Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:umlaute. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:umlaute, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:umlaute in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:umlaute you have here. The definition of the word Talk:umlaute will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:umlaute, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Request for verification
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
He seems to have cited it pretty thoroughly, and while some seem obviously to be treating the word as German, other do not. So...QED. I would tag it rare. Ƿidsiþ11:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'd emphasize seems. In the unhelpful quotation dump are at most three citations that do cite the headword (uncapitalized) without marking it with parentheses (as a gloss), or in italics or quotes (as a foreign word), to wit 1874, 1945, and 1998. (The capitalization of a German noun would also seem to mark it as foreign.) I don't think any of the other quotations belong in the entry, especially as it is not a lemma.
OTOH, although the material should not reside at this entry, it illustrates the difficulties folks have with handling non-English words. In this case, the writers can be presumed knowledgeable. But they (or their typesetters) come to different conclusions about the right way of presenting a plural form of a non-English word to their readers. DCDuringTALK16:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Most of these appear to be wholly unnaturalized usages, judging by italics, capitals, and the use of bold in one reference. At least a couple don't look like English usage to me at all.
We do need an unnaturalized or foreign usage label, indicating words that usually appear in italics for foreignness. —MichaelZ. 2009-06-05 01:34 z
A number of the sources are linguistic sources. 1900 is interesting because, unusually, it is a non-German linguistic context. Perhaps this deserves to be labelled foreign, linguistics. —MichaelZ. 2009-06-05 03:26 z
RFV passed, but tagged (rare), per Widsith and DCDuring. I've also removed it from the inflection line at ], putting it in a usage note instead. I didn't do the whole "unnaturalized"/"foreign"/"hyperforeign" thing, because I don't quite know how that's supposed to work, but anyone wanting to, please feel free. —RuakhTALK02:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
RFC
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion