Comments on: Umlauts and Diereses http://www.alphadictionary.com/blog/?p=780 A Blog about Words and Language(s) from alphaDictionary.com Tue, 21 May 2013 19:53:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.6 By: Qjames http://www.alphadictionary.com/blog/?p=780&cpage=1#comment-252059 Qjames Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:52:49 +0000 http://www.alphadictionary.com/blog/?p=780#comment-252059 I guess his point is that you made a couple of points which are not supported as facts. Strictly speaking it should be Sprachgefuehl. This is the established German way to show, in the absence of the umlaut, the pronunciation. Omitting the umlaut or 'e' fails to educate anyone about the origin of the word or its pronunciation. I guess his point is that you made a couple of points which are not supported as facts.

Strictly speaking it should be Sprachgefuehl. This is the established German way to show, in the absence of the umlaut, the pronunciation. Omitting the umlaut or ‘e’ fails to educate anyone about the origin of the word or its pronunciation.

]]> By: Robert Beard http://www.alphadictionary.com/blog/?p=780&cpage=1#comment-248660 Robert Beard Tue, 15 Feb 2011 02:32:19 +0000 http://www.alphadictionary.com/blog/?p=780#comment-248660 I'm not quite sure what your point is. You have repeated my points and concluded that I am denying my readers of the truth. In fact, the entire article was an attempt at revealing the truth. You explain the difference between the two exactly as I do but omit the points that (1) separating the two on the basis of function is anomalous and (2) that the merging of the two has been long under way. These two points are true, too. I’m not quite sure what your point is. You have repeated my points and concluded that I am denying my readers of the truth. In fact, the entire article was an attempt at revealing the truth. You explain the difference between the two exactly as I do but omit the points that (1) separating the two on the basis of function is anomalous and (2) that the merging of the two has been long under way. These two points are true, too.

]]> By: Jeremy Wheeler http://www.alphadictionary.com/blog/?p=780&cpage=1#comment-248603 Jeremy Wheeler Mon, 14 Feb 2011 23:53:02 +0000 http://www.alphadictionary.com/blog/?p=780#comment-248603 It seems to me that there is some confusion here. Perhaps I might address the points one by one: 1. '...we have no word for German Umlaut in English', well, actually we do: it's 'umlaut' (attested in the OED as a linguistic term since the 1860s), along with 'ablaut'. 2. The trema diacritic (two dots) is used to mark two different phonological phenomena: umlaut and dieraesis. 3. The description umlaut is applied to the phonological phenomenom of a vowel sound changing to become more like another adjacent sound. In such a case the trema is often referred to as an umlaut. 4. The description dieraesis is applied to the phonological phenomenom where two adjoining letters that would normally form a digraph and be pronounced as one are instead to be read as separate, either as a diphthong or as two distinct vowels in two syllables. In such a case the trema is often referred to as a dieraesis. 5. It is just not true that the word dieraesis 'before English began borrowing words from Modern German, [...] was used only to refer to an umlaut placed over the second of two successive vowels to indicate that both are pronounced, as in the case of naïve Chloë, Noël, Aïda.' Dieraeses have been observed in languages since early Greek at least and the term has long been used in linguistics to refer to the phenomenom, whether or not marked by a diacritic. In contemporary English, dieraeses are almost all unmarked and they do not cease to be such for want of a diacritic. The absence of a trema diacritic does not prevent English from having umlauts, either: mouse and mice, for example. I suppose that as it is your page you may call the trema diacritic umlaut and dieraesis interchangeably. It seems a shame, though, that readers who are not by training linguists will not have the benefit of learning the difference between the two constructions. It seems to me that there is some confusion here. Perhaps I might address the points one by one:
1. ‘…we have no word for German Umlaut in English’, well, actually we do: it’s ‘umlaut’ (attested in the OED as a linguistic term since the 1860s), along with ‘ablaut’.
2. The trema diacritic (two dots) is used to mark two different phonological phenomena: umlaut and dieraesis.
3. The description umlaut is applied to the phonological phenomenom of a vowel sound changing to become more like another adjacent sound. In such a case the trema is often referred to as an umlaut.
4. The description dieraesis is applied to the phonological phenomenom where two adjoining letters that would normally form a digraph and be pronounced as one are instead to be read as separate, either as a diphthong or as two distinct vowels in two syllables. In such a case the trema is often referred to as a dieraesis.
5. It is just not true that the word dieraesis ‘before English began borrowing words from Modern German, [...] was used only to refer to an umlaut placed over the second of two successive vowels to indicate that both are pronounced, as in the case of naïve Chloë, Noël, Aïda.’ Dieraeses have been observed in languages since early Greek at least and the term has long been used in linguistics to refer to the phenomenom, whether or not marked by a diacritic. In contemporary English, dieraeses are almost all unmarked and they do not cease to be such for want of a diacritic. The absence of a trema diacritic does not prevent English from having umlauts, either: mouse and mice, for example.

I suppose that as it is your page you may call the trema diacritic umlaut and dieraesis interchangeably. It seems a shame, though, that readers who are not by training linguists will not have the benefit of learning the difference between the two constructions.

]]>