# María says that in México (tilde/acento ortográfico en inglés)



## yito

hola a todos, solo me gustaria saber si todos los nombres propios en español que estan acentuados tambien los tengo que acentuar cuando escribo en ingles o es indiferente escribirlos con o sin tilde. Gracias por su ayuda.

for example, If I want to write: María says that in México the highest volcano is the Citlaltépetl.

The words in red are in spanish. So Do I have to write the words by using the accent mark as in spanish even i'm writing in english?

Thanks in advance for your help.


----------



## vikita

Según mi criterio, sí deben ir tal como son en su idioma original, como sucede en el caso de las palabras en francés o en alemán, que usan signos de puntuación distintos a los nuestros.


----------



## Alma Shofner

The English language doesn't have accent= Those words don't need an accent.
Regards


----------



## Chalon

vikita said:


> Según mi criterio, sí deben ir tal como son en su idioma original, como sucede en el caso de las palabras en francés o en alemán, que usan signos de puntuación distintos a los nuestros.



I agree.


----------



## Alma Shofner

vikita said:


> Según mi criterio, sí deben ir tal como son en su idioma original, como sucede en el caso de las palabras en francés o en alemán, que usan signos de puntuación distintos a los nuestros.


 
I disagree.
Regards


----------



## yito

I think this should be both correct because you are writing in english and, of course there are not accent marks in english but the words you writing are in spanish or any other as mentioned before. So I'd say both are correct.
regards.


----------



## Alma Shofner

I haven't read the word México with an accent in any English paper. I don't see why they have to start using accents. It is a new linguistic rule that I am not aware of?
Regards


----------



## yito

yes, I agree with you. You are right. Thank you very much.
I appreciate all your help.
regards.


----------



## miguelT

Almost nobody would write Maria or Mexico with an accent in English.  It's not wrong to do so, but definitely not necessary.


----------



## zumac

There are many words in the English dictionary which appear with 
accents, like passé, déjá vu, and many others.

Foreign names and words like Maria, Mexico, Mazatlan, etc. do not appear with accents in the English disctionary.

Since we are writing in English, the rule that makes sense to me is: if the English dictionary has the word accented, then use the accent. If not, don't use an accent.

Saludos.


----------



## Ushuaia

"Mexico" is English spelling for México, as "Brazil" is for Brasil, "Havana" for "La Habana" and so on. If the phrase is in English, Mexico shouldn´t have an accent mark.

"María" is María anywhere. It´s the same with the  Citlaltépetl. These two words should carry accent marks, for there´s no way of -or reason for- translating them into English. Newspapers may choose not to write them properly, but that´s another story: they deal with the news, not with proper language... 

Saludos.


----------



## yito

You are right,. That's what I have thought. 
Thanks a lot Ushuaia.
saludos!


----------



## zumac

Ushuaia said:


> "Mexico" is English spelling for México, as "Brazil" is for Brasil, "Havana" for "La Habana" and so on. If the phrase is in English, Mexico shouldn´t have an accent mark.
> 
> "María" is María anywhere. It´s the same with the Citlaltépetl. These two words should carry accent marks, for there´s no way of -or reason for- translating them into English. Newspapers may choose not to write them properly, but that´s another story: they deal with the news, not with proper language...
> 
> Saludos.


You're missing the point. We are writing in English, not Spainsh. If the English dictionary has the word a certain way, then you can't decide to override the dictionary and use you own Spanish style for the word, even when the word is correct in Spanish in that way.

I checked the Webster's Dictionary and found that Maria appears without an accent. Therefore, if I'm writing in English and use Maria, I should not apply an accent, no matter if this Spanish name carries an accent.

We're wrinig in English, so let's not try to outguess the English dictionary. I thought I had made this point clear before.

Saludos.


----------



## Ushuaia

zumac said:


> You're missing the point. We are writing in English, not Spainsh. If the English dictionary has the word a certain way, then you can't decide to override the dictionary and use you own Spanish style for the word, even when the word is correct in Spanish in that way.
> 
> I checked the Webster's Dictionary and found that Maria appears without an accent. Therefore, if I'm writing in English and use Maria, I should not apply an accent, no matter if this Spanish name carries an accent.
> 
> We're wrinig in English, so let's not try to outguess the English dictionary. I thought I had made this point clear before.
> 
> Saludos.



People´s names have nothing to do with dictionaries. In fact, I was surprised to read that the dictionary should be a source for names: Spanish dictionaries aren´t. If a person´s name is María, it will be spelt María whether she´s in Argentina, England or Sweden. With last names, this is even more clear. 

People´s names are not translatable and their original spelling, which may include accent marks, should be respected at all times. I believe the name is among a person´s inalienable rights... that applies to any language. "María" will be "in Spanish" even when it appears in an English sentence. 

Of course, as I said before, if the sentence is in English "Mexico" should not carry an accent mark, for that´s the accepted English denomination for this country. 

Saludos otra vez.


----------



## Tazzler

The volcano's name would probably go with an accent. The others wouldn't.


----------



## duncandhu

I agree with Ushuaia, Mexico doesn't have an accent in English because that is the English spelling of the word. Regarding the name María, if the person (María) uses the Spanish spelling of the name (María) then it should have the accent. If the person is not Spanish (Maria is a common name in English too) then it would be spelled without an accent, like it would be on an official document or whatever. Zumac checked in the dictionary for "Maria" and found it didn't have an accent. This would be the English spelling of "Maria", and this it depends on where the person is from.

Saludos
Duncan


----------



## yito

Thanks again for all your help. I'm sure this topic has been so interesting and it's worth it. I have really learnt a lot. 
Saludos a todos.


----------



## Heredianista

Yito,

Thank you for initiating a provocative debate. I would like to contribute several observations and comments.

*1.* The range of replies here, all made by well-spoken (and, apparently, well-read) individuals, attests to the fact that *this issue is not universally understood* or agreed upon. Your question is *worth sending to William Sapphire*, a kind of "Miss Manners" (or "Emily Post") for the English language, who writes a column on language issues for The New York Times. (A google search on "William Sapphire" will take you to his column.)

*2.* For my part, I would *never recommend that anyone consult a newspaper for grammatical instruction*. I love _The New York Times_, but it pains me to say that it is liberally sprinkled with blatant grammatical errors.

As a "word" person, I am driven somewhat crazy by this. A publication as widely read as _The New York Times_ ought to take seriously its responsibility to represent the English language with painstaking attentiveness to accuracy. It is, after all, a publication that not only draws upon the English language, but also, given its global readership, participates in the way the English language is replicated. I've been meaning to write a letter to them about this for years. (I wonder how William Sapphire manages to tolerate the grammatical indiscretions of the very publication he writes for!)

*3. *I thought I saw a post in which you requested that any corrections be made to your sentence in English. Now that I am on the 'reply' page, I don't see a comment of yours to that effect, but I will respond to it in any case.

You wrote: "María says that in México the highest volcano is the Citlaltépetl."

I would write:
*"María says that Citlaltepetl is the highest volcano in Mexico."* Or:
*"María says that the highest volcano in Mexico is Citlaltepetl."*

(I am referring, here, _not to the accent, but to the construction of the sentence._) Most certainly, *in English, we would never say, "the Citlaltépetl."* Apart from that, your sentence is technically correct, but it does not sound right. There's a feel-right quality to communications in every language, and your sentence has the feel of a sentence that is being translated from another language, rather than emanating from a native English speaker.

Note: In my two examples:
a. The first sentence conveys (to me) that someone is simply imparting information recently learned. For example, a child is enthusiastically  relating to her parent a new, exciting fact that she learned that day from a neighbor.

b. The second sentence suggests (to me) that someone is *responding*, either to the question, "What is the highest volcano in Mexico?", or to an incorrect assertion, such as "The highest volcano in Mexico is Popocatepetl".

*4.* For certain, *in English, we would not write "México"*, any more than we would write "Firenze" instead of "Florence". (Few would even have any idea where "Firenze" is.)

*5.* Personally, I would like to write "Citlaltépetl", because I am deeply fond of Mexico and its heritage, and have the desire to communicate to people the beautiful and accurate names of its extraordinary geographical and cultural features. But that is my own personal agenda, and has no bearing on what is correct.

A more relevant point is that, in this case, the accent is legitimately useful to English language readers. Without the accent, they would have no idea how to pronounce Citlaltépetl. They would most likely be inclined to give up before trying, honestly. But if they were to try, they would most likely conclude that it is pronounced CÍtlaltepÉtl. Or CitlaltepÉtl. Or CÍtlaltepetl. Which would be a shame.

However, I must reluctantly conclude that, being a location in a foreign country, it ought to follow the same rules as Mexico and Florence.

Therefore, *I would write "Citlaltepetl (pronounced: Ceet-lal-TEH-pet-l)"*. 

*6.* There is *a trick I often use*. It by no means guarantees accurate results, admittedly. And when I am writing for a publication, I most certainly never rely on this trick alone. However, I do use it often, as one of my sources of information.

I go to google.com, and select the Advanced Search option (to the right of the "Search" button). In the "Need more tools?" section, I constrain the results of my search solely to the language in question. In this case, I would select "Language: English". Then I would perform a search for "Citlaltépetl", and note, simply, *the number of pages containing that spelling, in the English language only*. In this case, the result is: "17,200 English pages for "Citlaltépetl."

Then, I would return to the Advanced Search options, and run the exact same search for "Citlaltepetl". In this case, the result is: "29,200 English pages for "Citlaltepetl".

Obviously, this is not a reliable indicator of accuracy. But it does tell me that, on the internet, google finds 12,000 more entries for "Citlaltepetl" than for "Citlaltépetl", _in the English language_. If the discrepancy in the number of returns is large enough, I usually conclude that *the spelling that occurs in far greater numbers is, at the very least, more widely used and accepted as accurate.*

*7.* My name is Genève. It is not Geneva. It is not Geneve. I was named after the capital of Switzerland, where my family lived for several years before I was born. Genève is how the people *in* Genève refer to their own city, just as Firenze is the way people in Firenze refer to their own city.

When I am published (in English, Spanish, or Portuguese), *I am published under the name Genève* Gil. When I am cited in an article (in English, Spanish, or Portuguese), *I am cited as Genève* Gil. I would not appreciate being cited as Geneva, or Geneve.

My step-mother's parents were from Sweden, and named her Karin (pronounced: "CAR-in"). She has been cited in newspaper articles, but never as "Karen". Rather, as "Karin", which is her name.

*I would resent having my name 'translated' into any other language. A person's name is a person's name.*

The Hindi name Aditya could be translated from Hindi into English as "Sun". But I don't know anyone named Aditya who would appreciate being cited as "Sun" in an article. "Sun" would not be his name. No one would recognize him in the article if he were referred to as "Sun".

So, personally, *I must advocate for preserving a person's name exactly as it was given.*

I know that in English-language publications "María" is routinely written "Maria". But "Juan" would not be written as "John". I think we need to wake up a little, in this country, and acknowledge that we can afford to learn (as a nation, I mean, within the venues of digital and print media), how to insert accurate orthographic elements when appropriate.

This would be another interesting point to address (in detail, as I have done, above) to William Sapphire. 

I wonder how this issue is handled in publications in Great Britain?

*8.* Lastly, your question was, "me gustaria saber si *todos los nombres propios en español que estan acentuados* tambien los tengo que acentuar cuando escribo en ingles o es indiferente escribirlos con o sin tilde."

You provided an excellent example, with the sentence, "María says that in México the highest volcano is the Citlaltépetl." However, we have all responded only to this example, in particular. I am not sure that it represents “*all *of the proper names that are accented in Spanish”.  

*9.* I have a request and suggestion. When you are posting in a forum, requesting that other people spare their own time to assist you in learning how to write accurately in English, *it would be generous of you to take great care to express yourself accurately in the Spanish language, so that people who are learning Spanish might also benefit from your example.* As you are requesting advice on the proper usage of _accents in English_, it would be considerate of you to _employ accents properly in your Spanish sentences_. It would take you a bit more time to do so, yes. However, as you are asking others to offer their own time for your benefit, you might take that extra time, to *model the behavior you are requesting*. Perhaps others disagree. : )

*10.* I hope that the bolded words in this reply do not seem overbearing. The only reason I employed them was to make it easier for you to skim my (perhaps excessively long!) response, to quickly find the grains of information most relevant to your questions. 

