Re: French reform (Re: C.Thalmann, & #1)

I hope the diacritic marks show up properly. If not then as such î is i^, ï
is i:, and ö is o: .

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:53:38 +0100, Joe <joe@...> wrote:
>>Some more for the why-reform:
  English         Normal French   Transliteration -> Reformed French
>>He is sitting:  Il est assis    /ay-tah-see/    -> **Ae tasï, **Aet asï?
>>She is sitting: Elle est assise /ay-tah-seez/   -> **Ae tasïs, **Aet asïs?
>>Why so different a spelling but so same a sound?
>Erm, I suspect that it's assuming you know how to pronounce 'il' and
>'elle', and so is skipping to the verbal construction.  'est' being
>pronounced [et].
I am not assuming that I know how to pronounce the above but whether the
author (Joseph Lemaître) knows how to pronounce the above. The above and the
below are correct transliteration as given by the author.

  English         Nrml French Translit.-> Reformed French  Translit.
>>He is running:  Il court    /coor/   -> **Cör,   **A cör /Ah coor/.
>>She is walking: Elle marche /mahrsh/ -> **March, **A march /Ah Mahrsh/.
>>Where are elle and il?
I am not simply taking a English centric view. Such would prefer the removal
of diacritic marks, require that all letters have presence, demand that no
letter get shifted from one word to another (eg. requiring aet asï over ae
tasï).

>He's saying that French has innumerable different dialectes.
Dialects are irrelevant to spelling reform. They will always exist even
after the reform. But Damien Perrotin has a better argument: 50 million are
difficult to persuade.

It is remarkable how graceful the French language sounds even saying the
most crass statements. Unlike English that manages at times to sound crass
even when saying something graceful or pleasant.

I might have to conlang French |>.

Thank you.
Peter Kolb.

Reply