How to umlaut?
David Potter
Thanks!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David E. Potter | MIS Supervisor
Storage Dimensions, Milpitas CA | dpo...@xstor.com
Brian Haskell
>What is the correct way to signify umlauts on my USA keyboard?
One alternative spelling of umlauts (often seen in Switzerland) is to use
a modifying letter:
o(umlaut) --> oe
u(umlaut) --> ue
a(umlaut) --> ae
I have also seen people in computerland use a stand-alone umlaut sign
(can't figure out how to make one on this system) or quotation marks (")
followed by the vowel to which which it applies (e.g. "a). For
word-processing many systems have keyboard options that access the special
characters in fonts. For example, on a Mac option+u followed by the letter
gets you the umlauted (word?) letter. Failing that the letter
combinations I gave above are an accepted convention on even formal
documents.
--
_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ Brian Haskell
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Limnological Research Center
_/ _/_/_/ _/ University of Minnesota
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ has...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/ (BTW Limnology is the study of lakes)
Peter A. Bidian
>In article <CI986...@xstor.com>, David Potter <dpo...@xstor.com> wrote:
>>What is the correct way to signify umlauts on my USA keyboard?
>One alternative spelling of umlauts (often seen in Switzerland) is to use
>a modifying letter:
>o(umlaut) --> oe
>u(umlaut) --> ue
>a(umlaut) --> ae
>I have also seen people in computerland use a stand-alone umlaut sign
>(can't figure out how to make one on this system) or quotation marks (")
>followed by the vowel to which which it applies (e.g. "a). For
This latter way to represent the umlauts is a very poor (in my opinion)
spin-off of LaTeX. There is a german.sty that translates "a,"o,"u,"s in the
typical german characters.
The e-added script is rather 'classic'.
Peter
Jochen Joscho Schoof
: has...@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Brian Haskell) writes:
: >In article <CI986...@xstor.com>, David Potter <dpo...@xstor.com> wrote:
: >I have also seen people in computerland use a stand-alone umlaut sign
: >(can't figure out how to make one on this system) or quotation marks (")
: >followed by the vowel to which which it applies (e.g. "a). For
: This latter way to represent the umlauts is a very poor (in my opinion)
: spin-off of LaTeX. There is a german.sty that translates "a,"o,"u,"s in the
: typical german characters.
: The e-added script is rather 'classic'.
The e-added style just causes one big problem: you are never sure whether
there should be an umlaut or not... So I definetly prefer the LaTeX way.
If you use "a,"o,"u,"A,"O,"U and \3 (scharfes s) the text is relatively
easy to read. I'm so much used to that way, I very often use it on German
keyboards. BTW, German magazines with internet access also made this a
standard for readers' replies. Especially in names LaTeX style is useful.
- Jochen
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jochen Schoof sch...@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de
Lehrstuhl fuer Informatik II +-------------------------------------------
Universitaet Wuerzburg | You are just reading a .sig-light:
D-97074 Wuerzburg (Germany) | It is free of fat, sugar and cholesterol!
------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
Juergen Nickelsen
sch...@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de (Jochen "Joscho" Schoof) writes:
> The e-added style just causes one big problem: you are never sure whether
> there should be an umlaut or not... So I definetly prefer the LaTeX way.
> If you use "a,"o,"u,"A,"O,"U and \3 (scharfes s) the text is relatively
> easy to read.
I disagree strongly. While the e-added style is for me completely easy
to read and quite natural, I find the LaTeX style in a very annoying
way distracting and artificial. It just makes it impossible for to
follow the text easily; each occurence of an "a etc. interrupts the
flow of reading.
The e-added style is also natural with respect to the origin of the
umlauts, which was in fact an e added to a vowel. This may also be the
reason that the "Duden", the authority for german spelling and
grammar, considers the e-added style as the only correct replacement
for umlauts if they are not available.
--
Juergen Nickelsen
Marflow Redienhcs
This latter way to represent the umlauts is a very poor (in my opinion)
spin-off of LaTeX. There is a german.sty that translates "a,"o,"u,"s in the
typical german characters.
Es gibt auch einen iso.sty, der alle (?) Zeichen des iso-8859-1
Zeichensatzes unterstuetzt. Das funktioniert allerdings nur, wenn man
auch normalerweise iso-8859-1 benutzt und nicht herstellerspezifische
Zeichensaetze (z. B. IBM 850).
