4 ms·

It’s part of The New Yorker’s style guide. Their use of it is sensible, it’s just incredibly rare and not really necessary in English.

• DFHippie 3y ago
  Actually, given English's crazy spelling, it's pretty useful in English. There was a restaurant in my town -- the sign is still up but it's closed -- called "Cooper's Coop". For a while after they put their sign up I thought it was a cooperative/coöperative. If there'd been a diaresis I would have known it was the chicken coop sort of coop they had in mind.
  • schoen 3y ago
    For non-native English speakers, it's something like /ku:p/ for chickens /'koʊ.ɑp/ for cooperatives People sometimes spell the latter "co-op" (as an alternative to the New Yorker's "coöp") to make clear that it's two syllables. There's also a college merchandise shop in Cambridge, MA, called The Coop that seems to encourage people to use the chicken-oriented pronunciation as a joke. https://www.thecoop.com/our-story https://www.thecoop.com/our-story
  • scoot 3y ago
    > If there'd been a diaresis (sic) I would have known it was the chicken coop sort of coop they had in mind. Except that there wouldn't have been a diaeresis, because (chicken) coop doesn't have one.
    • DFHippie 3y ago
      True.
  • nkrisc 3y ago
    Agreed that it is useful. I meant not necessary in the sense that pretty much no English speaker will ever expect it to be used.