Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sadly, I don’t have much to add from the title to this question: does œ exist in English, such as in the word manœuvre?

The same question may also apply to what the French call the “e dans l’a” (e in the a), the æ, in addition to what they call the “e dans l’o” (e in the o), the œ — at least as far as the French part is concerned.

share|improve this question
    
Wikipedia has a comment "Æ comes from Medieval Latin, where it was an optional ligature in some words, for example, "Æneas". It is still found as a variant in English and French, but the trend has recently been towards printing the A and E separately. Similarly, Œ and œ, while normally printed as ligatures in French, can be replaced by component letters if technical restrictions require it." –  mplungjan Jan 11 '13 at 14:26
    
well in french the trend as been to remove all non ascii characters from the charset while printing industry wasn't up to speed. It's not a problem anymore so I hope it won't go on further on this path. –  Mog Jan 11 '13 at 14:31
1  
Does œ exist in English? Yes! –  spiceyokooko Jan 11 '13 at 14:33
4  
@AndrewLeach, œ is not an ASCII character, nor is there any ASCII characters above 127. For a long time France made use of ISO 8859-1 (Latin 1) but that didn't have a œ character either (it did have a æ for the Scandinavian languages that have it as a fully separate letter). CP-1252 (Windows Latin 1) does have œ at 9C (156 decimal) but it wasn't widely supported on non-Windows machines for quite some time, by which time Unicode made such worries obsolete anyway. –  Jon Hanna Jan 11 '13 at 14:56
3  
@mplungian. Well, that settles it then. Wikipedia is never wrong. Sorry. –  Robusto Jan 11 '13 at 15:09
show 8 more comments

3 Answers

up vote 10 down vote accepted

First, be aware that manoeuvre is now normally spelled maneuver in America, and indeed, has fallen behind maneuvre in England. Even the Economist (but not the Œconomist :) uses maneuvre now.

Rendering Typographic Ligatures Correctly

The general answer is that œ is considered a mere typographic ligature in written English, not a lexical ligature as it is in French. See this answer for more about all that.

It is the modern custom to print all instances of œ as oe in English. Indeed, the OED switched its custom from the ligated digraph to the separated form when it went from its 2nd to its 3rd edition.

Therefore, for example, these words are all now typically printed differently. Notice how in some instances, the oe reduces to e. Although increasingly common, that reduction is by no means universal, and does not occur in all words, either.

  • amœbæ > amoebae
  • apnœa > apnoea, apnea
  • cœlacanth > coelacanth
  • diarrhœa > diarrhoea, diarrhea
  • homœopathic > homoeopathic, homeopathic
  • manœuvre > manoeuvre, maneuvre, maneuver
  • melopœïa > melopoeia
  • Mœbius > Moebius, Möbius, Mobius
  • œdema > oedema, edema
  • Œdipus > Oedipus
  • œnologist > oenologist
  • epopœia > epopoeia
  • œsophageal > oesophageal, esophageal
  • œstrous > oestrus, estrus
  • Phœbus Apollo > Phoebus Apollo
  • Phœnician > Phoenician
  • phœnix > phoenix
  • subpœna > subpoena

Two Exceptions: Lexical Ligatures and the IPA

There are two important exceptions to this.

The first is in terms taken from the French and considered “unassimilated” into English. These are typically set in italic. Since œ is a lexical not a typographic ligature in French, when printing French terms it is imprescindible that the ligature be maintained. For example:

  • à contre-cœur
  • bœuf
  • casus fœderis
  • chef d’œuvre
  • cri de cœur
  • hors d’œuvre
  • mœurs
  • œil-de-bœuf
  • œuf en cocotte
  • œufs sur le plat
  • œuvre
  • vœu, vœux

Whether to preserve it in Latin terms like casus fœderis or subpœna is more controversial. Usually, it is not.

