Peter Kolb wrote: >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 <[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 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. > > 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 emãzhe' (he is eaten), and of course, 'el emãzhe'. Or something like that. Not being French, I'm somewhat unreliable.