German language

[Jane Watt]

I need to put a German name into my genealogy program but don't know how to
put the 2 little dots over the a, sorry I can't even remember what they are
called. Can anyone help, thank you.

--
Jane in Cooksville (Mississauga) Ontario, Canada

[Derek G. Terrell]

Hello Jane,

its called an umlaut, and is used in German to modify the sound of vowels
when spoken.

Probably the easiest way to get it would be to copy past from a word
processing package.

For example, in Word (I have the XP version but this probably works in other
versions), you can access it from the Insert/Symbol menu, just scroll
through the available characters until you find ä ë ï ö ü. Failing that you
can copy/paste it from this reply. There may even be a key combination to
produce it but I don't know it!

Hope that helps,

Derek.

"Jane Watt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

I need to put a German name into my genealogy program but don't know how
to
put the 2 little dots over the a, sorry I can't even remember what they
are
called. Can anyone help, thank you.

--
Jane in Cooksville (Mississauga) Ontario, Canada

[Robert Heiling]

Jane Watt wrote:

I need to put a German name into my genealogy program but don't know how to
put the 2 little dots over the a, sorry I can't even remember what they are
called. Can anyone help, thank you.

Hi Jane - It's called an "umlaut" and you can have it over the letters a, o, u
in German. I just type a quote " followed by one of those letters and get the
umlauted version. To do that I had to set
Start-Settings-ControlPanel-Keyboard-Properties to "United States -
International". One drawback is that I have to type "" and then erase one to
get just one ". You could also use the character map.
Start-Programs-Accessories-SystemTools-CharacterMap and you can copy from
there. It also gives you a keyboard shortcut for the characters.

HTH

Bob

[Robert Melson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 15 August 2004 11:03, Jane Watt wrote:

I need to put a German name into my genealogy program but don't know
how to put the 2 little dots over the a, sorry I can't even remember
what they are called. Can anyone help, thank you.

--
Jane in Cooksville (Mississauga) Ontario, Canada

The easiest way to do it is not to do it: the umlaut represents the
"ae", "oe" or "ue" pair, historically. You can, as a result,
correctly spell the name/word by inserting the "ae" pair in place of
the umlauted "a".

HTH
Bob

- --
Robert G. Melson Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBH6bbGX60pjRVDrMRAkU5AJ4go3r1WQ9IiKG3k5RjpsDaqefejACfd6k6
mWD2xD/Bt5CCfcUrD6A0IyI=
=lJKh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Gjest]

"Jane Watt" <[email protected]> wrote

I need to put a German name into my genealogy program but don't know how
to
put the 2 little dots over the a, sorry I can't even remember what they
are
called. Can anyone help, thank you.

Jane in Cooksville (Mississauga) Ontario, Canada

Do you want ä or Ä ? Try copying and pasting them from here, then
formatting them as you want.

In the longer term, there are several ways, but I find the simplest is to
put a shortcut to the Windows Character Map in my system tray.

Assuming you are using Windows XP, use the Start > Search to find the
charmap.exe file. Right click on the file name and select Create Shortcut.
Then drag the shortcut to where you want it on your desktop. I imagine the
procedure is very similar for other Windows versions.

With friends in Europe, I need accented characters occasionally, but not
often enough to be able to remember the codes. The character map gives me
immediate access to all the characters on my computer, in all the different
fonts including special symbol ones. It's also useful for mathematicians
and scientists using special symbols.

When you need a special character, click on the icon, select the symbol you
want, and cut and paste it into your document.

Barbara

[Austin W. Spencer]

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 13:03:50 -0400, "Jane Watt" <[email protected]> wrote:

I need to put a German name into my genealogy program but don't know how to
put the 2 little dots over the a, sorry I can't even remember what they are
called. Can anyone help, thank you.

There aren't that many extended character codes involved. If you are going to be
using them a lot just to chronicle your ethnic European research, you might as
well memorize them. Hold down the ALT key and press the numbers in sequence on
the 10-key pad:

ä (lowercase umlaut a): 0228
ö (lowercase umlaut o): 0246
ü (lowercase umlaut u): 0252
Ä (uppercase umlaut A): 0196
Ö (uppercase umlaut O): 0204
Ü (uppercase umlaut U): 0220
ß (ss): 0223

You can get the other codes, for use in any other language, from the Character
Map. Click an extended character to selected it, then look in the status bar. It
will say something like: "Keystroke: Alt+0228."

Austin W. Spencer

[0_Qed]

Jane Watt wrote:

I need to put a German name into my genealogy program but don't know how to
put the 2 little dots over the a, sorry I can't even remember what they are
called. Can anyone help, thank you.
Jane in Cooksville (Mississauga) Ontario, Canada

Interesting <?> , & replies.

I esp liked the 'one' that opted for "dont".

These funny little 'dits' over your 'o' are called the family of
'diacritical marks',
'individual' particilarly, an 'umlaute', auf deutsh.
'They' distinguish the various alt phoenitics of the ltr='o/O'.

Given the various problems with depicting printed/readable "glyphs",
=not= in the lower 128 ASCII char set ( those above a decimal val of
'128' ) ...
Me? ... I'd cheat alittle, stay with the =std=(128) ASCII set .

................
Mite I suggest
..
Schröeder ==> keyed as 'Shroeder[o_umlaute]' ... somesuch appended
clarifier.

Some clumsier than a straitfwd ö ,
=but= avoids all the problems with properly
depicting a 'glyph' in =an= 8_bit character position.

( "ö" done by holding down the 'alt' key =whilst=
keying decimal '148' on your num keypad ... '1' + '4' + '8 ' )

Mite also suggest an RTFM of your PAF manual ...
.. read up on export/import of a GEDCOM file , and it's two(2) glyph_set
flavors
.. ditto on the 'diacritic' section.

In 'short' ...
stay with "anything" you can key directly, from/with a 'key' on your
keyboard ...
stay away from [alt]+[nnn] ...

Qed.

[Patscga]

Hold down the ALT key and press the numbers in sequence on
the 10-key pad:

You also must have the Num Lock on.
Pat

[Patscga]

http://german.about.com/library/blcharcodes.htm

Will tell you how to do this.

I need to put a German name into my genealogy program but don't know how to
put the 2 little dots over the a,
Pat

[Geoff Pearson]

"Jane Watt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

I need to put a German name into my genealogy program but don't know
how to
put the 2 little dots over the a, sorry I can't even remember what
they are
called. Can anyone help, thank you.

--
Jane in Cooksville (Mississauga) Ontario, Canada

I type ctrl+shift+: and then a which gives me ä in Word 2002.

There a re many ctrl+(shift not always needed) + punctuation followed by
letter combinations for accented letters.

[Steve Hayes]

On 16 Aug 2004 12:21:16 GMT, [email protected] (Patscga) wrote:

Hold down the ALT key and press the numbers in sequence on
the 10-key pad:

You also must have the Num Lock on.

Why?


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Steve Hayes]

On 16 Aug 2004 12:21:16 GMT, [email protected] (Patscga) wrote:

Hold down the ALT key and press the numbers in sequence on
the 10-key pad:

You also must have the Num Lock on.

