5 ms·

It's acceptable (or at least “not wrong”) to use “aa” for å (and “oe” for ø/ö, “ae” for æ/ä). While ‘å’ was made an official letter in Norwegian in 1917, it's

It's acceptable (or at least “not wrong”) to use “aa” for å (and “oe” for ø/ö, “ae” for æ/ä). While ‘å’ was made an official letter in Norwegian in 1917, it's still common to see “aa” spellings of names, and “aa” and “å” spellings are considered equivalent (fun when sorting, since ‘å’ is the last letter of the Norwegian alphabet).

haakon 11y ago
As someone with "aa" in my name, this annoys me. My name has one correct spelling.
- bborud 11y ago
  As someone with "ø" in my name I have long since accepted that much of the world is not able to spell my name correctly and moved on. There is no point in investing emotional capital in things that won't be fixed for years to come. I'm perfectly fine with "ø", "oe", "ö", and "o". The first time I was credited in the foreword of a book published in the US my name was spelled with "\x" instead of "ø". And it could have been worse. I could have been asian or persian. In which case my name would most likely have many westernized representations. Worry about something of substance.
Dewie2 11y ago
I guess you're right about their use in words in general. I'm not sure you're right about their use in names in particular. Firstly, people and places are still named with "aa" rather than "å". They aren't simply spelled alternatively depending on the mood or the keyboard of the writer. So it seems that, since they deliberately choose one over the other, they care whether it is spelled in a certain way. Secondly, we make a distinction between whether someone is named "Christian" or "Kristian", for example. According to your logic, it wouldn't matter since there is no difference except spelling between these two names. But it does. Do you have any authoritive source (linguistic, or etiquette) that says that such names can be spelled however the writer feels like?
- Numberwang 11y ago
  This is just stupid. If you start reading English language texts and sites a bit more you will find it is common for them to substitute our Nordic characters with various combinations depending on what style they have chosen to follow. Usage is authority. Write the way you feel it should be written, read with the intent of comprehension, nothing more. Relax and move on to more worthwhile causes.
  - Dewie2 11y ago
    I'm sorry to hear that what I choose to preoccupy my time with right now is stupid and not worth your time. It breaks my heart.
  - dang 11y ago
    > This is just stupid. Please follow the HN guidelines: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
    - Numberwang 11y ago
      We are humans communicating not robots. I think the policy i stupid (see previous sentence for argument.)
- ehamberg 11y ago
  I simply tried (and failed, it seems) to say that they are generally considered to be equivalent, and that it's okay to use “aa” when translating a name with “å”. Reasons for this could be not knowing how to write an ‘å’ (or Ł, đ, ç, ì, etc.) or simply not wanting to distract one's readers. I do not have an authoritative source.
  - Dewie2 11y ago
    > I simply tried (and failed, it seems) to say that they are generally considered to be equivalent, Do you think I have a hard time understanding that the intent in this case is to use "aa" as a substitute for "å"? Let me put your mind at ease: I get, and got, that intent. I am not so inexperienced with reading or writing foreign words that I haven't noticed that one sometimes takes some liberties with spelling words using one's own characters, as long as the meaning is clear. My concern is more about whether it is proper to do that with names. Specifically, Norwegian names. What I choose to do when I can't input some name because of foreign characters is to copy paste it when I need it. That might be tedious, but at least it doesn't require any sophistication.
microcolonel 11y ago
You'd think it would be "oa".

haakon 11y ago

As someone with "aa" in my name, this annoys me. My name has one correct spelling.

bborud 11y ago
As someone with "ø" in my name I have long since accepted that much of the world is not able to spell my name correctly and moved on. There is no point in investing emotional capital in things that won't be fixed for years to come. I'm perfectly fine with "ø", "oe", "ö", and "o". The first time I was credited in the foreword of a book published in the US my name was spelled with "\x" instead of "ø". And it could have been worse. I could have been asian or persian. In which case my name would most likely have many westernized representations. Worry about something of substance.

Dewie2 11y ago

I guess you're right about their use in words in general. I'm not sure you're right about their use in names in particular. Firstly, people and places are still named with "aa" rather than "å". They aren't simply spelled alternatively depending on the mood or the keyboard of the writer. So it seems that, since they deliberately choose one over the other, they care whether it is spelled in a certain way. Secondly, we make a distinction between whether someone is named "Christian" or "Kristian", for example. According to your logic, it wouldn't matter since there is no difference except spelling between these two names. But it does. Do you have any authoritive source (linguistic, or etiquette) that says that such names can be spelled however the writer feels like?

Numberwang 11y ago
This is just stupid. If you start reading English language texts and sites a bit more you will find it is common for them to substitute our Nordic characters with various combinations depending on what style they have chosen to follow. Usage is authority. Write the way you feel it should be written, read with the intent of comprehension, nothing more. Relax and move on to more worthwhile causes.
- Dewie2 11y ago
  I'm sorry to hear that what I choose to preoccupy my time with right now is stupid and not worth your time. It breaks my heart.
- dang 11y ago
  > This is just stupid. Please follow the HN guidelines: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
  - Numberwang 11y ago
    We are humans communicating not robots. I think the policy i stupid (see previous sentence for argument.)
ehamberg 11y ago
I simply tried (and failed, it seems) to say that they are generally considered to be equivalent, and that it's okay to use “aa” when translating a name with “å”. Reasons for this could be not knowing how to write an ‘å’ (or Ł, đ, ç, ì, etc.) or simply not wanting to distract one's readers. I do not have an authoritative source.
- Dewie2 11y ago
  > I simply tried (and failed, it seems) to say that they are generally considered to be equivalent, Do you think I have a hard time understanding that the intent in this case is to use "aa" as a substitute for "å"? Let me put your mind at ease: I get, and got, that intent. I am not so inexperienced with reading or writing foreign words that I haven't noticed that one sometimes takes some liberties with spelling words using one's own characters, as long as the meaning is clear. My concern is more about whether it is proper to do that with names. Specifically, Norwegian names. What I choose to do when I can't input some name because of foreign characters is to copy paste it when I need it. That might be tedious, but at least it doesn't require any sophistication.

microcolonel 11y ago

You'd think it would be "oa".