Skip to main content

Timeline for "Naïve" yet "naivety"?

Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0

11 events
when toggle format what by license comment
S Oct 18, 2020 at 18:22 history suggested M. Justin
Add diaeresis tag
Oct 18, 2020 at 16:20 review Suggested edits
S Oct 18, 2020 at 18:22
Dec 5, 2018 at 4:16 answer added Paul Hicks timeline score: 1
Nov 8, 2018 at 5:33 answer added Sven Yargs timeline score: 1
Nov 8, 2018 at 1:13 answer added Jim Mack timeline score: 2
Nov 8, 2018 at 0:00 history tweeted twitter.com/StackEnglish/status/1060321176147451904
Nov 7, 2018 at 23:52 comment added Robbie Goodwin In all seriousness, why are you asking? I happen to agree with MS, here and that isn't the point. If you have the doubts you posted, why not either accept what MS suggests, or ask your dictionaries, search engines or thesauruses then come to ELU when they fail you?
Nov 7, 2018 at 22:36 answer added herisson timeline score: 2
Nov 7, 2018 at 16:42 comment added SAH I remember many years ago forcing myself to learn that the English spelling of naïveté is "naiveté," with exactly one diacritic. I guess it must have been standard according to a style guide I respected. "Naivety" has no diacritics because it is morphologically 100% English. there seem, however, indeed to be problems with consistency here
Nov 7, 2018 at 13:47 comment added Dan Bron Just a note: as with resume and cooperate, most contemporary writing eschews the diacritic on naive. These marks were originally retained (for loanwords) or introduced (for coinages) to guide readers in pronunciation, but today they actually have the opposite effect. No one knows what they mean or how they're intended to alter the pronunciation of words. They're counterproductive; it is likely the only thing they will instill in your readers is anxiety. So maybe the better solution to your conundrum isn't to introduce a diacritic in the one but remove it from the other.
Nov 7, 2018 at 13:40 history asked Dog Lover CC BY-SA 4.0