From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Typography (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Writing systems (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Important miscellaneous fixes needed for/to page[edit]

Ok Number 1 importance someone with linguistics skills put the pronunciation of the word '''diacritic''' and '''diacritics''' in IPA please & thank you --Antiedman 01:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC) ==the pronunciation of Diacritic==

no one fixed it so i did it my self bahhh--Antiedman 21:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Antiedman (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The bar[edit]

I have changed the reference to bar (punctuation) to bar (diacritics). The reason for this is that I cannot think of any language which uses the vertical bar | as a punctuation mark, but the bar can be a diacritic: think of the Polish and Lithuanian barred-l ƚ. I know the characters barred-b, barred-d, barred-i, barred-u, etc. also exist, as well as barred-lambda and so on. — Jor 20:40, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Just saying: The vertical bar | is a "full stop" or a "period" in Devanagari scripts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


1. Why there's no mention about the use of ogonek in Polish language?
2. There's no 'barred-l' in Polish, it's 'striked-l': try '\l{}' command in TeX. The difference is slightly but it's a difference after all. — User:

Ogonek is mentioned as a diacritic, and the article ogonek lists the Polish usage. As for the barred-l in Polish, I'm adding it. Jor 03:37, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

keyboard layout US International[edit]

This needs correcting or more precise explanation: In modern Microsoft Windows operating systems, the keyboard layout US International allows one to type almost all diacritics directly: "+e gives ë, ~+o gives õ etc.. In addition to this, the layout provides many 'special characters' behind the AltGr modifier: AltGr+t is þ, AltGr+z is æ, etc.. For example, Windows NT does not allow this without special software, and I doubt XP does this either.Wikibob 23:39, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)

Works on both 2k and XP without special software: I entered those characters from an (US English locale) XP Pro workstation with the US International keyboard. I can't test NT right now, but IIRC it also works there as long as UniScribe is installed. Jor 23:55, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

yes works on xp but does not support any alphabet other than far western European languges ie. only Germanic & Romance Languages So I actually had to make my own with a free program downloded from Microsoft

in my version I used the Unicode Combining Diacritical Marks so that i could type a charecter of the Latin/Roman alphabet and then the mark like x then ̃ yet most fonts don't fully support this system but I found that Arial Unicode MS does--Antiedman 05:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

barred/stroked l[edit]

Lithuanian does not have barred/stroked l. Perhaps you are confusing it with Belarussian Lacinka or Sorbian(s). Anyway, barred-l and stroked-l are considered just glyph variations, see e.g. the Tanacross language orthography where it is called barred-l but looks identical to polish ł.

Diacritics in Japanese?[edit]

Should the Japanese dakuten (゛) and handakuten ( ゜) symbols be noted? They certainly function as diacritics (see Hiragana) for details, but it could be argued that they're added to syllables, not letters... Jpatokal 05:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Somebody just added abjads and abugidas, so I guess these are also OK. Added. Jpatokal 16:03, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Middle dot[edit]

Recently User:OwenBlacker added middle dot to Category:Diacritics. I reverted, but he re-reverted, explained that he did so because it was listed in Diacritic, and asked that it be discussed over here. I don't believe that a middle dot is a diacritic, any more than a hyphen or apostrophe is a diacritic: it's not added to a letter, it's placed between letters to separate them (in Catalan), and outside of Catalan it's a punctuation mark when it's used at all. Gwalla | Talk 19:48, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for being quite so terse about it earlier (though I didn't realise I'd been crabby enough to re-revert it, sorry :o) Basically, I added Category:Diacritics to every one of the list on Diacritics and didn't really want to take a position on the matter cos I was rather stressed at work. To be honest, I'm inclined to agree with Gwalla: in Catalan, surely the middle dot is being used as punctuation, not as a diacritic? — OwenBlacker 20:16, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
I think the Catalan middle dot is neither a diacritic (it's not applied to a letter to give it a different but related sound), and it's not punctuation (it's related to the sound of a particular word, not grammar / syntax / sentences). It's almost a letter but not quite. I would most closely compare it to the apostrophe or even the hyphen in English. Since the apostrophe and hyphen are regarded as punctuation then it seems fair to put the middle dot in the same category even though it doesn't seem accurate of itself. — Hippietrail 03:39, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I also noticed the Category:Diacritics changes of User:OwenBlacker but decided not to comment until I see the result. Now I take the opportunity to comment:

  • I agree, that the Catalan middle dot isn't a diacritic in the strict sense. I'm not quite sure, that punctuation fits. The difference betwen "l·l" and "ll" is more like ligated versus non-ligated "ff" in classical typography. In german "Schaffell", the "ff" should not be ligated, as each of them belongs to a different subword, but in "Affe", they should be ligated.
  • The same sign can be considered a diacritic and a non-diacritic by different languages. COMBINING RING ABOVE is seen as diacritic in Czech, but the LATIN LETTER A WITH COMBINING RING ABOVE is seen as a distinct, uncomposed letter in scandinavian languages.
  • Also the category contains both the diacritic marks and some characters composed with them. This looked a bit strange to me in the first moment.

