I don't speak much French but from what I've heard, many of the grammatical endings aren't actually pronounced. Does that mean that French speakers only learn the grammar of their language once they learn to write?
French grammar
<<Does that mean that French speakers only learn the grammar of their language once they learn to write?>>
Pretty much...
Pretty much...
<<I don't speak much French but from what I've heard, many of the grammatical endings aren't actually pronounced.>>
There are indeed many silent letters in French, but probably less than in English so it should no come as a surprise to you.
<<Does that mean that French speakers only learn the grammar of their language once they learn to write?>>
No it does not.
There are indeed many silent letters in French, but probably less than in English so it should no come as a surprise to you.
<<Does that mean that French speakers only learn the grammar of their language once they learn to write?>>
No it does not.
<<There are indeed many silent letters in French, but probably less than in English so it should no come as a surprise to you.>>
The difference is that english doesn't have 'silent grammar' (verb inflections, plurals, gender agreement), that only exists in writing.
<<No it does not. >>
Yes it does.
The difference is that english doesn't have 'silent grammar' (verb inflections, plurals, gender agreement), that only exists in writing.
<<No it does not. >>
Yes it does.
<<The difference is that english doesn't have 'silent grammar' (verb inflections, plurals, gender agreement), that only exists in writing. >>
Hmm, yes English does have 'silent grammar'. There vs they're and the like.
<<Yes it does.>>
No it does not.
Hmm, yes English does have 'silent grammar'. There vs they're and the like.
<<Yes it does.>>
No it does not.
Interesting - oh, and you could never say that French has fewer silent letters than English. Obviously not true - not even worth an argument.
Well, they'd still learn some. For example, 'je travaille' still is different from 'nous travallions' (I work, and we work).
Well, they'd still learn some. For example, 'je travaille' still is different from 'nous travallions' (I work, and we work).
These silent consontants however, are pronounced when the subsequent word begins with a vowel or a silent 'h'.
They're not silent because they're preserved, they're silent because most letters at the end of any word in French are silent. Get your facts right.
And yes, I do think that it would be better if English did use this - but without the silent part.
And yes, I do think that it would be better if English did use this - but without the silent part.
Why? Those endings would be peripheral in English syntax. Does the -s ending on the 3rd person singular even serve any purpose?
<<Does that mean that French speakers only learn the grammar of their language once they learn to write?>>
Did you learn English grammar before you learned to write? =)
Did you learn English grammar before you learned to write? =)
"Guest" : « Does that [LA NON-PRONONCIATION DE CERTAINS GRAPHÈMES DÉSINENTIELS SUFFIXÉS] mean that French speakers only learn the grammar of their language once they learn to write? ».
Josh Lalonde : « grammar != verb inflections. There's tons of other aspects of grammar that native francophones learn long before they can write. »
Oui, la persistance de cette confusion entre morphologie verbale (graphique et/ou orale) et "grammaire" est réellement étonnante.
Pour répondre à "Guest", l'apprentissage langagier de la "grammaire" précède nécessairement le stade l'alphabétisation. Certes la scolarisation va ensuite absorber la "grammaire" naturelle (orale) et la phagocyter entièrement pour la recycler sous formes de tableaux de conjugaison (écrits), à leur tour insérés dans un système plus vaste comprenant des temps inconnus des enfants non-alphabétisés : passé simple, passé antérieur, subjonctif imparfait etc. Mais chez l'enfant en âge de préscolarisation élémentaire, l'orogrammaire est indépendante de la scriptogrammaire.
En gros un enfant non-alphabétisé est en mesure de distinguer /ʒəsɥi/ de /tye/, et aussi /ʒəsɥi/ de /ʒete/, sans oublier /tye/ & /tyete/. Le même enfant est en mesure de manier des suites de séries complexes :
/ʒəsɥi/, [ʃɥi] — /ʒɛm/ — /ʒəʃɑ̃t/, [ʃːɑ̃t] ;
/tye/, [te] — /tyɛm/, [tɛm] — /tyʃɑ̃t/ ;
/ile/, /ɛle/, [le] — /ilɛm/, /ɛlɛm/, [lɛm] — /ilʃɑ̃t/, [iʃɑ̃t], /ɛlʃɑ̃t/ ;
/ɔ̃ne/, /nusɔm/ — /ɔ̃nɛm/, /nuzemɔ̃/ — /ɔ̃ʃɑ̃t/, /nuʃɑ̃tɔ̃/ ;
/vuzɛt/, [zɛt] — /vuzeme/, [zeme] — /vuʃɑ̃te/ ;
/ilsɔ̃/, [isɔ̃], /ɛlsɔ̃/ — /ilzɛm/, [izɛm], /ɛlzɛm/ — /ilʃɑ̃t/, [iʃɑ̃t], /ɛlʃɑ̃t/.
Il ne s'agit ici que de trois verbes très usuels au présent de l'indicatif. On pourrait ajouter le futur, l'imparfait et bien sûr le passé composé.
