I put an umlaut on the i in naive. Do you? Is this generally accepted in English, or is it really just a French thing for diphthongs?
When you use a diaeresis (those dots) to prevent two letters from being parsed as a diphthong (or transliteration of an umlaut in languages where that is applicable) it is called a trema. An umlaut changes the pronunciation of the individual letter by moving the location of articulation to the front (and “i” as in “naive” can’t have an umlaut because it is already as far in front as possible.)
From the GorillaMan Style Guide
If you use a foriegn letter, which the trema suggests (thanks Kellner), then put the word in italics. If you’re using it as an anglicised word, then a regular I suffices.
Naive appears in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, both with and without the diaeresis; the form without it is listed first and thus generally preferred. I would say that the diaeresis is accepted as a variant in English.
As a copyeditor, I am willing to use either version. Generally, I consider it a style decision and follow the author’s preference unless I have instructions from the client to the contrary.
Thanks kellner! I know that I was misusing both umlaut and diphthong, but what fun would it be to describe abuse of language without abusing language?
I guess I’ll just do the old search/replace for na" \i ve… I thought it was standard but it seems it isn’t, and is probably considered a bit pretentious.
My understanding is that the diaresis is accepted in english, although it’s been falling out of use in the last several decades, and this trend has accelerated with the move to cold type. The disresis is also appropriate in words like coöperation or coördinate to indicate that both “o”'s are pronounced. Otherwise you’d think you should pronounce cooperate as <koop-er-ate>.
–Cliffy
“coöperation”??? …that’ll come as a surprise to the Co-operative Bank
“Coöperation” and “coördinate” are silly and pretentious. Until they start teaching kids to spell that way in kindergarten, it will only add confusion to the language and do nothing for clarity except in the conceits of a few self-absorbed intellectuals.
Naive has been so thoroughly assimilated into English that in my opinion the diaeresis can be dropped. But I wouldn’t consider it pretentious if I saw it with the diaeresis.
The masculine form, naïf, as in faux-naïf, is, however, so obviously still a borrowing from French that the diaeresis is absolutely necessary, in my opinion, even though the dictionary permits it.
That is, even though the dictionary permits it without the diaeresis.
You know what I mean.
Coöperate? Reëlect? I’ve only EVER seen those in the New Yorker - was that common usage at one point? Seems silly to me . . . but naïve very reasonably may, in my opinion. I tend to use it, I think, but maybe I’m just a pretentious bastard. I prefer it; after all, do you ever see né (or née) without the accent? A lot of French words are normally written with their accents in English; it’s always a soupçon, never a soupcon. Why should naïve be any different?
Naive is a more thoroughly anglicized word than né(e) and soupçon are; further, it is a common word not only in print but in speech also, meaning its pronunciation is widely known and the diaeresis would be very unlikely to be helpful to anyone reading it.
Plus, ne, nee, and soupcon look stupid.
As do ‘roue’, ‘jette’, ‘flambe’, and ‘saute,’ and ‘divorce’ (meaning divorcé) is just completely unhelpful.
I would use umlauts, cedillas, and acute accents if I weren’t too lazy to figure out how to do it on the VB boards.