Print

Print


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?