world of ours is... that
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto | it is nearly reasonable, but not quite. --Chesterton
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Anne Cheilek
In article <01bb7f03$2cebc920$0818...@indirect.indirect.com>,
Steve MacGregor <Stev...@InDirect.Com> wrote:
>Bob Cunningham <exw...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
><31fe95bd....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>> I have long been under the impression that years ago Spanish
>> dictionaries treated "rr" as a separate letter. When I try to verify
>> that now, though, I find that all of my Spanish dictionaries--even one
>> published in 1940--have "rr" alphabetized as we would expect it to be
>> (e.g. "corsario" follows "corrusco"). Have I been deluded all these
>> years, or was "rr" once a separate letter?
>
> You know, I vaguely remember hearing that myself, but never from any
>actually authoritative source.
> I see not need to call it a separate letter, though, since it's
>pronounced exactly like an initial R, and generally says that the word is
>to be pronounced with the extended sound, not the single-flap of a
>non-initial lone R.
Essentially I agree with Steve's analysis. But on the other hand, in
the Spanish alphabet song (yes, I can sing it), "rr" is mentioned as a
separate letter. I count a total of 30 letters in the Spanish alphabet.
-Anne
Keith C. Ivey
"Steve MacGregor" <Stev...@InDirect.Com> wrote:
> Finnish has letters Ä and Ö, but I'll bet you that their names for them
>have nothing to do with umlauts.
> I can't tell you about Estonian, but I believe it's not an
>Indo-European language, so that's probably not their name for these
>characters, either.
What do their names for the characters have to do with it? Are
you saying that we have to call the acute accent "accent aigu"
when it occurs in a French word, whatever it's called in Spanish
when it occurs in a Spanish word, and so on, and that all of
these differently named characters are actually different
diacritical marks?
Also, I'm not sure I buy your contention that the one and only
definition of "letter" has to do with the rules of ordering
words in a dictionary, and I certainly don't agree with your
naive belief in the power of language academies to define
language.
Keith C. Ivey
"Steve MacGregor" <Stev...@InDirect.Com> wrote:
> I don't know =what= the Finns call those letters; they may call them
>A-something and O-something, but if so, I'll bet that the "something" is
>not a translation of "umlaut". Or they may be separate letters, as Å, Ä,
>and Ö in Swedish.
You were arguing the point with Kullervo Nurmi
<kullerv...@pp.inet.fi>, who found your assertion that
German was the only language that used the umlaut laughable.
If you don't know, why not accept the word of a Finn (I assume)?
If they do call the letters "A-something" and "O-something", why
shouldn't the "something" be translated as "umlaut"? The two
dots indicate that the pronunciation of the vowel is moved
toward the front of the mouth, just as they do in German.
> Those adacemies [language academies] doubt your authority to
>declare what is and is not a letter in their respective languages.
My point about the academies was peripheral to the question of
letters. Earlier in the thread you had said that some languages
had academies that defined them. I believe that the French
language, for example, is defined by what French-speaking people
say and write, not by whatever the Academie Francaise legislates
(though that may affect what people say and write).
> The Germans call the glyph Ö „O-Umlaut“ when it occurs in German text;
>that's translated as "O-umlaut" in English. The French call it something
>on the order of «O-dieresis» when it occurs in French text, translated as
>"O-dieresis" in English. The Germans would probably call it „O-Trema“.
>(I'm guessing this, as I believe the glyph Ë is called „E-Trema“ when it
>occurs in German text). I don't know what the Swedes would call it. But
>when it occurs in Swedish text, the Swedes call it the letter »Ö«. Ask a
>Swede how to pronounce that.
And when the German "O-umlaut" occurs in Swedish text, what do
the Swedes call it?
Your discussion of what people call things is a red herring
anyway. We call w "double u"; does that mean it's a type of u?
Spanish speakers call y "i griega" (Greek i); is it a type of i
in Spanish?
The real basis of your definition of "letter", it seems, is the
rules for dictionary ordering (as defined, in many cases, by
language academies). That's a perfectly valid and useful
viewpoint, but I don't think it's the only one. The viewpoints
of printers, typists, and historians of orthography, for
example, are as valid as those of indexers and dictionary
makers.
> It all boils down to what the two dots in the character Ö are used for.
> In German text, their purpose is to indicate a particular vowel-change,
>an "Umlaut" (around-sound). In French, Spanish, or English text, their
>purpose is to indicate that the vowel is in a syllable by itself, and
>does not form a diphthong with the preceeding vowel (modulo such usages
>as "Brontë"). In Swedish text, their purpose is =precisely= the same as
>the tail of the Q: to distinguish the letter from the letter O.
In German, Finnish, Turkish, and Swedish, the two dots indicate
that the vowel is pronounced toward the front of the mouth. The
word "umlaut" is widely used in English to indicate the symbol
when used for that purpose.
