Talk:Liaison (French)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Primeval-Seeker.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

See Talk:Liaison/Translation_from_French. If you can help translate from French, please do. :-) Ruakh 19:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just finished. I still think it's very French specific (and verbose!) to put it all in Liaison; I'd rather make a special Liaison in French article, and leave only the generalities over here. --Pablo D. Flores 12:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

But isn't liaison specifically describing the phenomenon in French? I mean, it is a French word. The general term for it might be sandhi, which could use a little reference to its application in French. --Euniana/Talk/Blog 15:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, tsunami is a Japanese word. :-( The way I understand it, it's a phenomenon that happens in many languages, but among Western European languages (the most studied, in other times) French is the only one that features it prominently, and so French got to name it. Sandhi is a more general concept I think, and mostly refers to modification of features by other features (not only phonemes, also tonemes). I mentioned to Ruakh that in Rioplatense Spanish syllable final -s tends to become [h] or disappear, but in some areas it reappears when the next word begins with a vowel -- much as in French liaison. So the phenomenon is not exclusive of French. --Pablo D. Flores 03:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Liaison in English

We have liaison in English, too, although it doesn't affect spelling. http://www.bartleby.com/185/29.html Saint|swithin 21:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all, English has changed, and linguistics progressed, very much since 1921; if you can't find a more recent source for such a claim, then it's probably not a valid one. Second of all, that author is confusing la liaison with l'enchaînement; some of his examples do fall into the former category, but most fall into the latter, and the definition he gives for la liaison is actually the definition of l'enchaînement. (It's possible that the distinction between the terms was not made in 1921, but it's made universally today.)

That said, the linking and intrusive r's found in non-rhotic dialects of English could be considered to constitute liaison, and that does bear mention. Ruakh 03:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trained in linguistics, so I'm happy to bow to your superior knowledge. "The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language" mentions the linking and intrusive Rs in non-rhotic accents, although it does mysteriously add that "for the rest, [liaison] is a quite general phonological phenomenon" (?) It also mentions "an" as a liaison form of "a".

From a perhaps less reliable source, I also found "linking or liaison, which is the connecting of the final sound of one word or syllable to the initial sound of the next" ("Teaching Pronunciation: A Reference for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages"). I've seen this use of the word "liaison" in many TEFL books: is it just a looser, informal use of the word, or does "liaison" when used to refer to other languages than French have a slightly different meaning? Would this meaning be worth mentioning here, at least in the form "some laymen mistakenly understand liaison to be..."? Saint|swithin 10:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trained in linguistics, either, so don't put too much stock in what I say. ;-)

I don't own a copy of the The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, but the discussion of the linking and intrusive r's found in non-rhotic dialects seems to be in chapter 1 (on page 14), which is free online (in this PDF file), and I don't see your quote there? I definitely agree that an is a liaison form of a.

In French, a major distinction is drawn between l'enchaînement and la liaison. The former refers to the way that word-final consonants are pronounced as though they were word-initial consonants in the following words (provided the following words start with vowels). For example, avec is ordinarily [avɛk], but avec une is not [avɛk yn], but rather [avɛ kyn]. The latter refers to the way that word-final consonants are sometimes added to words when the words after them start with vowels. For example, avait is ordinarily [avɛ], but avait une is [avɛ tyn]. Indeed, since the word-final consonants that la liaison adds invariably appear at the start of the next word, one could argue that la liaison entails l'enchaînement (but not the reverse), but in practice, l'enchaînement generally refers specifically to l'enchaînement-without-la liaison. All that said, it's possible that the word liaison, in being borrowed to English, has been broadened to cover l'enchaînement in this language. This being the English Wikipedia, it should use the English definition, not the French one; so we need to include examples of what the French would not consider to be liaison. Ruakh 14:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

If you "search inside the book" at amazon.com [1] for "liaison", the quote is on P. 1621 :-) Saint|swithin 17:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe that liaisons are not restricted to French. Besides the afore-mentioned linking 'r', it is noteworthy to remind that liaisons are not spelling-related in English. Think of:

