tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3662517.post3943448444957579467..comments2024-02-10T20:49:20.762-05:00Comments on bjkeefe: Diaeresis (geezer moment?)bjkeefehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10967912817595826059noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3662517.post-42916737144891481302012-09-13T08:17:58.927-04:002012-09-13T08:17:58.927-04:00P.S. My old pal Paul Brians has some related comme...P.S. My old pal <a href="http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nieve.html" rel="nofollow">Paul Brians</a> has some related comments, because apparently some people spell the word in question <i>nieve</i>.<br /><br />Which does, I suppose, have a phonetics-based argument in its favor.bjkeefehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10967912817595826059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3662517.post-6755434496015041412012-09-13T07:38:23.764-04:002012-09-13T07:38:23.764-04:00Hah! That seems a bit much. I sometimes think of...Hah! That seems a bit much. I sometimes think of <i>naïf</i> as the noun form (phew, I'm <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/na%C3%AFf" rel="nofollow">not</a> alone), but it seems like an oversight to spell the adjective two different ways. In consecutive sentences, quoting the same person, no less. Maybe the second sentence was supposed to be "To cast Romney as <b>a</b> naïf, an empty suit on foreign policy, and tie him to Bush—as a puppet of the bow-tied hawks of the Bush administration. … This intervening event was gravy.”bjkeefehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10967912817595826059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3662517.post-69463080627349091692012-09-13T03:14:19.657-04:002012-09-13T03:14:19.657-04:00Just noticed that TNR goes w/ naïve & naïf. (L...Just noticed that <i>TNR</i> <a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/107173/former-romney-adviser-libya-they-stepped-in-it" rel="nofollow">goes w/</a> naïve & naïf. (Last two paragraphs.)<br /><br />I may have to rethink my approach.M. Bouffanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04519088858760760560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3662517.post-30741175887678814602012-09-12T14:12:27.676-04:002012-09-12T14:12:27.676-04:00You may be right there, but ...You may be right there, but ...M. Bouffanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04519088858760760560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3662517.post-23441026872430396262012-09-09T17:52:35.387-04:002012-09-09T17:52:35.387-04:00Hah! No, I didn't see that. Thanks.
Forgot a...Hah! No, I didn't see that. Thanks.<br /><br />Forgot about <i>naïve</i>. Don't think I'll fret about it any more than I do going with <i>cooperate</i> and <i>reelect</i>.<br /><br />You know what else bothers me? I think it should be <i>resumé</i>. Most spellcheckers say it should be either <i>resume</i> or <i>résumé</i>, but I say that (in American English, at least), only the second E has the long A sound.bjkeefehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10967912817595826059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3662517.post-59198141605945553702012-09-09T15:45:06.136-04:002012-09-09T15:45:06.136-04:00I do that. Also "reëlect." Had noticed i...I do that. Also "reëlect." Had noticed it in <i>The New Yorker</i>, & figured their style-book is spiffier than the AP's.<br /><br />Did you scroll down far enough to see <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/04/the-curse-of-the-diaeresis.html" rel="nofollow">this</a>? (Crap, now do we need to do it for "naïve" too?)M. Bouffanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04519088858760760560noreply@blogger.com