Re: Languages

On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 18:40:12 -0800, DOUGLAS KOLLER <LAOKOU@...>
wrote:
>
>From: "jesse stephen bangs"
>
[snip]
>
>> Besides, saying that there's a grammatical rule of "drop final
>> consonant" is just so much more interesting!
>
>This is an interesting argument which I've never heard before, but it
>raises as many questions as it purports to explain away.
>
>Seems like you have to allow a special dispensation for nasals and
>liquids. Why, for example, isn't it
>
>FEM                                MASC
>belle /bEl/  drop the "l" for */bE/
>(that masculine is /bo/ to me indicates there was a dark "l" thing going
> on, meaning it retained the "l")
>
>FEM                                  MASC
>finale /final/ drop the "l" for */fina/ (no, it, too, is /final/)
>(masc. pl. also has that dark "l" thing, as above)
>
>FEM                                   MASC
>fière /fjER/ drop the "r" for */fjE/ or */fje/ (no, it's /fjER/)
>(noir, noire; cher, chère work the same way)
>
>FEM                                                 MASC
>quotidienne /kotidjEn/ drop the "n" for */kotidjE/
>(if the "n" is dropped, why is there nasalization of the correct masc.
>/kotidjE~/?)
>
>How 'bout these?
>
>FEM                                      MASC
>brève /bREv/ drop the "v" for */bRE/
>(masc. is /bREf/ -- a special devoicing rule for adj. ending in "v"?)
>(fautif, fautive acts similarly)
>
>What about adj. that always end in "e" in the orthography?
>
>"sage", "inefficace", "chauve", "riche" don't go to /sa/, /inEfika/, /So/,
>and /Ri/ as masculines. The "add -e" argument can simply say that these
>already end in a mute "e", so you can't add another "e", hence forms don't
>change, ergo MASC and FEM are the same in these cases. The "drop -e (and
>final consonant)" argument now has to explain why there's an entire class
>of adjectives that don't do that.
These are all obviously declensional classes. If Latin can have them, why
not French? The drop-the-final-consonant rule applies to only one class.

>What about past participles (particularly of irregular verbs).
>
>"mis" is normally pronounced /mi/. The only time it manifests itself as
>/miz/ (spelled "mise" or "mises") is when a feminine direct object precedes
>it  (la clef que j'ai _mise_sur la table) or when the feminine noun is used
>in a passive construction with "être" (la clef a été _mise_ sur la table).
>Elsewhere, it's /mi/ (J'ai mis la table -- I set the table). Are we to say
>that the form which occurs in only one instance is the "underlying" form
>and the form that occurs everywhere else is the "transformed" form?
>Counterintuitive?
Probably. But Latin has a special rule for Present participle declension,
IIRC.

>Finally, when masculine adj. occur in elision environments, their final
>consonant often (albeit often optionally) resurfaces: mauvais appartement
>/mOvEz apaRtma~/, grand appartement /gRa~d apaRtma~/, bel appartement /bEl
>apaRtma~/. If it were truly dropped, why is it cropping up here? I would
>find it easier to explain that /mOvEz/, /gRa~d/, and /bEl/ are the
>underlying forms and that it surfaces when there's a following vowel (like,
>say, a feminine "-e").
Elision environment could simply be an extra column in the declensional
tables.

>Having learned it the old-fashioned way (affreux, affreuse; brun,
>brune....), I can certainly appreciate that it looks capricious at times.
>But reversing the argument and starting with the feminine form as the
>springboard, I think, creates its own set of seemingly capricious rules.
>
>Kou
I'm waiting for French to have a major spelling reform before I seriously
attempt to learn it.

Jeff