Thank you again for catalyzing an engaging conversation. 

Take care,
Genève Gil


----------



## manicha

Great, Heredianista 
I think too that person names should keep the original spelling, because they are not translated. The only exception in Spanish are the names of members of royal families, which are usually translated, even contemporary kings and queens. I always found very funny that the princesses of Mónaco are called in Spain Carolina and Estefanía, but Carolina's children are Andrea, Carlota and Pierre. Actually, in Spanish Andrea is a female name (the corresponding male name is Andrés, I think) and Pierre can easely be translated as Pedro. But this are not traslated, only the girl's name. It is the same with all the European royal families. 
But ordinary human beings keep their names, with their spelling, pronunciation and accents, in any foreign language. 
I hope it helps!


----------



## mrbob

The weakness of using the Google search regarding accent notation is that many people, either out of laziness or from ignorance in how to type them, do not write with accents marks.  I've seen it here at the Word Reference Forums.  It seems that it will always be biased toward no accent.  

On Facebook, I've seen many times people write "cumpleanos" (complete+annus) for "cumpleaños" (birthday/complete+year).

As for personal names, I say that the spelling should remain as they are, without translation or removing the accent notation, unless the person chooses to change it.  

I know people who have chosen to do this.  I knew a Hispanic guy named Daniel who had moved to the US.  He changed the pronunciation of his name to reflect the English pronunciation because the Spanish pronunciation of Daniel was, for him, too close to the English feminine variation of Daniel—Danielle.


----------



## Mitza21

Yea, well. I have found last names like Duran, Vasquez, etc. just like that, without accent in English articles. The problem is when I translate them to Spanish, I am not sure to add the accent. I know they have accent on the ''a" but those people have used their last name all their life without accent. And I feel bad writing the article in Spanish and write those last names without accent, I mean, to me, is like a terrible misspelling, but what if that people have those last names like that even from their birth certificate? then I should respect their last name and just write it like that even when the writing I am doing is in Spanish? If I know that Duran is Durán and Vasquez is Vásquez, then I will write them with accent in the Spanish version, even when they don't have the ''tilde'' in the English version. It could be wrong, but if the article is Spanish, I have to respect the spelling of that language.


----------



## Heredianista

Re: "The weakness of using the Google search regarding accent notation is that many people, either out of laziness or from ignorance in how to type them, do not write with accents marks. I've seen it here at the Word Reference Forums. It seems that it will always be biased toward no accent."

Dear mrbob,

This is an *excellent* point. I have actually never used the Google search to gauge the relative usage of accent notation. I have used it to compare the relative popularity of different *phrases*, comprised of two or more words (disregarding accent issues altogether). For example, if I compare the number of instances of "el mar" to the number of instances of "la mar" (in Spanish language texts, only), I get these results: 1,770,000 Spanish pages for "la mar", vs. 14,000,000 Spanish pages for "el mar". 

If my "trick" were at all reliable, these results would indicate a strong likelihood that "el mar" is correct, and "la mar", incorrect.

However, the reality is that these results do *not* reveal whether or not either (or both) of these phrases is *correct*; it only tells me which phrase has been more frequently used online. 

In a WordReference thread entitled <<la mar o el mar?>>, responses indicate ambiguity: 

1. "Las dos son correctas Masood, y las utilizamos indistintamente en la vida cotidiana. Aunque aquí, en el sur, es más habitual decir "la mar". 
En realidad se trata de un sustantivo ambiguo..."

2. "Both are correct."

3. "I think sailors sometimes use 'la mar', I imagine for poetic effect or something, much as English speaking sailors might refer to the sea as 'she'."

4. "La mar estaba serena , serena estaba la mar, la mar estaba serena, serena estaba la mar..."

