# Umlaut, diaresis, trema



## Bondstreet

[Moderatore Note: Split from here.]

_>> If you add umlaut accents (or however you call these funny little things ) to the a, it becomes plural.
_
I just say "umlaut" or "umlauts". I usually have to explain what I mean if the other person doesn't know German.  There is a technical word for the rare (usually of foreign origin) English equivalent - "dieresis" or  "diaeresis" (as in _naïve_, _Brontë, Chloë, Noël). _I doubt many native English speakers understand the word 'diaeresis'... I think most people would just say "two dots over the 'e' ...   I would still use "umlaut" - it's easier to say...

mumsnet.com - names-Chloe-or-Chloë

newyorker.com - the-curse-of-the-Diaeresis

thefreedictionary.com - Diacritics
.


----------



## berndf

Bondstreet said:


> I just say "umlaut" or "umlauts". I usually have to explain what I mean if the other person doesn't know German. There is a technical word for the rare (usually of foreign origin) English equivalent - "dieresis" or "diaeresis" (as in _naïve_, _Brontë, Chloë, Noël). _I doubt many native English speakers understand the word 'diaeresis'... I think most people would just say "two dots over the 'e' ... I would still use "umlaut" - it's easier to say...


_Umlauts_ and _diaereses_ are not the same thing although in modern typesetting they look alike. Strictly speaking an _umlaut_ is the vowel including the diacritical markings but in English it has become customary to call the diacritics themselves _umlauts_.


----------



## Kajjo

I prefer the following definitions:

diaeresis: two adjacent vowels forming separate syllables
trema: a diacritic mark, two dots placed over a letter (usually vowel) to indicate a separate syllable
umlaut diacritic: a diacritic mark, two dots placed over "a / o / u" to indicate a different vowel sound
German umlauts: the letters ä / ö / ü
I have to accept that the term diaeresis is nowadays also used to mean the diacritic sign. The two concepts seem to have merged somehow in English. Personally, I prefer to clearly distinguish the two concepts. One is about pronunciation (diaeresis), the other about typesetting (trema).

Words like "cooperate" or "reelect" have a diaeresis, even if no trema is written.
Words like "naïve" or "Chloë" have a diaeresis marked by a trema.

The German umlauts are no diaeresis (not forming a separate syllable!) and the two dots are not a trema (not indicating a separate syllable!). Trema and umlaut diacritic are separate concepts. Note that a trema always marks the _second_ vowel of two adjacent vowels, while German umlauts are usually independent from adjacent vowels and usually stand on there own (schön, Tür, Bär).

In English, the term "umlaut" can both mean the letters ä/ ö / ü as well as only the diacritic sign, i.e. the two dots over the vowel.

In typesetting, the trema and umlaut diacritic marks are usually identical.


----------



## Hutschi

Kajjo said:


> ...
> 
> diaeresis: two adjacent vowels forming separate syllables
> ...


Hi, Kajjo, I do not understand this fully, but I believe I know what you mean.

Aelita - spoken A-elita
Phaeton - spoken Pha-eton (exept the car, they mostly say "Phäton".)
You can use the letter "ë" to make it clear:

Aëlita
Phaëton

In modern typesetting this is seldom done, but I have books using it.

How about Dahlie? Is "ie" a diaresis here (two syllables)
And in Orchideen, is "ee" indicating diaresis?

If yes, I understand it.

In Aelita "Ae" and "Aë" are diareseses. Only in ë it is indicated by diacritical mark, a trema.

ä,ö,ü are Umlauts
aë/ae is a diaresis.

(Except if "ä" is replaces by "ae" with older typewriters. in this case ae, oe, and ue are Umlauts, too.)

This is how I understood it after thinking about your entry.


By the way:  In earlier times, the "e" was set in a little smaller size above a, o or u , respectively, this was later reformed to umlaut diacritics.

Edit: Tippfehler bei Dahlie.


----------



## Kajjo

Hutschi said:


> Aelita - spoken A-elita
> Phaeton - spoken Pha-eton
> Orchideen [-- spoken Orchide-e]


Yes, these are diaereses, because two adjacent vowels form two different syllables. It does not matter whether diaereses are marked with a trema or not. In German they are usually not marked.

In German we also write words like "naiv" without trema.



Hutschi said:


> Dahlie


You mean the flower "Dahlie"? Yes, it can be pronounced as diaeresis like "Dahli-e", but a lot of people pronounce it as synaeresis like "Dahl-je". 

"Bakterien" everyone pronounces as diaeresis.



Hutschi said:


> ä,ö,ü are Umlauts
> aë/ae is a diaresis


Yes, if "aë" is pronounced with two distinct syllable like "a-e", then it is a diaeresis marked with a trema. Again, using trema is unusual in German, mostly used for loan words if at all.