Aus einem ,,ö'' wird dann der TeX Befehl ,,\"{o}''
Wolfram
Peter A. Bidian
>In article <2f3o76$3...@winx03.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>
>sch...@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de (Jochen "Joscho" Schoof) writes:
>> The e-added style just causes one big problem: you are never sure whether
>> there should be an umlaut or not... So I definetly prefer the LaTeX way.
>> If you use "a,"o,"u,"A,"O,"U and \3 (scharfes s) the text is relatively
>> easy to read.
>I disagree strongly. While the e-added style is for me completely easy
>to read and quite natural, I find the LaTeX style in a very annoying
>way distracting and artificial. It just makes it impossible for to
>follow the text easily; each occurence of an "a etc. interrupts the
>flow of reading.
I have to second this. I think those quotation Marks are awful. And the
cases where the Error in writing would occur is in no relation to
the number of Umlauts in german text.
Peter
Norbert Glaser
In article <CI986...@xstor.com> dpo...@xstor.com (David Potter) writes:
> Newsgroups: alt.usage.german
> Organization: Storage Dimensions, Inc.
> What is the correct way to signify umlauts on my USA keyboard?
My workstation has a COMPOSE key. To form ue you have to press
COMPOSE " u.
Otherwise, you write: ue, oe, ae.
Norbert
--
Cheers,
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
__ __ __ __
/ /_/ / /\ / / /\ / /_/ / /_/
/_ / \ / / \/ / / \/ / \ / / / L O R R A I N E
Centre de Recherche en Informatique de Nancy
Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et Automatique
Adress: Norbert Glaser, CRIN-INRIA Lorraine Mail: gla...@loria.fr
615, rue Jardin Botanique, BP.101 Tel: (+33) 83.59.30.83
54602 Villers-les-Nancy Cedex FAX: (+33) 83.41.30.79
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOB WEEKS/ISPO/CONCORDIA U/MONTREAL/514-848-7677
Bidian) writes...
>I think those quotation Marks are awful. And the
>cases where the Error in writing would occur is in no relation to
>the number of Umlauts in german text.
I, too, agree.
Changing the subject, slightly. I am curious about the origin of the
umlaut. Our German teacher told us that the practice of putting the
diacritic over a vowel that would (in speech) be modified by the following
letter was done to conserve parchment in the medieval scriptorium. Can anyone
confirm and elaborate on this?
*******************************************************************************
Bob Weeks E-mail: wee...@vax2.concordia.ca Tel: (514) 848-7677
Information Systems Planning, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec
*******************************************************************************
Christian Weisgerber
>The e-added style just causes one big problem: you are never sure whether
>there should be an umlaut or not...
This is rarely a problem.
>If you use "a,"o,"u,"A,"O,"U and \3 (scharfes s) the text is relatively
>easy to read.
No, it ain't! '"' is a word delimiter, using it as a character modifier
breaks the word and makes the text strenuous to read. It's a
typesetting perversion. I don't bother to read such postings anymore
unless I have a reason to suspect that they are very important.
--
Christian 'naddy' Weisgerber, Germany na...@mips.ruessel.sub.org
Peter A. Bidian
>>>>>> "David" == David Potter <dpo...@xstor.com> writes:
>In article <CI986...@xstor.com> dpo...@xstor.com (David Potter) writes:
> > Newsgroups: alt.usage.german
> > Organization: Storage Dimensions, Inc.
> > What is the correct way to signify umlauts on my USA keyboard?
>My workstation has a COMPOSE key. To form ue you have to press
>COMPOSE " u.
>Otherwise, you write: ue, oe, ae.
>Norbert
>--
>Cheers,
> Norbert
Any ideas how that works on an iris or sun with US keyboard?
Peter
Florian Koelln
>
> In article <pebi.75...@khamsin.aem.umn.edu>, pe...@aem.umn.edu (Peter A.
> Bidian) writes...
>
> >I think those quotation Marks are awful. And the
> >cases where the Error in writing would occur is in no relation to
> >the number of Umlauts in german text.
>
> I, too, agree.
