| Author |
Message |
E Rodent
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:12 am
Post subject: dieresis |
|
|
In older printed text, one can see words like 'cooperation'
spelled with a dieresis (on the second 'o', in this case).
What caused this to drop out of general use? Were English
typewriters ever provided with keys for characters with dieresis
signs? Was the dieresis used in hand-written English too?
Satish
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sara Lorimer
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:12 am
Post subject: Re: dieresis |
|
|
Jess Askin <jessaskinDONTTYPETHISPART@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | aminorflatfive@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1124509145.224676.191980@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
There was something about this in the news a while ago, with some
American magazine like Vanity Fair or the New Yorker deciding to
reinstate the dots. I can't remember which magazine it was, but they
apparently stuck to their guns on this until the 1950s or so, long
after everybody had stopped bothering, and then just this year I guess
they thought it was worth a second effort, for some probably pompous
reason.
If it was the New Yorker, it might be to distract people from how bad their
editing has gotten.
|
I don't think the New Yorker ever stopped with their dieresising --
they're well-known for it.
--
SML |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jess Askin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:12 am
Post subject: Re: dieresis |
|
|
<aminorflatfive@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1124509145.224676.191980@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | There was something about this in the news a while ago, with some
American magazine like Vanity Fair or the New Yorker deciding to
reinstate the dots. I can't remember which magazine it was, but they
apparently stuck to their guns on this until the 1950s or so, long
after everybody had stopped bothering, and then just this year I guess
they thought it was worth a second effort, for some probably pompous
reason.
|
If it was the New Yorker, it might be to distract people from how bad their
editing has gotten.
--
Jess Askin
Iowa, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:12 am
Post subject: Re: dieresis |
|
|
There was something about this in the news a while ago, with some
American magazine like Vanity Fair or the New Yorker deciding to
reinstate the dots. I can't remember which magazine it was, but they
apparently stuck to their guns on this until the 1950s or so, long
after everybody had stopped bothering, and then just this year I guess
they thought it was worth a second effort, for some probably pompous
reason.
T |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Bannister
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:12 am
Post subject: Re: dieresis |
|
|
E Rodent wrote:
| Quote: | In older printed text, one can see words like 'cooperation'
spelled with a dieresis (on the second 'o', in this case).
What caused this to drop out of general use? Were English
typewriters ever provided with keys for characters with dieresis
signs? Was the dieresis used in hand-written English too?
|
The problem was with typewriters, where you had to use the double quote,
which also doubled for the umlaut. They were certainly used in
handwriting until their virtual disappearance.
--
Rob Bannister |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Lawton
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:11 pm
Post subject: Re: dieresis |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:26:20 -0700, que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com (Sara Lorimer)
wrote:
| Quote: | Jess Askin <jessaskinDONTTYPETHISPART@yahoo.com> wrote:
aminorflatfive@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1124509145.224676.191980@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
There was something about this in the news a while ago, with some
American magazine like Vanity Fair or the New Yorker deciding to
reinstate the dots. I can't remember which magazine it was, but they
apparently stuck to their guns on this until the 1950s or so, long
after everybody had stopped bothering, and then just this year I guess
they thought it was worth a second effort, for some probably pompous
reason.
If it was the New Yorker, it might be to distract people from how bad their
editing has gotten.
I don't think the New Yorker ever stopped with their dieresising --
they're well-known for it.
|
I always put covers on the chairs when they come round.
--
Jim
"a single species has come to dominate ...
reproducing at bacterial levels, almost as an
infectious plague envelops its host"
http://tinyurl.com/c88xs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 2:55 pm
Post subject: Re: dieresis |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:26:20 -0700, que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com
(Sara Lorimer) wrote:
| Quote: | Jess Askin <jessaskinDONTTYPETHISPART@yahoo.com> wrote:
aminorflatfive@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1124509145.224676.191980@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
There was something about this in the news a while ago, with some
American magazine like Vanity Fair or the New Yorker deciding to
reinstate the dots. I can't remember which magazine it was, but they
apparently stuck to their guns on this until the 1950s or so, long
after everybody had stopped bothering, and then just this year I guess
they thought it was worth a second effort, for some probably pompous
reason.
