Christophe Grandsire wrote:
>
> -s after e, r, n and optionally after l. -'s (with the apostrophe) after a, i,
> o and u.
Is that somehow in English influence? Does it represent a now-dead
sound? Is it just a random apostrophe that they shoved in because they
had access to it and no better use for it? Where all inflexions once
marked by it and it just fell out of favor?
> -en in any other case (and optionally after -l).
How can you have optionally one or the other? Is it a dialectal
difference? a class-based/social difference (like English /IN/ vs /@n/)?
Is one preferred in some words and the other in others? Does context
make one seem more likely than the other?
Tristan.