The other important exception is when printing phonetic or phonemic transcriptions in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). There are two glyphs that mean something special in IPA, and which must be preserved:

Unicode Considerations

The relevant code points in Unicode are:

‭ Œ  0152       LATIN CAPITAL LIGATURE OE
‭ œ  0153       LATIN SMALL LIGATURE OE
        = ethel (from Old English eðel)
        * French, IPA, Old Icelandic, Old English, ...
        x (latin small letter ae - 00E6)
        x (latin letter small capital oe - 0276)
‭ ɶ  0276       LATIN LETTER SMALL CAPITAL OE
        * low front rounded vowel
        x (latin small ligature oe - 0153)

Note that these are the only code points whose names include the word LIGATURE but which are generally considered lexical not typographical ones. Unlike the others with LIGATURE in their names, these have no decomposed forms that produce two glyphs, nor are they casewise equivalent to the two-glyph version they are currently spelled with in most English words. This is because you would get the wrong results under certain conditions if you did so.

These are the other Latin ligatures in Unicode; all are considered typographic in most languages, and have special decomposition and casing rules:

‭ IJ  0132       LATIN CAPITAL LIGATURE IJ
        # 0049 004A
‭ ij  0133       LATIN SMALL LIGATURE IJ
        * Dutch
        # 0069 006A
‭ ff  FB00       LATIN SMALL LIGATURE FF
        # 0066 0066
‭ fi  FB01       LATIN SMALL LIGATURE FI
        # 0066 0069
‭ fl  FB02       LATIN SMALL LIGATURE FL
        # 0066 006C
‭ ffi  FB03       LATIN SMALL LIGATURE FFI
        # 0066 0066 0069
‭ ffl  FB04       LATIN SMALL LIGATURE FFL
        # 0066 0066 006C
‭ ſt  FB05       LATIN SMALL LIGATURE LONG S T
        # 017F 0074
‭ st  FB06       LATIN SMALL LIGATURE ST
        # 0073 0074

Note that all of those are there for legacy round-tripping, and no more such things shall ever be added to Unicode. That is because unlike lexical ligatures, typographic ligatures belong in the font, not the code points.

That is why the typographical ligatures given above get split up under decomposition and caseless matching, but the lexical ligatures do not.

The exception to this is when using the (default, untailored) Unicode Collation Algorithm (UCA) for sorting. Now these code points sort next to the two-glyph version, and count as equivalent at the primary strength (that is, whether they are the same letters or different ones, and without regard to case or diacritics).

Here then is the result of sorting the various words pointed out above using the default UCA:

à contre-cœur, amoebae, amœbæ, apnea, apnoea, apnœa, bœuf, casus fœderis, chef d’œuvre, coelacanth, cœlacanth, cri de cœur, diarrhea, diarrhoea, diarrhœa, edema, epopoeia, epopœia, esophageal, estrus, homeopathic, homoeopathic, homœopathic, hors d’œuvre, maneuver, maneuvre, manoeuvre, manœuvre, melopoeia, melopœïa, Mobius, Möbius, Moebius, Mœbius, mœurs, oedema, œdema, Oedipus, Œdipus, œil-de-bœuf, oenologist, œnologist, oesophageal, œsophageal, œstrous, oestrus, œuf en cocotte, œufs sur le plat, œuvre, Phoebus Apollo, Phœbus Apollo, Phoenician, Phœnician, phoenix, phœnix, subpoena, subpœna, vœu, vœux.

share|improve this answer
2  
How did “Mœbius” land on that list? That spelling is quite puzzling since the Möbius strip (that is probably referred to here) is named after German mathematician Möbius whose name’s spelling I’ve never seen written differently, and proper names usually have no legitimate alternative spellings (bar transliterations). –  Konrad Rudolph Jan 11 '13 at 17:06
    
@KonradRudolph Isn’t that weird? It is in the OED2. –  tchrist Jan 11 '13 at 18:02
    
That doesn’t make it less weird in my perception. Proper names are one of the few (the only?) cases where something akin to a canonical spelling exists. For instance, no matter how many people will write about “Shrodinger’s cat”, that spelling is wrong. It surprises me that this isn’t the case here (but then the name is much older). –  Konrad Rudolph Jan 12 '13 at 12:49
    
@KonradRudolph, not only that, but "œ" maps to a different pronunciation. In "Mœbius" it maps to an "oh" sound and all the other forms to an "ee" sound. Did the OED make a mistake here? (Note the OED is not to be confused with the ŒD) –  Ben Lee Jan 23 '13 at 18:29
    