5. "Dicen que los pescadores dicen la mar porque quieren sentir la presencia femenina en sus vidas"

6. "We can use both words, but we do prefer the second "el mar". A surfer: "El mar está bravazo" but a sailor can say "Iré a alta mar". That is why they also say "baja mar, alta mar" and so on..."

7. "en español se dice EL mar pero cuando se habla de poesia se le puede decir LA mar para que rime (rimar)"

8. "In Argentina (and maybe elswhere) we use the expression 'la mar en coche.'

9. "Here we say '¡mecachís la mar salada!" which is an expression like "damn it" but very very light..'"

All of which supports your commentary, mrbob. I retract my "trick"!  

Thank you for pointing the failings of this strategy, especially within the context of this discussion.

As for personal names, as is clear from my post, I am with you all the way. : )

Best,
Genève


----------



## Heredianista

Mitza21 said:


> Yea, well. I have found last names like Duran, Vasquez, etc. just like that, without accent in English articles. The problem is when I translate them to Spanish, I am not sure to add the accent. I know they have accent on the ''a" but those people have used their last name all their life without accent. And I feel bad writing the article in Spanish and write those last names without accent, I mean, to me, is like a terrible misspelling, but what if that people have those last names like that even from their birth certificate? then I should respect their last name and just write it like that even when the writing I am doing is in Spanish? If I know that Duran is Durán and Vasquez is Vásquez, then I will write them with accent in the Spanish version, even when they don't have the ''tilde'' in the English version. It could be wrong, but if the article is Spanish, I have to respect the spelling of that language.



Mitza21, 

This is an interesting question. 

My first thought is: The fact that these names appear without accents in English language publications, does not necessarily mean that "those people have used their last name all their life without accent." 

It may actually be the case that the people themselves do use the accents in their names, but that the newspaper reporter did not reflect that in his or her article. For example, the reporter may have asked the subject, "How do you spell your name?", and recorded the letters recited, without thinking to ask whether or not to insert an accent anywhere. 

It may also be that those people do use the accents in their names whenever they are writing within a Spanish-language context, but leave them out whenever they are writing within an English-language context. For example, if a Spanish-speaking reporter who was going to publish an article in Spanish had asked them to write their names down, perhaps they would have written Durán or Vásquez. But if an English-speaking reporter, who was going to write an article in English, asked them to write their names, they may have left the accents out, presuming that the accents might simply cause confusion. 