>
> Changing the subject, slightly. I am curious about the origin of the
> umlaut. Our German teacher told us that the practice of putting the
> diacritic over a vowel that would (in speech) be modified by the following
> letter was done to conserve parchment in the medieval scriptorium. Can anyone
> confirm and elaborate on this?
>
Ja, sowas ist uns auch mal im Deutschunterricht beigebracht worden. In der
alten Suetterlin-Schrift sah (in Schreibschrift) eine "e" so aehnlich aus,
wie heute ein "u", also zwei durch einen Bogen verbundene Striche. Wenn man
also bei "ae" das "e" ueber den "a" schreibt, erhaelt man ein "a" mit zwei
Strichen darueber. Das hat sich dann irgendwann als Schreibweise
eingbuergert. Anfang dieses Jahrhunderts hat dann Attatuerk bei der
umstellung der Tuerkei auf lateinische Schrift diese Schreibweisen aus dem
Deutschen uebernommen.
Grusz, Florian
--
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
| Florian Koelln +49 30 4918380 TU-Berlin: +49 30 314-24580 |
| e-mail koe...@cs.tu-berlin.de Fax: -25799 |
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-كنِüـضؤ§
Michael Schwuchow
>Changing the subject, slightly. I am curious about the origin of the
>umlaut. Our German teacher told us that the practice of putting the
>diacritic over a vowel that would (in speech) be modified by the following
>letter was done to conserve parchment in the medieval scriptorium. Can anyone
>confirm and elaborate on this?
I have seen texts (and I think, this method was not too unusual) where a
small "e" was put on top des geumlauteten Vokals.
Michael
--
--------------------Nutzt die Moeglichkeiten vom Genitiv!---------------------
! Michael Schwuchow UUCP: schw...@uniol.UUCP !
! Oldenburg, FRG/RFA/BRD Michael....@informatik.uni-oldenburg.de !
"Die Gartenstrasse ist die 'Elbchaussee' Oldenburgs!" "Das macht doch nichts!"
Peter A. Bidian
Peter
Peter A. Bidian
>This is just a test for some umlauts. ü ä ö
>Peter
... who obviously didn't make it.... I guess I'll stick to ae,oe,...
Peter
Jochen Joscho Schoof
: sch...@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de (Jochen "Joscho" Schoof) writes:
: >If you use "a,"o,"u,"A,"O,"U and \3 (scharfes s) the text is relatively
: >easy to read.
: No, it ain't! '"' is a word delimiter, using it as a character modifier
: breaks the word and makes the text strenuous to read. It's a
: typesetting perversion. I don't bother to read such postings anymore
: unless I have a reason to suspect that they are very important.
This is one of the responses that really makes me think I attacked some of
the guardians of German language. Much of it seems pretty dogmatic to me.
Yes, you all are right saying that 'Duden' only allows ae, oe, ue and ss
as substitutes. I think some people show a certain lack of flexibility.
Many people who thought about the topic for more than just those five
seconds between reading and typing a followup support the described style
(see magazines like c't and iX). Doesn't that make you think a little?
LaTeX style has some practical advantages I don't want to miss.
Christian Weisgerber
>This is just a test for some umlauts. ü ä ö
Works fine.
(I would have acknowledged this by mail, but this univerity's mail
gateway eats umlauts and the... people... in charge consider this a
feature.)
Juergen Weinelt
> >Peter
That's interesting, because _I_ received them perfectly.
-- Juergen Weinelt
j...@rz.uni-wuerzburg.de *** j...@hcast.adsp.sub.org *** j...@hcast.franken.de
Christian Weisgerber
>: No, it ain't! '"' is a word delimiter, using it as a character modifier
>: breaks the word and makes the text strenuous to read. It's a
>: typesetting perversion. I don't bother to read such postings anymore
>: unless I have a reason to suspect that they are very important.
>This is one of the responses that really makes me think I attacked some of
>the guardians of German language. Much of it seems pretty dogmatic to me.
A guardian of German language? Me? You're kidding.
>Yes, you all are right saying that 'Duden' only allows ae, oe, ue and ss
(I didn't say that.)
>as substitutes. I think some people show a certain lack of flexibility.
I don't particularly care about what Duden suggests for substituting
umlauts. All I'm saying is that the TeX-style is very hard to read.
Typesetters have worked for centuries on optimizing readability and
today's computer age blows it all away (cf. desktop publishing by
inexperienced users, display fonts in general, etc.).
