From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.

Page move[edit]

This disambig page replaces the article previously at this site, which after due consultation has now been moved to Germanic Umlaut. --Doric Loon 21:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This page is written in very esoteric terms. Any chance someone could either make it easier to understand for non-linguists or link the various terms to their own articles? The former is preferable. 18:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a disambig page, so we don't want lots of links other than to the pages being disambigated. I find it very clear and precise, but then I am a linguist. The explanations of the terms are to be found in the linked articles. You are welcome to try to make this simpler, but it should not become wordier, and must stay precise. --Doric Loon 23:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


How do you type an umlaut? I've been trying to find out for a week now. Quadzilla99 13:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Get a German keyboard! ;-) --Doric Loon 19:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, sorry for being flippant. See Umlaut (diacritic)#Keyboard input. --Doric Loon 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
None of those work on my computer I've tried them all, that's why I'm asking. Quadzilla99 21:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't one of you orthographists mention the use of the letter "E" when spelling out an Umlaut? I don't have the background to know how to present it precisely, but it seems odd that the common replacement of Umlaut with a following "E" (e.g., schoen, Haendel) is not mentioned in the article. Especially since this is the way to represent an Umlaut on a keyboard lacking this symbol. Roricka 03:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed discussed in the orthography article. I repeat: this is a disambig page. There should be no explanations here, just links to the relevant pages.--Doric Loon 15:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Umlaut vs. mutation[edit]

Shouldn't we stick to the classical denomination Umlaut instead of of Mutation, which means another thing in other languages, for instance the Celtic languages? In Germanistic philology, Umlaut is the the scholarly word. So, authors of the mutation-articles, please, correct yourselves. Mutation is one thing, Umlaut another. Cheers Io 22:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: The section called Linguistics is, to put it plainly, ridiculous. Just read it and weep. Logical fallacies abound and the section gives no useful information at all. Sorry for being so harsh, but, I had to. Tear me to pieces instead, if it will make you feel better. Cheers Io 22:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is it ridiculous? It is a disambiguation page, not intended to be a discussion or explanation of the phenomena, but merely pointing to the various articles on phenomena which some people call umlaut. This is necessary because we after lengthy discussions about which definition of Umlaut we should adopt, it was agreed that variant uses are legitimate even in technical terminology. The point of this page is purely to point to those different uses, giving a potted definition of each so that the reader will find what they actually want. Unfortunately, people who know nothing about the subject feel it necessary to meddle with disambiguation pages, so I'm not convinced it is all presented as neatly as I would like. But I see no logical fallacies. But if you do, please fix them. --Doric Loon 14:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll give your most welcome (no sarcasm intended) observations my best thought, such as it is. Right now I can't (time for bed), but I will probably gather my objections during the weekend. I admit that my wording was offensive, and for that I apologize. What I can say right now, is that Germanic Umlaut is, for instance, put on the same level as the I-Umlaut, which is but one example of a series of vowel changes, all belonging to the category of Germanic Umlaut. I especially object to the statement (at least that is how I understand the article) that I-Umlaut is equivalent to Germanic Umlaut, but then it says that it may apply to other languages as well. So we have: Germanic Umlaut = I-Umlaut = a similar change in other languages than Germanic. It doesn't make sense. In the meantime all the best and I'll try to stay true to my promise to provide a better thought out critique. Cheers Io 00:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
PS Disambiguation or not, it still doesn't hold up to scrutiny - my POV of course. Cheers Io 00:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the page is not equating those things - it is listing variant uses. No-one uses the word to mean two of these things AT ONCE - that would indeed lead to ridiculous complications. But unfortunately, the fact is that very different uses of this word are found in linguistics texts. I personally wanted to keep the word Umlaut for Germanic Umlaut, but other colleagues produced so many citations that I had to concede that other people mean different things by it. So no, Germanic Umlaut is not equal to I-Umlaut, but the word Umlaut can mean either. --Doric Loon 10:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My intention to meddle anymore has evaporated. It's too large a can and too many worms. All the best Io 15:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Think of it this way. Germanic umlaut = I-umlaut with a margin of error. I-umlaut = changes in non-Germanic languages with a margin of error. = with a margin of error is not transitive, unlike =. -- Hongooi 13:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What's an Umlaut Called in English?[edit]

The magazine, *The New Yorker*, frequently spells a word like "cooperation" with an umlaut, like "coöperation" or "cöoperation", I forget which. So, what would a "ö" be called in English, if in fact *The New Yorker* is correct to use it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Dieresis... AnonMoos (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Move this page to Umlaut disambugation, please[edit]

Half of the time people are looking for "umlaut", they're looking for the diacritic. Therefore, I propose this page be moved to Umlaut (disambiguation), and Umlaut be redirected to Umlaut (diacritic). I'd do it myself, but it's too complicated for me, and I'd probably start taking serious flak for being too bold. And trust me, I've already taken enough flak to last me the year. 21655 ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 17:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. I think most people would be more likely to be looking for the linguistic phenomenon, since it affects English, crops up in all our discussions of English verbs, etc. --Doric Loon (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I support the proposal. I agree with the proposer that when someone searches for "umlaut", he is probably looking for the diacritic, since all the other terms listed here have other modifiers, or do not even use the word "umlaut". seresin ( ¡? ) 02:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
As no other objections have been raised, I shall enact the proposal presently. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree. This disambig page is so clear and easy to use, anyone looking for the diacritic finds the words "two dots above a letter" right in the first line and has only to click to get that article. Conversely, if someone is looking for the linguistic phenomenon and gets directed straight to the article on the diacritic, that is far more confusing. I don't accept the argument about the modifiers - we called it "Germanic Umlaut" in answer to complaints that the word is sometimes used for non-Germanic parallels, but the usual term for this linguistic phenomenon is simply "Umlaut". And since that is the basic concept from which the two dots are then derived, it would actually make most sense to put IT here. But since we won't get a concensus on which of the two articles is more fundamental, the current policy of leading with the disambig makes sense. --Doric Loon (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading comprehension[edit]

"a pair of dots ( ¨ ) above a vowel, used, among other languages, in German to mark umlaut " Of course, the term "Umlaut" is not Turkic language, but it can't be denied, that those dots above a vowel are also used in other languages. "With among other languages" is not referred to the term "Umlaut" (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)