[Spellyans] dictionnaire de l'Académie française

Owen Cook owen.e.cook at gmail.com
Sun Jan 30 02:37:06 GMT 2011

This does seem like an over-reaction, Eddie. Michael made a legitimate
point. In French, even though a ç is a type of c, it still needs to be
written as ç. I really can't see that Michael's remarks were jejune
point-scoring or patronizing condescension. In the past, I have
criticized Michael for a lapse of decorum, and by the same standard I
must now criticize you.

With that said, Eddie's substantive proposal -- suggesting that there
might be circumstances in which some or all diacritics might be
optional -- might be worth discussing. Nothing, however, actually
compells you to use diacritics in informal contexts anyway. Who cares
if the spellchecker would mark as incorrect what you'll never run past
spellchecker in the first place?

Personally, I agree with Christian; while the principle of using
diacritics in general seems indispensable to me, I don't see that we
need to mark y/e alternation with a diaeresis any more than we need to
mark s/j alternation. Long y is not, in itself, any great anathema;
KS's current distribution of i and y may need to be revisited in the
course of the SWF review. (Don't get me wrong, I like the existing
distribution, but if it needs to be adjusted for the sake of
consensus, so be it.)

Besides circumflexes and graves to indicate anomalous vowel length, I
do think that ù as in pùb and â as in brâs are really helpful as they
indicate vowel qualities that would otherwise be unpredictable.


2011/1/29 Eddie Climo <eddie_climo at yahoo.co.uk>:
> Not in the slightest; I'm perfectly aware of the distinction between fuzzy
> search criteria and orthography. I think that you have mistaken this forum
> for a high-school debating society, where the main aim is to score jejune
> 'points', rather than to elucidate the matter under discussion. Instead of
> indulging yourself in patronising condescension, you might attempt to
> address the substantive issue that I raised..
> I propose that we discuss the precise wording of the role of diacritics that
> will go into the formal submission we make on behalf of KS to the
> Partnership in due course. At present, I feel that there is little or no
> attempt to reach consensus in this forum, but that the decisions are being
> taken rather capriciously by Nicholas and Michael.
> I would like to hear from other members of this forum, so that we might form
> a view of their consensus on this matter. Fellow 'Spellyansoryon', the issue
> before us is this:
> — Should the diacritics in KS be mandatory in all writings?
> — Should they be optional in all writings?
> — Should they be hightly recommented in lexicographic/reference/didactic
> writings and optional elsewhere?
> — Or should they have some other role?
> — Furthermore, do we currently have a surfeit of diacritics? Could we idealy
> do with fewer of them?
> Let us hear your views, please, so we can discuss these questions before
> taking a vote to ascertain what measure of consensus there may be amongst
> us.
> Eddie Foirbeis Climo
> - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -
> Dres ethom akennow byner re bo lyeshes
> Accenti non multiplicandi praeter necessitatem

More information about the Spellyans mailing list