| 1 |
On Friday 04 December 2009 00:07:33 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Donnerstag 03 Dezember 2009, Renat Golubchyk wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Hi! |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 11:20:03 -0800 |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > felix@×××××××.com wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > In Germany is a district "Busingen", with an umlauted 'u'. Is it |
| 9 |
> > > reasonable to consider it the same word whether with or without the |
| 10 |
> > > unlauted u? |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > No. For many words it would be ok, but not for all. For example, |
| 13 |
> > "drucken" means "to print", "drücken" (with an umlaut) means "to |
| 14 |
> > press". In German you can exchange an umlaut with the combination "base |
| 15 |
> > letter + e", i.e. ü --> ue, ö --> oe, and ß --> ss. There are words |
| 16 |
> > with the combination "oe" that is in that particular case does not mean |
| 17 |
> > "ö". So it's not straight forward, especially with names. Those may |
| 18 |
> > have a rather odd spelling for historical reasons. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> and it is hilarious to see american media fuck that up almost every time |
| 21 |
> ... ;) |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
What's even more funny is hearing news readers on the South Africa public |
| 25 |
broadcaster try to pronounce regular *English* words... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives