Re: OT: Diacricital marks [Re: Question about "do"]
| From: | Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, July 29, 2003, 17:34 |
|---|
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 11:32:36PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Well, no. We're talking about writing here, and the Romance languages
> were already pretty differentiated before anybody thought to write them
> down.
That seems odd to me, since Latin already had a written form long before
the differentiation? Or did people simply not equate writing and speech?
> > And the circumflex is a later French innovation?
>
> It indicates a former s that is no longer written, thus e^tre for estre.
Oh, right. I actually knew that at some point. :) Thanks.
-Mark
Replies