Print

Print


Peter Kolb wrote:

>I hope the diacritic marks show up properly. If not then as such  is i^, 
>is i:, and  is o: .
>
>On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:53:38 +0100, Joe <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>>>Some more for the why-reform:
>>>
>>>
>  English         Normal French   Transliteration -> Reformed French
>
>
>>>He is sitting:  Il est assis    /ay-tah-see/    -> **Ae tas, **Aet as?
>>>She is sitting: Elle est assise /ay-tah-seez/   -> **Ae tass, **Aet ass?
>>>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 Lematre) knows how to pronounce the above. The above and the
>below are correct transliteration as given by the author.
>
>

No, I mean, it doesn't show 'il' and 'elle' on the transliteration,
because it's assuming that you already know about that.  So the
radically different pronunciation isn't really that different - the only
difference is assis > assise [assi]>[assiz].

The problem, I think, with any French reform is that it tends to treat
each seperate word, as...well, seperate words.  If they were treated as
morphemes, the whole thing would be much clearer.

Your sentences, in my preferred idea of reform would become 'i etassi'
and 'el etassiz', respectively, where the prefix 'et-' is a kind of
verbaliser. However, before a consonant, the 't' of the prefix is
elided.  'i emzhe' (he is eaten), and of course, 'el emzhe'.

Or something like that.  Not being French, I'm somewhat unreliable.