See the results of this poll: Chlo” or Chloe? Zo” or Zoe? Which form of each name do you prefer?
Respondents: 57 (This poll is closed)
- Chlo”: 11 (19%)
- Chloe: 19 (33%)
- Zo”: 11 (19%)
- Zoe: 16 (28%)
Respondents: 57 (This poll is closed)
I know a [name]Zo[/name]” and she even spells herself [name]Zoe[/name] 90% of the time. People will constantly forget the dieresis in her name and some computers systems in [name]America[/name] at school’s, doctor’s offices etc. won’t accept dieresis. But [name]Zo[/name]” is indeed the CORRECT way to spell it.
I however prefer [name]Chloe[/name] and [name]Zoe[/name] if you pronounce it with a ‘ee’ sound. The French [name]Chloe[/name] and [name]Zoe[/name] would be spelt Chlo”/[name]Zo[/name]” and is pronounced completely different.
Btw my spell check will read [name]Chloe[/name] and [name]Zoe[/name] only, every other spelling is underlined.
I voted to spell it without the diaeresis, but I really think there’s no harm spelling it “correctly” as long as you know most data entry personnel will just as likely leave it off, and nobody will have trouble saying it the correct way. I think the Americanized adaptation to these names is such that most people will not pronounce them like [name]Joe[/name] on sight. The English language patterns most people recognize, some words don’t follow the “rules” as such, names that people have heard of, they will pronounce the right way.
I would daresay, anyone who doesn’t recognize [name]Chloe[/name] or [name]Zoe[/name] as [name]Clo[/name]-ee and [name]Zo[/name]-ee will not know what to make of umlauts either. We don’t have a lot of umlauts in English, save for extraneous heavy metal umlauts, so the same people who are calling [name]Chloe[/name] and [name]Zoe[/name] “[name]Clo[/name]” and “[name]Zo[/name]” like [name]Joe[/name] are not going to know what to make of an ”; they will not automatically go “a-ha! that means we are shifting from the OH sound to an EE sound!” I think if they don’t recognize [name]Clo[/name]-ee and [name]Zo[/name]-ee without the ”, this will make no difference to them, and everyone else recognizes the name with or without.
I think there’s nothing wrong with the Anglicized [name]Chloe[/name] and [name]Zoe[/name], but if it makes you feel better to be more correct, that’s what I would do, keeping in mind, like I said, the umlauts will be left off a lot anyway. Most people typing your name in somewhere, in all honesty, even if they know how, will not pause and type in alt-235 to make your special e. It’s not part of a standard keyboard, and I kind of have the idea most people who are in the position of typing names into databases don’t even know how to use the character map. So don’t get overly attached to it, even if you do like it spelled better that way.
I think I would spell it with the dieresis, because like you said, she has the option of not using it if she doesn’t like it. But I think any little girl would like getting to have special little dots on her name. I know I would love it if it were my name, especially when you’re young and write your name all sorts of different ways.
I think it looks more interesting with the dieresis and it IS a completely valid way to spell it. Though, I bet a lot of people in [name]America[/name] would think it was, I don’t know, showy or something. But I wouldn’t worry about that, personally.
I also wouldn’t worry that people would pronounce it wrong without the dieresis, I think both of these names are common enough that pretty much everyone knows how to pronounce them. (Though I did recently hear a teacher call a student “[name]Clo[/name]” because he thought that was how it was pronounced).
Either way, I love both of these names so much!
I say with the umlaut. Its a nice formality, that doesn’t have to be used in day to day life, but the option is there if you want to use it, or she wants to use it one day. It isn’t something that needs to be insisted upon, but as I said, more of a formality.
I’m really in favor of using them. A lot of people have listed a bunch of good reasons in support of the accent which I agree with, but also, I just think the names look sort of incomplete without them.
I like it with the diaereses, but the only problem is that teachers will never be able to type her name. I mean, you can go to the “add symbol” button, but we teachers really hate doing that. I am a former 1st grade teacher turned elementary school counselor who lives in [name]Texas[/name], and we get a lot of Hispanic names with accents. Its honestly very annoying to add the accents in when we are typing kids’ names, so mostly we just don’t. I think [name]Chloe[/name] can do without, but [name]Zoe[/name] might need it. Somehow, many people think [name]Zoe[/name] is pronounced like [name]Joe[/name], which is dumb but thats what I thought before my baby name days. [name]Zoey[/name] seems to be more common, and it “looks right” even though it isn’t.
I voted without. It seems fussy to me. I know it is correct but American English doesn’t require the accents to pronounce the names correctly (I agree with karen that if someone doesn’t know the name [name]Chloe[/name], Chlo” won’t help them). I don’t really understand the argument that if you spell it that way now, even if they’re not used very often, it gives her the option to use them in the future. I think she would have that option no matter what.
If you don’t plan to use the umlauts everyday, and understand that most forms etc will not allow them (so doctors, etc will not have them), and know that the umlauts aren’t strictly necessary, then it seems strange to me to use them - it would seem like you’re intentionally giving her a spelling that you know will be misspelled.
Perhaps use the diaereses informally and the [name]Chloe[/name] and [name]Zoe[/name] for official records to avoid having to “insert symbol” on computers.
Thanks to all who are voting in the poll and/or sharing your opinion.
It appears that in [name]England[/name] Chlo” has always been an accepted way to write the name and may have even been the more usual way at one time. The name Chlo” was introduced to [name]England[/name] through a late 16th century English translation of the ancient Greek romance "[name]Daphnis[/name] and Chlo”. I’ve found examples of 19th century Chlo”s, including a song “Here, my Chlo”” by [name]William[/name] Horsley (18/19th Century). Today in the UK both [name]Chloe[/name] and Chlo” are used and accepted as standard ways to write the name.
On the other hand, [name]Chloe[/name] came into use in [name]America[/name] by the Puritans because of a brief mention of a woman named [name]Chloe[/name] in the New Testament. It seems that [name]Chloe[/name], without the dieresis, has been the standard way to write the name in this country, and I’ve (so far) found no references to the name being written as Chlo” until the recent popularity of the name. I’m guessing that many Americans are unfamiliar with Chlo” written that way, but then many are unfamiliar with many names popular in the UK, like [name]Imogen[/name].
The expectant parents can think of only one reason to write their daughter’s name as [name]Chloe[/name] – to conform to the usual way of writing the name in this country. However, they believe they and their daughter may be able to have it both ways if they name her Chlo” and not care too much whether others use the dieresis with her name or not. And there ARE other American girls being named Chlo”, child actress Chlo” Moretz (born 1997) among them.
Also, I’m sure many names had accents in their original language, but have been dropped off because the English language does not have diacritic marks.
But English does recognize diacritics in a few words: From an online dictionary (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Diaeresis+(diacritic)): "The diaeresis mark has also been occasionally applied to English words of Latin origin (e.g., co”perate, re”nact), and more rarely in native English words (e.g., no”ne), but this usage had become extremely rare by the 1940s. The New Yorker, The Economist, and MIT’s Technology Review can be noted as some of the few publications that still spell co”perate with a diaeresis. Its use in English today, apart from words borrowed from other languages, is mostly limited to certain names, such as the surname Bront” and the given names Chlo” and [name]Zo[/name]”. It is relatively common in words that do not have an obvious divider at the diaeresis point (the diaeresis cannot be replaced by a preceding hyphen), such as na”ve. "
You are correct that English does have a few, like in the French loanword na”ve (just going to copy and paste that for the diaeresis was kind of a pain if that helps your decision). My point was that the name [name]Eleanor[/name] is originally French [name]El[/name]”anor/[name]El[/name]”anore, but people don’t say that spelling it [name]Eleanor[/name] in English is wrong
I say go ahead and use Chlo” or [name]Zo[/name]” if you like it better, but be prepared to see it [name]Chloe[/name] and [name]Zoe[/name].
I appreciate your thoughts on this. I’m not meaning to say that writing [name]Chloe[/name] that way is “wrong”, but that writing the name as Chlo” is more accurate and that there’s a reason for doing so and historical and current evidence (in the UK and other European countries) of that form being acceptable.
As for [name]Eleanor[/name] vs [name]El[/name]”anor/[name]El[/name]”anore, the accent mark would be necessary if the intended pronunciation was el-ay-uh-nor. But as most English speakers pronounce the name as [name]EL[/name]-?-nor, the omitted accent mark, which works like the dieresis in Chlo” to separate the two vowels into separate sounds/syllables, isn’t needed, whereas it is needed with Chlo” if the intent is to write the name the way it’s pronounced.
If [name]Chloe[/name] is written without the dieresis because English doesn’t usually include them, you end up with a name/word that doesn’t follow the usual English language pronunciation of the combination ‘oe’ - toe, [name]Joe[/name], doe, etc.
I think it’s fine to write the name as [name]Chloe[/name] because that’s become the more usual way to write it, but neither [name]Chloe[/name] or Chlo” are ‘standard’ English.
The accent mark is not necessary for [name]Eleanor[/name] to be pronounced [name]El[/name]-ay-a-nor. I think because of how many languages are hammered into English, there is not really a standard on accent marks of any kind or how names and other words are pronounced. The pronunciation “el-eh-nor” might very well come from omitting the accented e, but yet, we have names like [name]Thea[/name], which assume a pronunciation like [name]Thay[/name]-a, may include an accent in some cases, or occasionally pronounced Thee-a, not [name]Thay[/name], Thee, or Thi (even a schwa for demonstration purposes proved to be difficult) identical to ‘ea’ in [name]Eleanor[/name].
