dieresis
in [Design]
|
Prev: [Way OT] dieresis
Next: SPDIF to AES/EBU
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: 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)
From: David Brown on 4 Mar 2010 03:52
On 01/03/2010 22:58, D Yuniskis wrote: > Hi, > > I do a lot of formal writing (specifications, manuals, etc.). > > And, I suspect much of my spelling, vocabulary, grammar, > etc. traits have remained largely unchanged since grade > school. :< > > 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. > > At first, I shrugged this off as a throwback to something > I learned in childhood. > > But, then I started thinking about it more. In particular, > the fact that I *only* use it in this word! And, have > *never* used it in other places where it "should" be used. > > (of course, no one *still* uses it at all, so this is a moot > point) > <rant> For people using Windows with English-language keyboard layouts, it is extremely inconvenient to make proper use of diacritical marks of any kind - thus people generally don't bother. I have no idea why there is such a limitation here - after all, with non-English keyboard layouts in Windows you have easy access to the more common marks even when they are not part of your language (on my Norwegian keyboard, I can easily write na�ve). And of course on Linux, you typically have far more combinations directly available, and support for a "compose" key if you need it. The upshot of this your average English-only Windows-only computer user has little idea about how to get non-Ascii characters into a document, and generally does not bother. Word processors (in particular, a certain well-known word processor from a certain well-known software company) have greatly reduced the quality of typesetting in general. Few people seem to understand fundamentals such as consistent use of spacing and fonts, and for some unfathomable reason, word processors don't automate these rules (TeX and LaTeX have done it for a couple of decades - it's not /that/ hard to implement). Try asking your company's technical writers if they understand the difference between a hyphen, an en-dash, and an em-dash! </rant> |