Talk:Two dots (diacritic)

Confusing and poor definition

The second paragraph contains the confusing tautology "The diaeresis represents the phenomenon also known as diaeresis" and the first paragraph starts with a description rather than the more useful defition. Describing them as "phenomena" is imprecise, phenomena are typically natural and grammar is artificial. Also "by contrast" is stylistically more conventional than "in contrast". I propose that the definition is re-worded as follows:

"The diaeresis (/daɪˈɛrɪsɪs/ dy-ERR-ə-sis; plural: diaereses), also diæresis, dieresis or hiatus is one of two uses of a diacritical mark in the form of two dots ( ¨ ) placed over a letter, usually a vowel. When that letter is an i or a j, the diacritic replaces the tittle: ï.[1]

The umlaut is also in the form of two dots (placed over an o or u) but is phonologically distinct from the diaresis. The diaeresis indicates that a vowel letter is pronounced separately from an adjacent vowel and not as part of a digraph or diphthong. The umlaut (/ˈʊmlaʊt/ UUM-lowt), by contrast, indicates a sound shift. These two diacritics originated separately; the diaeresis is considerably older. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C405:700:2C84:A635:DAB4:A490 (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see my edits to the lead paragraph; these are intended to address the issues you raise, among others. yoyo (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I find current text in the lede, distinction between these two, clarifying (to me as a layman). Formally, and correctly, this should be taken from the article body text, (sections Diaeresis and Umlaut), but especially Umlaut has a different description. (Also, in the lede description the word "Umlaut" appears twice, like "for Umlaut see Umlaut". Could be nicer imo). -DePiep (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Please Rewrite I am adding a note here because the title of your point is exactly the same as one I was about to make, namely, that this entire article is confusing because it is unintelligible to a reader with even above average English comprehension such as myself. I came here to find out if it is proper to use an umlaut in the English language and I was not helped. The article is full of linguistic jargon so that even a definition of an umlaut in simple terms is not given. I suggest the article be rewritten with a view to render it intelligible. SanVitores (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)SanVitores

@SanVitores: The problem is that this article is about the mark. It is not about the two reasons to use it (though it does summarise them), which I think is what you are looking for: the two articles that give that information are linked in the wp:hatnote at the top of the article. I have added a sentence to the lead to summarise the material on how it is used (or, more accurately, not used) in English. Do you think that the next person who comes along with your expectation will be better served now? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Actually, the problem is that the article is too technical for me. I saw your hatnote but I remained lost. I have a simple question, namely, may umlauts be used in English. I still do not know the answer but I am guessing that a character or letter with an umlaut does not exist in an English alphabet. I realize I am out of my depth here and I must seek a clarification elsewhere. No-one is at fault and I thank you for the courtesy of attempting to help me. SanVitores (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)SanVitores

@SanVitores: The sentence I added was Neither of these phenomena occur routinely in English, except in loanwords like naïve or for stylistic reasons (as in the Brontë family). Does it need to be more prominent? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Perfect. This sentence gives me my answer. I would like to remove the word routinely. It is prominent enough in my opinion. Thanks so much. SanVitores (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)SanVitores

@SanVitores: I seem to feel some ambiguity in your question, so let's disambiguate:

What I call umlaut (in the narrower sense) is a double-dot above a vowel, changing the timbre of that vowel (and, sorry, but I will have to use IPA characters, between slashes, in the examples): for instance, in German, umlaut changes a /a/ to ä /ɛ/, o /o/ or /ɔ/ to ö /ø/ or /œ/, u /u/ to ü /y/ and au /au/ to äu /ɔi/. In this sense, an umlaut can only be used in English as part of foreign words not yet anglicized: e.g. when talking of "the university of Göttingen". In a wider sense, the Germanic umlaut phenomenon is what gives us "strong plurals" as in man → men, goose → geese, mouse → mice, etc., but English doesn't use an umlaut mark in this latter case, unlike German which writes Mann → Männer, Gans → Gänse, Maus → Mäuse, etc. for the corresponding German words.

What I call diæresis is the fact of separating successive vowels in hiatus. This process can be marked by two dots over the second vowel, usually also on foreign words such as Chloë, Zoë, Noël, naïve, etc. The opposite of a diæresis (a "separation") is a syneresis (a "running-together"), both names come from Greek, and a syneresis is not marked by any particular diacritic.

English has a third use for that double-dot diacritic, as in the family name Brontë. This is an English word, albeit a proper name, and I'm not sure how to call this use of the diacritic, except by the name trema which is a general name for the diacritic itself across all its uses.

So to summarize: yes, the three above-mentioned uses of the trema (the double-dot diacritic) are possible in English, but they will happen rarely, and mostly (but not only) in foreign words.

I hope I've made myself understood. — Tonymec (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman:I prefer to accept that the umlaut is not at all English and is never used in English except when borrowing a foreign word. The name Brontë may an English family name but it is not an English word, rather an affected idiosyncrasy added by the father of the Brontë sisters thinking his real name of Brunty was too humble. It is a fabrication.SanVitores (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@SanVitores: Yes, that is a correct summary.

@Tonymec: I guess you could call it a Metal umlaut. Mr Brontë was just a little ahead of the pack. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: hm, IIUC the Metal umlaut is used for decoration, like other "Metal" orthographic indiosyncrasies such as replacing R by Я in otherwise "plain" English text. The trema on the last letter of Brontë is there to have that e pronounced as a "normal" (fully syllabic) e, not as a schwa: Tolkien used the same artifice in e.g. the names Finwë, Olwë, Elwë, Andúnië, etc. and though they aren't supposed to be English, I feel certain that Tolkien put them there to make them fully syllabic even when read by English readers. — Tonymec (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@SanVitores: I've just come across English terms with diacritical marks, which may provide the explanations that you and other ESL students (and teachers) are looking for? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I like the opening three paragraphs which more-or-less answer my original query. Thank you. SanVitores (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Ÿ

Request to move, actioned May 2023
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@John Maynard Friedman: Thank you for pointing out the problem with Ÿ. At the time I made my changes, Ÿ was a dab following a RfD. It has since been replaced by an article. I've retargeted Ÿ (vowel) to the new article for now, but someone may replace the article by a dab again per RfD. Certes (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC) @Certes:, thank in return for your considerate response as that possibility had not occurred to me and maybe it should have. What made me jump to a conclusion was that Close central rounded vowel § Close central compressed vowel suggests that ÿ is an unofficial IPA notation. Minefield! I can see that there might be a case for a DAB, but more likely because of the handwritten Dutch ij ligature than a rather esoteric IPA construction. '"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone,"it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less"' — Alice in Wikipedia Wonderland. Watch this space! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC) revised 21:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC) After Spitzak's rewrite, the Ÿ article as it stands now must surely be the stable outcome. It delivers on the intent of the RfD consensus without getting shoe-horned into sparse dab article: in form it it is now just like every other article about a single grapheme, which is what it should have been in the first place. Hopefully that will end the tempest in a thimble. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)