I'm only commenting here and don't see the need for any specific action. But I assume, the first scandinavion editor seeing the "Å" in this category, will do something about it. -- Pjacobi 20:51, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Removed the following:

Note that North Germanic languages do not use grammatical umlauts.

That statement is simply false. Io 22:27, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Only to clarify: I assume the author of the sentence above did mean, that north germanic languages don't use the umlaut for forming different cases etc of a word, like in German:

Ein Kamm - Zwei Kämme

So your are saying this isn't the case in, e.g. Swedish? Can you give an example?

Pjacobi 22:56, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The two North Germanic languages I know well enough to give examples from, Icelandic and Danish, certainly use grammatical umlaut.
Examples from Danish: barn-børn, fader-fædre, moder-mødre.
Icelandic uses them extensively. For instance, every neutral noun with an a in its stem, forms a plural with an ö, e. g. land-lönd. A more colourful example is the declension of köttur (cat), which in goes (in the singular): köttur-kött-ketti-kattar, showing two umlauts (a>ö and a>e). The other languages also have them, but as I only have a passive knowledge of those, I can't give you examples. Cheers Io 23:22, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your examples. Pjacobi 00:00, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think the umlaut function in Scandinavian languages generally is quite an archaic function, although it probably was more common in Old Norse, as Icelandic indicates. Some Swedish examples: hand-händer(hand-hands), fot-fötter(foot-feet), moder-mödrar(mother-mothers), fader-fäder(father-fathers), lång-längre-längst(long-longer-longest)

You're welcome. It probably isn't relevant, but I looked the vowel changes up in a grammar following this discussion. Icelandic has the usual ablaut, of course, but as for umlauts, there are 8 different kinds, counting the sounds which cause them. They are as follows (and I'm just writing this for my own amusement - perhaps I'll incorporate the information in Old Norse or Icelandic one day). In each case, I'll note, whether the change is active, grammatically (that is, if the umlaut/fracture shows up in declination - I'll not mention word derivation). The comment "applies to Old Icelandic" means that later sound changes make the point obscure. If you want more examples, I'll be glad to look them up.




e>i Active
a>e Active
á>æ Active
o>ø (Applies to Old Icelandic)
ó>œ (or Modern Icelandic ó>æ) Active
u>y Active
ú>ý Active
au>ey Active
jú>ý Active
jó>ý Active
ǫ>ø (Applies to Old Icelandic)

IR-umlaut, J-umlaut and R-umlaut

The same changes as in I-umlaut


a>e Active


a>ǫ (or Modern Icelandic a>ö) Active
á>ǭ (Applies to Old Icelandic)
e>ø (Applies to Old Icelandic)


The same changes as in U-umlaut

Additionally we have fracture, where

e>ja Active
e>jǫ (or Modern Icelandic e>jö). Active

Cheers Io 17:18, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Some words are transcribed, others are not[edit]

Why are писа́ть and пи́сать transcribed while все and всё are not? --Hhielscher 17:46, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now they are. Thanks for pointing that out. Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z

No ë in German[edit]

I'll remove this:

Further, a mark may be diacritical in one language, but not in another; for example, in French, e and ë are considered the same letter, while in German, they are considered to be the separate letters. (In the former case, the mark is a diaeresis, while in the latter, it is an umlaut.)

as ë does not exist in German...

I'll replace it with:

Further, a mark may be diacritical in one language, but not in another; for example, in Catalan, Portuguese or Spanish, u and ü are considered the same letter, while in Estonian, Hungarian, Turkish or Azeri they are considered to be the separate letters.

--Viktor 6 July 2005 12:06 (UTC)

Missing diacritics on edit screen[edit]

Does anyone know why most of the diacritics have been removed from below the edit screen (hachek, caron, Greek letters, etc.)? This should be corrected. No one responds about this issue on any pages I have posted on. Badagnani 05:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Origin of diacritics[edit]

Can anyone tell me what was the first recorded usage of diacritics? Which language were diacritics (rather than new letters) first used for? Who had the idea? Pajast suggested it was Jan Hus (see Talk:Czech alphabet), but nobody seems sure about this. Mattwhiteski 12:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

well, Egyptian hieroglyphs had phonetic complements and determinatives, that served like a diacritics, but the vertical stroke identifying a logogram is even closer to our diacritics. rado 14:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Diacritic "descender"[edit]

Hey, does anyone know if descender is the correct name for the diacritic that occurs on the Қ in the Tajik alphabet among others? If so should it be added to this page ? - FrancisTyers 15:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Subdot in Old Irish?[edit]

The subdot is claimed to have been used in Old Irish. Certainly, the superdot has always been used when using the uncial script, from the Old Irish period to the present day. So presumably the author meant superdot, and not subdot. Perhaps - I don't know - the subdot was also used, although I've never heard the suggestion. But if subdot is mentioned for Old Irish, certainly superdot should be too.