Or perhaps they left the accents *in*, and the *reporter* took them out.

~~~

For example...

I know a psychiatrist named Bernardo Córdoba. His family origin is Latin American, he is fully fluent in Spanish, and he strongly identifies with his culture of origin. But he has given up on the accents in his name, here, in the United States, altogether. He tells people that his name is Bernardo CorDOba, and he pronounces it with an American accent (even on his answering machine). I asked him about it, and he said that it was simply too difficult to try to get English speakers to deal with the authentic pronunciation, or spelling, of his full name. For pragmatic reasons, he made his name more accessible to the constituency he serves. 

However, I have no doubt whatsoever that in Spanish language contexts, where he is confident of being understood, he both writes and pronounces his name properly. And he would be proud to be cited in a Spanish-language publication as Bernardo Córdoba. 

If I were in your situation, translating an article from English to Spanish that included names of Hispanic origin, I would make the same decision you have  made: I would write the names with correct Hispanic orthographic elements. 

The only caveat being, that if I were able to contact the people themselves, directly, I would do so, and confirm with them that they concurred with my decision, before implementing it. 

It *is* tricky, however. 

Others might, indeed, disagree. 

My father is Cuban, and came here illegally in 1929 (I know—a *long* time ago! He was 47 when I was born.) After Pearl Harbor Day, the U.S. military recruited illegal aliens by offering them American citizenship if they joined any branch of the military. The U.S. had just joined WWI, and needed to rapidly and exponentially increase its forces. 

At the same time, the U.S. Military offered conscripts the opportunity to legally change their names. 

My father snapped up both opportunities without a moment's hesitation. 

He had grown up in Spanish Harlem during the depression, and had suffered excruciating poverty, alone with his mother, without ever receiving assistance from his wealthy relatives in Cuba. He grew up being routinely beaten up for being Hispanic, and he felt constrained in every way by his ethnic origins. 

He wanted nothing more than to distance himself from his Cuban heritage, to the greatest extent possible. He changed his name from Urbano Pedro Pablo Fumagalli Heredia, to Peter Paul Gil. "Gil" was his uncle's surname, and he thought that by choosing it, he could retain *a* family name, but one that sounded decidedly un-Hispanic. 

He has published, and been cited in publications, always as Peter Paul Gil. He would *never* want to be associated with the names Pedro, Fumigalli, or Heredia. 

I know that this is an entirely different scenario from the one you are describing. 

But I know my father, and if he *had* ended up with a Hispanic surname that *did* have an accent in it, he would have removed the accent, intentionally, for certain. And he would have wanted it to stay that way. 

Similarly, he and my mother, who grew up in Mexico, wanted to keep the tradition of bequeathing both mother's and father's surnames to their children. However, being in the United States, they knew that whichever name came last on their children's birth certificates, would be considered "the family surname". So, they *switched the order*, and gave all of us our mother's surname, followed by our father's. So, we all bear our mother's surname—but no one who is not Hispanic has ever understood that. They just think it's our (peculiar) "middle name". 

So, yes... people in the United States do all kinds of creative and unusual things with their names, *intentionally,* for all kinds of practical and personal reasons. And their intentionality does deserve to be respected.

Nonetheless, even in relation to a scenario such as my father's—I would still agree with your decision. In a Spanish-language publication, Durán is Durán, and Vásquez is Vásquez. 

Again, unless the person in question can be contacted directly and asked for his or her preference. 

Do others feel differently?


----------



## Mitza21

Thank you for your comments Heredianista! It's very interesting the story of your father. It's incredible the things people has to do to live with dignity and be respected in another country; and yes, I agree with you, if I could, I would talk to them to ask if it is fine with them to write their last names the right way in Spanish. Unfortunately, I don't have access to that information. However, I feel more confident to know that I am not the only one who thinks like that.


----------



## danielfranco

Look, has anybody ever considered that, for a long time a lot of foreign names were not spelled with the proper tildes _*because they didn't exist in the letterbox*_? Surely, all that time that printed material was…, well, printed, I don't think many people included those characters in their regular printshop.

But, seriously, even now: How many regular English-speaking people would you think know the "alternate keyboard commands" for acute tildes, dieresis, "virgulillas", cedillas?

So, from this point forward, I believe that it's our sacred duty, as word-nerds, to go forth into the world and spell everything correctly, according to their origins, tildes and all.

Amen,
D


----------



## Heredianista

Thank you, Mitza!! What a lovely message. Te lo agradezco. 

Take good care. : )

Saludos,
Genève


----------



## Mitza21

danielfranco said:


> Look, has anybody ever considered that, for a long time a lot of foreign names were not spelled with the proper tildes _*because they didn't exist in the letterbox*_? Surely, all that time that printed material was…, well, printed, I don't think many people included those characters in their regular printshop.
> 