>Many people who thought about the topic for more than just those five
>seconds between reading and typing a followup support the described style
The discussion has appeared so often that I have had more than enough
time to think it over.
>(see magazines like c't and iX). Doesn't that make you think a little?
A little. And that doesn't turn out very favorable for c't and iX.
(Iff they advocate TeX-style. I don't know. Their activities seem to
concentrate in an obscure off-spring of FidoNet.)
>LaTeX style has some practical advantages I don't want to miss.
Well, so has quoted-printable from MIME. And it's even a standard! I
suggest you use ISO 8859-1 with quoted printable encoding.
To all international readers, who bravely read this far: As you can see,
the matter on how to substitute umlauts in a US-ASCII environment is far
from undisputed among the natives ;-)
Torkel Franzen
(Christian Weisgerber) writes:
>To all international readers, who bravely read this far: As you can see,
>the matter on how to substitute umlauts in a US-ASCII environment is far
>from undisputed among the natives ;-)
It's a recurring topic on swnet as well. I dislike the fiddling
around with 8-bit standards, which is a stopgap measure at best, and
stick to old ascii-character substitutes. The use of TeX code in texts
intended to be read by human beings is barbaric and revolting.
Corine Y Takiguchi
>>This is just a test for some umlauts. ü ä ö
Christian Weisgerber said it:
>Works fine.
Actually, on my screen (USA), it shows up like: | d v
Was that the intent? Or am I just not receiving the produced character?
In which case, I would prefer that this is not used, or I'll never
understand a thing.
How (w/ae's, ss's, etc.) does it appear on your screen, Christian?
Corine Y. Takiguchi
taki...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
============================================================================
| "Gosh Hobbes, what if I don't get any presents this year |
| because I doubted the existence of Santa? What if he's |
| putting me on the 'bad list' right now?" |
| -- Calvin |
| "If your name wasn't on the 'bad list' already, somehow I |
| doubt this would push you over." |
| -- Hobbes |
============================================================================
Klaus Wacker
: > >Peter
: -- Juergen Weinelt
Remember that it is not necessarily some stupid gateway that's eating
the umlauts. They may very well make it all the way to your terminal,
but not get displayed correctly. If you use an ASCII terminal, make
sure it is set to 8 bits, both the terminal proper and the RS232
interface. The latter must match the port it is connected to - if you
don't have a port that sends 8 bits, you are out of luck. Also, if the
terminal has several character sets, make sure you select Iso-8859-1
or Iso-Latin-1 or whatever they call it. If your terminal doesn't have
that, you are again out of luck.
The font is also the thing to look out for if you use a workstation or
an Xterminal. The full name of the font should have iso-8859-1
somewhere. However, usually people use an alias instead of the full
name. I found for example that using Rom14.iso1 instead of Rom14 on an
IBM RS6000 made all the difference. Of course your sysadmin may have
chosen not to install these fonts, then you are out of luck over
again.
Stefan Lundstrom
>Peter Bidian's test for umlauts produced:
>>>This is just a test for some umlauts. ü ä ö
>Christian Weisgerber said it:
>>Works fine.
>Actually, on my screen (USA), it shows up like: | d v
>Was that the intent? Or am I just not receiving the produced character?
>In which case, I would prefer that this is not used, or I'll never
>understand a thing.
This is a typical problem. The characters ü ä ö ß are 8-bit chars. When
passed thru an application that doesn't handle 8-bit charcodes they
loose their 8th bit (it's set to 0) and the result is... you guessed it,
| d v _.
I recommend ue ae oe ss. That's the way I manage ordinary life in Sweden.
It's far better than using truncated 8-bit or the original remapped
keys of the pre-8-bit times (i.e. ae = {, oe = |, and what ue used to be
I don`t know). It's more readable and it's easier to remember.
/Stefan
Eckhard Rueggeberg
>
[Discussion about whther to write a-umlaut as ae or as "a
>
>I have to second this. I think those quotation Marks are awful. And the
>cases where the Error in writing would occur is in no relation to
>the number of Umlauts in german text.
>
>Peter
>
If somebody writes "schoene Gruesse", everybody can understand what he
means, but if he writes my Name as Rueggeberg, people could start to
think it was correct this way, which it isn't. So I prefer to write
R"uggeberg in situations where I can't write it correcly (which are
still numerous after 50 Years of computer age :-( ). This is ugly
in fact, but everybody notices that it's wrong and how it's right.