The name [name]Cillian[/name] is pronounced like [name]Killian[/name] - [name]Cillian[/name] is the “correct” and [name]Killian[/name] the Anglicized. We do happen to have a lot of words in which a C followed by an I (or an E) is pronounced “soft” like an S and not “hard” like a K. The issue is whether to be authentic and risk people calling the boy Sillian, or spell it “wrong”, including a negative word like ‘kill’ in the name. This language, it is a pattern recognition. If the name [name]Cillian[/name] is introduced on a greater scale, more people will be familiar with it. [name]Chloe[/name] is already massively recognized. [name]Killian[/name], I think, has achieved standard-spelling status even if it’s not the most popular name.
Words that include CH are a good example of how there aren’t really “rules” and merely patterns. It is sometimes Ch, sometimes Sh, and sometimes even K. Why is the Ch in [name]Charles[/name] pronounced different than the Ch in [name]Charlotte[/name]? Because we’ve adopted [name]Charlotte[/name] from the French and don’t corrupt its pronunciation to match other Ch words, specifically [name]Charles[/name], to which it’s related; it is derived ultimately from [name]Karl[/name] and adapted to English, so when did the K change to a Ch? And if you want a CH sound, sometimes you get that from a C, like [name]Francesca[/name], and if you want a K sound, [name]Chloe[/name].
When you have a name with no accents that is imported from another country, it could adapt very easily, but the pronunciation may not, like [name]Cillian[/name]. Or you could do away with accents and just pronounce it like it’s supposed to be, like Francoise. The CI/CE is S, the [name]CA[/name]/CO/CU are K in French (Latin rules?). So they spell it [name]Fran[/name]”oise - the cedilla means it breaks the rule, and is an S sound instead. Other languages use the ” differently - it’s not universally regarded across languages to provide the same sound. When we type it in [name]America[/name], we do what we do with most foreign alphabets 99.9% of the time: ignore it and just recognize the letter c there breaks the rule.
I don’t know if this is right or wrong. I think it is ok. If you like a name like [name]Frances[/name], is it incorrect for the French to adapt it to a new word entirely to add the cedilla, or for Italian to pronounce it CH? I feel like Chlo” and [name]Zo[/name]” are easily correct in their original language, and that it is correct (if not easy) and good to take a name from another culture and language and spell it the same way they do.
The umlaut means the same thing in English, it is just not common and all words that use them are correctly spelled without them and recognized as an English language word. If you liked a Chinese name, it would be a heap more difficult, although not impossible to use the name you like, appearing as it does in Chinese characters. Additionally, you would have an English name or transliteration in our standard alphabet to do most things, unless you are in [name]China[/name], and the reverse might be true for an English name.
It’s also not incorrect to accept some names are American or English versions: to validate [name]Chloe[/name] and [name]Zoe[/name] as how we have adapted Chlo” and [name]Zo[/name]” to our language, despite their breakage of a language “rule” wherein oe is pronounced oh, not oh-ee unless a diaeresis is evident (except in shoe where it is ooh). One is a foreign version and one seems less authentic because we fashioned it to fit our language and alphabet, but they are both correct.
It is the same as inventing [name]Frances[/name] in [name]Italy[/name] to be [name]Francesca[/name]. It’s authentic to our language to import names and spell them how we spell them. Sometimes it’s close enough. Really, both are correct. One is English and the other one is … I don’t know where Chlo” comes from, Latin? The Greek alphabet is a good example of what I’m talking about. You’re not spelling it Greek, and American English fairly obliterated umlauts and other diaereses from the language, keeping them to pronunciation guides in dictionaries; they’re only the most authentic if you pick a point in history when it was originally transliterated, and even then, I bet you get some Romans who left off the diaeresis because they were in a rush.
Chlo” comes from the Greek, and I’ve been trying to figure out when the name was first introduced to English speakers. That may have been in 1587 when the ancient (3rd c.) romance “[name]Daphnis[/name] and Chlo”” was translated from Greek to English. It may have been that translator who decided Chlo” best expressed the name for English speakers. The tale of two orphaned shepherds who fall in love caught the attention of pastoral poets and eventually (no idea when) the name Chlo”/[name]Chloe[/name] started to be used as a female name in [name]England[/name].
While I find this discussion very interesting, it’s probably too academic for the expectant parents. They just want to decide the best way to write the name for their daughter and will probably be more interested in the results of the poll and the support shown for Chlo” – over 30% when I last checked. I have no idea which way they’ll go – Chlo” (dad has been insisting on that) or [name]Chloe[/name] (mom likes “the dots” too but is less certain about including them).