Sorry, yes, I know I already included that exact observation/question in the previous post, but it kind of deserves to be split out on it's own, don't you think? It's a puzzler!
How come there's no umlaut in umlaut? Isn't that hypocrisy, on some level? And if not hypocrisy, certainly it's a missed opportunity on the part of whoever markets typography to the masses! It ought to be on there. I don't care if it does change the pronunciation. People will adjust. Put it on there.
This post inaugurates my soon-to-be-burgeoning "How Come" series, wherein I wonder about things like...this, for instance. Things that people really ought to be more on top of. Or other things too, of course! I don't want to define my horizons too narrowly on my inaugural "How Come" post! Otherwise, people would be like, how come he did that? Hemmed himself in. Poor move.
2 comments:
The pronunciation here probably wouldn't change all that much, from what I remember from my German club ages ago. We pronounce Umlaut like oom-lout, but I think it's technically more like um-lout. Adding an umlaut would make it technically oom-lout. It would be more correct! At least the way we say it. Germans would probably get annoyed.
Damn.
This makes me believe my point even more strongly!!
How come "palindrome" isn't a palindrome? Couldn't they have just picked a better word for it, that was?
Post a Comment