The problem is that there still are machines out there which aren't
capable of ISO-8859-1 character set.
---
Eckhard Rüggeberg
eck...@ts.go.dlr.de
Eckhard Rueggeberg
>>My workstation has a COMPOSE key. To form ue you have to press
>>COMPOSE " u.
>
>
>Peter
On a Sun : The same way. Compose-"-u gives ü. This makes it very
easy to use ü when ISO-8859-1 characters are appropriate and "u
by simply leaving the compose key away when 7bit characters have
to be used for some reason.
For that reason (and because I program in C) I'm happy to have an
US keyboard at my Sun and Linux PC and not a german one.
---
Eckhard Rüggeberg
eck...@ts.go.dlr.de
Adam Z. Heilman
can I (a beginner) know whether the word is actually spelled with an
umlauted u, or a ue? Or whether a given word{is spelled with an S-tsett or
a double-s? Is there a solution to this that does not brek up the text too
awkwardly?
Ben Buckner
"Ue", "oe", and "ae" are fairly rare as separate vowels, and when they do
occur such as in the Latin "Caesar" the Germans seem to go ahead and
interpret that as if it were an umlauted-a. One of our company's
translators did that with the name of the American city "Phoenix,"
(ultimately from Greek) which I thought was rather funny. Since the umlaut
marks were originally abbreviations for the terminal "-e" (if I remember
correctly), it makes sense to interchange them indiscriminately to me. The
"sz" is another matter entirely. There are a number of rather complex (to
me) rules governing when you use "ss" and when you use "sz," and I
certainly don't remember them. It has much to do with the length of the
vowel, as I recall. Comments anyone? Es tut mir leid, dass ich nicht auf
deutsch "gepostet" habe, aber ich habe weder genug Zeit noch zwar Deutsch!
:)
Ben Buckner
cs32...@envmsa.eas.asu.edu
I could be wrong too...
Jochen Joscho Schoof
: Yes, at first glance the ue oe ss trick seems to work well, but then how
Unbelievable! Finally someone else noticed that problem...
Poor Adam, you'll be awfully flamed (like I was weeks before).
Bernd Reh (DA Drechsel)
Jaaaa, daß ist ein echtes Problem. Aber es gibt mehrere Lösungsansätze:
1. Viele Newsreader sind 8-bit-clean. Deshalb können die meisten jetzt
meine Umlaute lesen, die jetzt in Klammern kommen ( äöüÄÖÜß ).
2. Ae, oe, ue usw. sind meist eindeutig. Wer es genauer wissen will,
sollte die 3. Variante in Betrach ziehen
3. Die LaTeX-Variante: mit einem " vor dem Umlaut, also z.B. :
Die "altere Tante w"urde dir gern sch"one Gr"u"se "ubersenden.
Etwas gewöhnungsbedürftig, aber eindeutig
I apologize if you have no 8-bit-clean ISO8XXX font.
Bernd
--
Bernd Reh (Student an der Universit"at Kaiserslautern)
e-mail : r...@rhrk.uni-kl.de
snail-mail: Marie-Juchacz-Str. 16 // 67663 Kaiserslautern // Germany
Jochen Joscho Schoof
: Jaaaa, daß ist ein echtes Problem. Aber es gibt mehrere Lösungsansätze:
: 1. Viele Newsreader sind 8-bit-clean. Deshalb können die meisten jetzt
: meine Umlaute lesen, die jetzt in Klammern kommen ( äöüÄÖÜß ).
Right, but if you have one without 8-bit-capability the text becomes
really unreadable...
: 2. Ae, oe, ue usw. sind meist eindeutig. Wer es genauer wissen will,
: sollte die 3. Variante in Betrach ziehen
There are lots of readers in this group from outside Germany, who don't
have the special feeling needed to decide whether it is an Umlaut or
not. The problem becomes even more severe with the 'scharfes s'.
: 3. Die LaTeX-Variante: mit einem " vor dem Umlaut, also z.B. :
: Die "altere Tante w"urde dir gern sch"one Gr"u"se "ubersenden.