• Law [r] and order
• No, [w] I don't
• Mary [j] and John

User:Unser_meister

I don't use any of those purported liaisons; I say "law and order" and "Mary and John" without any [r] or [j], and I say "no" with [w] whether or not it's followed by a vowel. I've heard that some speakers do use that [r] — it's called an "intrusive r" — and I've even heard it once for myself, but I've never heard of [w] or [j] being inserted in that way. Do you have a source? Ruakh 01:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What you folks seem to be discussing on this page seems to resemble the French intrusive -t- discussed in the main article. I don't think these are really liaison, but is instead epenthesis. There is even a section on inserted consonants, like /p/ in 'hamster'. That's a lot like the /j/ in the 'Mary and John' example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.161.60 (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm severely shocked that no one believes that Liaison happens in English. It's very obvious with "t" in American English: "cut" is [kʌʔ] and "cutting" is [kʌɾɪŋ]. Sure, it may only occur with consonants that get dropped and thus "reappear", but it's still something. Squirrelous (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The /t/ isn't actually being dropped though, it's still pronounced, just with a different allophone. In French it is not pronounced at all. 70.75.233.253 (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The following comes from Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance):

Of course, there is liaison in English, too. "this is" is not pronounced as separate words "this" and "is" but it is connected, just as if it were one word "thisis" [ðɪzɪz]. Compare this to German, which lacks liaison: "dies ist" is not pronounced as "diesist" but as "dies ist" [di:s ʔɪst]. As to Engl. "this is", Germans tend to mispronounce it

[ðɪz ʔɪz]. So without a doubt, English is just like Italian and so many other languages and links words together! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.193.182 (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Translations + GFDL?

If I take an article from, say, the French Wikipedia, and translate it to English, then how do I add that to the English Wikipedia? I mean, the GFDL requires that I indicate in some way that it's a translation of the French article, since a translation is a derivative work and people contributing to the French article did so under the GFDL. How do I indicate that? How does the indicator change once the work is no longer a simple translation, but has undergone further editing here? Ruakh 18:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Would it suffice to add a comment to the Talk page, directing the reader to fr? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, I'd say an indication on the talk page would suffice. Mgm|^(talk) 20:48, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Or you can add a link to the French article under the References Section. Here is an example: Pascual_Orozco#References. — J3ff 22:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks, all. :-) Ruakh 01:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "liaison"

It would be nice to know the pronunciation of 'liaison' -- possibly the accepted English as well as French version.

Making this clear at the beginning of the article would be an improvement, in my opinion. 69.6.162.160 21:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not really an encyclopedia's role; that's more of a dictionary thing. (I don't know why that is, just that it is.)

For your information, though, it's pronounced /ljɛ 'zɔ̃/ in French. As for English, I'm not good with the IPA for English vowels, but informally I'd spell its pronunciation "lee-A-zon." Ruakh 05:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually in French it is pronounced /'ljɛ.zɔ̃/, with the stress implicitly on the penultimate syllable (there's no stress in French on monosyllabic words). The stress is not essential for the distinction of words, but is implicitly used for the separation of words in sentences. It is EXTEMELY REGULARLY on the penultimate syllable, after the adjustments caused by the liaisons and elisions of mute final letters (when a consonnant remains pronounced in final position, it it just part of the previous syllable, even if it bears a mute e after it: when this occurs, that syllable looses the stress which is reported to the prvious one, if it exists.

The analysis that was made that said that the stress was on the last syllable was wrong. It is a false analysis based on old French rules. Popular French tends to slide the stress to the final syllable, and this is the cause of the addition of syllables that should be mute : it is when this extra muste syllable is pronounced that you will see that the previously ultimate syllable becomes stressed. -- 23:24, 3 October 2009‎ User:Verdy p

What little stress there is in standard French (not much) tends almost invariably to be on the last non-schwa vowel of a word, or on the last non-schwa vowel of a group of several words pronounced closely together as a unite. Not sure what you're referring to... AnonMoos (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That's probably one of the best ways to give it's English pronunciation. I'd also say \liːeɪzɒn\. If one knew this particular pseudo-IPA scheme, one would be able to work out it corresponds to the same in RP, /li.ezɑn/ in GAm. and /liːæɪzɔn/ in AusE: All equally bad at representing the French sound. This is part of the reason it's not Wikipedia's job to indicate pronunciations. (The stress is either on the second last or the last syllable, but if more than one vowel has a full quality I can never work out which just thinking about it.) —Felix the Cassowary 08:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your IPA-ings. :-) And the stress is definitely on the second-to-last syllable, at least in American English.