Why?


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Austin W. Spencer]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:57:09 +0100, "Geoff Pearson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

"Jane Watt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I need to put a German name into my genealogy program but don't know
how to
put the 2 little dots over the a, sorry I can't even remember what
they are
called. Can anyone help, thank you.

--
Jane in Cooksville (Mississauga) Ontario, Canada



I type ctrl+shift+: and then a which gives me ä in Word 2002.

There a re many ctrl+(shift not always needed) + punctuation followed by
letter combinations for accented letters.

After playing with Word for a bit, I would add some more specific pointers.

CTRL+SHIFT+~ = tilde (ã, ñ, õ)
CTRL+` = grave accent (à, è, ì, ò, ù)
CTRL+' = acute accent (á, é, í, ó, ú, ý)
CTRL+SHIFT+^ = circumflex (â, ê, î, ô, û)
CTRL+, = cedilla (ç)
As well as
CTRL+SHIFT+: = umlaut (ä, ë, ï, ö, ü, ÿ)

But, I have not yet figured out how to generate a ring (Å 0197, å 0229), an ash
(Æ 0198, æ 0230), or a thorn (Ð 0208, ð 0240) without the codes.

The keyboard shortcuts also work when capitalizing the letters. They work in PAF
5, and in Word (and I'm still using the 97 version), but they don't seem to work
in any plain text editor or in Legacy. They also don't work with Agent; I had to
paste the characters in after generating them in Word. So, if you use *the
right* software, you don't need to worry about extended character codes. On the
other hand, the Character Map does not code every diacritical mark in every
language. Those who wish to correctly render personal and geographic names in
Polish, Hungarian, or Czech will definitely need additional language support!

For a look at some of these and other more exotic diacritics, I have found this
site helpful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diacritic

Austin W. Spencer

[Charlene Charette]

Steve Hayes wrote:

On 16 Aug 2004 12:21:16 GMT, [email protected] (Patscga) wrote:


Hold down the ALT key and press the numbers in sequence on
the 10-key pad:

You also must have the Num Lock on.


Why?

Because the ALT-### shortcut only works with the NUM LOCK on. You'd
have to ask Microsoft why.

--Charlene

--
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. --H. G. Wells

--

email perronnelle at earthlink . net

[Kurt F]

"Charlene Charette" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Steve Hayes wrote:

On 16 Aug 2004 12:21:16 GMT, [email protected] (Patscga) wrote:


Hold down the ALT key and press the numbers in sequence on
the 10-key pad:

You also must have the Num Lock on.


Why?



Because the ALT-### shortcut only works with the NUM LOCK on. You'd
have to ask Microsoft why.

I wonder why it works for me, without NUM LOCK on?
Using Win 2000...

Kurt F

[singhals]

Kurt F wrote:

"Charlene Charette" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Steve Hayes wrote:


On 16 Aug 2004 12:21:16 GMT, [email protected] (Patscga) wrote:



Hold down the ALT key and press the numbers in sequence on
the 10-key pad:

You also must have the Num Lock on.


Why?



Because the ALT-### shortcut only works with the NUM LOCK on. You'd
have to ask Microsoft why.


I wonder why it works for me, without NUM LOCK on?
Using Win 2000...

Kurt F

Dunno, but it doesn't work on any of my machines with NUM off. Maybe it
depends on the keyboard-setting you've selected? I use American English.

Cheryl

[Dave Hinz]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 02:00:14 GMT, Steve Hayes <[email protected]> wrote:

On 16 Aug 2004 12:21:16 GMT, [email protected] (Patscga) wrote:

Hold down the ALT key and press the numbers in sequence on
the 10-key pad:

You also must have the Num Lock on.

Why?

Because otherwise the numbers are arrows, I would imagine.

[Kurt F]

"singhals" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Kurt F wrote:

"Charlene Charette" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Steve Hayes wrote:


On 16 Aug 2004 12:21:16 GMT, [email protected] (Patscga) wrote:



Hold down the ALT key and press the numbers in sequence on
the 10-key pad:

You also must have the Num Lock on.


Why?



Because the ALT-### shortcut only works with the NUM LOCK on. You'd
have to ask Microsoft why.


I wonder why it works for me, without NUM LOCK on?
Using Win 2000...

Kurt F

Dunno, but it doesn't work on any of my machines with NUM off. Maybe it
depends on the keyboard-setting you've selected? I use American English.

Cheryl

Nope, it can´t depend on the keyboard-settings. I tested with American
English, and it worked as with the Swedish setting I normally use.
I´ll rest my case...

Kurt F

[Steve Hayes]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:23:15 GMT, Charlene Charette <[email protected]>
wrote:

Steve Hayes wrote:

On 16 Aug 2004 12:21:16 GMT, [email protected] (Patscga) wrote:


Hold down the ALT key and press the numbers in sequence on
the 10-key pad:

You also must have the Num Lock on.


Why?



Because the ALT-### shortcut only works with the NUM LOCK on. You'd
have to ask Microsoft why.

It works fine for me without Num Lock on.

I never have Num Lock on unless my wife has been using my computer, but I
quite often type things like é (Alt-130) which produced an e with an accent,
but perhaps you'll need to have Num-Lock on to see it on your computer.

é -- I typed that one with Num-Lock on - seems to work the same whether
Num-Lock is on or off.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Patscga]

You also must have the Num Lock on.

Why?

I don't know, except that's the only way it will work!
Pat

[Robert M. Riches Jr.]

On 2004-08-15, Derek G. Terrell <[email protected]> wrote:

its called an umlaut, and is used in German to modify the sound of vowels
when spoken.

An acquaintance of mine once pondered the question of
whether the word "umlaut" should contain an umlaut. It
seemed logical to me that it should.

Robert Riches
[email protected]
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[Don Kirkman]

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Kurt F wrote in article
<[email protected]>:

"Charlene Charette" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Steve Hayes wrote:

On 16 Aug 2004 12:21:16 GMT, [email protected] (Patscga) wrote:

Hold down the ALT key and press the numbers in sequence on
the 10-key pad:

You also must have the Num Lock on.

Why?

Because the ALT-### shortcut only works with the NUM LOCK on. You'd
have to ask Microsoft why.

I wonder why it works for me, without NUM LOCK on?
Using Win 2000...

Are you using the Alt-### format or the Alt-#### format? They produce
mostly the same sets of characters, but they perform differently.

Mr. Stussy's example uses the three-digit method, Mr. Spencer's the
four-digit one. The Windows character map also uses the four-digit
method. I don't know enough about the coding involved to explain the
differences.
--
Don
A KIRKMAN Tree: home.covad.net/~donkirk/gen/index.html
Updated March 1, 2003 - added a number of individuals and sources

[Steve Hayes]

On 17 Aug 2004 14:42:18 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 02:00:14 GMT, Steve Hayes <[email protected]> wrote:
On 16 Aug 2004 12:21:16 GMT, [email protected] (Patscga) wrote:

Hold down the ALT key and press the numbers in sequence on
the 10-key pad:

You also must have the Num Lock on.