If it was the New Yorker, it might be to distract people from how bad their
editing has gotten.
I don't think the New Yorker ever stopped with their dieresising --
they're well-known for it.
|
The New Yorker is now a magazine for has-beens. The modern man reads
_The Economist_. Seriously, folks, you're not likely to find better
writing in any other periodical.
--
Charles Riggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Django Cat
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 3:14 pm
Post subject: Re: dieresis |
|
|
Sara Lorimer wrote:
| Quote: | Jess Askin <jessaskinDONTTYPETHISPART@yahoo.com> wrote:
aminorflatfive@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1124509145.224676.191980@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
There was something about this in the news a while ago, with some
American magazine like Vanity Fair or the New Yorker deciding to
reinstate the dots. I can't remember which magazine it was, but
they apparently stuck to their guns on this until the 1950s or
so, long after everybody had stopped bothering, and then just
this year I guess they thought it was worth a second effort, for
some probably pompous reason.
If it was the New Yorker, it might be to distract people from how
bad their editing has gotten.
I don't think the New Yorker ever stopped with their dieresising --
they're well-known for it.
|
Bastards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 9:40 pm
Post subject: Re: dieresis |
|
|
Charles Riggs wrote:
| Quote: | The New Yorker is now a magazine for has-beens. The modern man reads
_The Economist_. Seriously, folks, you're not likely to find better
writing in any other periodical.
|
You are correct, sir. (Although, due to laziness, I recently let my
subscription expire without renewal.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maria Conlon
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:16 pm
Post subject: Re: dieresis |
|
|
Django Cat wrote:
| Quote: | Sara Lorimer wrote:
Jess Askin wrote:
aminorflatfive wrote:
There was something about this in the news a while ago, with some
American magazine like Vanity Fair or the New Yorker deciding to
reinstate the dots. I can't remember which magazine it was, but
they apparently stuck to their guns on this until the 1950s or
so, long after everybody had stopped bothering, and then just
this year I guess they thought it was worth a second effort, for
some probably pompous reason.
If it was the New Yorker, it might be to distract people from how
bad their editing has gotten.
I don't think the New Yorker ever stopped with their dieresising --
they're well-known for it.
Bastards.
|
I've just glanced through The New Yorker [1] and saw no
dieresis/diaersis (plural diereses/diaerses?) I could have missed one or
several. I'll have to search online -- if the magazine is online, which
it likely is.
[1] The August 22nd issue of The New Yorker is the first of my
recently-paid-for subscription; I hadn't read the mag regularly since
the 1960s, though I've seen it occasionally in the meantime. Had I
mentioned in aue that I was thinking of subscribing, there apparently
might have been efforts to dissuade me. But I have it and will have it
for a year or so. Yesterday, I began reading an article about Kinky
Friedman, erstwhile leader of a country-and-Western band, and current
would-be nominee for governor of Texas. I'll finish reading it tonight.
So far it's interesting and entertaining. Note: I've already looked at
all the NY cartoons, some of which are pretty good, but not what I'd
call keepers (or "clippers").
Maria Conlon
I Like Kinky. (Note the initial cap.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Django Cat
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 11:36 pm
Post subject: Re: dieresis |
|
|
Maria Conlon wrote:
| Quote: | Django Cat wrote:
Sara Lorimer wrote:
Jess Askin wrote:
aminorflatfive wrote:
There was something about this in the news a while ago, with
some American magazine like Vanity Fair or the New Yorker
deciding to reinstate the dots. I can't remember which
magazine it was, but they apparently stuck to their guns on
this until the 1950s or so, long after everybody had stopped
bothering, and then just this year I guess they thought it
was worth a second effort, for some probably pompous reason.
