On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Benct Philip Jonsson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On 2009-09-24 R A Brown wrote: >> >> BJP has often accused us anglophones of "terror >> diacriticorum" [^1]; it would seem from what I >> could see that sinophones suffer from the same >> affliction :) >> >> [^1] I have also argued more than once that it's >> not a _terror_ for diacritics that we suffer >> from, but rather an over-riding indifference. >> After all, we happily employ them for effect, >> e.g. Häagen-Dazs, Motörhead and other examples >> of the "heavy metal umlaut." It's that >> anglophones just treat them as >> 'adornments'. > > Actually, _languor diacriticorum_ worries me even > more than _terror diacriticorum_! > >> The many years when my taught French, she had to >> work hard to make pupils realize that é and è >> actually denotes _different_ sounds. > > I have often had occasion to observe that while > Swedes regard the familiar _å ä ö_ as letters in > their own right they regard other diacritics as > mere adornments. I've actually come across people > who couldn't grasp that the acute accent and > diaeresis in Quenya are not aesthetically > motivated adornments, but meant to indicate the > correct pronunciation of words, and hence they > would also nat understand that the diaeresis is > superfluous once it's understood that Quenya > doesn't follow the pronunciation rules of English, > retorting that it makes the words more beautiful! Were they similarly uncomprehending regarding the difference between Sw. _ide_ and _idé_? -- Andreas Johansson Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?