> But, seriously, even now: How many regular English-speaking people would you think know the "alternate keyboard commands" for acute tildes, dieresis, "virgulillas", cedillas?
> 
> So, from this point forward, I believe that it's our sacred duty, as word-nerds, to go forth into the world and spell everything correctly, according to their origins, tildes and all.
> 
> Amen,
> D


 

YES!!!!!!!!!!!  I totally agree with you! Amen!


----------



## jinti

I don't see _Maria _as a translation of _María_.  The translation is _Mary_, and I agree we shouldn't suddenly start calling her that.  But leaving off the accent over the _i _isn't the same as calling her _Mary_.  I've seen Spanish speakers add an accent mark to my own name (which is difficult for them to pronounce and doesn't follow regular Spanish pronunciation rules, what with not being Spanish and all).  So what?  It doesn't somehow void my name.

If we have to maintain each diacritical mark of the original language, why aren't we maintaining writing systems as well?  After all, transliterations don't really capture the original sounds, and there are often multiple ways to transliterate.  So let's stop writing Tokyo or Tokio (東京 has long _o _sounds, guys, and it makes a difference in Japanese) and it's not like Aso Taro (or Taro Aso) really has an _r _in his name.....

In fact, I have a list of 83 student names in front of me now (I work at a New York City college), and probably no more than 10 of them are English.  I know perfectly well that Hye-mi, Xiaoruo, ChenYu, and Hang Jong had to come up with their own ways of representing their given names in the roman alphabet (there are no surnames in that list I gave), and that each one decided on a different way of doing it: hyphenated, run together, together but with an internal capital, separate.... There's no standardized way of doing it, so it seems pointless to insist on one as "right".


----------



## Mitza21

Hi Jinti, I respect your coment, and just want to tell you my view. It's not if it is right or not, but when you were raised and educated knowing the importance of your language, you want that to be respected. It's as simple as this:
writing Rovert instead of Robert, or Gregori instead of Gregory. If Robert sees his name written the wrong way, he will jump! Same thing with the Spanish names, we are used to the spelling, and the tilde is a very important part of the accent and the pronunciation, and not only because is part of the word.


----------



## jinti

Mitza21 said:


> Hi Jinti, I respect your coment, and just want to tell you my view. It's not if it is right or not, but when you were raised and educated knowing the importance of your language, you want that to be respected. It's as simple as this:
> writing Rovert instead of Robert, or Gregori instead of Gregory. If Robert sees his name written the wrong way, he will jump! Same thing with the Spanish names, we are used to the spelling, and the tilde is a very important part of the accent and the pronunciation, and not only because is part of the word.



I believe I see your point, Mitza.  You give equal importance to all parts of the name; I divide a name into more and less important parts.  Both are valid viewpoints, I think.

What I don't accept is that a concern that accent marks be carried over into other languages = "being raised and educated knowing the importance of your language".  That's a mighty big assumption there  ... and it's the point of what I was saying about transliteration.  My Tokio/Tokyo example, for instance, points out that no one seems very concerned about shortening the two _o _sounds even though long and short vowel sounds are important parts of pronunciation in Japanese.  So concern over Spanish names ought to be accompanied by concern over names in other languages, shouldn't it?


----------



## Mitza21

That's up to them! If they don't mind seeing the different spelling of their country, it's their business. I guess I am concerned about it because as a translator, I have a responsability when I translate articles from English to Spanish. If I am writing the article in Spanish, I am suppose to write names, last names, and everything in our language, therefore, I have to respect the spelling. I don't mind if I see for instance "
''México" written as Mexico in an english newspaper, I understand they might not have the program to write the accent. However, if the article is in Spanish, I suppose the spelling must match the language.


----------



## jinti

Mitza21 said:


> That's up to them! If they don't mind seeing the different spelling of their country, it's their business.
> I would suggest that it has nothing to do with caring about the preferences of the Japanese, and everything to do with convention.  But if how names are represented are the decision of those named, why are you only concerned with names in your own language?  Why not extend the same care to others' names?
> 
> I guess I am concerned about it because as a translator, I have a responsability when I translate articles from English to Spanish.
> But no other language to Spanish?  And do you call my city New York or Nueva York when you're translating to Spanish?
> 
> If I am writing the article in Spanish, I am suppose to write names, last names, and everything in our language, therefore, I have to respect the spelling. If you mean  you should write _María _with an accented _í _when you're writing Spanish, yes, of course.  No argument there.  If that's not what you mean, though, you seem to be supporting my point.
> 
> I don't mind if I see for instance "México" written as Mexico in an english newspaper, I understand they might not have the program to write the accent.  Just as most English-speakers don't know how to do the accent marks, either.  Our keyboards don't have them.  However, another possible explanation for _Mexico _(no accent) is that it's being written in English, just as _Estados Unidos _stands in for the United States in Spanish.