You're being distracted by the fact that "Umlaut" in German
refers to a sound change as well as the symbol. But would you
say that the two dots in German "Büro" aren't an umlaut because
the sound doesn't result from the sound change?
In English, Spanish, and French, as you say, the two dots have a
different purpose. The English word for that symbol (identical
to the eye) is "dieresis" (or "diaeresis").
The character in Swedish that looks like an "o" with two dots
doesn't resemble a "o" with an umlaut by accident.
Historically, it does contain that diacritic, and thinking of it
that way can be useful as long as you're not looking something
up in a Swedish dictionary. Your point about "Q" and "O" would
be better made with "i" and "j" or with "C" and "G", where the
resemblance is also not coincidental (and no, I don't normally
think of those pairs as being the same letters, but I can
imagine circumstances in which I might describe them that way).
Steve MacGregor
Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> wrote in article
<4tvqb1$p...@news4.digex.net>...
> Your discussion of what people call things is a red herring
> anyway. We call w "double u"; does that mean it's a type of u?
> Spanish speakers call y "i griega" (Greek i); is it a type of i
> in Spanish?
No, but it used to be. Now it's a letter, separate from U, V, and Y.
And I and J are no longer two forms of the same letter, but separate
letters.
> You're being distracted by the fact that "Umlaut" in German
> refers to a sound change as well as the symbol. But would you
> say that the two dots in German "Büro" aren't an umlaut because
> the sound doesn't result from the sound change?
They =are= an umlaut; the vowel is supposedly (though not necessarily
in fact) a modified U, and the umlaut added to the vowel shows its proper
pronunciation in the word.
> The character in Swedish that looks like an "o" with two dots
> doesn't resemble a "o" with an umlaut by accident.
In all likelyhood, it's cribbed from German O-umlaut, and may once have
been considered as a modified O. However, the Swedes now treat it as a
separate letter, and thus (in Swedish text) it is one. =Just= as we now
treat J as a separate letter from I, and thus it is a separate letter.
> [posted and mailed]
Posted is nice, but it's not necessary to mail a separate copy. I'll
read replies here.
Paul J. Kriha
In article <4tvqb1$p...@news4.digex.net>, kci...@cpcug.org (Keith C. Ivey) wrote:
>"Steve MacGregor" <Stev...@InDirect.Com> wrote:
>
>> I don't know =what= the Finns call those letters; they may call them
>>A-something and O-something, but if so, I'll bet that the "something" is
>>not a translation of "umlaut". Or they may be separate letters, as Å, Ä,
>>and Ö in Swedish.
>
>You were arguing the point with Kullervo Nurmi
><kullerv...@pp.inet.fi>, who found your assertion that
>German was the only language that used the umlaut laughable.
>If you don't know, why not accept the word of a Finn (I assume)?
>
>
>In German, Finnish, Turkish, and Swedish, the two dots indicate
>that the vowel is pronounced toward the front of the mouth. The
>word "umlaut" is widely used in English to indicate the symbol
>when used for that purpose.
I think you could add Hungarian and Slovak to your list.
They use umlauts for similar purpose.
[...]
>Keith C. Ivey
PJK.
--
Aut vivemus liberi aut moriemur.
Steve MacGregor
Paul J. Kriha <kri...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote in article
<4u79ku$2j0...@actrix.gen.nz>...
> I think you could add Hungarian and Slovak to your list.
> They use umlauts for similar purpose.
Those languages definitely either contain letters containing two dots,
or add a two-dot diacritical to some letters.
Actually, I don't think Hungarian uses an umlaut, but it uses a
Hungarian umlaut -- not two dots, but a double acute-accent.
It's up to the Hungarians and Slovaks whether the two dots constitute
an umlaut (as in German), a dieresis (as in French), or something else
(as in Swedish).
Christian Weisgerber
I have no idea why you guys are arguing, but...
kci...@cpcug.org (Keith C. Ivey) writes:
> "Steve MacGregor" <Stev...@InDirect.Com> wrote:
> > The Germans call the glyph Ö „O-Umlaut“ when it occurs in German text;
> >that's translated as "O-umlaut" in English.
I would like to point out that Germans typically call the glyph Ö "Ö"
when it occurs in German text or speech. "Umlaut" applies when talking
about the class of characters {ä, ö, ü}, but the individual characters
are called by of one of the sounds they represent.
"O-umlaut" is an *English* term frequently seen in descriptions of
international character sets.
> >The French call it something on the order of «O-dieresis» when it
> >occurs in French text, translated as "O-dieresis" in English. The
> >Germans would probably call it „O-Trema“. (I'm guessing this, as I
> >believe the glyph Ë is called „E-Trema“ when it occurs in German text).
