On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 4:05 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 14 November 2012 09:03, J. 'Mach' Wust <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>> >
>> >Exactly, pronounced something like [ˈɛskə ˈʃpø].
>> How do you analyze the French schwa phonologically? Do you think that it is
>> entirely predictable from context (something like /ɛsk ʒpø/) or do you
>> think
>> that it nees some representation?
> I'm not completely sure (which is why I chose a phonetic representation
> above rather than a phonemic one). I'd have to look deeper into that
> subject, but my first impression is that while whether it's pronounced or
> not is predictable based on the phonological context, its actual position
> might not be predictable (i.e. it's lexically determined). But I could very
> well be wrong about that.
>> From what I have read about Joël Dicker's recent novel, some critics have
>> accused him of using simplistic French. I guess that might have to do with
>> his adopting a more modern form of the language than is customary in
>> written
>> style. The expectation of a certain complexety and elaboration in the
>> written style also exists in the German language, though the gap between
>> spoken and written language is very different from what it is in the French
>> language.
> I don't know that writer. One thing I know is that I have a lot of
> difficulty watching French films and series, as the language used in those
> sounds very artificial to me. It's basically Written French with only the
> slightest hint of Spoken French thrown in. Most French people seem not to
> have a problem with it, but to me it sounds like bad acting, as if everyone
> was reading their script rather than acting. It's very annoying to listen
> to. That's also why I hardly ever watch French films.
> The only French films I like are already so stylised that the unnatural
> language becomes part of the art (like _Amélie_ or _La cité des enfants
> perdus_) or use a language much closer to actual Spoken French (like _Les
> nuits fauves_).
>> Wouldn't that be more like 17th century spoken French, from the time when
>> French grammar and orthography were fixed?
> Nope. Unlike what many people think, between the 17th century and the
> middle of the 19th century Written French was still following Spoken French
> quite closely. True, orthography started lagging behind, but there are
> still big orthographic changes to be found during that time.

I've noticed that in proofreading 18th and early 19th century French
books for Distributed Proofreaders -- I'd encountered the -oit/-ois
endings where modern written French has -ait/ais in Rabelais and
Montaigne, for instance, but I didn't realize how late the transition
occurred until I started proofreading for PGDP.

> In my French webseries,
> the narration is mostly in Written French, but the dialogues are very much
> in Spoken French, only slightly tweaked from actual speech to fit the
> written medium.

Where can I find that?

Jim Henry