L'alphabétisation ne fait pas qu'ajouter une couche graphique aux réalités phonématiques et phonétiques : elle subordonne ces dernières au modèle le plus récent, le plus artificiel → l'écrit.
/ʒəsɥi/, [ʃɥi] → <je suis> (variation non-rendue) ;
/ilʃɑ̃t/ → <ils chantent> & <il chante> (création de variation) ;
/ɔ̃nɛm/, /nuzemɔ̃/ → <on aime> & <nous aimons> (maintien de la variation avec réinterprétation formelle : /ɔ̃/ = <on> est dissocié de /nu/ = <nous> pour être rattaché à /il/ = <il>).
L'orogrammaire précède la scriptogrammaire même si la seconde annexe la première et finit par la réinterpréter.
Josh Lalonde : « grammar != verb inflections. There's tons of other aspects of grammar that native francophones learn long before they can write. »
Oui, la persistance de cette confusion entre morphologie verbale (graphique et/ou orale) et "grammaire" est réellement étonnante.
Pour répondre à "Guest", l'apprentissage langagier de la "grammaire" précède nécessairement le stade l'alphabétisation. Certes la scolarisation va ensuite absorber la "grammaire" naturelle (orale) et la phagocyter entièrement pour la recycler sous formes de tableaux de conjugaison (écrits), à leur tour insérés dans un système plus vaste comprenant des temps inconnus des enfants non-alphabétisés : passé simple, passé antérieur, subjonctif imparfait etc. Mais chez l'enfant en âge de préscolarisation élémentaire, l'orogrammaire est indépendante de la scriptogrammaire.
En gros un enfant non-alphabétisé est en mesure de distinguer /ʒəsɥi/ de /tye/, et aussi /ʒəsɥi/ de /ʒete/, sans oublier /tye/ & /tyete/. Le même enfant est en mesure de manier des suites de séries complexes :
/ʒəsɥi/, [ʃɥi] — /ʒɛm/ — /ʒəʃɑ̃t/, [ʃːɑ̃t] ;
/tye/, [te] — /tyɛm/, [tɛm] — /tyʃɑ̃t/ ;
/ile/, /ɛle/, [le] — /ilɛm/, /ɛlɛm/, [lɛm] — /ilʃɑ̃t/, [iʃɑ̃t], /ɛlʃɑ̃t/ ;
/ɔ̃ne/, /nusɔm/ — /ɔ̃nɛm/, /nuzemɔ̃/ — /ɔ̃ʃɑ̃t/, /nuʃɑ̃tɔ̃/ ;
/vuzɛt/, [zɛt] — /vuzeme/, [zeme] — /vuʃɑ̃te/ ;
/ilsɔ̃/, [isɔ̃], /ɛlsɔ̃/ — /ilzɛm/, [izɛm], /ɛlzɛm/ — /ilʃɑ̃t/, [iʃɑ̃t], /ɛlʃɑ̃t/.
Il ne s'agit ici que de trois verbes très usuels au présent de l'indicatif. On pourrait ajouter le futur, l'imparfait et bien sûr le passé composé.
L'alphabétisation ne fait pas qu'ajouter une couche graphique aux réalités phonématiques et phonétiques : elle subordonne ces dernières au modèle le plus récent, le plus artificiel → l'écrit.
/ʒəsɥi/, [ʃɥi] → <je suis> (variation non-rendue) ;
/ilʃɑ̃t/ → <ils chantent> & <il chante> (création de variation) ;
/ɔ̃nɛm/, /nuzemɔ̃/ → <on aime> & <nous aimons> (maintien de la variation avec réinterprétation formelle : /ɔ̃/ = <on> est dissocié de /nu/ = <nous> pour être rattaché à /il/ = <il>).
L'orogrammaire précède la scriptogrammaire même si la seconde annexe la première et finit par la réinterpréter.
I don't speak much French but from what I've heard, many of the grammatical endings aren't actually pronounced. Does that mean that French speakers only learn the grammar of their language once they learn to write?
No, you can't learn to speak a language without assimilating at least some of its grammar. Of course, when French kids start learning how to write, matters get much worse for them as writing correct French requires substantial knowledge and training.
But then again, why bother, given the worldwide decline of the French language?
http://theworldwidedeclineoffrench.blogspot.com/
No, you can't learn to speak a language without assimilating at least some of its grammar. Of course, when French kids start learning how to write, matters get much worse for them as writing correct French requires substantial knowledge and training.
But then again, why bother, given the worldwide decline of the French language?
http://theworldwidedeclineoffrench.blogspot.com/
<<But then again, why bother, given the worldwide decline of the French language?>>
Stop spamming, idiot. People like me learn French because it's wonderful and can be useful. Take your bigotry elsewhere.
Stop spamming, idiot. People like me learn French because it's wonderful and can be useful. Take your bigotry elsewhere.
Actually, the number of French speakers worldwide has tripled since 1945. There are now more French speakers in Africa than in any other continent.