Rather a nitpick. Of course its a “normal rule.” Otherwise why not use a diacritic on every stressed syllable? Words that don’t follow the general rule require an extra notation that other words don’t get.
One could also argue English doesn’t have diacritical marks, so you can’t properly translate it with them. It would be akin to using a Cyrillic letter or an Greek letter in an otherwise English word. That isn’t done.
I realize that some people will argue English does in fact have diacritical marks, but that is debateable.
And then I can’t count the times I have seen Americans spell mole as molé and pronounce it as mo-LAY. Or habanero chiles as habañero.
Looking at A-Rod’s FB page, he doesn’t use the accent mark. That might indicate his personal preference.
No I’m not his Friend.
Depends on the style guide. I prefer “resume,” myself. Or accents over both. Just not one.
I should add, in my profession, it was the Associated Press style guide which guided my spelling choices, and the accent would be omitted in both “résumé” and “café.” So there’s nothing dumb or ignorant about omitting the accent–it can very well be a stylistic choice (and, for that matter, I consider the word fully adopted into English, which does not have accent marks in its standard orthography.)
The AP Style Guide recommends not using any diacritical marks, so that would probably be correct in a newspaper. (ETA: I see pulykamell has addressed this.)
The Chicago Manual of Style is surprising unhelpful on the use of diacritics in English. It would probably recommend using them in any word spelled as such in Merriam-Webster or other standard reference. However, it is silent on whether to use them in foreign names.
I get the Miami Herald here in Panama, which is transmitted electronically and printed locally. The Herald evidently uses diacritics in its English text, but these apparently don’t get transmitted, leaving a name like Núñez to appear as “Nez” and leaving me scratching my head.
I’m as nit-picky as they come, and I generally don’t use the accent marks, especially in emails or website forms. That’s because I would fear that the accented letters won’t get encoded properly, possibly turning the word into gibberish.
In a PDF or printed document, I might consider using an accent mark over the second “e” only. In English, the first accent mark is unnecessary, IMHO. Besides, I think using both accent marks looks like an affectation.
This cite indicates that all three spellings are acceptable (resume, resumé, or résumé), though in a later post they recommend omitting the accent marks entirely.
As robby points out, online or in other-languages media I don’t get too hung up on the accenting since you can end up with something like Jos&^ag% So in general, blame ASCII and people who have not properly figured out Unicode.
Dan Rather referring to the city of “Cartageña” back when he was reporting on the cartels. :rolleyes: It’s a whole other letter and phoneme, Dan, they are not interchangeable.
To clarify: if you pronounce “Florida” American-style (FLO-ri-da) it would become Flórida. If you pronounce in Spanish (flo-REE-dah) it doesn’t.
Ooo…that one annoys the crap out of me, too–you can ask my wife as I annoyingly point it out every time I see it. I have a bottle of hot sauce here from Poblano (company name) in Arizona (delicious hot sauce), and, while their regular bottles spell it correctly without the enye, their anniversary bottle, for whatever reason, has it listed as “habañero” in the ingredients list. And you hear it a lot when spoken, too, with people conflating the pronunciation of jalapeño with habanero.
With “mole,” though, I most often hear it as “MOE-lay,” with diphtongs on both vowels ([oʊ] and [eɪ], respectively,) but stress on first, though the stresses are almost equal. American English doesn’t really have the [e] sound by its lonesome, and it sounds to American ears more like [eɪ] as opposed to the pure vowel [ɛ], which we do have. I have heard Spanish speakers say that [ɛ] is a more acceptable substitute. Same with the diphtong [oʊ]. American English doesn’t really have a standalong [o] sound, so it gets approximated to what we call the “long o,” which is the diphthong [oʊ].
There is one instance where some style guides require a diacritic in a native English word: a dieresis on a vowel of words like “cooperate.” There are a few websites that publish in that style, although I don’t know who they are off-hand.
Don’t know about websites specifically, but that’s a hallmark of The New Yorker.
As a fencer, I’ve had more occasions than most to type the name of the fencing weapon based on the 19th century French dueling sword, or épée. I used to go back and forth about whether or not to spell it in English with or without the accent marks, but I eventually decided that spelling it with the marks looks kinda pedantic, it doesn’t add any useful information, the plain “epee” spelling is generally accepted anyway, and leaving them off makes things a lot easier.
Surely you mean a diëresis. 
Indeed, but ironically enough they spell it diaeresis.
Yeah, that’s what I meant by transliterate back. English pronunciations would have a diacritic if spelled according to Spanish rules.
Carryon, not translate: transliterate. “To spell something the way it sounds to you”.
Sometimes it’s a matter of style. I can tell you both English-language dailies in Thailand, The Bangkok Post and The Nation, have a policy of omitting all accents. In the event of an umlaut in German, they just put an E after the vowel in question, which is actually what the umlaut replaced to begin with.
I believe that Fowler suggests the English word should be spelled “cafe” and pronounced something like “caff” instead of some French-ified pronunciation.
The (British) paper I work for stipulates no accent on “cafe” in the general sense, but an accent on a specific name (eg “Café de Paris”) if the establishment uses it. Similarly with “chateau” (generic) versus “Château de Cuisses-Grenouille”.