TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Umlaut/dia(e)resis and Cultural Correctness From:Jack Shaw <jsh -at- SOFTWARE-AG -dot- DE> Date:Mon, 24 Jul 1995 15:59:36 +0200
The term "Umlaut" seems to be generally acceptable as a
generic reference to the diacritical mark known more correctly
as a diaeresis/diaresis (even "Chicago" spells it both
ways!). But that's the German-derived name for the thing
and therefore not accurate in a generic sense.
And culturally, someone in Stockholm, Istanbul or Madrid
might get a little piqued when you refer to "their" diacritical
mark as an umlaut. On the other hand, "diaresis" is the correct
term in all three places as well as in Germany--in English.
But then, what difference does it make if you say/write
"diaresis" and the whole world responds, "say, what?".
So I'd say, go with "umlaut" (acceptable in most English
dictionaries I've perused) for audiences of that language,
but to "i12-ize" it, maybe the more accurate "dia(e)resis"
would be best.
Now, how you enter that little devil from your keyboard is
a horse of a different color altogether... ;-)