[globular-toast]

In French. It's long since disappeared from English, even in words like "naive".

It's pointless in English because we have nothing remotely close to phonetic spelling.

If we want to bring back cool things from French can we start with reverting to spellings like "connexion", "reflexion" etc.?

[JimDabell]

It hasn’t disappeared. You’re literally commenting on an example of it being used in English.

[thaumasiotes]

It isn't used in English in any context other than writing published in the New Yorker... except for the word "naive" (and "naif"), where it is still sometimes used. The criticism of the New Yorker is well founded.

[JimDabell]

I’ve never been published in the New Yorker, and I use it. People with the names Chloë, Zoë, etc. might be surprised to hear they have been imagining their names too.

It’s in use. It hasn’t disappeared. It’s not the norm, but it is definitely still in use.

[globular-toast]

Girls' names can hardly be considered "English". I've seen all of Chloé, Aimée, Zoé etc. There are no rules.

It was hard for me to type those on my English keyboard. That's reason enough for me to say they are not really part of English any more and haven't been for decades. I do like writing connexion sometimes, and I note that this isn't even considered a spelling error in my installed dictionary, unlike coördinate, but I'm not going to claim that it's "still in use" because I read a dictionary one time.

[JimDabell]

> I'm not going to claim that it's "still in use" because I read a dictionary one time.

It’s not “still in use” because it’s in the dictionary.

It’s “still in use” because it’s still in use.

[0xBDB]

Coöperate. And coordinate, etc. Also mostly seen in the New Yorker these days due to their style guide, but occasionally elsewhere.