That's my exact point. As with "façade", "pâté" uses the diacritics the ensure that the reader gets the pronunciation right as he reads it, without risking confusion. So I don't see how "pâté" would be any more different a case than "façade". Both use diacritics to make things easier, and both should continue to use them.
Agreed...it was a bad example and why I too am in favor of them because, IMO, it makes language less complicated. If in English we're going to use the foreign word or phrase, like coup de grâce, there's no sense in spelling it "grace." To me it'd be like dropping the "p" because it isn't pronounced, but no one would do that...yet dropping the accent off the "a" is ok when it then no longer sounds as it's supposed to.
But do they genuinely aid the average reader of English? If the Joe Average Speaker of English were aware of the diacritic rules of French, I might agree with this logic, but that's not the case. I know perfectly well the two separate reasons for the two identical looking diacritics in the word résumé, but language us what I do for a living. The average Joe Native Speaker of English is not going to know why without googling. Here in the forum, since we are all interested in language to one degree or another, I would expect that perhaps the representation of native speakers who do know and can explain the two reasons for accent marks in that word is higher than in the general populace. But outside this venue... And if they don't know why there are two accent marks on that word, how does that help in pronunciation better than simple context of word?
I don't know the reason for the first of those diacritic marks, just as I don't know the reason for the "^" in pâté, and as you say a majority of the English speakers probably don't know the marks' role in things either. However, even if one doesn't know the why it will still aid in distinguishing between the two different words. The visual difference is apparent to everyone and each visual style is wired to a meaning and a pronunciation in the reader's brain (unless, of course, the reader has not encountered these things before, but that would be the same case as not having encountered the letter "e" or whatever).
So you are suggesting that the Average Joe sees resume and resume (as résumé) the same way they've become accustomed to other homonyms that occur naturally without the accents, like bass the fish and bass the instrument? I see where you are coming from. I still prefer them myself and was never debating whether they should or should not be used officially but that my personal preference is for them because they make language easier for me as a reader. We're talking commonplace phrases and words. I don't think their inclusion complicates things for the everyday reader...they should be able to recognize them with or without diacritic marks. Using them never hurts...leaving them out on the other hand, leaves more room for error. Again...my opinion.
Because the accent cercumflex in pâté actually doesn't serve to help anyone's pronunciation. It represents a lost S in the language. Hence, French pâté and English paste. I have many French interpreter friends who look at the cercumflex the same way I look at -augh. They think it's a bit ridiculous. Why continue representing a letter that is no longer there and hasn't been pronounced in the living language in well over a century?
Is pâté supposed to be pronounced as paste, or the two just two ways to say the same thing? If it is the latter, and the cercumflex thing doesn't affect the pronunciation in any way, I too find it a bit superfluous. The apostrophe on the e, however, that is another thing.
Nope, you should not pronounce the missing S at all. (pah-teh). Just the same way as it would be wrong for me to pronounce the K in knife, tho there was a time when it was. Silly word, knife. The accent over the e at the end, I agree, in French, it has a very justified reason for being there. I gave the comparison only to show that the two words in French and English are actually near perfect cognates. English has retained the standard 3-consonant root structure where French has elided one of the consonants, tho continues to represent it through the historic, not phonetic, diacritic. paste pâsté Vowels never get counted in tracking word roots because they change to easily. The tilde over the N in Spanish has a similar history. Words spelled with ñ were once spelled with nn. It's a space-saving ligature from the days of scribes that turned into a letter unto itself.
Okay. Then I got it right. If you were to change the é at the end of pâté to a normal e, I would pronounce it in the same fashion as mate and plate. That is clearly wrong.
Because I don't take it upon myself to modify a word. It's not my word. It's not my language. So if I'm going to use it I'm going to use it as they would. When they drop it from their every day usage, I will too. I will agree that the Latin circumflex on the A is unnecessary except for traditions sake, so say we ditch that one for arguments' sake...paté...do you really think removing the accent on the "e" makes sense? I don't eat liver pate. I eat liver paté and it would take me a moment to rationalize the meaning of the word "pate" in a story. I had to google "pate" to see if it means anything on it's own and apparently it's an archaic word for head. I most definitely do not eat "liver head." And I don't give a resume to a potential employer...I give them my résumé.
Well, again, I don't think any of us are without our personal idiosyncrasies. I would never give a résumé to anyone, but I will absolutely always point out a cliché, and never, ever a cliche. *shrug*
Okay... So suddenly we agree that the apostrophe should be there? Maybe I've just misunderstood, but I thought you were inclined against their use?
I am not inclined to use the marks in résumé because in America (where I live and function) it is the only word we use for that paradigm. We have no other word. If it were just a snazzy word we were borrowing to give ourselves airs and sound slightly affected, I would agree because the word would then be a truly foreign word. But résumé is fully plugged into the language here; thus, for such a word I would argue for inculturation and standardization.
Do you feel that way about déjà vu, too? If so, as long as we're consistent with our choices I don't see the problem...you omitting, my using.
That it is the only word for that particular thing does not change the fact that the diacritic marks in résumé indicates a different pronunciation to resume, and thus a visual clue so one knows even as one reads the word how it fits into the sentence and the message.
And I repair to my prior argument that I need no such clues when I read a resume as opposed to having read an article on how to resume an application on my computer. Context is more than enough in all four of those instances, for me.
But not for me. It comes naturally to me that resume means continue and is pronounced accordingly when I read the word, and that goes for all contexts. Therefore I have to reread the word or sentence to adapt the word to the context. Yes, you might not have any problems with this, but since other people (like me) find it to make reading harder it might be a good idea to add the diacritics anyway. Writing without them will inevitably cause trouble, using them most likely will not. Readers like me will be happy, and readers like you won't have a problem reading it either (if I get this right).
The context should make it clear whether you're talking about continuing something or a document. Besides, we have plenty of homonyms in English. Just take "bow" for example. That word has about half a dozen different meanings. So in my opinion, special marks aren't really needed when the context is clear. I don't even think English uses diacritic marks anymore. I see them used in poetry sometimes and I know that the New Yorker has some in-house rules about the diaeresis, but other than that, it's pretty much archaic.
I would totally appreciate them in English if they were used...so when 'I take a bow in the woods' I know if it's a physical gesture of respect to a tree, bringing part of a ship to the woods, or if I'm about to go hunting, lol.
Yes, but all different meanings of bow have the same pronunciation, therefore it wouldn't make any sense to add apostrophies or whatever. With the other examples we have brought up, however, the difference in pronunciation makes the two similar words just as different compared to each other as tree and rock.
There are two pronunciations. Bow as in "to take a bow before the audiance" rhymes with cow, the animal. Bow, the thing you shoot an arrow with rhymes with no.
Bow, as in bending one's upper body as a sign of respect, isn't pronounced the same as bow, the weapon. I see Wreybies beat me to it.
