Talk:Ö

Pronunciation hidden
I've hidden the description of how to pronounce the sound. My reason for doing so is most of all that the character is used in several languages, and I believe it's wrong to assume that the pronounciation is similar in all non-English languages (also when it is similar in some). I'm also convinced that an article designated for vowel-sounds would be a better place. A link to such an article would surely be the best. :-)


 * I think many people expect to find information about what kind of sound a letter represents in this kind of article. I agree that the pronounciation may be different in different languages, but this is exactly the kind of information I would like to find here. Besides, many of the other "letter articles" contain this type of information. (But I agree that the the articles you suggest above are desirable too!) kandre 22:08, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I do also feel awkward about the notes on being an umlaut and on alphabetization, which I actually feel would fit much better in the articles on the different alphabets. Johan Magnus


 * I have pricipally the same kind of objections to this as above. kandre 22:08, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There ought to be examples of the pronunciation of Ö in different words and languages, namely German.

...Which renders this page useless.
I came to this article (as I suspect many do) specifically to get some idea of how to pronounce this weird symbol. You're being way too persnickety in deliberately withholding information until you've got it worked out how to deliver it. Give the pronounciation information, specify what language it's appropriate for, or provide a link to another Wp page that offers that information. Crippling the functionality of the page until you've figured out how to frame the information is a dreadful solution. CC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.121.46 (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the page is missing critical information. Perhaps a section named "pronunciation" is needed.  Nik ol ai h ☎️📖 00:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * RIP ŞPL 49.237.202.241 (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * i concur 2600:4040:7FAB:1200:C1A6:D92B:99B7:9EBC (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Eläinkoe
"Eläinkoe" does not mean "vivisection" in finnish. Vivisection has its own (loan)word, "vivisektio". It's not like vivisection is synonymous with animal testing, and even if it were, IMO synonyms aren't a good thing to have in an article concerning linguistics. I'm going to go ahead and change it to "animal test" for these reasons. 88.112.2.159 17:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Encoding
It is said that «Unicode theoretically provides a solution» to separate umlaut "o" and “real” "ö". Well, it does not: Unicode encodes characters, and these two concepts are a single character.

(Mixing letters and phonemes is an error not even amateur linguists do anymore. It is like saying that spanish "j", which sounds [x], and italian "j", which sounds [y], are therefore different characters and should be encoded differently.)

If a mention to "oͤ" (U+0364 : COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER E over an "o") is intended, then better say it simply.

Turkish?
Anyone knowledgeable enough to add some info about the Turkish version of the letter? MonsterOfTheLake 18:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

O-dieresis
I find the following phrasing very questionable:

O with diaeresis occurs in several languages which use diaereses. In these languages the letter represents a normal O, and the pronunciation does not change. Historically some writers have used it in English words such as zoölogy and coöperate.

