>> Is the ö supposed to be an o umlaut or an o diaeresis? > > I don't know for sure, but the absence of another > vowel next to it makes me lean towards umlaut.">

three questions about alphabet files at Michael Everson site (original) (raw)

Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: NYTimes.com: A Is for Ancient, Describing an Alphabet Found Near Jerusalem"

From: "Charles Levert" <charles.levert@gmail.com>
>> Is the ö supposed to be an o umlaut or an o diaeresis?
>
> I don't know for sure, but the absence of another
> vowel next to it makes me lean towards umlaut.

Right. The diaeresis only separates the phonemes, but does not create new
ones in French. But in "maelström" it really inflects the vowelsound to
another one, so this is an umlaut accent.

I can't remember of any example for now of a dieresis used in French without
two vowels next to each other. It may be possible however, for example over
a vowel before "n" or "m" not followed by a consonnant, as the diaeresis
would avoid the nasalization of the vowel, it would detach the consonnant
and would not inflect the vowel itself (which would be pronounced in its
open form). Even imported words like "fox trot" are not written with a
diaeresis ("fox tröt"). So I suppose that the rule of the two vowels is a
good indicator that will work almost always.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5: Thu Nov 10 2005 - 16:43:37 CST