----------



## berndf

Kajjo said:


> trema: a diacritic mark, two dots placed over a letter (usually vowel) to indicate a separate syllable


Very often but not necessarily and therefore cannot be part of the definition. A _trema_ is a diacritic that marks a sequence of two vowels as separate, i.e. not forming a digraph. This sequence of separate vowels can be diaeresis, which it in most cases is, but it doesn't have to be. E.g. in French _aiguë_, or _aigüe_ in reformed spelling, the trema serves to indicate that the_ u _is a separate vowel and not part of the digraph _gu_ to indicate a non-palatalized _g_ in front of _e_.


----------



## elroy

Kajjo said:


> In English, the term "umlaut" can both mean the letters ä/ ö / ü as well as only the diacritic sign


 I think in English it’s _only_ used for the diacritic.  In fact, I thought it was the same in German!


----------



## Kajjo

elroy said:


> In fact, I thought it was the same in German!


Wenn wir "ein Umlaut" sagen, dann meinen wir einen der Buchstaben ä,ö,ü. Wir meinen im Allgemeinen nicht nur die Punkte.


----------



## elroy

Wieder was gelernt!

_Der Plural von "Garten" ist "Gärten", mit Umlaut._
Das hätte ich als "...*mit  ¨*" aufgefasst und nicht als "...*mit ä*". 

Jetzt weiß ich bescheid!


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> Wieder was gelernt!
> 
> _Der Plural von "Garten" ist "Gärten", mit Umlaut._
> Das hätte ich als "...*mit  ¨*" aufgefasst und nicht als "...*mit ä*".
> 
> Jetzt weiß ich bescheid!


And strictly speaking it means that it is pronounced with [ɛ] and not with [a]. The term _Um_*laut* refers in the first place to the *sound* shift and only indirectly to its representation in spelling.


----------



## Kajjo

berndf said:


> The term _Um_*laut* refers in the first place to the *sound* shift and only indirectly to its representation in spelling.


That's true. Most "normal" people probably don't distinguish this, but here we should!

It's like "normal" people learning there are five vowels, meaning only the letter a,e,i,o,u instead of the much higher number of different vowel sounds.


----------



## Perseas

berndf said:


> Very often but not necessarily and therefore cannot be part of the definition. A _trema_ is a diacritic that marks a sequence of two vowels as separate, i.e. not forming a digraph. This sequence of separate vowels can be diaeresis, which it in most cases is, but it doesn't have to be. E.g. in French _aiguë_, or _aigüe_ in reformed spelling, the trema serves to indicate that the_ u _is a separate vowel and not part of the digraph _gu_ to indicate a non-palatalized _g_ in front of _e_.


What do you mean "but it doesn't have to be"? If there is a trema, there is a diaeresis. Is it not?


----------



## berndf

Perseas said:


> What do you mean "but it doesn't have to be"? If there is a trema, there is a diaeresis. Is it not?


No. That's what I explained, including a counter example.


----------



## διαφορετικός

berndf said:


> E.g. in French _aiguë_, or _aigüe_ in reformed spelling, the trema serves to indicate that the_ u _is a separate vowel and not part of the digraph _gu_ to indicate a non-palatalized _g_ in front of _e_.


I don't understand the term "non-palatalized g" here.
"aigue" is pronounced [ɛg], whereas "aigüe" or "aiguë" is pronounced [egy], if I am not mistaken. (In the case with the trema, "e" is the extension to indicate female gender, whereas "aigu" is the male version.)


----------



## berndf

διαφορετικός said:


> I don't understand the term "non-palatalized g" here.
> "aigue" is pronounced [ɛg], whereas "aigüe" or "aiguë" is pronounced [egy], if I am not mistaken.


Yes, _aigue_ is [ɛg]; without the _u_ the _g_ would be palatalized, i.e. _aige_ would be [ɛʒ]. I.e. the _u_ does not represent a vowel but indicates that the _g_ is not palatalized.

In _aiguë/aigüe_ the _u_ represents a vowel, viz. [y]. Indicating that is the function of the trema.


----------



## διαφορετικός

Perseas said:


> If there is a trema, there is a diaeresis. Is it not?


The first definition of a diaeresis here diaeresis - Wiktionary is probably wrong, it does not completely correspond to what happens in the example of "aiguë" (because the "ë" is not sounded here), but only of "aigüe".  But I would call it a diaeresis in both cases: the trema separates the "u" from the "e".


----------



## διαφορετικός

berndf said:


> without the _u_ the _g_ would be palatalized, i.e. [ɛʒ]


I see, I did not consider this case.


----------



## berndf

διαφορετικός said:


> But I would call it a diaeresis


No. As Kajjo correctly said, a diaeresis means that there is a syllable break between the two vowels.


