dieresis
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: [Way OT] dieresis
Next: Parsing in Embedded Systems
From: Ignacio G. T. on 3 Mar 2010 09:10 El 02/03/2010 21:52, Stefan Reuther escribió: > The only "other" umlaut I know besides the German ones is a cyrillic > one, ё (CYRILLIC LETTER YO), but as far as I can tell, using the cute > little dots isn't mandatory. Now does this make it more an umlaut > (because the original 'e' sound changes into an 'o' sound), or more a > diaeresis (because it's just a parsing aid telling you how to pronounce > a word...)? :-) In Spanish we use ü, and call it "u with dieresis" I don't know if it should be considered a diaeresis or an umlaut by (your) definition, though. Judge by yourself: Agüero sounds like ah-GWEH-roh Aguero would sound like ah-GEH-roh -- Saludos. Ignacio G.T.
From: D Yuniskis on 3 Mar 2010 15:38 Hi Stefan, Stefan Reuther wrote: > D Yuniskis wrote: >> Stefan Reuther wrote: >>>> Yes, but an umlaut changes the sound of the vowel >>>> whereas a dieresis causes the vowel to be pronounced as >>>> another syllable. >>> Unicode makes no difference between the two cases :) >> Unicode is just a catalog of *glyphs*. They have no "meaning". > > It depends. We have A, Α, and А, which have the same glyph and different > meaning. And we have things like non-breaking spaces of all sorts, which > have no glyph and just meaning.... Yes, my point was that Unicode just describes the glyphs ("marks on paper") and doesn't try to ascribe meaning to any of them. E.g., U+0308 describes that diacrytical mark altenately as: - double dot above (umlaut) - Greek dialytika - double derivative - diaresis I guess the first question is: what is the name for the "two dots above" which embeds *no* meaning as to usage or interpretation? E.g., I always understood diaeresis to mean "pronounce this as an additional syllable" and umlaut to be "change the *sound* typically associated with this (vowel)". Are either/both of these "bad assumptions" on my part? >>>> (can an umlaut be used on anything *other* than a vowel?) >>> Unicode has ÿ (U+00FF) and CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER ZHE WITH DIARERESIS >>> (U+04DD); the bases of both are not vowels as far as I know... >> Y is often a semi-vowel. Does "ZHE" qualify as a "consonant"? >> The very nature of diaresis is that it applies to vowels (?). > > My (long ago) Russian class didn't tell me anything about CYRILLIC > LETTER ZHE WITH DIARERESIS, but CYRILLIC LETTER ZHE was a consonant > (it's about the same sound as the 'sh' in 'English'). So, this is a case where you *can* put it on a consonant. Now, does that usage fall under my interpretation of the role of "diaraesis"? Or, does the description "SMALL LETTER ZHE WITH DIARESIS" take liberties with the term "diaraesis"? Or, is my interpretation of the term incorrect and "diaraesis" is actually the name for "two dots above"? :> >> I was asking about umlaut, though... > > The only "other" umlaut I know besides the German ones is a cyrillic > one, ё (CYRILLIC LETTER YO), but as far as I can tell, using the cute > little dots isn't mandatory. Now does this make it more an umlaut > (because the original 'e' sound changes into an 'o' sound), or more a > diaeresis (because it's just a parsing aid telling you how to pronounce > a word...)? :-) <shrug> You really have to wonder the sorts of folks who make a *career* out of this sort of thing! I've a tough enough time dealing with my "native tongue"... ;-)
From: mac on 3 Mar 2010 20:13 I still use 'em... -- mac the naïf
From: JosephKK on 4 Mar 2010 01:35 On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:26:11 -0700, D Yuniskis <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com> wrote: >Stefan Reuther wrote: >> D Yuniskis wrote: >>> Frank-Christian Krügel wrote: >>>> Am 01.03.2010 22:58, schrieb D Yuniskis: >>>>> Today, as I was trying to remember a keystroke sequence >>>>> for an accented character in FrameMaker, I *conciously* >>>>> noticed that I still automatically spell "naive" with a >>>>> dieresis. >>>> Oh, we like using them. Just look at my sig. :-) >>> Yes, but an umlaut changes the sound of the vowel >>> whereas a dieresis causes the vowel to be pronounced as >>> another syllable. >> >> Unicode makes no difference between the two cases :) > >Unicode is just a catalog of *glyphs*. They have no "meaning". > >>> (can an umlaut be used on anything *other* than a vowel?) >> >> Unicode has ÿ (U+00FF) and CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER ZHE WITH DIARERESIS >> (U+04DD); the bases of both are not vowels as far as I know... > >Y is often a semi-vowel. Does "ZHE" qualify as a "consonant"? >The very nature of diaresis is that it applies to vowels (?). > >I was asking about umlaut, though... > >> Stefan (who usually uses a hyphen to separate ambiguous words, >> because it also works for other kinds of ambiguities) > >--don (who loves using asterisks, commas, bangs and other >assorted textual decorations :> ) Do your interobangs get in your eyes?
From: Boudewijn Dijkstra on 4 Mar 2010 03:33
Op Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:38:57 +0100 schreef D Yuniskis <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com>: > Stefan Reuther wrote: >> D Yuniskis wrote: >>> Stefan Reuther wrote: >>>>> Yes, but an umlaut changes the sound of the vowel >>>>> whereas a dieresis causes the vowel to be pronounced as >>>>> another syllable. >>>> Unicode makes no difference between the two cases :) >>> Unicode is just a catalog of *glyphs*. They have no "meaning". >> It depends. We have A, Α, and А, which have the same glyph and >> different >> meaning. And we have things like non-breaking spaces of all sorts, which >> have no glyph and just meaning.... > > Yes, my point was that Unicode just describes the glyphs > ("marks on paper") and doesn't try to ascribe meaning to > any of them. E.g., U+0308 describes that diacrytical mark > altenately as: > - double dot above (umlaut) > - Greek dialytika > - double derivative > - diaresis > > I guess the first question is: what is the name for the > "two dots above" which embeds *no* meaning as to usage > or interpretation? E.g., I always understood diaeresis to > mean "pronounce this as an additional syllable" and > umlaut to be "change the *sound* typically associated > with this (vowel)". > > Are either/both of these "bad assumptions" on my part? "Properly speaking, the terms diaeresis and umlaut are not interchangeable, though speakers frequently use the term umlaut to refer to a diaeresis." - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/diaeresis But if you use "trema", it can mean either. -- Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma: http://www.opera.com/mail/ (remove the obvious prefix to reply by mail) |