One quibble: I'm a bit surprised by the iː in your IPA transcriptions of RP and AusE. Doesn't the ː indicate a lengthening of the i? In AmE, at least, the i is quite short (duration-wise, I mean), and I can't imagine any dialect in which the word could be pronounced with an extended i sound. Ruakh 09:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, in a phonetic transcription it does, but in a phonemic one it just means that native speakers consider the first vowel of "liaison" and "bead" to be the same, and "bead" is written as /biːd/. In a stressed syllable, it's pronounced longer than /ɪ/ (KIT) in an equivalent syllable (in RP and AusE), and this extra duration is important in distinguishing it from /ɪ/ (in RP and AusE), so it gets the length mark. In an unstressed syllable it tends to be shortened (at least in AusE), so phonetically one could say it's pronounced as [liæɪzɔn] in AusE. That's part of the way I was able to tell that the first syllable isn't stressed. (OTOH, in American English the duration is often a lot less relevant, even in stressed syllables, and often the way to tell a pair such as bin /bɪn/ vs bean /bin/ apart is by the quality of the sound, and so the colon is often unused even in stressed syllables. This means that to me (as an Australain) the way some Americans say "bean" (or even "bait") can sound like "bin" (or "bet").) —Felix the Cassowary 12:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

• Talk:Liaison — Liaison → Liaison (linguistics) – Too specific on one definition of liaison, but translated from a FA on fr.wiki McNeight 22:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support - Excellent page, but there is no reference to English uses such as a military liaison or as a synonym for affair. McNeight 22:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Ruakh 01:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 08:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

sang impur??

As a native speaker of French, I cannot think of a liaison in [g] or [k]. I'm going to delete this example unless this raises controversy. user: unser_meister

The phrase "sang impur" is from La Marseillaise.

To quote from one of my old French textbooks (Savoir dire: Cours de phonétique et de prononciation, by Diane Dansereau, ISBN 0-669-20996-1):

Les lettres s, x, z, t, d, r, p, g, f, et n, muettes pour la plupart à la fin du mot isolé, se prononcent en liaison de la manière suivante:

[...]

g = [g] dans la langue parlée courante (mais les mots terminés en g sont rares: long été [lɔ̃ ge te])

g = [k] dans le style littéraire soigné: long été [lɔ̃ ke te]

[...]

(For those who don't understand French, the above says, if I may summarize, that it's rare for a word to end in g, but when it does, and a liaison is formed, ordinary spoken speech pronounces it [g], while a careful literary style pronounces it [k].)

Ruakh 01:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't "sang impur" come under the "forbidden liaisons" category: "after the silent final consonant of a singular common noun"?--Andrew, 220.253.100.51 03:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it's still pronounced in La Marseillaise. (And indeed, there a number of fixed expressions where that rule is violated, including nuit et jour, mot à mot, and accent aigu.) Ruakh 12:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As a native speaker of french, I agree with unser meister. There is no liaison with g or k in french today , the exemple of the marseillaise, that I have already met, comes from where at the beginning ? I have always heard people singing it WHITHOUT that liaison and I am fifty...and living when I was young in Paris nor I have heard anybody saying "lon gété" !

I am a native speaker of French in France, and I very regularly hear this [g] or [k] liaison in sang impur. ! Learn to hear, it is almost alwyas there (but if you hear the song in soccer stadiums, you may miss it within the crowd) ! All French militaries learn to pronounce this liaison when singing it. verdy_p (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

thoses liaisons existed maybe in the XIXth century !

a textbook is only a text book, Diane Dansereau is only a professor of french somewhere, where has she found her examples ? Many textbooks have mistakes, here you can see one : liaison in french is not really the "pronounciation of a letter" ! this is only a simplification to explain to students ! stefjourdan@caramail.com

You can find this K-liaison referenced in :

• Pierre Fouché, Traité de prononciation française, Klincksieck, Paris, 1988, réimpr. 2^e éd. 1959, 528 p. ISBN 2-252-02610-3, p. 434-479
• Maurice Grevisse, Le bon usage, 12^e éd. refondue par André Goosse, Duculot, Paris, 1993, 1762 p. ISBN 2-8011-0042-0, p. 45-49

but they are obviously mostly historical. I never heard it either (But I'm only 26.)

