# Why does English not employ and/or continue the use of diacritics?



## TheIntricateWillows

Greetings!

I would like to know why English does not use diacritics anymore. According to some sources that I have read, Old English used to use diacritics. Why did they fall out of use? What caused that to happen? If someone could please answer this question, I would be very grateful.

Besides that, you can also let me know in this thread if you think that English should or shouldn't have diacritics. Now, this is without thinking about how we would implement the use of diacritics because we already know that that's never going to happen.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## jimquk

We use digraphs like <sh> <th> <ch> where <h> functions like a diacritic written after the letter rather than over or under it. I imagine that this was more convenient for early typesetters. Otherwise, the reason is mere convention, like the rest of the spelling system.


----------



## Ihsiin

I have never come across an Old English manuscript that used diacritics - do you have any examples?

Often in standardised Old English texts macrons (and sometimes accents) are used to indicate vowel length, but as far as I’m aware these are not found in the original manuscripts.


----------



## TheIntricateWillows

Ihsiin said:


> I have never come across an Old English manuscript that used diacritics - do you have any examples?
> 
> Often in standardised Old English texts macrons (and sometimes accents) are used to indicate vowel length, but as far as I’m aware these are not found in the original manuscripts.


https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43345449.pdf

Old English

Acute accents as graphic markers of vowel quantity in two Late Old English manuscripts | English Language & Linguistics | Cambridge Core


----------



## Catagrapha

Diacritics are indispensable. The aftermath of dispensing with diacritics is chaos such as
controversial:  controvershial  controversial
ideology: aideology ideology
pianist:  pianist  pianist
schedule: shedule skedule


----------



## Welsh_Sion

I wouldn't say that English has completely got rid of diacritics. Not withstanding the spelling of foreign names such as my first name *Siôn* or *Chloë* and other names such as *Citroën*, some people will write *cöoperation, zöology* etc. in order to indicate the splitting of the separation of vowel sounds. Further, which do you write: *naive* or *naïve* when writing in English?

I notice that *Siôn, Chloë, cöoperation, zöology* have a squiggly red line under them when I type here. Yet,  *Citroën* does not.

Again, *naive* is the one considered wrong in this forum, whereas *naïve* is not.


----------



## Hulalessar

Diacritics do not really form an essential part of the orthography of English. It is quite possible to read a lengthy novel in English without encountering a diacritic. Such use as there is cannot be regarded as systematic and has to be regarded as optional.


----------



## TheIntricateWillows

Welsh_Sion said:


> I wouldn't say that English has completely got rid of diacritics. Not withstanding the spelling of foreign names such as my first name *Siôn* or *Chloë* and other names such as *Citroën*, some people will write *cöoperation, zöology* etc. in order to indicate the splitting of the separation of vowel sounds. Further, which do you write: *naive* or *naïve* when writing in English?
> 
> I notice that *Siôn, Chloë, cöoperation, zöology* have a squiggly red line under them when I type here. Yet,  *Citroën* does not.
> 
> Again, *naive* is the one considered wrong in this forum, whereas *naïve* is not.


Yeah, words that have not been fully anglicized still have a diacritic. In response to your question, I write "naive" because that's the way that I was taught in school. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, that's the correct way to spell it. However, I have seen both be used, but naïve is much rarer.

Interestingly, I have never seen anyone write the words "cooperation and zoology" either. Then again, I haven't lived in an English-speaking country for over eight years.


----------



## Red Arrow

Welsh_Sion said:


> I wouldn't say that English has completely got rid of diacritics. Not withstanding the spelling of foreign names such as my first name *Siôn* or *Chloë* and other names such as *Citroën*, some people will write *cöoperation, zöology* etc. in order to indicate the splitting of the separation of vowel sounds. Further, which do you write: *naive* or *naïve* when writing in English?
> 
> I notice that *Siôn, Chloë, cöoperation, zöology* have a squiggly red line under them when I type here. Yet,  *Citroën* does not.
> 
> Again, *naive* is the one considered wrong in this forum, whereas *naïve* is not.


Surely you mean coöperation and zoölogy, not cöoperation and zöology? The versions with ö are so rare in English that you don't even know where to put the diacritic! 

(The two dots are used in Dutch, French and Afrikaans to mark the start of a new syllable in cases where it would otherwise be ambiguous. So you can never put the two dots on the first vowel)


Hulalessar said:


> Diacritics do not really form an essential part of the orthography of English. It is quite possible to read *a lengthy novel* in English without encountering a diacritic. Such use as there is cannot be regarded as systematic and has to be regarded as optional.


That is underselling it. You can read half a library and never encounter a diacritic.


----------



## TheIntricateWillows

Hulalessar said:


> Diacritics do not really form an essential part of the orthography of English. It is quite possible to read a lengthy novel in English without encountering a diacritic. Such use as there is cannot be regarded as systematic and has to be regarded as optional.