Why?

Because otherwise the numbers are arrows, I would imagine.

I've never had that problem.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Andre Pekelaar]

Copied and pasted from my Office XP help file (searched on keywords: ctrl
shift)
---Start Copy---
Keyboard shortcuts for international characters
Press
CTRL+` (ACCENT GRAVE), the letter
à, è, ì, ò, ù,
À, È, Ì, Ò, Ù
CTRL+' (APOSTROPHE), the letter
á, é, í, ó, ú, ý
Á, É, Í, Ó, Ú, Ý
CTRL+SHIFT+^ (CARET), the letter
â, ê, î, ô, û
Â, Ê, Î, Ô, Û
CTRL+SHIFT+~ (TILDE), the letter
ã, ñ, õ
Ã, Ñ, Õ
CTRL+SHIFT+: (COLON), the letter
ä, ë, ï, ö, ü, ÿ,
Ä, Ë, Ï, Ö, Ü, Y
CTRL+SHIFT+@, a or A
å, Å
CTRL+SHIFT+&, a or A
æ, Æ
CTRL+SHIFT+&, o or O
o, O
CTRL+, (COMMA), c or C
ç, Ç
CTRL+' (APOSTROPHE), d or D
ð, Ð
CTRL+/, o or O
ø, Ø
ALT+CTRL+SHIFT+?
¿
ALT+CTRL+SHIFT+!
¡
CTRL+SHIFT+&, s
ß
Note If you type extensively in another language, you may prefer to switch
to a different keyboard instead.
---End Copy---

Regards,
Andre

"Austin W. Spencer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:57:09 +0100, "Geoff Pearson"
[email protected]
wrote:


"Jane Watt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I need to put a German name into my genealogy program but don't know
how to
put the 2 little dots over the a, sorry I can't even remember what
they are
called. Can anyone help, thank you.

--
Jane in Cooksville (Mississauga) Ontario, Canada



I type ctrl+shift+: and then a which gives me ä in Word 2002.

There a re many ctrl+(shift not always needed) + punctuation followed by
letter combinations for accented letters.

After playing with Word for a bit, I would add some more specific
pointers.

CTRL+SHIFT+~ = tilde (ã, ñ, õ)
CTRL+` = grave accent (à, è, ì, ò, ù)
CTRL+' = acute accent (á, é, í, ó, ú, ý)
CTRL+SHIFT+^ = circumflex (â, ê, î, ô, û)
CTRL+, = cedilla (ç)
As well as
CTRL+SHIFT+: = umlaut (ä, ë, ï, ö, ü, ÿ)

But, I have not yet figured out how to generate a ring (Å 0197, å 0229),
an ash
(Æ 0198, æ 0230), or a thorn (Ð 0208, ð 0240) without the codes.

The keyboard shortcuts also work when capitalizing the letters. They work
in PAF
5, and in Word (and I'm still using the 97 version), but they don't seem
to work
in any plain text editor or in Legacy. They also don't work with Agent; I
had to
paste the characters in after generating them in Word. So, if you use *the
right* software, you don't need to worry about extended character codes.
On the
other hand, the Character Map does not code every diacritical mark in
every
language. Those who wish to correctly render personal and geographic names
in
Polish, Hungarian, or Czech will definitely need additional language
support!

For a look at some of these and other more exotic diacritics, I have found
this
site helpful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diacritic

Austin W. Spencer

[singhals]

Kurt F wrote:

"singhals" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Kurt F wrote:


"Charlene Charette" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


Steve Hayes wrote:



On 16 Aug 2004 12:21:16 GMT, [email protected] (Patscga) wrote:




Hold down the ALT key and press the numbers in sequence on
the 10-key pad:

You also must have the Num Lock on.


Why?



Because the ALT-### shortcut only works with the NUM LOCK on. You'd
have to ask Microsoft why.


I wonder why it works for me, without NUM LOCK on?
Using Win 2000...

Kurt F

Dunno, but it doesn't work on any of my machines with NUM off. Maybe it
depends on the keyboard-setting you've selected? I use American English.

Cheryl


Nope, it can´t depend on the keyboard-settings. I tested with American
English, and it worked as with the Swedish setting I normally use.
I´ll rest my case...

Kurt F

Wierd. But then -- I find most things about Xp wierd.

Cheryl

[Allen]

singhals wrote:

<snip>

Wierd. But then -- I find most things about Xp wierd.

Cheryl

Seconded. When PCs arrived, each new release of DOS was an improvement

over the previous version. When Win 3 came along, it was an improvement
over DOS, then Win95 was vastly improved over Win 3, and Win98 somewhat
better than Win 95. After being stuck with XP, I'm about ready to go
back to DOS. (I was smart (lucky) enough to avoit WinME. Was it
released so that we would have to go to XP?

Incidentally, my experience with computers goes back to two months short
of 50 years, and I've dealt with all-vacuum-tube analog computers, IBM
1401, 360, 370, etc., IBM minicomputers, CPM micros and started on IBM
PCs with 64K memory (if _my_ memory serves) and 360K 5.25" floppies.
I've tried many things, obviously, and XP is NOT one of my favorites.

Allen

[Robert M. Riches Jr.]

On 2004-08-18, Allen <[email protected]> wrote:

Seconded. When PCs arrived, each new release of DOS was an improvement
over the previous version. When Win 3 came along, it was an improvement
over DOS, then Win95 was vastly improved over Win 3, and Win98 somewhat
better than Win 95. After being stuck with XP, I'm about ready to go
back to DOS. (I was smart (lucky) enough to avoit WinME. Was it
released so that we would have to go to XP?

Incidentally, my experience with computers goes back to two months short
of 50 years, and I've dealt with all-vacuum-tube analog computers, IBM
1401, 360, 370, etc., IBM minicomputers, CPM micros and started on IBM
PCs with 64K memory (if _my_ memory serves) and 360K 5.25" floppies.
I've tried many things, obviously, and XP is NOT one of my favorites.

I would hope you are aware there are alternative operating
systems to Gatesware. As has been discussed in this
newsgroup, there are even a few genealogy applications for
at least some of the alternatives. With Linux, there are
distros you can test-drive directly from the CD without
installing anything.

Robert Riches
[email protected]
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[0_Qed]

Allen wrote:

Seconded.
....snip...

Kinda qualifies 'you' as a 'Dino', `eh?
Thot I saw your footprints along side mine.

You must be aware of the existance(legal?) of a DOS 7.10 distribution,
also a 'patch' that allows WfW311 to run atop 7.10 .

Dont really know if 'it' will run PAF5.2 in a black screen ... mite ...
but it has FAT32_et_al, & can 'see' big_GB HDs *if* you have the bios
extensions.

Qed.

[Bob Martin]

Allen wrote:

Incidentally, my experience with computers goes back to two months short
of 50 years, and I've dealt with all-vacuum-tube analog computers, IBM
1401, 360, 370, etc., IBM minicomputers, CPM micros and started on IBM
PCs with 64K memory (if _my_ memory serves) and 360K 5.25" floppies.
I've tried many things, obviously, and XP is NOT one of my favorites.