----------



## διαφορετικός

Well, there seems to be more than one definition of a diaeresis.


----------



## berndf

διαφορετικός said:


> Well, there seems to be more than one definition of a diaeresis.


I can't see that.


----------



## Welsh_Sion

Looking at these examples, it seems to me that the languages in question use the _trema_ in a way to separate two vowel sounds, amongst other things. Now, unless I'm mistaken, the way of doing so is by placing 'the two dots' over the second vowel.

This is interesting to me as a native speaker of Cymraeg/Welsh, in that when we use the _didolnod _(literally, 'the separating mark') on our vowels (*a, e, i, o, u, w *and *y*), it is to show separation of those two vowels - so as not to render them as a diphthong - but, *the didolnod appears on the first vowel, generally, not the second *(but there are exceptions).

I don't claim this to be an unique feature for my language, but it does seem to follow a different pattern from the French and German (and presumably, by extension the English), models.

Thus,

*sgïo *'skiing' is bisyllabic* 
glöwr * 'miner' is bisyllabic
*düwch* 'blackness' is bisyllabic

But ...

*amgaeëdig* 'enclosed' has four syllables and does not have a triphthong in the middle. (However, not everyone writes it with 'the two points', either, arguing that 'double e' is practically non-existent in Welsh, you don't need to highlight the separate syllables.)

Anyone like to confirm/refute?


----------



## διαφορετικός

berndf said:


> I can't see that.


The definition from diaeresis - Wiktionary does not require two syllables, but only a separately sounded vowel.



Welsh_Sion said:


> But ...
> 
> *amgaeëdig* 'enclosed' has four syllables and does not have a triphthong in the middle.


Why did you say "But ..."?


----------



## Perseas

Thanks berndf and διαφορετικός.  
My knowledge on French and even more on French phonology is sadly zero.
I could even think that g in _aiguë/aigüe_ is palatal.


----------



## Welsh_Sion

I said* 'But ...'* because this is an exceptional use (which not everyone obeys in strict orthography), as the _didolnod_ is *not* in its usual place - but rather on the third vowel of the sequence - not the first.


----------



## Kajjo

Welsh_Sion said:


> it seems to me that the languages in question use the _trema_ in a way to separate two vowel sounds, amongst other things.


For me (in German) the trema is the diacritic sign, i.e. the two dots over a vowel. It is used to mark a vowel, usually to indicate a diaeresis, i.e. two separate vowel sounds. As Berndf illustrated there might be other situations where marking a vowel occurs. The common issue is "to mark a vowel".

In English (at least on several websites incl. Wiktionary) there seems to be a less clear distinction between the diacritic sign (trema) and the indicated phenomenon (diaeresis); sometimes they use the term indifferently. Whether this occurs due to lack of knowledge or because of less clear definition in English I don't know yet.



Welsh_Sion said:


> it is to show separation of those two vowels - so as not to render them as a diphthong - but, *the didolnod appears on the first vowel, generally, not the second *


I believe this really doesn't matter and is just a matter of definition. It's interesting that it us different in Welsh, though. Thanks for this information.


----------



## διαφορετικός

Welsh_Sion said:


> this is an exceptional use [...], as the _didolnod_ is *not* in its usual place - but rather on the third vowel of the sequence - not the first,.


I suppose the "ae" is one sound and the immediately following "e" is another one? Then the reason might be that you can't place the trema on two combined letters, it is clearer if it is placed on one single (separately sounded) letter.


----------



## Piotr_WRF

berndf said:


> Yes, _aigue_ is [ɛg];


It's [ɛgy] for the masculine form, too. Probably most famous example is _accent aigue_. See also this thread.


----------



## Kajjo

In Encyclopaedia Britannica only "diaeresis" exists and covers both diacritic and phenomenon. So in English it seems to be one term for both, in German we distinguish more clearly with _Trema _and _Diaeresis_. And Umlaut of course (ä,ö,ü) as different vowel sound and letter.


----------



## Welsh_Sion

διαφορετικός said:


> I suppose the "ae" is one sound and the immediately following "e" is another one? Then the reason might be that you can't place the trema on two combined letters, it is clearer if it is placed on one single (separately sounded) letter.



I do believe you're right!_ Diolch/Danke_/Thank you! We often learn more about our own native language - from others 

<ae> = /aɨ/
<e> = /e/


----------



## berndf

Piotr_WRF said:


> Probably most famous example is _accent aigue_


That spelling is wrong. It is _accent aigu_. As there is no _e_ there is nothing to disambiguate and no need for a trema.


----------



## Piotr_WRF

berndf said:


> That spelling is wrong. It is _accent aigu_. As there is no _e_ there is nothing to disambiguate and no need for a trema.


Right, my mistake.


----------

