This blog post discusses the New Yorker's historical and occasionally inconsistent use of diaereses. While the magazine famously uses them on words like "coöperate" and "reëlect," representing a now-archaic pronunciation distinction, its application isn't entirely systematic. The author explores the diaeresis's function in English, highlighting its role in indicating a separate vowel sound, particularly after prefixes. They note the New Yorker's wavering adherence to its own style guide over time, even within the same issue, and suggest this inconsistency stems from the fading awareness of the diaeresis's original purpose. Ultimately, the author concludes the New Yorker's use of the diaeresis is primarily an aesthetic choice, a visual quirk that contributes to the magazine's distinctive identity.
This erudite blog post, entitled "Umlauts, Diaereses, and the New Yorker (2020)," penned by the meticulous and linguistically-inclined Jonathon Owen, delves into the complex and often misunderstood world of diacritical marks, specifically focusing on the diaeresis and its sometimes interchangeable, sometimes distinct cousin, the umlaut. Owen commences by observing the New Yorker's seemingly capricious use of the diaeresis, sometimes employing it where an umlaut might be expected, and other times omitting it altogether. This inconsistency sparks a detailed investigation into the historical and typographical nuances of these two marks.
Owen meticulously lays out the historical distinction between the diaeresis and the umlaut, explaining that while they share a visual similarity—both consisting of two dots placed above a vowel—their functions are distinct. The diaeresis, he elucidates, signals that the vowel beneath it should be pronounced as a separate syllable, preventing the formation of a diphthong or digraph. The umlaut, on the other hand, indicates a fronting or raising of the vowel sound, a phonetic shift that originated in Germanic languages.
He further elaborates on the historical adoption of these marks in various languages, particularly focusing on the influence of French orthography on English printing practices. This borrowing, he argues, led to a blurring of the lines between the diaeresis and the umlaut, with the diaeresis frequently standing in for the umlaut, especially in words borrowed from German. This substitution, he notes, was partially driven by the limitations of early printing technology, which may not have readily accommodated the umlaut character.
The post then turns to a specific example from the New Yorker involving the word "coöperate," where the diaeresis is employed. Owen systematically dismantles various hypothetical justifications for this usage, meticulously demonstrating that none align perfectly with established typographical conventions or the word's etymology. He explores the possibilities of disambiguation, adherence to house style, and even the influence of prominent figures like Noah Webster, ultimately concluding that the New Yorker's persistent use of the diaeresis in "coöperate" remains somewhat enigmatic, perhaps a vestige of historical printing practices or a conscious stylistic choice.
Finally, Owen expands the discussion to encompass other words containing diaereses, such as "naïve" and "Brontë," providing further examples of the complexities and inconsistencies surrounding the use of these diacritical marks in English. He concludes by acknowledging the subtle yet significant role that these seemingly small marks play in shaping the visual landscape of written language, highlighting the intricate interplay between orthography, pronunciation, and historical convention. The post leaves the reader with a renewed appreciation for the depth of linguistic history embedded within even the most seemingly mundane typographical choices.
Summary of Comments ( 9 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42837273
HN commenters largely discuss the inconsistent and often incorrect usage of diaereses and umlauts, particularly in English publications like The New Yorker. Some point out the technical distinctions between the two marks, with the diaeresis indicating separate vowel sounds within a single syllable and the umlaut signifying a fronting or modification of a vowel. Others lament the decline of the diaeresis in modern typesetting and its occasional misapplication as a decorative element. A few commenters mention specific examples of proper and improper usage in various languages, highlighting the nuances of these diacritical marks and the challenges faced by writers and editors in maintaining accuracy. Some express a sense of pedantry surrounding the issue, acknowledging the minor impact on comprehension while still valuing correct usage. There's also some discussion about the specific software and typesetting practices that contribute to the problem.
The Hacker News post titled "Umlauts, Diaereses, and the New Yorker (2020)" has several comments discussing the article's content about the use of diacritics, specifically the diaeresis, in The New Yorker.
Several commenters discuss their personal experiences and preferences regarding the diaeresis. One commenter mentions their surprise at learning the mark above the "i" in "naïve" is not an umlaut, echoing the article's central point. They express a fondness for the aesthetic of the diaeresis and its implied pronunciation, even if not strictly adhered to. Another commenter shares a similar sentiment, appreciating the visual distinction the diaeresis provides and expressing a desire to use it more often. This commenter also points out the practical function of the diaeresis in distinguishing between words like "coöperate" (to work together) and "cooperate" (a type of cloak or cape), a distinction often lost without the diaeresis. Others chime in with similar anecdotes, reflecting a general appreciation for the diaeresis's clarifying role, even if its usage is declining.
The conversation also touches upon the technical aspects of typesetting and encoding these characters. One commenter mentions the challenges of representing the diaeresis in various character encodings and the historical complexities that have led to its sometimes inconsistent rendering. Another recalls the days of manually kerning characters in typesetting, highlighting the historical effort required to achieve typographical precision with diacritics.
There's also some discussion about the broader decline of diacritics in English, with commenters offering various theories, from the simplification of language over time to the practical difficulties of typesetting in the pre-digital era. Some lament this trend as a loss of nuance and visual appeal, while others see it as a natural evolution of language.
A few commenters discuss specific examples of words where the diaeresis is or isn't used, such as "Brontë" and "Zoë," noting the inconsistencies even within The New Yorker’s own style guide. One commenter humorously suggests that the diaeresis's continued use in "naïve" might simply be due to a reluctance to change a long-established practice.
Finally, some comments delve into the etymology of words and the historical reasons for the inclusion or omission of the diaeresis, demonstrating a general interest in the history and nuances of language.