From: Mike Ayers (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2004 - 18:49:09 CDT
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
> Behalf Of busmanus
> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 3:34 PM
> Perhaps it is. But then it's partly due to the "lazy" tradition.
Are you implying that, had printers throughout the centuries put the
effort into faithfully reproducing every obscure symbol from every foreign
language, that the modern American would accept words with arbitrary
> I don't think it's a problem with any given diacritical. Its rather
> an indistinct horror of diacriticals in general in speakers of a
> language without any diacriticals at all, like English. E.g.
> Hungarian uses three diacriticals and Hungarian speakers make no
> big deal of just ignoring the "meaningless" caron in Czech or
> the grave
> and the cedilla in Roumanian names.
> On the other hand, I must admit, that we also can be quite brutal
> to diacriticals in some newspapers or when it comes to a language
> like Vietnamese...
In other words, you're pretty comfortable with your own diacritics.
You make my point for me.
...none of which has spit to do with my original reason for raising
the issue. How do we categorize this behavior (we *are* all in agreement
that it does exist, yes?) - do we lump it onto the ever growing
"transcription" pile, or does it have its own name?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 06 2004 - 19:06:50 CDT