Talk:English terms with diacritical marks

message: It might also be interesting to list some of the loan words that have lost their diacriticals. I've already mentioned à propos, which list both an accent and a space. There is also one of my favorite words, both for its real meaning and as a metaphor, smörgåsbord. Angstom is from Anders J. Ångström and roentgen is from Wilhelm Röntgen. Also: boutonnière clientèle,  gK 06:40, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The word airplane dates from 1907,Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, airplane. at which time the prefix aero- was trisyllabic, often written aëro-.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.75.160.141 (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: A Second List?

message: A lot of foreign phrases with diacritics have been added to the article. These should be removed. Do we have a separate list of phrases somewhere? jguk 16:31, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: I thought this was a list of words, not phrases

message: Cut from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) --Philip Baird Shearer 20:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut from Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) 

message: Beland, i removed the "move to Wiktionary" tag without first asking you for your reasoning because i saw on your user page that you're too busy now to deal with requests quickly. I also wanted your suggestion to be discussed here before somebody overzealous gets rid of this article before a discussion has taken place. Putting such a peremptory tag without discussion is not a good idea. Actually, it's of course not your fault that the template is badly worded; like similar tags, it should ask users to discuss the suggested idea of moving instead of saying that it has been more or less decided that this is a dictionary entry ("appears/is", "be more than a dictionary entry" instead of "may be" etc.) and that the move will happen if the article is not made into more than a dictionary entry.
More specifically, the article has almost nothing to do with a dictionary entry and has all the characteristics of an encyclopedia entry. First of all, lists do not belong in dictionaries except for very rare exceptions (and this may be one), and then they are just that, a list, with an explanation that is much shorter than the description provided here. This article, on the contrary, in addition describes what this spelling phenomenon is and why it is used and provides many other pieces of information that would and should not be provided in a dictionary at all. (A dictionary entry would be very short and expect users to look up any technical terms it uses.) As it stands, the article is not a bad rough draft. 
If this list and its explanatory and descriptive article were removed, we'd have to remove most other lists from Wikipedia too, including for example List_of_Internet_slang_phrases. Removing specifically that list would severely reduce Wikipedia's value and authority in the online community that uses and feeds it, and although there were and are some who still call for its deletion, the discussion clearly showed why that list is important and belongs in WP. Many if not most of the keep arguments in that discussion apply here too. If you in addition consider that that list also has definitions of the words, whereas this list doesn't, you can see why this article is even less of a dictionary entry. --Espoo 04:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed the article should be moved - it has no place in an encyclopedia unless the encyclopedia is dedicated to langauge, which this one is not
Disagree with move. The article has a place in the encyclopedia, which is potentially about everything, including language (and languages). We also need an article about loan words generally written without diacritics, like "elite", and those sometimes written with our without, like "facade" or "coupe" (the car).   — Preceding unsigned comment added by METRANGOLO1 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed move to Wiktionary 

message: On the topic of removing/dropping diacritics, it may be useful to mention the neologism "asciify" as in rendering a text string in ASCII characters (which happen to include the 26 letters of the English alphabet and some symbols, but no diacritics). Although properly a computer term (or derivative of a computer term) it is a convenient way of describing the practice.--A12n (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ASCIIfication"? 

message: Because of the perennial problem of whether all these words are actually "English", how about we rename the article to Use of diacritics in English? 86.134.30.51 (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems extremely reasonable.  Whether the dialect's army and/or navy has conquered any given word is rather arbitrary anyway.  SDY (talk) 08:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

text: That is an excellent idea.  It describes the situation exactly.  Many foreign words that have been absorbed into the English language originally had diacritics.  Some are dropped completely, others are kept in some circumstances.  Who is to say which are English words and which are not.   The article seems to be pushing a POV without citing any sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Changèd. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Changèd" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: In , we read:
* the háček (as in Karel Čapek), often also called the haček in English (adapted from "háček", the Czech name [note 1]), …
(my emphasis).
I believe the term "caron" would be better than the first occurrence of "háček" here. The quoted text would then read:
* the caron (as in Karel Čapek), often also called the haček in English (adapted from "háček", the Czech name [note 1]), …
yoyo (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caron 

message: For some earlier discussion, see the above section headed "I challenge the claim that native English words originally contained diacritics."  Please continue the discussion in this section.  yoyo (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: I got here because I was curious about the spelling of moiré . Merriam-Webster only lists the spelling,Moiré  for the sense of the word I was interested in. However, as others have noted, We were taught in elementary school that English only has 26 letters and no diacritical marks. So who was correct? The authors of the Merriam-Webster dictionary or my elementary school teachers and probably almost every other source on the English alphabet. After reading through the comments here it sounds like there might not be a definitive answer. English doesn't have a designated body for determining the answer to spelling questions, but the Merriam-Webster dictionary could be close to one and if it spells Moiré with an accent, I'm going to trust Merriam-Webster on the spelling of Moiré and accept that not everything I was taught in elementary school was right. However, I'm going to follow the comments here and if somebody comes along that proves Merriam-Webster was wrong, I'll accept that. Davefoc (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moiré 

message: Stuff - It's a truth that should be self evident: as an official language of New Zealand, te reo Māori deserves to be held in the same esteem as English.
A basic first step toward that deserved level of mana is using the language correctly.
That's why, from today, we are introducing macrons (tohutō) for Māori words on Stuff and in our newspapers.''
 
Herald - Official language to receive our best efforts
 
@user:JMF. The Herald is ambiguous but Stuff is clear. Also, for my change to be wrong we would have to go against the unquestioned normal development of languages. It would mean that a high percentage of words in English are not English words but unassimilated foreign words, most spelled incorrectly. It means an English word such as ‘ambassador’ is actually the wrongly spelled French word  ‘ambassadeur’. It means we are using that word not as an assimilated English word of French origin but as a unassimilated foreign French word. This is so patently obvious it should not have to be explained, and to do that is beyond the scope of this online discussion, certainly regarding te reo Maori and its promotion in New Zealand. 
 
Also, note that the sources are both original research – editorials. Remove them, as we should, and we are left with an unreferenced sentence that can be removed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't (and don't) consider your edit wrong in principle, but only that as written it seemed to be saying the opposite of what you intended, that it referred to English words that had become assimilated into Maori rather than to Maori words that had become assimilated into English. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Also, I don't think it counts as OR to report a factual statement by a publisher of what its policy henceforth is. It is not an editorial in the sense of an opinion piece, which is the usual reason why editorials are not normally acceptable. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks. I will check my edits and reply later. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Rereading, it was the word 'substitution' that I found confusing (in ). If you had written 'replaced by', it would have been unambiguous. Do as I say, not as I do.  --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @user:JMF, yes, thanks,  your change is better. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maori language