Re: Foreign is foreign, right?
- From: "Jim Heckman" <wnzrfeurpxzna@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 13:30:08 GMT
On 13-Jan-2006, Des Small <vonbladet@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in message <yyrjzmm0cgrr.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Des Small wrote:
> > >
> > > "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >
> > > > Jim Heckman wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12-Jan-2006, Torsten Poulin <t_usenet_drop@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > wrote in message <43c688c0$0$15789$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > <Kobnhavn> (or whatever the Danish form minus diacritics is)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (<København>)
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm... Peter usually jumps at the chance to point out that there
> > > > > _are_ no diacritics in <København>. Unless it gains one in
> > > > >passing from Danish (whose alphabet ends in ..., æ, ø, å) to
> > > >English?
> > > >
> > > > Peter who? I've never done any such thing.
> > >
> > > Well, a (possibly composite) someone used to have lengthy and wildy
> > > unhilarious arguments with LSD about how alphabets were defined (by
> > > fiat, of course, but he refused to respect the pertinent authoritay)
> > > in which it was submitted as evidence on at least both sides that
> > > German <ä> is (in a synchronicly applicable sense) made from an <a> by
> > > the addition of a diacritical <¨> while Swedish <ä> is indecomposibly
> > > just plain <ä> with its very own place in the (Swedish) alphabet.
> > >
> > > Des
> > > uses several alphabets, almost all Latin
> >
> > Oh. You think Jim was referring to the status of letters in the Danish
> > alphabet, not to the presence (or not) of diacritics in a postulable
> > English adoption of the Danish spelling of Kobenhavn.
>
> I'm pretty confident that Jim was referring to the potential quibbling
> as to whether <ø> had a diacritic, in an unspecified alphabet.
Thank you for making an actual good-faith effort to take my
meaning, and for developing it enough to elicit an actual answer to
my question.
--
Jim Heckman
.
- References:
- Foreign is foreign, right?
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Foreign is foreign, right?
- From: Seán O'Leathlóbhair
- Re: Foreign is foreign, right?
- From: Joe Fineman
- Re: Foreign is foreign, right?
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Foreign is foreign, right?
- From: Seán O'Leathlóbhair
- Re: Foreign is foreign, right?
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: Foreign is foreign, right?
- From: Seán O'Leathlóbhair
- Re: Foreign is foreign, right?
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: Foreign is foreign, right?
- From: Des Small
- Re: Foreign is foreign, right?
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: Foreign is foreign, right?
- From: Seán O'Leathlóbhair
- Re: Foreign is foreign, right?
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: Foreign is foreign, right?
- From: Seán O'Leathlóbhair
- Re: Foreign is foreign, right?
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Foreign is foreign, right?
- From: Jim Heckman
- Re: Foreign is foreign, right?
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Foreign is foreign, right?
- From: Des Small
- Foreign is foreign, right?
- Prev by Date: Re: the case of the conjoined NP
- Next by Date: Re: Time in various languages...
- Previous by thread: Re: Foreign is foreign, right?
- Next by thread: Re: Foreign is foreign, right?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|