Hi Allen,

you sound like the sort of person who would appreciate OS/2.
It's still the best PC operating system around.

Bob Martin
(who worked on the 604)

[Allen]

Bob Martin wrote:

Allen wrote:

Incidentally, my experience with computers goes back to two months
short of 50 years, and I've dealt with all-vacuum-tube analog
computers, IBM 1401, 360, 370, etc., IBM minicomputers, CPM micros and
started on IBM PCs with 64K memory (if _my_ memory serves) and 360K
5.25" floppies. I've tried many things, obviously, and XP is NOT one
of my favorites.


Hi Allen,

you sound like the sort of person who would appreciate OS/2.
It's still the best PC operating system around.

Bob Martin
(who worked on the 604)

The big problem is all the software that requires Win, including a few
like MS Office 2003, that won't run even on Win98. If that were not the
case, I would be willing to try just about anything. My son, who has
six computers at home (one for his architect wife, one for each child,
one for his Ebay business, one for his main business, and a server)
moved back to 98 very soon before he wound up with software that won't
run on anything but XP. Smart him, dumb me. When will I stop believing
all of MS's hype?
Allen

[cwsachs.dejazzd.com]

It also seems quite logical to spell psychology with a "p".

Carl Sachs

Robert M. Riches Jr. wrote:

An acquaintance of mine once pondered the question of
whether the word "umlaut" should contain an umlaut. It
seemed logical to me that it should.

[Allen]

Everett M. Greene wrote:

The big problem is all the software that requires Win, including a few
like MS Office 2003, that won't run even on Win98. If that were not the
case, I would be willing to try just about anything. My son, who has
six computers at home (one for his architect wife, one for each child,
one for his Ebay business, one for his main business, and a server)
moved back to 98 very soon before he wound up with software that won't
run on anything but XP. Smart him, dumb me. When will I stop believing
all of MS's hype?


What's so much better about MS Office 2003 that you have
to have it?
Well, I think Excel is the best spreadsheet system on the market, I've

been using Word for 20 years and my wife has used it for about fifteen.
And I _have_ 2003. Also, we swap files with others almost daily amd
that's what they use. Plus there are scads of other small programs that
I've got too much invested in to make a major operating system
change--photo editors, sound editors, etc. It would probably cost at
least $1000 to change operating systems--money that I don't have right
now and won't ever unless interest rates increase so that retirees can
make some kind of income on their savings.
Allen

[Everett M. Greene]

Allen <[email protected]> writes:

Bob Martin wrote:
Allen wrote:

Incidentally, my experience with computers goes back to two months
short of 50 years, and I've dealt with all-vacuum-tube analog
computers, IBM 1401, 360, 370, etc., IBM minicomputers, CPM micros and
started on IBM PCs with 64K memory (if _my_ memory serves) and 360K
5.25" floppies. I've tried many things, obviously, and XP is NOT one
of my favorites.

you sound like the sort of person who would appreciate OS/2.
It's still the best PC operating system around.

The big problem is all the software that requires Win, including a few
like MS Office 2003, that won't run even on Win98. If that were not the
case, I would be willing to try just about anything. My son, who has
six computers at home (one for his architect wife, one for each child,
one for his Ebay business, one for his main business, and a server)
moved back to 98 very soon before he wound up with software that won't
run on anything but XP. Smart him, dumb me. When will I stop believing
all of MS's hype?

What's so much better about MS Office 2003 that you have
to have it?

[Robert Melson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 19 August 2004 12:06, Allen wrote:

<snip>

What's so much better about MS Office 2003 that you have
to have it?
Well, I think Excel is the best spreadsheet system on the market, I've
been using Word for 20 years and my wife has used it for about
fifteen.
And I _have_ 2003. Also, we swap files with others almost daily amd
that's what they use. Plus there are scads of other small programs
that I've got too much invested in to make a major operating system
change--photo editors, sound editors, etc. It would probably cost at
least $1000 to change operating systems--money that I don't have right
now and won't ever unless interest rates increase so that retirees can
make some kind of income on their savings.
Allen

Well, at the risk of being boo-ed out of the hall, I have to second the
comment made by another poster on another branch of this discussion:
try one of the free or virtually free Linux or BSD packages. Aside
from costing almost nothing but the user's time to install and
maintain, all have tons of applications that do as well as - and
frequently better than - those good ol' M$ applications you all know so
well and without the benefit of the BSOD (blue screen of death). So,
for a cost literally of pennies, you have stability, security and the
joy of sticking your thumb in Bill Gates' eye.

I can hear the chorus chanting, "But UNIX is too complicated!", to which
I say baloney. Anybody who's gone through the windows
installation/configuration process can install RedHat Linux and have it
running in about an hour.

As for OS/2, I'm not aware that there is presently a distribution of it
on the market. Back when I worked at IBM, I had the pleasure of
working on OS/2 and was much impressed with it. Its windows
"emulation" out-performed the then current M$ release and was
guaranteed to run anything M$oft released. If there's a current
version, I'd certainly look into it.

In short, you're not limited to M$. Current Linux and BSD distributions
offer stability and security not found in '98 or XP or ..., have
applications that mimic the M$ apps like Excel or Word, cost virtually
nothing and, were that not enough, offer windoze emulators that run
windoze apps in "native mode". OS/2 is a good alternative, if
available and runs/ran everything we could throw at it in the labs in
Austin.

Best wishes,
Bob Melson

- --
Robert G. Melson Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBJPvVGX60pjRVDrMRAtvqAJ9W4UfGFcMxliR02UrJZfg7iAAImACfebsB
ZWpyNjksxkrDDwckQs42ImQ=
=E4MA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Robert Heiling]

Robert Melson wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
snip

What in the h*** does any of this have to do with "German language"? At
least several people have attempted to change the subject header, but the
others who want to talk about ancient computers and fanciful interest rate
vs. inflation relationships can't seem to take the hint. Even the original
thread was about typing unlauts and not much about the German language and
drew a whole potload of cumbersome solutions. Aaarrrgh!

Just sign me also, sweet ol
Bob

[Robert Melson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 19 August 2004 13:30, Robert Heiling wrote:

Robert Melson wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
snip

What in the h*** does any of this have to do with "German language"?
At least several people have attempted to change the subject header,
but the others who want to talk about ancient computers and fanciful
interest rate vs. inflation relationships can't seem to take the hint.
Even the original thread was about typing unlauts and not much about
the German language and drew a whole potload of cumbersome solutions.
Aaarrrgh!

Just sign me also, sweet ol
Bob
Well, Bob, this seems to have morphed into an entirely different

discussion, as do many such in this and other news groups. That's such
a common occurrence that I don't think anybody else noticed or gave a
damn.