> 
> However, if the article is in Spanish, I suppose the spelling must match the language.  If you're not careful, I'm going to think we're agreeing again here!


----------



## Heredianista

jinti,

I thank you for making this discussion once again yet more complex. : )

You bring in to play, again, the myriad ways in which immigrants to the U.S. have had to, or have chosen to, adapt their names, and their linguistic and cultural traditions, to the predominant linguistic and cultural modalities of this country, which has been undergoing a perpetual, turbulent re-formation of identity ever since Europeans landed on this soil. In fact, trying to define the United States as one country, with one language and one culture, is rather a presumptuous, not to mention formidable, enterprise. 

It is true that immigrants from cultures that utilize writing systems that do not correlate in any way with the Roman alphabet have particular challenges in retaining their identities linguistically and otherwise in this nation.

Also, as is mentioned on Wikipedia, "In many countries, European settlers have made native people use the Latin alphabet."

For various reasons, other countries and cultures have *chosen* to convert to the Roman alphabet:  "When the Soviet Union broke up, many Eastern European countries began using the Roman alphabet instead of the Cyrillic alphabet. After World War II, many Turkish countries changed their original alphabets (Arab, Persian or Cyrillic) with the Latin alphabet. The latin alphabet in turkish countries started to be used by Kemal Ataturk in Turkey. It is now used in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan." http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_alphabet

Apologies—I must leave this thread momentarily (computer issue). I hope to return to complete my thoughts. : )

But briefly, in case I am not able to do so...

Consider that the Spanish architect Antoni Gaudí, to my knowledge, is never translated as Gaudi...

P.S. If you have the patience to watch this, it is very cool: http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~rfradkin/latin.html


----------



## lysdefleur

Heredianista said:


> Mitza21,
> 
> This is an interesting question.
> 
> My first thought is: The fact that these names appear without accents in English language publications, does not necessarily mean that "those people have used their last name all their life without accent."
> 
> It may actually be the case that the people themselves do use the accents in their names, but that the newspaper reporter did not reflect that in his or her article. For example, the reporter may have asked the subject, "How do you spell your name?", and recorded the letters recited, without thinking to ask whether or not to insert an accent anywhere.
> 
> It may also be that those people do use the accents in their names whenever they are writing within a Spanish-language context, but leave them out whenever they are writing within an English-language context. For example, if a Spanish-speaking reporter who was going to publish an article in Spanish had asked them to write their names down, perhaps they would have written Durán or Vásquez. But if an English-speaking reporter, who was going to write an article in English, asked them to write their names, they may have left the accents out, presuming that the accents might simply cause confusion.
> 
> Or perhaps they left the accents *in*, and the *reporter* took them out.
> 
> ~~~
> 
> For example...
> 
> I know a psychiatrist named Bernardo Córdoba. His family origin is Latin American, he is fully fluent in Spanish, and he strongly identifies with his culture of origin. But he has given up on the accents in his name, here, in the United States, altogether. He tells people that his name is Bernardo CorDOba, and he pronounces it with an American accent (even on his answering machine). I asked him about it, and he said that it was simply too difficult to try to get English speakers to deal with the authentic pronunciation, or spelling, of his full name. For pragmatic reasons, he made his name more accessible to the constituency he serves.
> 
> However, I have no doubt whatsoever that in Spanish language contexts, where he is confident of being understood, he both writes and pronounces his name properly. And he would be proud to be cited in a Spanish-language publication as Bernardo Córdoba.
> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> It is tricky, like an old "Tocarse el corazón," named Jesus (Hey-Zus) once told me, he felt he had to forsake his name for a more common nickname,
> which came from his middle name.


----------



## neal41

yito said:


> yes, I agree with you. You are right. Thank you very much.
> I appreciate all your help.
> regards.


 
What does it mean to say "I agree with you"? Different people have expressed opposite opinions. If you quote a previous statement, then we will know what you agree with.


----------



## neal41

I have not carefully read every post, but it appears to me that they deal exclusively with how Spanish words, primarily proper names, are written in English. Remember that the US is full of immigrants and descendants of immigrants who have come from everywhere. Spanish is not in principle different from any of the many other languages that these people speak or spoke.

Consider Vietnamese. It is written with a bewildering variety of diacritical marks. Nevertheless Vietnamese names in an English text never have these marks. Names from Polish and Czech and Swedish rarely if ever preserve the special letters of those languages.

Question: in the Spanish speaking countries of Latin America, do surnames from Portuguese, German, Polish, etc. preserve the special letters from those languages which are not used in native Spanish words?


----------