If the pronunciation "did not change", there would be no need for a diacritic. And what on earth is a "normal O", anyway? In a language like English, where every vowel has so many possible phonetic values?!... FilipeS 11:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "zoölogy" a misspelling? AFAIK a diaeresis means that the vowel belongs to a different syllable than the previous one. Therefore coöperative is correct, because it means co-operative, but zoölogy is not, because it means zoo-logy, not zo-ology. Do the editors think a diaeresis must be written on every vowel that follows another similar vowel? J I P &#124; Talk 14:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm late to the party here by a decade, but, for the record, "zoology" is indeed pronounced zoh-ology. (Or zu-ology, but that's still two different syllables.) Dingolover6969 (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Typesetting in TeX
I'm fairly certain that this character is typeset in TeX as \"o and it ought to be added to the typography section, but I'm not sure if it's the same character so can someone confirm? Shreevatsa (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * confunsingly, \"o does indeed create o-diaeresis in LaTeX. But I (as native german speaker) would always write o umlaut with dots instead of ". Indeed, I can't remember ever having seen a fontset using o umlaut with ".So while stictly speaking it is no o umlaut, everyone will recognise it as one Noleti (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I correct in assuming that "o-diaresis" is the same as "o-umlaut"? Note that just because TeX uses \" as a crude way of representing the diacritic/accent doesn't mean anything about what it will look like; it is just the limitation of what plain ASCII characters are available (the " is the only character that looks even vaguely like "two horizontal dots"). If you are sure that the character this article is about is indeed o-with-an-umlaut, then we can add \"o to the article, because I'm sure \" is an umlaut. :-) [There are other diacritics that look like ", but TeX has different ways of inputting them: e.g. the Double acute accent is input with a \H, as in Erd\H{o}s.] Shreevatsa (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The Metal-Ö
Still missing the reference to Motörhead :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.113.86.94 (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Cracks me up
I was searching this out because I was curious about how the Umlaut was sounded, and seeing this page, it positively cracks me up how utterly useless it is to anyone who doesn't already know everything presented here. I'm sure there's lots of good information... but it's presented in such a pretentious way that if you don't already know all of this, you wont learn anything from this page. I'm not saying you should change a thing... I don't care...  but take this advice the next time you're making an edit on wikipedia. When REGULAR people (i.e. people who don't know the internet is a series of tubes) complain about how useless Wikipedia is, this is one of the major tropes they're talking about. You're all thinking "what... should we dumb down everything for the morons?"...  and the answer is of course not...  but when someone needs a firm understanding of a subject to understand the wikipedia page ABOUT THE SUBJECT, something is wrong. As is the case with this page. Well done. Bravo. I'm about to be dismissed as a moron who "just doesn't get it", which simply reinforces my entire point. It would be like having a wikipedia page for the color red... and saying "it's sort of like crimson, burgundy, and scarlet", without explaining what those colors look like. Utterly pointless. 207.154.101.184 (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your personal ignorance should have no bearing on the presentation of the subject. Wikipedia is a compilation of knowledge that is intended to be as thorough as possible; it is not "ABC's for the Mentally Impaired". If you cannot understand basic linguistic terminology then try picking up a book and learning it. BodvarBjarki (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The masses are a bunch of fools & assholes, neither of which provide a knothole's grundle worth of scat...
 * Yet, perhaps the entertainment value, on nights like 2nite,..
 * Cheers Buttheads🤠 2600:4040:7FAB:1200:C1A6:D92B:99B7:9EBC (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Bwa... hahaha! 🤣 2600:4040:7FAB:1200:C1A6:D92B:99B7:9EBC (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Mentioned Icelandic.
In Icelandic, Ö comes last in the alphabet and is pronounced similar to swedish Ö. Icelandic was not mentioned in this article, so I went ahead and did so.

Hafsteinn, an Icelander — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.30.222.172 (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The letter Ö cannot be written as "oe"
Where does this information come from? There is no reference link or other source, just this statement. However, as a Scandinavian whose name contains an 'ö', I know for a fact that my name is legally transliterated using "oe". In fact, I would personally consider this more correct than using 'o', since 'ö' is absolutely not an 'o' with random dots attached&mdash;it's a distinct character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.110.200 (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It depends on source and target language, and whether or not the 'ö' or 'Ö' may be seen as an Umlaut. Indeed, except in all caps writing, 'Ö' must be transliterated as 'Oe' and not 'OE', except in Dutch. So, this topic needs a lot of expansion. -- Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Codes for computing

 * Keyboard entry

The Unicode code point for ö is U+00F6. Ö is U+00D6. It can also be created by compositing the character U+0308 "COMBINING DIAERESIS" with an "o" or "O". Though rarely used, as of version 3.2.0, Unicode also provides "COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER E" at U+0364 which can produce the older umlaut typography, oͤ.

In TeX, Ö and ö are produced using \"{O} and \"{o} respectively.

I've removed the above text/tables per WP:NOTMANUAL. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Norwegian
As far as I know, the Norwegian alphabet doesn't have the letter ö but ø, however it is still included here as if it had. Τέσσερα (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it isn′t. The article says that in Norwegian it´s the umlauted form of o. Your change saying that ö in Swedish is the umlated form of o was incorrect, but I admit that I can’t be sure if an umlated o is used in Norwegian. Sjö (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

"Öö" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Öö and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 10 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)