It seems to me that the most common example of English omitting a Spanish diacritical is “Mexico.” In Spanish, it’s spelled México; sans accent, it would be pronounced with stress on the second syllable, which would be incorrect in either language.
The thing is though is that in this case, “Mexico” has been adopted as an English word. We say “Meksico” and not “May-hee-co.”
English uniformly leaves off diacritics for the names of countries, such as Mexico, Panama, and Peru, and changes the spelling of others like Brasil. In the case of Panama the pronunciation is also changed.
Right, I agree with both you guys. I guess I was just trying to say that, in my experience, “México” is the word I had the most trouble getting used to seeing and writing WITH an accent (during the years I lived there), because I was so used to seeing it WITHOUT one – it being a such a commonly seen word in both languages. “José” might not be very far behind.l, along with its ubiquitous companion “María.”
I’m an old guy, and I learned to type on a typewriter. Which, like an AP terminal, had no way of representing diacritics. Diacritics on English text still look pretentious to me.
Fair point. In my line of work attention to detail is important, and then I’ll see misspellings on a résumé that claims the person has a high attention to detail, or no accent at all on resume. Resumé is acceptable. Missing the accents on résumé is not a huge deal but I do make note of it when looking at the applicant, it is part of what s/he is representing to me during the screening process, it is part of the overall picture.
While we’re at it, whatever happened to the diacritic in Seán? 
Whether to use “resume” or “résumé” I merely a matter of style. It’s not fair to judge that choice at all unless you have specified the style in advance.
“Resumé” is just wrong though. It reflects being unaware or uncaring of the standard spelling in either English or French.
Never used in the US, in my observation. Simiilarly with Caitlín.
Funny how the new spelling, Sean, is old. 
IMHO, the standard spelling in French is irrelevant to this discussion.
Regarding the standard spelling in English, as I cited back in Post #28, “resumé” is an accepted spelling (along with “résumé” and “resume”) according to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) as well as The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th ed.). The OED cites this spelling (with only one accent) as far back as 1804.
Personally, I think using both accent marks looks pretentious. In English, the first accent adds nothing so far as clarity or pronunciation is concerned, while the second accent mark at least changes the pronunciation of the second syllable and distinguishes the noun from the verb.
The definition that dictionaries use for accepted spelling is not the definition I would apply in a professional situation in which spelling according to a professional standard of some kind is considered important. If I’m going to consider spelling an important factor—particularly for some kind of writing or editorial job—I’m going to consider “résume” and “resumé” to both be substandard spellings. On the other hand, I’m going to consider both “resume” and “résumé” to be equally acceptable.
I would tend to agree with you, if we were only talking about a writing or editorial job. More specifically, if one were applying to work at The New York Times, I would definitely recommend following the guidelines of The New York Times stylebook (which apparently recommends using both accents).
For the average professional job-seeker, however (especially non-writers who are likely unfamiliar with the various journalistic style guides), I would think that the spellings listed as acceptable by modern, mainstream English dictionaries (like Merriam-Webster) would be acceptable. This would include “resumé” (which I personally prefer because I think using the first accent mark is superfluous in English as well as coming off as pretentious).
That said, based on this thread, I may have to reconsider my position. I honestly never thought that “resumé” might be considered by some to be a substandard spelling.
And BTW, nobody is stating that “résume” is an accepted spelling. This would seem to be the worst of all worlds.
P.S. If one wished, I think you could dial up the pretentiousness to 11 by using both accent marks and italicizing the word to boot. To wit: “Dear Sir or Madam: Please find enclosed my résumé for the posted position…” 
P.P.S. I’m just being funny. As this cite states, most style guides indicate that “*n American usage, if a foreign word has an entry in Merriam-Webster, it need not be italicized.”
Looks like we all are learning. If we can trust wiki, all three are acceptable.
Ninja: discussed by robby and Ascenray.
In the end I think I prefer resumé. Less pretentious as robby said. I don’t care for resume but that is a personal preference.
Seeing as using an acute accent to indicate a pronounced vowel is not part of the standard English orthography, I don’t see it as being any less pretentious.
If no one minds a comment on the OP…
Last year I contacted Baseball-Reference because of its apparent mispronunciation of the name of Pirates reliever Arquímedes Caminero here. Per B-R it’s “ar-keh-MEE-deez”. Numerous web pages and videos have the Spanish spelling and pronunciation as Arquímedes, stress on the second syllable.
[ul]
[li]A Web page for the Syracusan is here.[/li][li]A Venezuelan interview with the pitcher is here, with the interviewer pronouncing his name at about the 18 second mark.[/li][li]MLB’s pronunciation is here, as “ar-keh-mee-deez”.[/li][/ul]
When I pointed out to B-R the native Spanish pronunciations including Dominican Republic sports pages and the above video as examples, B-R told me essentially that B-R uses what MLB provides, and B-R wants to stay on good terms with MLB. Now that Arquímedes is with the Pirates again I can contact MLB. Some names, like those of Korea and Japan, can be difficult to pronounce correctly. At least, to avoid appearing apathetically rude, we native speakers of English can pronounce a name on the correct syllable. It’s the principle of the thing.
Same here. To me, it’s a choice between not using diacritics, and spelling it as “resume” in English (my preference), or using the diacritics of the original language, because why else are you using diacritics, and spelling it “rėsumė.” (Incidentally, apparently both my phone and computer spell checks agree and auto-correct “resumé” to “résumé.”) All three forms are acceptable according to usage, but “resumé” is the one that looks dumb to me. I don’t see how using two accents is “pretentious” vs using one. At least you’re using them correctly.
Just got the joke in thread title.
Took me one month.
Well, “résumé” has two accent marks, while “resumé” has only one, so I would argue that the latter is only half as pretentious as the former. 
IMHO, it’s a balancing act between pretentiousness and clarity. The first accent mark adds pretentiousness but no clarity (in English, of course). The second accent also adds pretentiousness but at least provides some clarity by changing the pronunciation of the second syllable and distinguishing the noun from the verb.
So my preference is for “resumé.”
Using both accents is correct in French. In English, all three forms are acceptable (per Merriam-Webster and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language), and therefore all are “correct” in English.
One could certainly argue that “rėsumė” may be slightly more correct, but again, “rėsumė” is burdened by twice as much pretentiousness. “Resume” is the least pretentious, but is subject to being mistaken for the verb. “Resumé” is just right, IMHO.
(…unless you’re emailing or using a web form, as I stated earlier. I would not use accent marks in an electronic submission for fear of the accented letters not encoding properly. Indeed, I wonder if someone reading this thread is seeing both “rėsumė” and “resumé” as gibberish.)