R: Re: Languages

Ehe! Exceptions, exceptions! These relics are really interesting. We'll see
if the rule 'drop the final consonant' is really true if, in a couple of
centuries we'll have /kotidjEn/-/kotidjE/ or /brEv/-/brE/ opposition
(genereted by assimilation to the general rule).

Luca

> of
> > > course, the written form of French long hid the actual rules...
>
> > 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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").
>
> 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