There is no trema/diaeresis in contemporary German, not even in
loanwords as far as I can tell. I believe the mark is called "Trema"
when discussing languages where it appears. Possibly the actual term is
loaned from that used in the language in question.
Note that the trema and umlaut markings are different (¨ vs. "),
although this difference has been lost in print and only remains in
cursive writing.
> > It all boils down to what the two dots in the character Ö are used for.
> > In German text, their purpose is to indicate a particular vowel-change,
> >an "Umlaut" (around-sound). In French, Spanish, or English text, their
> >purpose is to indicate that the vowel is in a syllable by itself, and
> >does not form a diphthong with the preceeding vowel (modulo such usages
> >as "Brontë"). In Swedish text, their purpose is =precisely= the same as
> >the tail of the Q: to distinguish the letter from the letter O.
While I agree that there is a substantial difference with respect to
this marking and its meaning between German and English/French (I don't
know any Spanish), the difference between German and Swedish is marginal
and comes down to a question of dictionary ordering--which isn't
entirely settled in German. (Although treating ä/ö/ü as a/o/u is
nowadays preferred by lexicographers, the phone directory retains the
ä = ae etc order. The latter is also suggested by an obscure DIN
standard on the subject.)
[F'up2: sci.lang]
--
Christian 'naddy' Weisgerber na...@mips.pfalz.de
See another pointless homepage at <URL:http://home.pages.de/~naddy/>.
-- currently reading: Larry Niven, Protector --
Joni Niemi
Steve MacGregor (Stev...@InDirect.Com) wrote:
> I don't know =what= the Finns call those letters; they may call them
>A-something and O-something, but if so, I'll bet that the "something" is
>not a translation of "umlaut". Or they may be separate letters, as Å, Ä,
>and Ö in Swedish.
We call them "Ää" and "Öö" (as do the Suedes), but the point here, as I
understand, is how to transliterate them in English.
> It all boils down to what the two dots in the character Ö are used for.
> In German text, their purpose is to indicate a particular vowel-change,
>an "Umlaut" (around-sound). In French, Spanish, or English text, their
>purpose is to indicate that the vowel is in a syllable by itself, and
>does not form a diphthong with the preceeding vowel (modulo such usages
>as "Brontë"). In Swedish text, their purpose is =precisely= the same as
>the tail of the Q: to distinguish the letter from the letter O.
The transliteration of Swedish letter "Ö" into English would be "O-umlaut".
According to the electronic version of the Random House Webster's:
um-laut n., v. <-laut-ed, -laut-ing>
n.
1. a mark used as a diacritic over a vowel,
as ä, ö, ü, to indicate a vowel sound
different from that of the letter
without the diacritic, esp. as so used
in German. Compare DIERESIS.
And
di-er-e-sis or <di-aer-e-sis> n. pl. <-ses>
1. a sign placed over the second of two
adjacent vowels to indicate that it is
to be pronounced separately, as in the
spellings naïve and coöperate.
(I apologize for any misspellings or grammatical errors, my native language
is Finnish. Yes, and we do have those funny dots on some letters.)
Joni Niemi
Helsinki University of Technology
Paul J. Kriha
In article <01bb83af$4677ea80$2f18...@indirect.indirect.com>,
"Steve MacGregor" <Stev...@InDirect.Com> wrote:
>Paul J. Kriha <kri...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote in article
><4u79ku$2j0...@actrix.gen.nz>...
>
>> I think you could add Hungarian and Slovak to your list.
>> They use umlauts for similar purpose.
>
> Those languages definitely either contain letters containing two dots,
>or add a two-dot diacritical to some letters.
> Actually, I don't think Hungarian uses an umlaut, but it uses a
>Hungarian umlaut -- not two dots, but a double acute-accent.
I think H. uses acute-accents, double acute-accents, and
umlauts (two dots).
S. has only a single umlauted vowel (a).
> It's up to the Hungarians and Slovaks whether the two dots constitute
>an umlaut (as in German), a dieresis (as in French), or something else
>(as in Swedish).
>
PJK
Planets appear to move slowly; Trees, in the winter, are bare; \__Q__
Demons possess more than toasters; Socks behave strangely in dryers. /:\ \
---- These are all things I believe in ---- _/ \_
Robert Underhill
In article <01bb83af$4677ea80$2f18...@indirect.indirect.com>, "Steve
MacGregor" <Stev...@InDirect.Com> wrote:
> Actually, I don't think Hungarian uses an umlaut, but it uses a
> Hungarian umlaut -- not two dots, but a double acute-accent.
Hungarian uses an ordinary umlaut for a short vowel, an acute accent to
mark a long vowel, and a double acute accent for an umlauted long
vowel. If I'm not mistaken.
--
Bob Underhill
runde...@mail.sdsu.edu