"La kafejo estas en la malbona parko."
Translation:The cafe is in the bad park.
80 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
I am from the United States and, therefore, use the US English standard setting for keyboards. With that setting, you can't type diacritics without using an Alt key code.
One might ask, "Why is that?"
The answer is "Because 'é' is not a letter in the English alphabet."
The other option to type 'é' is to change to keyboard setting to US International so that foreign letters can be typed more easily.
Again 'é' is NOT a letter in the English alphabet.
"Cafe" isn't the lazy-man's spelling; it's the English spelling of the French "café" (and the French spelling gets used somewhat often, but it is still the French spelling; not English).
I would think that the use of the English alphabet and the primary English spelling for words wouldn't be in dispute
The "primary" spelling seems to not be so clear. Different dictionaries give different "primary" and "variant" forms.
Cambridge (American English) Dictionaries (online), for example, gives café as "primary" and cafe only as a variant.
Good point for distinction between words there miacomet.
Of course, English being what it is, there's also the option to use the synonym CV (short for Curriculum Vitae) for the latter in most contexts, which seems to be the word almost everyone here uses when applying for jobs.
- Clara_2134: Traditionally, it doesn't. However, being a little old-fashioned, I still use borrowed diacritics (from French, German or Spanish) in words such as naïve, daïs, skïng (where a diphthong is involved) and others like fiancé(e) and débâcle, though I rarely use these words. Still, there are many more examples. The é in café is automatically inserted in Duolingo, unless overridden.
Café would be pronounced "ka-FAY" as it should be, while "cafe" would be pronounced "Kayf" according to the way final E works in English. Words where E works differently are supposed to be written with accents particularly if they are foreign. For another example: Naïve (with the 2 dots over the I) is pronounced "na-YEEV" but often spelled as Naive, which would be pronounced "Nayv" according to general English spelling. However there usually is no difference and "Cafe" will be read correctly by most. Generally speaking, it all depends on the writer to choose whether to preserve accent marks in foreign words.
We have no easy way to make accents in an English keyboard, and those words are both French, which uses the accents there often. With this in mind, we can assume the spellings with the accents are French spellings, and, since English officially has no accents, we must say that the correct spellings are naive and cafe, but should be pronounced as they were meant. The French say 'le email' occasionally, and pronounce it like we English speakers do, and it came from another language, and that pronunciation is even rather odd for the French, so why shouldn't we say cafe just like them, even when spelling it correctly for English?
Yes, it is borrowed from French and gets written with the French spelling quite often, but that's because the French word is being used. That does NOT make it the correct English spelling.
I can easily throw the word "mañana" into an English sentence (since it's common enough for a fair number of English speakers to grasp the meaning), and I can even find "mañana" in the online Oxford dictionary, but that does NOT mean that "mañana" is an English word or that an 'n' with a tilde ('ñ') is a part of English spelling.
NOTE: If you even look at the url for the entry on "mañana", the 'ñ' had to be replaced with code, because 'ñ' is not in the English alphabet.
I agree with most of what you've written, but I couldn't resist the urge to point out the reason the URL doesn't use the accented character has very little to nothing to do with English.
It's actually because the character is a Unicode character outside of the ASCII character set. ASCII characters are the first 128 (from 0 to 127) in the Unicode set. A lot of things related to displaying characters in programming need different ways of representing characters beyond the standard ASCII character set. The UTF-8 encoding scheme is what gave the result you see in the URL.
Sorry I can't reply to your comment directly, Oracle.
I didn't disagree with the fact that the English alphabet doesn't have diacritical marks naturally (although I am unsure of whether diaeresis counts as its purpose is to mark a vowel sound as separate from a preceding vowel sound to avoid a diphthong). It's why I italicized for emphasis certain words in "very little to nothing to do with English". As it stands, nothing is incorrect, but I still believe it has very little to do with English.
I merely wanted to correct your assumption that the reason the eñe wasn't directly put into the URL had more to do with English than with programming (your statement: "because 'ñ' is not in the English alphabet" is where I took issue). If I remember correctly, most letters with diacritical marks take up 2+ bytes of memory. The ASCII set is comprised of characters that only take up 1 byte of memory. It is more likely that this is the reason there are no letters with diacritics in the ASCII set.
I do recognize that only the English alphabet was used because that's what programming languages used, but that certainly doesn't mean there weren't programmers of other nationalities as well. When it became important to be able type in other languages is when programmers had to come up with a system of representing the extra characters that existed in other languages. Unicode was that system.
Just to be perfectly clear, because I know how things can get jumbled and misconstrued in internet discussions, I never disagreed with what you said about accented letters in the English alphabet.
"...and that's how a conversation on the spelling of 'cafe' turned into 'the history of computer encoding'..."
We're obviously not in any disagreement regarding the lack of diacritics in English at this point... :-D
...but I do think that you may be "putting the cart before the horse" as far as ASCII and Unicode. It's not simply a matter of the number of bits/bytes, but why they appeared in that order over time.
ASCII - the AMERICAN Standard Code for Information Interchange - was originally designed for encoding English. That's why the first 128 characters are directly related to English orthography syntax, and only contain the English alphabet. Over time, the need to establish a more universal encoding system became necessary in order to address non-English characters, and thus Unicode (developed in conjunction with the Universal Character Set standard) was developed as an EXTENSION of ASCII.
Given that it extended ASCII, the first first portion of Unicode still only addresses English characters, so pointing out that 'ñ' is outside of that character set (the first 128) inherently implies that it's not a part of the English alphabet.
That's what I was getting at when I emphasized that "the 'ñ' had to be replaced with code, because 'ñ' is not in the English alphabet."
Isn't that what you (could) think in your head for a third of the words in the English language? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_French_origin
I don't know Esperanto well enough to tell you that, but as it is a constructed language, I would bet against it unless it is seeing major linguistic change among its speakers over the past century (which I think would if at all be limited, as it was standardized at the time it was created). Generally when a word can't have a rule applied to it, like un-, it's because it's being lexically blocked by another word (ungood vs. bad). I think in this artificial environment such processes would be less likely to happen, though I'm sure you and I will find out soon as we keep going. :) (If you can't tell, I'm a linguist/nerd.)
In Esperanto - to my understanding - no, "en" is never used as "at". "En" literally refers to being within/inside.
Better translations for "at" would be:
po - by; at, at the rate of
apud - beside, next to
je - upon, at, by, on
ĉe - at, beside, with
...none of which quite fit the sentence, since it's referring to the cafe being inside of the park.
I agree with you, though. In English, we would might say that "the cafe is at the park" and most people would understand the same as being "the cafe is in the park".
One possible context: You have a reception in a park and a waiter brought the coffee in another park of the city. ;)
The thing is that at the beginning of the tree:
- the sentences can only use the vocabulary introduced up to now
- the course want to make you review as often as possible the voc learned before, so use it as sson as it's possible.