The New Yorker and its Umlaut
With no small amusement I read this sentence on the first page of John McPhee's recent book about American cargo transport, Uncommon Carriers, which describes how semi-truck drivers see the smallers cars that swarm around them, "The way they are operated suggests insufficiency in, among other things, coördination, depth perception, and rhythm." Sure, McPhee's description tickled me too, but more intriguing was the usage of the umlaut with coördination instead of the more common co-ordination or coordination. Where had I seen these hovering double dots, apart from the names of heavy metal bands, in the anglosized world before? The New Yorker, of course. That magazine is riddled with words like coöperate, reënact, reëlection, preëmptive and coöperation. Interesting to learn from wikipedia, then, that the magazine's current editor, and some would say savior, David Remnick was once of pupil of Mr. McPhee at Princeton University, suggesting the existence of a Skull and Bones-like cult of sworn dedication to arcane grammar.
But here's the thing: it's not an umlaut. It's a diaeresis. This may already be clear to the watchful student of German since ë does not exist in the German language or, by extension, the German keyboard. (I know this firsthand because I have been forced while writing this on my QWERTZ keyboard to repeatedly copy and paste it from existing text. Ah, the hidden perils of the intrepid blogger.) The diaeresis, rather than some new trendy kind of punctuation as some have said, goes way back and even predates the umlaut. Its function also differs significantly from the umlaut. The German ü,ö and ä are phonetically separate sounds from u, o and a while the diaeresis (typography nerds may insist on writing it as diæresis but even bloggers know there must be some limit to the geekery) is used to indicate that two adjoining vowels should be pronounced seperately. So, for example, coöl would be pronounced like co-ol, with two syllables instead of one.
So, now you know. Hopefully this has been a worthwhile round of reëducation. Discussions are heated in the anglofritz inner circle as to whether this site should implement the diaeresis into its style book. For what it's worth, considering the already-high frequency of German language usage here, your faithful writer is currently against it. Mind you, not really to avoid umlaut vs. diaeresis confusion, but for the well-considered reason that umlaut sounds cool while diaeresis, alas, just sounds too much like renal replacement therapy or, alternatively, what you may get after eating bad Mexican food. So, for now, we're sticking with re-education. David Remnick, you're still da man.

Comments
Isn't the world already complecated enough? I really wonder what the experts do every day, just try to figure out how to drive the people crazy and listen to our speech: dä, dë, dü, dö...????.... Döner!:p
Tee Pot; April 16, 2007 10:02 PM
Stüssy is handmade in Irvine Cali...
Pete; April 17, 2007 9:01 AM
I wonder what makes those at The New Yorker think that people who are unable to identify words like "reenact" and "coordinate" do actually READ their magazine. Print media that have such a low esteem of their customers will, sooner or later, disappear.
Wanze; April 18, 2007 2:11 PM
To Wanze: Maybe the New Yorkers are used to the high speed of everything and don't wanna read the same letter in one word twice.
Tee Pot; April 19, 2007 8:46 PM
Hmm. I was just writing about the New Yorker umlaut -- er, diaeresis -- in a short story, Googled "New Yorker" + "umlaut" to look for more diacriticalized (sorry) words, and found your posting. I guess I was naive (pardon the lack of html; I can barely type -- uncoordinated -- no less code) to think I'd be the only one dithering over such things. Even when I take a break from copyediting (NOT for the New Yorker!) to write my own stuff, the lion doesn't sleep. Thanks for making me feel less alone in my compulsive little corner of the world. Maybe we should form a co-op, though I rather like "coop" for its bird-brainedness.
Robin; April 25, 2007 1:25 AM
damn! You mis-used "it's" in a grammar post? ouch.
me; July 16, 2008 12:23 AM