Bob

- --
Robert G. Melson Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBJQDCGX60pjRVDrMRApShAJ9cBtl2ThbvngfeEQWvlr6+UW2yAgCfUF+9
XUxdWIYX7/LPz/sMReKIc5k=
=CoO9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Robert Heiling]

Robert Melson wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 19 August 2004 13:30, Robert Heiling wrote:

Robert Melson wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
snip

What in the h*** does any of this have to do with "German language"?
At least several people have attempted to change the subject header,
but the others who want to talk about ancient computers and fanciful
interest rate vs. inflation relationships can't seem to take the hint.
Even the original thread was about typing unlauts and not much about
the German language and drew a whole potload of cumbersome solutions.
Aaarrrgh!

Just sign me also, sweet ol
Bob
Well, Bob, this seems to have morphed into an entirely different
discussion, as do many such in this and other news groups.

That does happen, however others have noticed that too.

That's such
a common occurrence that I don't think anybody else noticed or gave a
damn.

But as I pointed out, several people have noticed indeed and have had the
netiquette and smarts to change the subject header.

-------BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Robert G. Melson Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBJQDCGX60pjRVDrMRApShAJ9cBtl2ThbvngfeEQWvlr6+UW2yAgCfUF+9
XUxdWIYX7/LPz/sMReKIc5k=
=CoO9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Just as a matter of curiosity, could you explain to us why you feel
compelled to add 13 (count them) extra lines to your posts when 4 lines for
a sig is considered to be the netiquette upper bound?

Bob

[Robert Melson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 19 August 2004 14:11, Robert Heiling wrote:

Robert Melson wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
snip
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBJQDCGX60pjRVDrMRApShAJ9cBtl2ThbvngfeEQWvlr6+UW2yAgCfUF+9
XUxdWIYX7/LPz/sMReKIc5k=
=CoO9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Just as a matter of curiosity, could you explain to us why you feel
compelled to add 13 (count them) extra lines to your posts when 4
lines for a sig is considered to be the netiquette upper bound?

Bob

Pretty easy, when you stop and think on it for a moment. Note that
every message is set off by a "--BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE---" block,
then later a line: "BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE" and, finally an "END PGP
SIGNATURE" line. These all indicate that the post, email, whatever,
has been digitally signed and can be verified as coming from someone
claiming to be Bob Melson. I sign all my ng posts and all emails as a
matter of habit -- not that I think I'm so important or what I have to
say is so compelling but, rather, in order that folks who GAS can be
certain the message is from me and not somebody pretending to be me.

The PGP sig, btw, is not considered to fall within the suggested size
limit you mention. Now I realize that this won't satisfy you if you're
looking for a fight, but the practice is within "code" and therefore
acceptable. I'd suggest everybody look into digital signing -- it's
not the cure for everything wrong on the 'net, not by any means, but
it's a valuable and useful tool if properly used.

Hope this answers your question.
Bob Melson

- --
Robert G. Melson Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBJRDcGX60pjRVDrMRAnCSAKDRTCSoX1HGK3UOpMvAFQIvoO0erACfV496
MjEKscvUxmte2pQvxOlBU5I=
=oGBF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Steven Gibbs]

"Robert Melson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 19 August 2004 14:11, Robert Heiling wrote:

Robert Melson wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
snip
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBJQDCGX60pjRVDrMRApShAJ9cBtl2ThbvngfeEQWvlr6+UW2yAgCfUF+9
XUxdWIYX7/LPz/sMReKIc5k=
=CoO9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Just as a matter of curiosity, could you explain to us why you feel
compelled to add 13 (count them) extra lines to your posts when 4
lines for a sig is considered to be the netiquette upper bound?

Bob

Pretty easy, when you stop and think on it for a moment. Note that
every message is set off by a "--BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE---" block,
then later a line: "BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE" and, finally an "END PGP
SIGNATURE" line. These all indicate that the post, email, whatever,
has been digitally signed and can be verified as coming from someone
claiming to be Bob Melson

Who cares? It fills up my preview pane with unreadable guff and is, in
my opinion, much more antisocial than top posting, where the misplaced
text is, at least, readable.

Robert G. Melson Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions ignorance in action.

.... and that always amuses me. In OE, with a proportional font, it
reads as "Nothing is more terrible than Rio Grande Microsolutions,
ignorance in action."

Regards
Steven Gibbs
Bedford, England

[Robert Heiling]

Robert Melson wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 19 August 2004 14:11, Robert Heiling wrote:

Robert Melson wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
snip
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBJQDCGX60pjRVDrMRApShAJ9cBtl2ThbvngfeEQWvlr6+UW2yAgCfUF+9
XUxdWIYX7/LPz/sMReKIc5k=
=CoO9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Just as a matter of curiosity, could you explain to us why you feel
compelled to add 13 (count them) extra lines to your posts when 4
lines for a sig is considered to be the netiquette upper bound?

Bob

Pretty easy, when you stop and think on it for a moment. Note that
every message is set off by a "--BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE---" block,
then later a line: "BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE" and, finally an "END PGP
SIGNATURE" line. These all indicate that the post, email, whatever,
has been digitally signed and can be verified as coming from someone
claiming to be Bob Melson.

I've noted others elsewhere who do it in a neater fashion and only have
that enclose the signature portion as opposed to the entire message.

I sign all my ng posts and all emails as a
matter of habit -- not that I think I'm so important or what I have to
say is so compelling but, rather, in order that folks who GAS can be
certain the message is from me and not somebody pretending to be me.

It's pretty messy and you're the only person in these gen groups who does
it. I already understood your purpose, but can't see its need in these
ng's.

The PGP sig, btw, is not considered to fall within the suggested size
limit you mention. Now I realize that this won't satisfy you if you're
looking for a fight, but the practice is within "code" and therefore
acceptable.

Not at all, but I wouldn't mind looking at that "code" if you cared to cite
it with a url.

I'd suggest everybody look into digital signing -- it's
not the cure for everything wrong on the 'net, not by any means, but
it's a valuable and useful tool if properly used.

I have no current perceived need nor predicted need for it.

Hope this answers your question.

Not really because you didn't answer the base question of why I or others
would want that type of insurance that the post came from someone by the
name of Bob Melson and couldn't someone else do the same thing? The
rationale eludes me.

Bob

[Robert Melson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 19 August 2004 15:19, Steven Gibbs wrote:
<snip>

Who cares? It fills up my preview pane with unreadable guff and is,
in my opinion, much more antisocial than top posting, where the
misplaced text is, at least, readable.
snip
Regards
Steven Gibbs
Bedford, England

Steven:

You're perfectly welcome to kill-file me if you wish. I don't intend to
get involved in a flame war over this practice and have, I think,
answered the question asked in a reasonable manner. I can't control
what you and others might think about digital signing, but will
reiterate that it's generally considered within the bounds of
acceptable use/netiquette.

The remainder of your comment, regarding how my "normal" sig gets munged
when viewed with OE in proportionate text ... yeah, you can get some
amusing results without even trying.

