Re: Optimum number of symbols

En réponse à Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>:

>
> Maybe - but the impression I have from French speakers is that liaison
> is
> practised more by some than others.
Liaison practiced more by some than by others? I'm sorry, but I know people
from everywhere in France and I never heard any difference in their use of
liaisons. So if there are differences, they must be so small that I didn't
notice them.

  In a school where I was teaching
> many
> years ago, one of the French teachers was truly French (and defended
> any
> criticism of her language with truly Gallic vigor!) - but she commented
> on
> the French of one her brightest pupils as being full of liaisons which
> one
> never heard now and that it sounded old-fashioned; she put it down to
> the
> fact the girl's father was Belgian  :))
>
Strange, I've heard often Belgian people speak, and I never found that they had
more liaisons than French people. By experience I would disagree with what this
French teacher said. Different experiences...

>
> You can, of course.  You can compare French orthography with any other
> orthography you wish.  Why not?
>
Of course, but not on the ground of regularity of spelling and then conclude
that they are both as irregular. That is nonsense.

>
> Well, I assure you my daughter-in-law, whose 100% French through &
> through,
> takes a _very different_ view of her native orthography.  She still
> maintains that English is simpler.
>
I had that opinion until two years ago. Since then, I really took a strong look
at the French orthography and discovered how regular and phonetic it really is.
The only reason why people can have this opinion is that when we're taught
spelling the emphasis is strongly put on the irregularities, which makes it
look like French is nothing but a bunch of irregularities. Your daughter-in-law
is simply the victim of this, just like I was until two years ago or so.

>
> I find it annoying when I stumble across a hitherto unknown word (i.e.
> unknown to me) ending in -s.  Is that final -s to be pronounced or
> not?
Well, the cases where final -s is to be pronounced are rare enough, and you
will always find French people who wouldn't pronounce them in any case. So not
pronouncing them won't make much of a difference.

> I've been told there are "rules" but there are, it seems, exceptions a
> plenty.  Final -t is silent, isn't it.  Well, usually - bu not if he
> word
> is 'est' (= east), 'ouest' or 'aout' /ut/  (So what with the initial
> {a}?)
>
Actually, |août| has two different pronunciations: /ut/ (mine) or /au/. It
seems to be a dialectical variation, or a reading pronunciation that has caught
on. I've never heard */aut/ though :)) . For what I know, most irregularities
are dialectical variations, and the standard just didn't take the dialect that
was nearest to the orthography in all cases :)) .

>
> Many say precisely that about English  :)))
>
I never argued the contrary. Optimality doesn't prevent an orthography to by
highly irregular.

> >
> >The morphemic representation also strikes a compromise in the
> >representation of English dialects, in which vowel quality is highly
> >variable. The writing system  provides distinct spellings for
> >distinctions that are not universally present. This enhances written
> >communication in English, and acts as a unifying force on the
> >English-speaking (and writing) community. English dialects vary not
> >just in phonetic inventory, but phonemic inventory, so even a "pure"
> >phonemic system would introduce spelling variations.
>
> All perfectly true IMO.
>
I agree completely.

> >
> >The problem is that you take evolution to be always directed towards
> the
> >better, and that what is added is always 'enhancements'. I'm sorry, but
> this
> >Darwinian illusion has long been proved wrong.
>
> Here I'm in a 1000% agreement (or more) with Christophe :)))
>
:))) Thanks.

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.

Reply