If it was the New Yorker, it might be to distract people from
how bad their editing has gotten.
I don't think the New Yorker ever stopped with their dieresising
-- they're well-known for it.
Bastards.
I've just glanced through The New Yorker [1] and saw no
dieresis/diaersis (plural diereses/diaerses?) I could have missed one
or several. I'll have to search online -- if the magazine is online,
which it likely is.
[1] The August 22nd issue of The New Yorker is the first of my
recently-paid-for subscription; I hadn't read the mag regularly since
the 1960s, though I've seen it occasionally in the meantime. Had I
mentioned in aue that I was thinking of subscribing, there apparently
might have been efforts to dissuade me. But I have it and will have
it for a year or so. Yesterday, I began reading an article about
Kinky Friedman, erstwhile leader of a country-and-Western band,
|
<start>
'The Ragtime Cowboy Jews' as I recall. Author of unbelievably
self-referential detective novels in which the 'tec is called Kinky
Freidman and plays in a band called
<goto start>
DC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jess Askin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 7:08 am
Post subject: Re: dieresis |
|
|
"Maria Conlon" <maria.c-b@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jHINe.4949$hF1.1565@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
| Quote: | Django Cat wrote:
Sara Lorimer wrote:
Jess Askin wrote:
aminorflatfive wrote:
There was something about this in the news a while ago, with some
American magazine like Vanity Fair or the New Yorker deciding to
reinstate the dots. I can't remember which magazine it was, but
they apparently stuck to their guns on this until the 1950s or
so, long after everybody had stopped bothering, and then just
this year I guess they thought it was worth a second effort, for
some probably pompous reason.
If it was the New Yorker, it might be to distract people from how
bad their editing has gotten.
I don't think the New Yorker ever stopped with their dieresising --
they're well-known for it.
Bastards.
I've just glanced through The New Yorker [1] and saw no
dieresis/diaersis (plural diereses/diaerses?) I could have missed one or
several. I'll have to search online -- if the magazine is online, which
it likely is.
[1] The August 22nd issue of The New Yorker is the first of my
recently-paid-for subscription; I hadn't read the mag regularly since
the 1960s, though I've seen it occasionally in the meantime. Had I
mentioned in aue that I was thinking of subscribing, there apparently
might have been efforts to dissuade me. But I have it and will have it
for a year or so. Yesterday, I began reading an article about Kinky
Friedman, erstwhile leader of a country-and-Western band, and current
would-be nominee for governor of Texas. I'll finish reading it tonight.
So far it's interesting and entertaining. Note: I've already looked at
all the NY cartoons, some of which are pretty good, but not what I'd
call keepers (or "clippers").
|
The cartoons are one area in which they've particularly gone downhill. Most
of these new guys can't even draw that well.
--
Jess Askin
Iowa, USA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ross Howard
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 3:10 pm
Post subject: Re: dieresis |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 16:16:15 GMT, "Maria Conlon"
<maria.c-b@sbcglobal.net> wrought:
| Quote: | Django Cat wrote:
Sara Lorimer wrote:
Jess Askin wrote:
aminorflatfive wrote:
There was something about this in the news a while ago, with some
American magazine like Vanity Fair or the New Yorker deciding to
reinstate the dots. I can't remember which magazine it was, but
they apparently stuck to their guns on this until the 1950s or
so, long after everybody had stopped bothering, and then just
this year I guess they thought it was worth a second effort, for
some probably pompous reason.
If it was the New Yorker, it might be to distract people from how
bad their editing has gotten.
I don't think the New Yorker ever stopped with their dieresising --
they're well-known for it.
Bastards.
I've just glanced through The New Yorker [1] and saw no
dieresis/diaersis (plural diereses/diaerses?) I could have missed one or
several. I'll have to search online -- if the magazine is online, which
it likely is.
|
Google on
reëlection site:.newyorker.com
or
preëmptive site:.newyorker.com
Yes, they're still doing it, all right.
--
Ross Howard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in