This is quite true. I've literally never come across a diacritic in an English novel unless it was referencing a foreign word or name.


----------



## Welsh_Sion

Surely you mean coöperation and zoölogy, not cöoperation and zöology? The versions with ö are so rare in English that you don't even know where to put the diacritic!

______

Not my problem, not  being English! But I have received letters from Canadian English speakers to that effect.

See also:

An accent can change the pronunciation of a vowel. The umlaut (not a native English diacritical mark) over a vowel in English generally means that the vowel is written once but said twice: _naïve_ is said _nye-eve,_ not _nave._ This is why you might occasionally see _cöoperation,_ to make sure you don't think it should be _coop eration.
Using accent marks in Fantasy novels_
As to the 'two dots' in Welsh, we put them over the first vowel to split the two syllables usually - that's why we call it _didolnod_ 'the separating mark': *dü|wch* 'blackness', *crë|ir* 'it is/will be created'.


----------



## TheIntricateWillows

Welsh_Sion said:


> Surely you mean coöperation and zoölogy, not cöoperation and zöology? The versions with ö are so rare in English that you don't even know where to put the diacritic!
> 
> ______
> 
> Not my problem, not  being English! But I have received letters from Canadian English speakers to that effect.
> 
> See also:
> 
> An accent can change the pronunciation of a vowel. The umlaut (not a native English diacritical mark) over a vowel in English generally means that the vowel is written once but said twice: _naïve_ is said _nye-eve,_ not _nave._ This is why you might occasionally see _cöoperation,_ to make sure you don't think it should be _coop eration.
> Using accent marks in Fantasy novels_
> As to the 'two dots' in Welsh, we put them over the first vowel to split the two syllables usually - that's why we call it _didolnod_ 'the separating mark: *dü|wch* 'blackness', *crë|ir* 'it is/will be created'.


That's quite interesting. Thanks for sharing.

However, I still have never seen in my life seen an umlaut over a vowel in an English word.


----------



## Stoggler

TheIntricateWillows said:


> However, I still have never seen in my life seen an umlaut over a vowel in an English word.


I won’t say never but in my experience they are very rare.  I’ve seen someone spell their name Zoë, and I’ve seen naïve, but not much more other than specifically foreign words.

Diacritics are such an unusual thing in English that many an English-language publication (in the U.K. at least) just doesn’t bother with them at all even on foreign place names and names of people.  The BBC for example, just doesn’t use them: many a non-British soccer player who does have a diacritic in their native language just doesn’t have it in Britain, which is frustrating for those of us with even a modicum of foreign language knowledge.  The Czech footballer Souček (for example) is often rendered Soucek, which if you know Czech or Czech orthography, is a big difference!!!


----------



## Hulalessar

TheIntricateWillows said:


> However, I still have never seen in my life seen an umlaut over a vowel in an English word.


It may look like an umlaut, but it is a diaeresis. Diaeresis (diacritic) - Wikipedia


----------



## TheIntricateWillows

Oops, sorry about the misunderstanding.

_However, I still have never seen in my life seen a diaeresis over a vowel in an English word, unless it was a name or naïve._


----------



## TheIntricateWillows

Stoggler said:


> I won’t say never but in my experience they are very rare.  I’ve seen someone spell their name Zoë, and I’ve seen naïve, but not much more other than specifically foreign words.
> 
> Diacritics are such an unusual thing in English that many an English-language publication (in the U.K. at least) just doesn’t bother with them at all even at all on foreign place names and names of people.  The BBC for example, just doesn’t use them: many a non-British soccer player who does have a diacritic in their native language just doesn’t have it in Britain, which is frustrating for those of us with even a modicum of foreign language knowledge.  The Czech footballer Souček (for example) is often rendered Soucek, which if you know Czech or Czech orthography, is a big difference!!!


Also, I remember foreign exchange students in my American middle school who were irritated if a diacritic was left out in their name. Since I started studying foreign languages many years ago, I now understand why. It can greatly change the pronunciation of the word. In general, the name just isn't spelled right anymore.

When I was in high school (in Ukraine), numerous foreign exchange students were unhappy with the way we wrote their names in Ukrainian, because we had to adapt their names sometimes to fit the alphabet. I remember one time when "Seth" because "Сет" because we don't have a "th" sound in Ukrainian. 😐

Thank goodness my name, Robin, can be successfully transferred over as Робін.


----------



## jekoh

Red Arrow said:


> (The two dots are used in Dutch, French and Afrikaans to mark the start of a new syllable in cases where it would otherwise be ambiguous. So you can never put the two dots on the first vowel)


In French you can write _aigüe_ or _aiguë_ (and it's not the start of a new syllable).


----------