Regards,
Bob Melson

- --
Robert G. Melson Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBJR5gGX60pjRVDrMRAq/gAKCGvjwfRdFNOeSHAzdxf0L2ZFKdpACfQ2I3
7bMq80bOO/5yo7uIAj6EFcM=
=5yrX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Robert Melson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 19 August 2004 15:25, Robert Heiling wrote:

<snip>

I've noted others elsewhere who do it in a neater fashion and only
have that enclose the signature portion as opposed to the entire
message.

I not sure, but I suspect it's a function of the signing application
and, possibly, of the newsreader. I use gnupg v1.26 and the KDE knode
newsreader.

I sign all my ng posts and all emails as a
matter of habit -- not that I think I'm so important or what I have
to say is so compelling but, rather, in order that folks who GAS can
be certain the message is from me and not somebody pretending to be
me.

It's pretty messy and you're the only person in these gen groups who
does
it. I already understood your purpose, but can't see its need in
these ng's.

I scarcely think I'm alone in the matter of digitally signing my posts.

To tell the truth, though, I haven't really paid much attention to the
matter. If somebody else wants to sign his/her posts, more power. If
not, that's OK, too.

<snip>

Not at all, but I wouldn't mind looking at that "code" if you cared to
cite it with a url.

http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html

I'd suggest everybody look into digital signing -- it's
not the cure for everything wrong on the 'net, not by any means, but
it's a valuable and useful tool if properly used.

I have no current perceived need nor predicted need for it.
Have you been the victim of a "Joe Job" or a phishing attack?

Hope this answers your question.

Not really because you didn't answer the base question of why I or
others would want that type of insurance that the post came from
someone by the name of Bob Melson and couldn't someone else do the
same thing? The rationale eludes me.

There's one step I left out which I thought, mistakenly, was pretty

evident. Yes, anybody can create a digital signature, claiming to be
Bob Heiling or Porky Pig and can use that signature to his heart's
content. Without some sort of validation mechanism, however, you can
never be sure that Bob Heiling or Pork Pig really did sign that
posting. So, there's an international registry of signatures to which
one can submit his sig and against which suitably configured
applications can test whether the sig appearing on a posting or in an
email is, in fact, Bob's or Porky's or whomever's.

Bob

As I said in a reply to another individual, I don't want to get dragged
into a flame war on this topic. You can kill-file me if you wish or
ignore me completely if that's what pleases you. 'Nuff said.

Bob

- --
Robert G. Melson Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBJS+pGX60pjRVDrMRAv4ZAKDL9GvgGeYhW/EUrdTtxS1RQUU8kQCgoJDn
sdMRX6AbhuGPZoTyJHaN+zA=
=BweC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Robert Heiling]

Robert Melson wrote:

much snipping throughout
On Thursday 19 August 2004 15:25, Robert Heiling wrote:
snip
I scarcely think I'm alone in the matter of digitally signing my posts.
To tell the truth, though, I haven't really paid much attention to the
matter. If somebody else wants to sign his/her posts, more power. If
not, that's OK, too.

You pretty much are alone in the matter. (in the soc.genealogy newsgroups,
that is).

Not at all, but I wouldn't mind looking at that "code" if you cared to
cite it with a url.

http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html

Perhaps you could help me again. That RFC does state:
"If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb is no longer than 4
lines. Remember that many people pay for connectivity by the minute, and the
longer your message is, the more they pay"
and your "sig" with PGP & all comes to 13 lines.

The only statement I can find about PGP does not explicitly excuse that 13
line excess and says:
"You can protect yourself from forgeries by using software which generates a
manipulation detection "fingerprint", such as PGP (in the US)." I haven't
been able to find what you claimed was there. Sorry.

As I said in a reply to another individual, I don't want to get dragged
into a flame war on this topic. You can kill-file me if you wish or
ignore me completely if that's what pleases you. 'Nuff said.

Nope! No kill-file as you often have something interesting to say and many
of your computer interests are similar to mine. The problem is with that PGP
that you use and all the garbage it creates in your postings. I've seen you
post without it (I think I recall?). Please do us all a favor and don't use
it in the ng's.

Bob

[Robert Melson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 19 August 2004 18:07, Robert Heiling wrote:

<snip>

Perhaps you could help me again. That RFC does state:
"If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb is no longer
than 4 lines. Remember that many people pay for connectivity by the
minute, and the longer your message is, the more they pay"
and your "sig" with PGP & all comes to 13 lines.

The only statement I can find about PGP does not explicitly excuse
that 13 line excess and says:
"You can protect yourself from forgeries by using software which
generates a
manipulation detection "fingerprint", such as PGP (in the US)." I
haven't been able to find what you claimed was there. Sorry.

Hmmmm. I have found nothing explicitly encouraging OR prohibiting
digital signatures, apart from the RFC originally cited. That being
the case, I would ask whether the charter for this group (or the other
genealogy groups) addresses the question. As I believe my practice is
harmless and is actually of some value to those who want to be sure of
the identity of a poster, I can't say I see any real reason to "cease
and desist". Now, if the group wants to get together and amend the
charter to permit/prohibit digital signatures, I will abide by that
decision, if I continue with the group at all. (No, that's not a bad
tempered little boy saying I'll take my ball and go home if you don't
let me do what I want).

You might want to look here:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1/

for additional information.

As I said early on, I don't claim that digital sigs are the cure for
every problem to be found on the 'net today -- far from it.
Nevertheless, by creating, registering and using a digital signature, I
give those who are concerned with security and privacy one more tool
with which to protect their machines, some additional assurance that I
am who I claim to be and that, because I haven't done so previously,
I'm unlikely to be propagating a virus or trojan or whatever.

Can I create another, completely bogus key pair and signature? Yep,
sure can. Am I likely to do so? In the immortal words of Lamont
Crnaston, radio's "Shadow" Who knows what evil lurks in the minds of
men? The Shadow knows! <sinister laughter> The answer is really no,
for a number of reasons, the important one being that the sig is tied
to one's email address and identity. (Technically waaaaay beyond me,
let me say, but I accept it as an article of "faith")

As I said in a reply to another individual, I don't want to get
dragged
into a flame war on this topic. You can kill-file me if you wish or
ignore me completely if that's what pleases you. 'Nuff said.

Nope! No kill-file as you often have something interesting to say and
many of your computer interests are similar to mine. The problem is
with that PGP that you use and all the garbage it creates in your
postings. I've seen you post without it (I think I recall?). Please do
us all a favor and don't use it in the ng's.

As I have had complaints only from you and one other person, I have to
think this is really a non-issue. If others feel as you two do, then I
would encourage them to make their views knows, either by emailing me
or posting directly to the group. While I might not LIKE the results,
I promise to summarize fairly and to excerpt interesting comments on
both sides of the issue. Fair 'nuff?

Bob Melson

- --
Robert G. Melson Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBJVxoGX60pjRVDrMRAhjKAJ43pbEgyZZZyg/PGigHqcoQVvcuRQCghsPR
d84Xf+b9fXf+LVevo7J2y48=
=IUDC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Robert Heiling]

Robert Melson wrote:

-<snip> On Thursday 19 August 2004 18:07, Robert Heiling wrote:
You might want to look here:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1/
for additional information.