@Ben Not really: “ö” in German (/ø/) maps to the exactly same sound as “œ” in French (although in French it may also be open: /œ/, compare French “vœux” (closed) and “cœur” (open)) and corresponds closely to the “i” in “bird”. The other words are similarly pronounced in varying fashions – it’s just that the closed form (ø) doesn’t have a very good correspondence in most English accents so the words are distorted accordingly. –  Konrad Rudolph Jan 23 '13 at 19:02
add comment

It's not unheard of to see Πin English orthography, and was once much more common than it is now. These days though, it would be so rare as to be only barely acceptable, unless the word was clearly being used as a foreign word (e.g. with italics). (I personally use it privately, but I'll change it in anything being sent to an editor even if I'm not writing to a particular style-guide).

Generally British English spellings change it to oe (manoeuvre, foetus) while American spellings change it to e (maneuvre, fetus), this being one of Noah Webster's reforms. This can't be depended upon: Foederal is almost never found anywhere (any later than the 18th Century or so, anyway), and conversely while subpena is found in American spellings, sub poena is more common there.

Æ is mostly similar, though note that the existance of Æ in a modern word can be from two sources - one is from ligatures the same as with Œ, while the other is a separate vowel letter independent of A and E that was once used in Old English and is still used in Danish, Norwegian, Faroese and Icelandic (In Swedish and German it mutated into Ä). If a word is borrowed from one of those languages, but changed to use the English alphabet, then it would be common to see its spelling become ae rather than e even in American spellings.

One place ligatures remain in modern English is the name Encyclopædia Britannica, since that's the way they spell it, and trademarks and personal and company names are not normally re-spelled between different English orthographies.

share|improve this answer
    
books.google.com/ngrams/… –  mplungjan Jan 11 '13 at 15:06
    
@mplungjan books.google.com/ngrams/… But yes, there's a reason why even though I use it myself, I edit it to en-GB orthography (or sometimes en-GB-oed since one of my editors so loves it, that he's the guy that registered en-GB-oed). It's very rare unless as a foreign-use. Likewise I personally use diærses in a way that no publication bar The New Yorker uses, so I edit them to something else if it's for publication. –  Jon Hanna Jan 11 '13 at 15:23
1  
Note that the OED calls the fetus spelling “etymologically preferable”. The foetus (mis-)spelling was an old error that got retransmitted. Sadly. –  tchrist Jan 11 '13 at 15:24
7  
@mplungjan Yes, it's an interesting case of hyper-correction. The Latin is fetus, but some people in the 16th Century that knew (or correctly guessed) it was from Latin got it into their heads that it should have been foetus / fœtus in the Latin, and "fixed" the spelling not just in Latin, but also in English, Dutch and German (in which fetus, foetus and fötus are all found). For extra fun, the modern en-US fetus might be a simplification of the hyper-correction that just arrived at the original by chance. –  Jon Hanna Jan 11 '13 at 15:41
1  
Are you quite sure? The only “American” spelling of poena > pena I have ever seen is in the Spanish “so pena de muerte” and such. Writs of subpoena are always spelled that way. I am pretty sure that subpena would be considered an error. –  tchrist Jan 11 '13 at 16:06
show 4 more comments

The ligatures can certainly be found in English, although their use is becoming less common — probably due to the rise in personal computers and the difficulty in using ligatures with a standard keyboard.

OED gives a recent citation showing the ligature:

1977 Lancet 28 May 1140/1: “In shallow diving an over-forceful Valsalva manœuvre may give rise to neuro-sensory hearing loss, with or without vertigo.”

Their citations after 1977 all have separate letters.

share|improve this answer
    
Difficulty with the standard keyboard? Not at all. Press option-q or option-' on the Mac keyboard and you will easily obtain the œ and the æ, respectively. –  Richard Jan 11 '13 at 16:16
    
I think the comment about difficulty in using ligatures with a standard keyboard was aimed directly at lazy Microsoft Windows OS users who can't be bothered to find out about their keyboard characters :) Those of us on Macintosh have never had this problem. –  spiceyokooko Jan 11 '13 at 16:35
add comment

protected by RegDwigнt Jan 11 '13 at 21:04

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.