: Etwas gewöhnungsbedürftig, aber eindeutig
How do you say 'Balsam auf meine Wunden' in English =8^) ? I can't
believe that there is finally someone to share my opinion. What a day...
Just one little remark: I prefer \3 instead of "s, because it is (in my
opinion) easier to read.
Eckhard Rueggeberg
>In article <2fqkuc$g...@netnews.upenn.edu>, ahei...@mail.sas.upenn.edu (Adam Z. Heilman) writes:
>|> Yes, at first glance the ue oe ss trick seems to work well, but then how
>|> can I (a beginner) know whether the word is actually spelled with an
>|> umlauted u, or a ue?
>2. Ae, oe, ue usw. sind meist eindeutig. Wer es genauer wissen will,
> sollte die 3. Variante in Betrach ziehen
ue is not good for names like mine, where ue is simply WRONG
>3. Die LaTeX-Variante: mit einem " vor dem Umlaut, also z.B. :
> Die "altere Tante w"urde dir gern sch"one Gr"u"se "ubersenden.
> Etwas gewöhnungsbedürftig, aber eindeutig
>
I use B for sharp s, because it looks very much like ß in most Fonts,
is quite readable. Moreover everybody sees a B itself wouldn't make sense,
so she can imagine what should appear there instead of it.
---
Eckhard Rüggeberg
eck...@ts.go.dlr.de
RODERICVS READI
>I use B for sharp s, because it looks very much like ß in most Fonts,
>is quite readable. Moreover everybody sees a B itself wouldn't make sense,
>so she can imagine what should appear there instead of it.
Am liebsten gefaellt mir die traditionelle Loesung (ae,oe,ue,ss),
als "es-zet" koennte man vielleicht "$" mit der Vorstellung benutzen,
da$ es aus einem anlautenden und einem auslautenden s zusammengestzt ist:
Grosses S = Auslautendes s,
Linie = Anlautendes S, aehnlich wie in der alten Schrift.
Gruesse
Roderich
ry...@ryan.gsfc.nasa.gov
DEUTSCH:
Darf ich auch was zum Thema "Umlaut" hinzufügen? Es ist mir egal, ob man ue,
oder "u, oder ü benutzt, und wahrscheinlich auch ob man einfach die Buchstabe u
allein tippt, ich werde es verstehen. Aber ich habe ein Vorschlag für
diejenige, die Windows oder OS/2 haben: Ein _Cheat Sheet_ (Betrügsblatt?) und
Cut/Paste ausnutzen. Ich habe ein Datei mit nur _äöüÄÖÜß_ darin und ich
kopiere das unten in meine Nachricht. Und dann mit meinem Maus kopiere ich die
Buchstabe, die ich brauche, in das Wort, wo sie gebraucht wird. Es ist
ziemlich einfach. Probier es mal!
ENGLISH:
I'd like to add something to the "umlaut" discussion. I personally don't care
if ue, "u or ü are written, or even if the letter u alone is used; I'll
probably understand it. But for those of you who have Windows or OS/2, here's
a little suggestion on how you can bypass this problem: use a cheat sheet and
the cut/paste functions. I've got a file with only *äöüÄÖÜß* in it. When I
start a message in German, I copy these letters to the bottom of my message and
then just copy and paste the German letters using the mouse to where ever I
need them. It's really easy. Try it out!
äöüÄÖÜß
___ |ry...@ryan.gsfc.nasa.gov
/ ) |rsim...@gsfcmail.nasa.gov -- text e-mail ONLY! But,
/__ / __ | it's open 24hrs and I can get the mail at home!
/ ) / / / / / ) |CIS 71212,530
/ (_(_/_(_(_/ (_ |"Who needs teeth when you can have candy?"--Eric, 9
/ |"Wer braucht Zähne, wenn es Süßigkeiten gibt?"
Jeff Bishop
post in German first. If you don't read German, skip to the end.
Ich bin der Meinung, daB Anf"uhrungsstrichen und "B" (f"ur scharf s) die
beste L"osung sind. Zum einen l"aBt es sich von Anf"angern wesentlich
leicher lesen, die manchmal Stichw"orter nachschlagen m"ussen (und sich
bestimmt fragen, warum "schoen" erst nach "schon" im Lexikon erscheint,
wenn sie das Wort "uberhaupt finden). Zum anderen ist diese
Rechtschreibung vollkommen eindeutig, was mit dem "e" nicht der Fall ist
(wie soll man wissen, daB eine gewisse "LuegerstraBe" eigentlich
lu-eger-str. und nicht l"uger-str. heiBt). Zudem hat der "e" sowieso
nichts mit der Aussprache zu tun (ausgenommen "a).