Instead of allowing you 4 of your 13 lines, it suggests 2-3 lines.<vbg>

As I said early on, I don't claim that digital sigs are the cure for
every problem to be found on the 'net today -- far from it.
Nevertheless, by creating, registering and using a digital signature, I
give those who are concerned with security and privacy one more tool
with which to protect their machines, some additional assurance that I
am who I claim to be and that, because I haven't done so previously,
I'm unlikely to be propagating a virus or trojan or whatever.

One of the biggest problems with the latter is people who have infected
computers and don't know/realize it. Your last sentence there does not
compute.

snip
As I have had complaints only from you and one other person, I have to
think this is really a non-issue. If others feel as you two do, then I
would encourage them to make their views knows, either by emailing me
or posting directly to the group. While I might not LIKE the results,
I promise to summarize fairly and to excerpt interesting comments on
both sides of the issue. Fair 'nuff?

Whatever's right.

Bob
<snip>

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:13:39 GMT, Robert Melson <[email protected]>
wrote:

In short, you're not limited to M$. Current Linux and BSD distributions
offer stability and security not found in '98 or XP or ..., have
applications that mimic the M$ apps like Excel or Word, cost virtually
nothing and, were that not enough, offer windoze emulators that run
windoze apps in "native mode". OS/2 is a good alternative, if
available and runs/ran everything we could throw at it in the labs in
Austin.

Has anyone has any experience with the emulators?

I'm running OS/2 on one computer, and it runs Windows 3.x programs better than
Windows and MS DOS programs better than MS DOS (and TMG crashes under Win OS/2
just as quickly as it does under Window 98).

I'd like to know if Linux can do that.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Austin W. Spencer]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:30:25 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote:

Robert Melson wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
snip

What in the h*** does any of this have to do with "German language"? At
least several people have attempted to change the subject header, but the
others who want to talk about ancient computers and fanciful interest rate
vs. inflation relationships can't seem to take the hint. Even the original
thread was about typing unlauts and not much about the German language and
drew a whole potload of cumbersome solutions. Aaarrrgh!

Just sign me also, sweet ol
Bob

I will grant that even when the thread concerned umlauts, it was really more
about the limitations of the "Western" encoding and keyboard than about the
German language. And I can understand your suggestion, early in the thread, that
it would be easier just to switch to an International keyboard setting. But the
way your solution *encumbered* the ability to put quotation marks around a
phrase in English, on the fly, as you yourself admitted, never warmed my heart.
Is keying an umlaut with ALT-xxxx or CTRL+SHIFT+: really less convenient than
having to key a quotation mark twice to get one? Which mark do you actually use
more often? Of course, these are individual choices, and you have every right
not to answer these questions the way I do.

It may be a small matter to you, but to me it points up the reality that
authentic Continental typography is something that we English speakers go out of
our way for, mainly because of linguistic and technological inertia. If we have
to go out of our way to get it right, we might as well go the shortest distance
our particular ethnic heritages will allow us. And the only reason to insist on
umlauts, rather than adding an "e" as Bob Melson suggested, is that the
alternative simply isn't right -- i. e., not as true to the original language.

I don't (yet) see how knowledge of my Continental ancestry requires me to make
fundamental changes in the way I type in English. But I cannot entirely close my
eyes to the possibility that one day it might.

Austin W. Spencer

[singhals]

Robert Melson wrote:

The PGP sig, btw, is not considered to fall within the suggested size
limit you mention.

That may be true (not that I care much either way, mind), but it is also
true in my experience that on a slower, dial-up, connection rendering a
PGP sig takes long enough one can very nearly finish one's morning
shower while it finishes. (On an older browser, the PGP may freeze the
entire system, causing a re-boot.)

That causes a certain amount of retaliatory prejudice toward the sender.

Cheryl

[Robert Heiling]

"Austin W. Spencer" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:30:25 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote:

What in the h*** does any of this have to do with "German language"? At
least several people have attempted to change the subject header, but the
others who want to talk about ancient computers and fanciful interest rate
vs. inflation relationships can't seem to take the hint. Even the original
thread was about typing unlauts and not much about the German language and
drew a whole potload of cumbersome solutions. Aaarrrgh!

Just sign me also, sweet ol
Bob

I will grant that even when the thread concerned umlauts, it was really more
about the limitations of the "Western" encoding and keyboard than about the
German language. And I can understand your suggestion, early in the thread, that
it would be easier just to switch to an International keyboard setting. But the
way your solution *encumbered* the ability to put quotation marks around a
phrase in English, on the fly, as you yourself admitted, never warmed my heart.
Is keying an umlaut with ALT-xxxx or CTRL+SHIFT+: really less convenient than
having to key a quotation mark twice to get one?

Absolutely. My finger is already on the key, so it matters little if I press it once
" or twice "",

Which mark do you actually use
more often? Of course, these are individual choices, and you have every right
not to answer these questions the way I do

Although I use umlauts quite frequently, I use the quotation mark for it's own sake
on a more frequent basis. It's still easier than remembering & typing 5-key
sequences to get umlauted characters. Then again, it might matter as to whether
one were a touch typist or the hunt & peck variety which I am. I can't answer that.

.It may be a small matter to you, but to me it points up the reality that
authentic Continental typography is something that we English speakers go out of
our way for, mainly because of linguistic and technological inertia. If we have
to go out of our way to get it right, we might as well go the shortest distance
our particular ethnic heritages will allow us. And the only reason to insist on
umlauts, rather than adding an "e" as Bob Melson suggested, is that the
alternative simply isn't right -- i. e., not as true to the original language.

It's just as easy for me to type ö as it is to type oe; 2 keystrokes each. If you
go to any of the newsgroups where German or Swedish are written, you'll usually see
ö and not oe. Why would I transliterate?

I don't (yet) see how knowledge of my Continental ancestry requires me to make
fundamental changes in the way I type in English. But I cannot entirely close my
eyes to the possibility that one day it might.

The old saying is to the effect of doing as Romans do.

Bob

[Robert Melson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 20 August 2004 06:53, singhals wrote:

Robert Melson wrote:



The PGP sig, btw, is not considered to fall within the suggested size
limit you mention.

That may be true (not that I care much either way, mind), but it is
also true in my experience that on a slower, dial-up, connection
rendering a PGP sig takes long enough one can very nearly finish one's
morning
shower while it finishes. (On an older browser, the PGP may freeze
the entire system, causing a re-boot.)

That causes a certain amount of retaliatory prejudice toward the
sender.

Cheryl

I'm not real sure, but it seems we may be talking about two different
animals here. If you look at the pgp signature on any of my posts,
you'll see that it is not a graphical/binary/digital insert, at all.
I'd have to say that I think the whole terminology needs clarification,
but we're stuck with what we have.

And, strictly between thee and me, I don't really give much of a damn
about he issue, save that I refuse to be bullied into stopping a
behavior that is essentially harmless and hurts nobody.