If there are no objections (I'll check back in about a week), I'll shift the 'Old Irish' reference to the superdot, and include a reference to the superdot's use in uncial-script (modern) Irish.--Ataltane 10:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

š and ž in Finnish?[edit]

Since when does Finnish collate š and ž as separate letters after z? å, ä and ö are separate letters, collated after z, but I've always thought š and ž were collated as s and z. JIP | Talk 12:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

They will use those letters if they're present in foreign names, but Finnish itself doesn't contain š or ž. Many people in English will use umlauts when discussing German names, but that doesn't mean umlauts are present in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


Isn't the circumflex "diacritic" an accent, like the grave accent, acute accent and double acute accent? I think i have always seen it as "circumflex accent", not circumflex diacritic... -- Jokes Free4Me 08:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Accent marks are diacritics. FilipeS 16:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Non-diacritic usage" is silly in an article on Diacritics[edit]

I understand why people have done this — it's the old story that some languages count accented letters as new "letters", rather than "letter + diacritic" combinations. But the way to deal with that is to explain, in the paragraph for each language, which symbols composed of diacritics, if any, are considered individual letters. FilipeS 16:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, this article shouldn't even attempt to list the uses of the various diacritics in every possible language. That should be left for the specific articles on each diacritic. As for collation issues, and accented letters that are treated as letters of their own, that should be left for Alphabets derived from the Latin, IMO. FilipeS 23:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Letters versus diacritics - more consistency needed[edit]

In some languages, letters with diacritics in them -- such as ü, for instance -- are considered letter + diacritic combinations, while in others they are regarded as new, individual letters. Such conventions are relevant because they may have implications for collation. Unfortunately, the current version of this article (and others) does not make this distinction well. I propose the following:

  • In this article, include only those diacritics which are analysed as separate graphemes from the letters on which they are used.
  • For special letters which include diacritics in them, but are treated as a unit, use Alphabets derived from the Latin.

FilipeS 16:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Here's written:

hyphen - in English, hyphens can be used to break words between syllables, to resolve ambiguities in pronunciation:

  • repair (fix) compared to re-pair (pair again).
  • Kuringgai becomes Ku-ring-gai.

I haven't seen in this usage nothing to treat hyphen as diacritic. What do others think? --Koryakov Yuri 14:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetization or collation[edit]

The a-ring letter in Swedish should have a ring over the a, not a dot. (å <- like so). I can provide you with huge amounts of source material for this claim, but you can start by visiting - NE being considered an authorative Swedish dictionary. Check where the first headline has an å in it.

Before I submitted this I just noticed that the display of the å, which is written entirely correctly on the wiki page, is just weird (and wrong) looking. I am using Swedish localized Firefox, with standard settings. Can this be fixed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Accent mark?[edit]

First, I've never heard of any such thing as an "accent mark" - only an "accent". The Concise Oxford Dictionary has an entry for "accent" (a noun, one of its definitions being "a mark..." etc) but not for an "accent mark". Also, if we were to believe that "accent mark" was the correct term, surely we'd refer to an "acute accent mark", but even Wikipedia admits that we say "acute accent". Secondly, an accent and a diacritic are not the same thing. Some marks are correctly called diacritics but are not accents. The diaeresis as used in English or French would be an example. (A diaeresis looks the same as an umlaut, but it would be incorrect to call it an umlaut.) -

Does it have an entry for "diacritic mark", or for "diacritic"? FilipeS 21:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
"Diacritic". But it has "diacritic" as both a noun and an adjective (along with "diacritical", also an adjective). "Accent", by contrast, is just a noun (and also a verb, but not an adjective). The relevant definition of "accent" (noun) is "a mark on a letter or word indicating pitch, stress, or the quality of a vowel". Since an accent is defined as a mark, that means that "accent mark" would be a tautology. - 21:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The acute is also a mark, and yet it's often referred to as an acute accent. FilipeS 21:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
But "accent" can also refer to a dialectal pronunciation, and to nonspecialists this is likely to be its primary meaning. I'm a specialist, and I often hear and use "accent mark" with nonspecialists, and use it without explanation to make my meaning clear to them. Search for "accent mark", in quotes, and you'll find many respectable uses. --Thnidu (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

English Language's usage of Diacritics[edit]

This article says diacritics are used in English Language, from mainly French orgin words. If this is true, English Wikipedia contradicts that fact. Scandinavian & Slavic orgin names have diacritics in the English Wikipedia as much as French words. Which is it? GoodDay 21:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

English usually did not keep the diacritics of the words it borrowed from Scandinavian languages, contrary to what it (sometimes) did with French loanwords. As for Slavic loanwords, does English have half as much of those as it has from French?... FilipeS 21:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a sentence that reads : "The New Yorker magazine is one of the only major publications that still uses it." This sounds a bit strange - shouldn't it be either "The New Yorker magazine is the only major publication...", or "The New Yorker magazine is one of the few major publications..."

Off the point, but English, circa 2015 C.E., is using a lot more diacritic marks than 40 years ago. I find it annoying that people here seem to think the English language is static. ('using more' in the sense that writers more often adopt native diacritics of borrow words). Also, this article is unacceptably lacking in good references, imho. (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I edited the sentence discussed above to: "The New Yorker magazine is a major publication that uses it." Because the "still" is unsupported and make an assumption. I also agree that more sources are needed. Barklerung (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Recipé in English language?[edit]

How can “recipé” have an accent It’s certainly not a french word. Latin “recipere” gave “receipt” and “recipe” in English, whereas it gave “recevoir” in French (no ‘p’; the ‘p’ became ‘v’ long before accents came in the game). 16:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I have removed that example from the article. FilipeS 21:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Diacritics in Tibetan?[edit]

Tibetan uses four diacritics to denote vowel signs. These are Naro Gigu Shabkyu and drengbo(?); These denote the vowel sounds "o" "i" "u" and "e" respectively. There are also several other diacritics seen in classical writing forms. Would anyone with a better understanding care to add this to the list, please?

Obscure Unicode characters with diacritics.[edit]

There are a few Unicode characters for which I can't find any references as to how they are used. Examples are Ḧ, Ẍ, Ẅ, Ṽ, ẘ, ẙ (the last two exist only in lowercase form.) Anyone know anything about these characters? -- (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The Ẅ is used in Welsh. Can't think of any examples but it is used to distinguish separate vowels – w is a vowel in Welsh – e.g. the combination we /wɛ/ against ẅe /ʊ.ɛ/. (It can be typed on a UK-Extended keyboard layout as AltGr+2, w.) No idea about the others, apart from ẍ can mean acceleration in mechanics. One that's always confused me is ŧ; Wikipedia makes no reference to it, but it's not very deep in Unicode suggesting some common language uses it. Any thoughts? (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The t-with-bar is apparently used in Northern Sami. That's not a particularly major language, but the Latin Extended-A range is kind of a grab-bag. — Gwalla | Talk 16:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Transliteration of non-latin scripts[edit]

One use of diacritical marks in the latin alphabet that has not yet been addressed here is in transliterating non-latin scripts (like Devanagari or Bengali) into latin scripts. There are international norms for such transliteration. śāntiḥ = peace, for instance. Devadaru (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Word with most diacritics[edit]

The Hungarian version of this article states that the word with the most diacritics is the Hungarian újjáépítéséről ('about its rebuilding'). The source stated is the Guinness Book of Records 1990, if someone has it in English, please add it to the article. – Alensha talk 23:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Digraph in French[edit]

The article lists Danish, Norwegian, and Faroese as using the ash grapheme 'æ' in the list of diacritics. Even though the ash is considered a different 'letter' in dictionaries, it isn't a necessary condition to include it in this article, as noted in the introduction.

So, I believe that the ethel grapheme 'œ' should be included with the diacritics of French. The French article on this grapheme ( notes that its usage is linguistic and non esthetic, meaning it's incorrect to write the word 'cœur' (heart) as 'coeur'. Additionally it's only a digraphe, and does not form a unique diphthong, as there are 3 phonemes for it, depending on the word.

I'm readding it to the list for French, and before it's removed again, it would be nice to have a convincing reason for the removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadibk (talkcontribs) 08:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

æ and œ are ligatures (characters merged together), not diacritics ("a small sign added to a letter"). This article is only about diacritics, not all "funny characters", and they should not be listed here for any language. Jpatokal (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the main point, so I do agree; either include "funny" characters for all languages, or we can stick to the literal definition of a diacritic. I'm not sure as to the proper etiquette for this, but for now I'm going to go ahead and remove non dacritics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadibk (talkcontribs) 07:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of diacritics in Arabic[edit]

It's true that the 'ḥarakāt' in Arabic act as phonetical guides. But it's also important to mention that the 'ḥaraka' (singular) at the end of a word also reflects the inflection case. The 'ḍamma' is for the nominative, 'fatḥa' for the accusative, and 'kasra' for the genitive. The 'sukūn' at the end of a word is only for verbs in the imperative or subjunctive (jussive) mood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadibk (talkcontribs) 07:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That the vowels a/i/u reflect grammatical case at the end of a noun is a fact of Arabic grammar; the diacritics themselves aren't grammatical markers. Similarly for final sukūn. --macrakis (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Macrakis, I'm guessing your Arabic is a bit rusty. The harakat (diacritics) are grammatical markers, and vowels are not added to a noun to reflect its grammatical use. In fact, vowels are not added to nouns for any purpose. Please refer to the Arabic grammar page. In any case, I'm assuming you can read Arabic (or else this discussion is meaningless), and I'll give you the following examples:

  • أكل الولدُ التفاحة (the boy ate the apple)  :al-waladu (walad + ḍamma), marking the nominative case.
  • ندهت الأم الولدَ (The mother called the boy) :al-walada (walad + fatḥa), marking the accusative case.
  • طابة الولدِ حمراء (The boy's ball is red)  :al-waladi (walad + kasra), marking the genetive case.

Now notice that the different pronunciations for the word have nothing to do with any additional letters; The word is still spelled in the same manner, with the short vowels noted by the diacritics, changing the sound AND marking the grammatical case.

Anyway, I'm re-adding what I wrote before.

Fadibk (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


Dan Pelleg has suggested that we cover the origins of diacritics. I didn't realize we didn't have it. At least with the Latin alphabet, some of the history is known. cz > ç, nn > ñ, etc. I hesitate to write much, as this is complicated by local and national conventions which might predate anything I'm aware of. Do ä, ö, ü really come from ae, oe, ue digraphs? The dot on i (and by extension on j, also at one time on y to distinguish it from thorn) was a diacritic to distinguish it from the strokes that make up n, m, u/v (ιι, ιιι, ιι). Also relevant are the ligatures & abbreviations in e.g. Gutenberg. kwami (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

slashed l[edit]

Should slashed l be mentioned here? Tkuvho (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Is mentioned in Bar (diacritic). -DePiep (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
How would anyone reading this page know to look in bar (diacritic)? It is not even listed in the "see also" section. Tkuvho (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Must say, I don't know. I just wanted to note that the diacritic is a bar. -DePiep (talk) 12:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"A few English words can only be distinguished from others by a diacritic or modified letter"[edit]

OK, I get most of those, but... what words are animé and piqué being distinguished from? These are simply letter-sound-changing accents, as discussed earlier in the article ("ani-may", "pi-kay", rather than "aneem" or "peek") and arguably completely optional as well. Most people discussing anime know it's pronounced as a fragment of "animation" (and those who don't, probably don't "get" accents), and similarly for most using the latter word...

Certainly it's not aenemic or pick, if that's what the author intended...

As for öre and øre, these are clearly loanwords or just plain foreign words which have to be written that way in english (if possible) in order to represent them correctly - particularly as ø is its own letter distinct from o (albeit one I just had to copy-and-paste as my keyboard doesn't support it). They're the scandinavian equivalent of a penny or cent in USD/GBP/ECU for those who haven't transferred to the Euro, and in fact the same word merely differing in spelling depending on the locale... (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"pique" is a noun as distinguished from the adjective "piqué", so it is not just a change of pronunciation but a change of part of speech, as well. I was not familiar with a noun "anime", though. Tkuvho (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Fundamental importance of the diacritical[edit]

Diacritical marks can be fundamentally important. An Australian newspaper reader has complained:

[W]hat do the Herald style-meisters have against the tilde, the squiggly line on top of the 'n' that turns the Spanish letter 'EN-neh' into the (completely different) Spanish letter 'EN-yeh'? Different letters form different words, and substituting one letter for another can cause embarrassment. This was the case a few years ago, when the Herald featured a 'Happy New Year' message in 20 different languages. By leaving the tilde off the Spanish word for year, it actually wished its Spanish readers a 'Happy New Anus.'

Sydney Morning Herald, "Column 8", 6 August 2011


Here says o can carry an accute accent in Italian, is it true? I've never seen a word with ó in Italian. Shouldn't this mention in Italian diacritics are only used word-finally (cioè, però, perchè, perché) and in some monosyllabics that contrasts mid-low and -high vowels (è vs e, vs te). Some dictionaries though, utilize diacritics more often (in all/most instances) to indicate stress as in Spanish or Portuguese, however this is not the case of standard Italian. Could someone mention the apostrophe is used in imperative forms, to avoid homographs, such as da' (reduced from dai, [you] give!) vs (he gives), or va' (reduced from vai, [you] go!) vs va (he goes)? (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


Turkish language is missing.

Reference: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Should we use the character replacement dotted circle by standard?[edit]

Coming from the Unicode character world, I have seen this. In Unicode decriptions, the character-replacement symbol for diacritics and such (called combining) is the U+25CC dotted circle (HTML &#9676;). So a general presentation of the diaeresis looks like:


(actual showing is browser situation dependent).

My question is: can we agree that when showing diacritics here, we use the dotted circle consequently? Today, it is not used here: [1] acute accent, and well used here: [2] Sicilicus. I would not mind, even promote, its usage is restricted to the template header (the big character). -DePiep (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC) edited for readibility -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I support the use of the dotted circle in the template header. I think that in the text the usage in acute accent is clearer. I also note that in Sicilicus the diacritic appears outside the circle in the template header, but inside the circle in the text. This needs to be resolved before using it in the text in general. —Coroboy (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
As someone who's spent many years learning and speaking Spanish (although not a native speaker), I've never seen or come across the dotted circle and find it confusing. My preference would be to not use it, but perhaps those with more experience in a variety of languages are familiar with its use and have a different opinion. --Fishicus (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
In Spanish there's no ambiguity, because the only diacritics used (tilde, dieresis, acute accent) go above their letters. In French (for example) it's a bit more ambiguous, because the cedilla goes under a "c": ç. In many of the Brāhmi-derived scripts of South Asia, different vowel diacritics go above or below the letter, or to the left or right, or on both sides. With these, the dotted circle or similar placeholder (such as an example consonant letter) is essential. See Omniglot: Devanāgarī for examples. --Thnidu (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


Are letters with diacritics really notable? No one ever analyzes a-breve or g-circumflex in reliable, third-party sources. Most of the articles about letters with diacritics are one-sentence or two-sentence bits of trivia, and they are horribly inconsistent. Of the 188 letters with diacritics up to the letter n, 77 have their own articles, 90 redirect to an article about phonetics or the diacritics themselves or something else, 20 are redlinks, and only one (Ḥ) has a disambiguation page. For these reason and for the sake of consistency, I propose the following reforms:

  • Letters with diacritics are not to be considered notable.
  • All articles about letters with diacritics will be merged and redirected to the articles about those diacritics.
  • The articles about the diacritics themselves will be structured like circumflex, only by language instead of uses.
  • The letters of the Vietnamese alphabet that are unique to Vietnamese will redirect to Vietnamese alphabet#Tone marks; those that are not unique will redirect to the articles about the diacritics. The letters with a hook above will redirect to Hook above.
  • An exception will be made for the well-written and well-referenced Dotted and dotless I, which will maintain its own article.

I thought about making a batch AfD, but I instead decided to propose these reforms here beforehand. All input is welcome. Interchangeable|talk to me 21:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I generally don't disagree with this, but I feel it'll be better if we judge each special character on an individual basis, since there are some of them that do merit their own articles (eszett, thorn, Å, ʻokina). That said, this proposal says nothing about what we shall do with characters derived from Latin letters not by means of diacritics but in some other manner (Ə, Ɯ, Ɔ, Ƃ, Ƌ, etc), or characters totally unrelated to any of the basic Latin letters (Ƨ, Ƽ, ǃ, ǂ, etc; see Category:Uncommon Latin letters for some more). Until recently there used to be separate articles about every single digraph (and also trigraph, tetragraph, etc) made up of Latin letters, but they were all gradually merged into the summary article List of digraphs in Latin alphabets. I'd be in favour of doing something of that kind with special characters too - maybe creating a bunch of articles starting with Modifications of the Latin letter A, redirecting non-notable characters to their respective sections, and briefly summarising data on notable characters and linking to their main articles. --Theurgist (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
You're right about the first point; I should have included that apocryphal letters such as thorn, the sharp s, eth, etc. were all notable. The problem is that we need to detail the use of each diacritic in each language - we don't have to deal with the letters themselves, but we do need to show their purposes in languages. With some exceptions, one diacritic usually performs one task in a language, so the articles about the diacritics seem like a good forum to me. Interchangeable|talk to me 17:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I see your point, but I think the two are not mutually exclusive. Redirecting all letters to anywhere will render massive parts of Template:Latin alphabet redundant, and this will also be the fate of all templates in fr:Catégorie:Palette de navigation lettre if our Francophone friends choose to do the same. I think those templates could be transformed into pages like this one, where information on the usages of each Latin character in Unicode can be put down in brief. I was significantly hindered with collecting all characters because my computer doesn't display many of them. Those pages might be linked from Unicode articles only, and every redirect can indeed lead to the article about the respective diacritic - one might find it very interesting that just one letter in French can take the acute (é) while all five vowels can be modified with a circumflex (â ê î ô û) if one has noticed that any reasonably long French text is likely to contain a lot more acutes than circumflexes. Along with that, the diacritics articles can be restructured. What would you say about this? --Theurgist (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I love the idea! Although that page isn't exactly complete; we need to add information about each character in each language. But pages like "Variations of the letter A", "Variations of the letter B", etc. will work just fine. Interchangeable|talk to me 17:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The uses of diacritics in the languages (from that perspective) are already well-covered in articles about languages' alphabets and orthography, but it's good to include an additional view in the diacritics' pages. Interchangeable|talk to me 19:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Meanwhile I realised that there are already (1) Latin characters in Unicode (a subarticle of the incomplete List of Unicode characters), (2) List of Latin letters and (3) List of precomposed Latin characters in Unicode. (2) and (3) pretty much duplicate each other, and (3) is also going to become redundant because a list of all acute-modified characters is already there in the Acute accent article and a list of all modifications of each specific letter is what we're going to do. I haven't examined the level of exhaustiveness of (2), but if all extant and potential articles on letters are meant to get merged with it, it will have to be split into multiple parts. And (1) can remain. By the way, do you think like I do that the new pages should only list letters used in current and former orthographies and in transliterations of other scripts, and maybe (or maybe not) IPA-specific symbols (ʂ ɕ ɮ ʡ), and should exclude the so-called letterlike symbols, superscripts and subscripts, halfwidth and fullwidth forms and the like? --Theurgist (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
As I see it, the more we look at this, the messier it becomes. My idea is that the articles about the diacritics list only what the diacritic does, organized like circumflex but by language instead of use (eg, French changes the pronunciation of a, e, and o and is usually idiopathic atop i and u, Turkish indicates different pronunciation of adjacent g, k, and l...). Meanwhile, the "modifications of the letter" pages will give the use of individual diacritics. I agree that we should only write about letters that are used in current and former orthographies as well as transliterations. Superscripts should be considered modifications of the numbers and should redirect to them; halfwidth and fullwidth forms should redirect to the articles about those respective letters. As for unique IPA symbols, they should redirect to the article about the sound that the symbol represents. However, there are some languages that have adopted those symbols into their alphabets... does this need mentioning?
I'm not sure that Unicode is a good basis, though the Unicode encodings for each letter are worthy of inclusion. Interchangeable|talk to me 23:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Where are you, Theurgist? And we could also use a third opinion in this discussion, as well as some administrator help to move all of these pages. Interchangeable|talk to me 20:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Never mind. Other languages with characters outside the basic Latin alphabet would have articles on those letters—this is just systematic bias towards English. Interchangeable 21:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I'm really bad at maintaining and monitoring my watchlist - in fact I stay logged out most of the time - and tend to have very irregular editing habits and to change the scopes of my temporary interests frequently and unpredictably. You just should've dropped me a note on my talk page if this discussion was meant to be going on still. Sorry to see the retirement announcement, I hope that one day you'll change your mind and return to your old hobby, since it's been nice for me to encounter you on RDL. While I support the idea that the information on the diacritics topic should be organised in a few longer, well-structured and well-referenced articles, as opposed to a bunch of inconsistent and uninformative stubs, that's really not a decision that the two of us should be taking and carrying out on our own. It should be taken to the respective Wikiproject(s), where, with the help of other editors, such a massive reconstruction is to be planned in detail, discussed, and, if consensus is reached, executed eventually. --Theurgist (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

An umlaut walks into a bar...[edit]

An umlaut walks into a bar. Distracted by a pretty young thing with acute accent, he bumps into her boyfriend who looks doubly grave and screams "Watch where you're going you horn rimmed freak!". The umlaut unhooks his revolver and shoots him dead, saying "Diacritical bastard!". The girl throws her engagement band on the ground, saying "I guess I won't need dot ring any more". She walks over to her hero and smoothly breathes "My name is caron" and kisses him on the cheek. "Ogonek already" the annoyed bartender shouts, and the new couple retires to a back booth for some rough breathing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MKC (talkcontribs) 22:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"Why don't we go back to my place?", he says. "My wife Tilde is visiting her parents in Denmark, and won't be home for another week". --ABehrens (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Wording could be tightened[edit]

The final sentence of the first paragraph reads:

Diacritical marks may appear above or below a letter, or in some other position such as within the letter or between two letters.

However, this doesn't adequately cover cedilla, hook or bar (This list is not intended to be exclusive). I see value in distinguishing between a diacritic that is strictly above (not touching) the letter, such as acute, from diacritics which do touch the letter. While on can argue that a cedilla is below the letter, I think it is worth distinguishing marks which are below(sometimes), but not touching, such as dot from those which are touching the letter.

The horn is sometimes above, but there are clear examples where it is not. Finally, the bar is partially within the letter, but partially outside.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Perispomene - Editorial Attention Requested[edit]

In the box on the right, the tilde is claimed to be a "perispomene" which I challenge (when I learned Spanish, a tilde was a tilde was a tilde). The supposed link to the article on perispomene actually takes you to circumflex. A tilde is not a circumflex, last I heard (not that I'm an expert in this type of scriptology). Given the fact that almost all readers of the English article will encounter the Spanish tilde before some other exotic variety, essentially ignoring it (relegating it to an "sometimes used" classification seems ill-advised to me (at best). (I'd bet that, statistically, it is almost ALWAYS used as a diacritic (as contrasted to the logical not ~ or a symbol for "approximately" ( ~10) (Ignoring less common uses such as congruence...).)) My take is since "perispomene" doesn't even rate its own article, while the tilde does, perispomene clearly shouldn't be given the prominence it is in this subject's categories and should be replaced as in the main category with the tilde. (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

"independent" letters[edit]

This article makes heavy use of a distinction between diacritics that "produce new letters" which "are considered independent letters" and those that don't. I hadn't encountered this concept before (not for general lack of exposure to linguistic concepts). I'm aware that the article has been making this distinction for about ten years, so there may be more to it than I realize, but I do want to raise some issues with this.

  • No sources are given for this concept, and a quick Google search doesn't readily yield any; I'm wondering whether it's original research.
  • The classification of my native language German as not having separate letters with diacritics feels wrong to me -- writing things like "Schrodinger" is so wrong precisely because 'ö' isn't just a slightly modified 'o' but stands for an entirely distinct, only historically related vowel.
  • It seems to me that the only area in which this distinction can be made precise is collation. (I don't know why it says "orthography and collation"; what would it mean for letters with and without diacritic to be treated as identical in orthography?) However, if this concept is mainly related to collation, then a) this should be expressed more clearly (e.g. "Languages with diacritics that affect collation" instead of "Languages with letters containing diacritics" and b) the situation for German is not adequately represented, as there are three different collation conventions for German (German dictionaries, German phone books, and Austria, where umlauts are collated separately).

My humble suggestion would be not to talk about "distinct" or "independent" letters, unless primary linguistic sources can be adduced that use this terminology, and instead talk about whether and how diacritics affect collation. It would then have to be decided whether the distinct collation of letters with diacritics is sufficiently important to warrant organizing the sections of this article around it. Joriki (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Chinese in '2 Diacritics specific to non-Latin alphabets'[edit]

Chinese should not be listed in this section, because Hanyu Pinyin, Jyutping and other romanizations are, in fact, using Latin letters. ImreK (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diacritic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Checked. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Different diacritic have different "value" based on culture/alphabet.[edit]

Just lifting an issue I come across every now and then when dealing with sorting and search.

There should be some clarification to the fact that the Swedish character å is a completely different letter than a. å is not an a with a "circle" modification. å has it's own place in the alphabet.

In contrast é, is an e with a ´ modification, and there is only an e in there alphabet. é is not its own letter.

In the article I can't really find a separation of the two, an å seem to have the same "value" as an é

This seems to be covered in the second paragraph of the "Alphabetization or collation" section - The Scandinavian languages, by contrast, treat the characters with diacritics ä, ö and å as new and separate letters of the alphabet, and sort them after z. Usually ä is sorted as equal to æ (ash) and ö is sorted as equal to ø (o-slash). Also, aa, when used as an alternative spelling to å, is sorted as such. Other letters modified by diacritics are treated as variants of the underlying letter, with the exception that ü is frequently sorted as y. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Languages with letters containing diacritics[edit]

This section needs to be cleaned up. The first sentence says "The following languages have letters that contain diacritics that are considered independent letters distinct from those without diacritics." However, several of the languages in that section do not form distinct letters with their diacritics. See the paragraph on Portuguese, for instance, where this is made explicit. These all need to be moved/merged into the following section, "Diacritics that do not produce new letters." Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I cannot see many of the characters on this page[edit]

When I try to view this page I see many placeholder characters, rather than the intended diacritical marks. Here's a sample of what I'm seeing:

My OS is macOS Sierra (10.12.3) and my browser is Google Chrome (59.0.3049.0).

I'm not an expert on portably viewing characters on the web please ask if clarification would be helpful, but my hopes for this comment and its replies are to:

1) Draw attention to this problem so that the article itself can be improved to fix this problem, if possible. 2) Help Wikipedia users who are experiencing this problem and come to the talk page looking for a solution. 3) Help me, personally, to solve this problem.

Praxeolitic (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)