"B" f"ur scharf es muB auch gut funktionieren, denn es gibt keine F"alle,
in denen beide Buchstaben m"oglich w"aren.
I think the best solution may be, as some have already pointed out, typing
quotation marks in front of the vowel which takes an umlaut and replacing
scharf s with B. This also makes reading easier for beginners who might
have to look up some of the words and will wonder why a word doesn't appear
in the dictionary where the "e" would lead one to expect. It also resolves
the occasional ambiguity of two vowels which are pronounced separately vs.
a single vowel whose sound may be unrelated to "e." Where is the /e/ in
luegen, for example?
"B" in lieu of scharf s would also work well since there are no places
where both scharf s and capital B would be possible. Hence, no ambiguity
arises, and at a glance it looks pretty close to the letter that belongs there.
Jochen Roth
Oder wie waere es mit alt.usage.german.umlaute.geraet.nix.geraet.nix ?
Das Umlaute-auf-ASCII-equipment Ding is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo alt.
Good ol' Northstar Horizon...
Jochen Roth
Johannes Labisch
ich wundere mich, dass bei dieser ganzen Umlautdiskussion keiner mal in den
Duden schaut. (Ich hab ihn natuerlich auch nicht bei mir.) Da muesste doch was
drin stehen ueber Umlaute auf Schreibmaschinen ohne ü etc.
Gruesse
Johannes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johannes Labisch TU Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Guido Zahn
: da$ es aus einem anlautenden und einem auslautenden s zusammengestzt ist:
: Grosses S = Auslautendes s,
: Linie = Anlautendes S, aehnlich wie in der alten Schrift.
Also ich kenne es so, dasz ein "es-zet" als "sz" geschrieben wird.
Das duerfte (ebenso wie ae, oe, ue) in nahezu allen Faellen eindeutig sein...
Wo ist das Problem ??!
Gruss Guido
Wolfram Schneider
>ich wundere mich, dass bei dieser ganzen Umlautdiskussion keiner mal in den
>Duden schaut. (Ich hab ihn natuerlich auch nicht bei mir.) Da muesste doch was
>drin stehen ueber Umlaute auf Schreibmaschinen ohne ü etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hinweise für das Maschinenschreiben
Die folgenden Hinweise beschränken sich auf die in der Praxis am häufigsten
auftretenden Probleme.
[...]
Fehlende Zeichen
----------------
Auf der Schreibmaschinentastatur fehlende Zeichen können in einigen
Fällen durch Kombinationen anderer Zeichen ersetzt werden:
Die Umlaute ä, ö, ü kann man als ae, oe, ue schreiben. Das ß kann durch
ss wiedergegeben werden.
südlich - suedlich
SÜDLICH - SUEDLICH
mäßig - maessig
Schlößchen - Schloesschen
Fußsohle - Fusssohle
Die Ziffern 0 und 1 können durch das große O und das kleine l ersetzt
werden.
110 - llO
[...]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RODERICVS READI
Ich wei$ nicht, wo das Problem sei, aber es ist ueblich "$" durch "ss" zu
ersetzen, auch wenn es nicht eindeutig ist. Mir gefaellt diese uebliche
Loesung; aber wenn es notwendig ist, ein Zeichen (und nicht eine
Zusammensetzung von mehreren) fuer das "es-zet" zu haben, dann schlage ich
das "$" vor.
Wegen einer dummen Regel ("auslautendes "ss" wird durch "$" ersetzt") wird oft
"ss" durch "$" auch ersetzt, so ist unsere normale Schrift mit dem Zeichen
"$" auch nicht eindeutig ("Flu$" sollte in Wirklichkeit "Fluss" sein).
Au$erdem "ss" ist nicht Dopelt-s (das gibt es auf Deutsch nicht), sondern
Doppelt-$ ("Wasser" sollte in Wirklichkeit "Wa$$er" sein, im Mittelalter
schrieb man "wazzer")
Gruesse
Roderich