Bob

- --
Robert G. Melson Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBJhIqGX60pjRVDrMRArNFAJ90281R8S3cLbg84UIlbmw/UyyWogCgs/2C
+0Pcoo/QDjueIgVodw+tmtQ=
=uofP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[P-CS]

The 2 little dots over the a, u, i, o, e,
are called in:
- german = Trema or Umlaut,
- french = trema,
I think
- english = dieresis
- US = diaeresis

Pierre-Christian Schul

"Jane Watt" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de
news:[email protected]...

I need to put a German name into my genealogy program but don't know how
to
put the 2 little dots over the a, sorry I can't even remember what they
are
called. Can anyone help, thank you.

--
Jane in Cooksville (Mississauga) Ontario, Canada

[Austin W. Spencer]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:43:25 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote:

"Austin W. Spencer" wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:30:25 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote:

What in the h*** does any of this have to do with "German language"? At
least several people have attempted to change the subject header, but the
others who want to talk about ancient computers and fanciful interest rate
vs. inflation relationships can't seem to take the hint. Even the original
thread was about typing unlauts and not much about the German language and
drew a whole potload of cumbersome solutions. Aaarrrgh!

Just sign me also, sweet ol
Bob

I will grant that even when the thread concerned umlauts, it was really more
about the limitations of the "Western" encoding and keyboard than about the
German language. And I can understand your suggestion, early in the thread, that
it would be easier just to switch to an International keyboard setting. But the
way your solution *encumbered* the ability to put quotation marks around a
phrase in English, on the fly, as you yourself admitted, never warmed my heart.
Is keying an umlaut with ALT-xxxx or CTRL+SHIFT+: really less convenient than
having to key a quotation mark twice to get one?

Absolutely. My finger is already on the key, so it matters little if I press it once
" or twice "",

Which mark do you actually use
more often? Of course, these are individual choices, and you have every right
not to answer these questions the way I do

Although I use umlauts quite frequently, I use the quotation mark for it's own sake
on a more frequent basis. It's still easier than remembering & typing 5-key
sequences to get umlauted characters. Then again, it might matter as to whether
one were a touch typist or the hunt & peck variety which I am. I can't answer that.

I'm more of a touch typist. I can key as much as 70 words a minute with accuracy
over 90 percent. What matters to a touch typist, for purposes of word processing
or data entry, is whether one has to take one's hands away from the home keys
(left hand, asdf; right hand, jkl;). An international keyboard does have an
advantage here, but the advantage is only pronounced if one types extensively in
a foreign language. I haven't done enough foreign-language work to see a
distinct advantage for me.

In any case, I don't see how this impairs my point, that one must go to extra
trouble for diacritics, regardless of one's method of generating them. If one
uses extended character sequences, that takes more effort. If one tweaks one's
keyboard, that's a short-term investment for a long-term saving. If one replaces
one's keyboard altogether, that is the greatest short-term investment of all.
And all of this would hold regardless of keyboarding style as well.

.It may be a small matter to you, but to me it points up the reality that
authentic Continental typography is something that we English speakers go out of
our way for, mainly because of linguistic and technological inertia. If we have
to go out of our way to get it right, we might as well go the shortest distance
our particular ethnic heritages will allow us. And the only reason to insist on
umlauts, rather than adding an "e" as Bob Melson suggested, is that the
alternative simply isn't right -- i. e., not as true to the original language.

It's just as easy for me to type ö as it is to type oe; 2 keystrokes each. If you
go to any of the newsgroups where German or Swedish are written, you'll usually see
ö and not oe. Why would I transliterate?

Why indeed? I'm not in favor of transliteration, no matter how much more
intuitive it may seem to some English speakers. But I think that the new subject
line hints at one reason why some do favor transliteration. Names are the only
foreign lexical elements that many English-speaking genealogists key on a
regular basis. It is easiest to justify transliteration in those cases if they
see no need to situate the names, or more to the point, the individuals within
the context of European identities and communities.

I don't (yet) see how knowledge of my Continental ancestry requires me to make
fundamental changes in the way I type in English. But I cannot entirely close my
eyes to the possibility that one day it might.

The old saying is to the effect of doing as Romans do.

Bob

We are not necessarily dwelling among the Romans, just writing about them. In
another language. With a simplified typography. To the extent that these
cultural predispositions are subject to choice, it is up to us to decide how
much the cultural practices of those about whom we write should impinge upon our
writing in the language of the place where we do dwell.

Austin W. Spencer

[Robert Heiling]

"Austin W. Spencer" wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:43:25 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote:
"Austin W. Spencer" wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:30:25 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote:
snip

In any case, I don't see how this impairs my point, that one must go to extra
trouble for diacritics, regardless of one's method of generating them.

That's simply emphasizing the reality that, if a key for the character doesn't exist on
the keyboard, it will take more effort to produce the character than if there were one.

If one
uses extended character sequences, that takes more effort. If one tweaks one's
keyboard, that's a short-term investment for a long-term saving. If one replaces
one's keyboard altogether, that is the greatest short-term investment of all.

But replacement would pose its own problems depending on whether the new keyboard were
Hungarian, Scandanavian, French, German, etc. and an ongoing need for the same type of
solution that we have been discussing.

snip
It's just as easy for me to type ö as it is to type oe; 2 keystrokes each. If you
go to any of the newsgroups where German or Swedish are written, you'll usually see
ö and not oe. Why would I transliterate?

Why indeed? I'm not in favor of transliteration, no matter how much more
intuitive it may seem to some English speakers. But I think that the new subject
line hints at one reason why some do favor transliteration. Names are the only
foreign lexical elements that many English-speaking genealogists key on a
regular basis. It is easiest to justify transliteration in those cases if they
see no need to situate the names, or more to the point, the individuals within
the context of European identities and communities.

I see no justification for spelling the names any differently than the ancestors did. The
capability exists, so that is not an obstacle.

I don't (yet) see how knowledge of my Continental ancestry requires me to make
fundamental changes in the way I type in English. But I cannot entirely close my
eyes to the possibility that one day it might.

The old saying is to the effect of doing as Romans do.

We are not necessarily dwelling among the Romans, just writing about them. In
another language. With a simplified typography.

I write about them in their own typography and not in the one that is used for this
dialect of English that I speak.

To the extent that these
cultural predispositions are subject to choice, it is up to us to decide how
much the cultural practices of those about whom we write should impinge upon our
writing in the language of the place where we do dwell.

But where do we "dwell"? If I am conversing with someone in a non-English language, then
part of my mental environment/dwelling includes that non-English language. If my
conversation happens to be via email, then my environment/dwelling includes a keyboard
that is producing non-English characters.

Bob

[singhals]

Robert Heiling wrote:

I see no justification for spelling the names any differently than the ancestors did. The
capability exists, so that is not an obstacle.

Now, there you go again. (GBG) So here I go again --

1. Such an approach suggests that the ancestor could read/write/spell
in his/her native tongue.

2. Such an approach further suggests that *I* can read/write/spell in
the native tongue of everyone on my family charts.

3. Such an approach _further_ suggests that every spoken language has a
written/read component.

All dubious propositions.

Cheryl