I do not remember having heard [g] pronunciation with "long été", but this is indeed a situation where you can feel incomfortable in careful reading : you feel that there "should be something" since anteposed adjective normally require compulsory liaison, yet cannot find it. This happens especially with long and blanc.
Possibly some speakers get rid of the trouble by using a feminine-sounding form "longue" as a prevocalic form of the adjective. There are alreally anteposed adjectives that use prevocalically a feminine-sounding form French (though orthography still distinguishes genders) : 1st, those ending in a nasal vowel make a liaison in -n with denasalisation, which is exactly the way feminines are formed orally (orthographically, you also have to add-e) ; 2nd, beau, nouveau, fou, mou, vieux become bel, nouvel, fol, mol, vieil sounding like the feminines belle, nouvelle, folle, molle, vieille prevocalically (an alternation actually related to historical vocalisation of l). Possibly those speakers inconsciously have a rule "use feminine forms of anteposed adjectives prevocalically" there and extend it to "long". Maybe ; unfortunately, I do not remember any study about it, and as original research, it cannot enter Wikipedia. Bertrand Bellet (on French Wikipedia) 13:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The "gender-switching" idea has been proposed before (Perlmutter 1998, Tranel 1996), but this article argues against it. CapnPrep 13:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

stress in French

The article says "Bearing in mind that stress in French falls on the last syllable of a word, or a group of words when they are bound grammatically,...". I strongly disagree with this statement being native French speaker myself. The French language does not stress any part of a word over another unless a special effect is desired (ex: SEULement ) and in which case it could be anywhere in the word. Where did the wikipedian who wrote that got his/her references from? 209.202.82.139 18:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Artaxerxes

It's well established that in French the accent (l'accent tonique) always falls on the last full syllable of a word or group of words (d'un mot phonétique). Now, accent not being quite the same as stress, there is a minor fix to be made (viz, replace the word stress with accent), but you seem to be objecting to more than that? —Ruakh_TALK 23:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As many french people (I'm french too) Artaxerces is not aware of the existence of an accent tonique in french because 1 we are not taught this fact in school 2 the stress is very seldom distinctive (I mean enabling the listener to separate two different words)in french it is indeed very difficult for french people to prononce and memorize the position of the stress in foreign words, even when the accent is at the same place that in french. for example a frenchman reading or saying the italian name "Alberto" will say "Alber'to" instead of "Al'berto" closer to the french "Al'ber(t)"... stefjourdan@caramail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.198.192 (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Liaison (linguistics) → Liaison (French) — The current article focuses entirely on French. French liaison is large enough to merit its own article, but obstructs the broader article on linguistic liaison at Sandhi. The name Liaison (French), to match Elision (French), would be more precise. Would also include making Liaison (linguistics) a redirect to Sandhi. Xander 05:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Oppose. I think the real problem is that most of the information here is more appropriate to Wikibooks than to Wikipedia. Do we really need to give all the contexts in which liaison is obligatory, optional, or forbidden? We can shorten the French section significantly, and add other languages within the same article. Ruakh 17:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, if this is just about making the naming scheme slightly more coherent. CapnPrep 16:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. If people do think that all this information on French liaison is appropriate on Wikipedia — as opposed to its simply being here due to inertia — then it should be in a separate, French-specific article. Ruakh 02:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

In principle it would be possible to have non-overlapping but appropriately interlinked pages about Sandhi in general ("Sandhi"), Liaison in general ("Liaison (linguistics)"), and Liaison in French ("Liaison (French)"). At the moment the first one is a stub, the second one does not actually exist, and the third one exists but is disguised as the second one. After the renaming, there can be a separate discussion about whether the content of Liaison (French) (and Elision (French)) should be moved to Wikibooks. And in the meantime maybe the pages Liaison (linguistics) and Elision (linguistics) will exist and contain the cross-linguistic discussion that one would expect. CapnPrep 16:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Why create an article if we think it shouldn't ultimately exist? Ruakh 16:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you think it shouldn't exist, but that's another debate… I agree that we should remove some content from the current article to make room for other languages, but this French-specific content should be removed to another (appropriately named) article where (1) people who are not interested can safely avoid it, and (2) you could launch the discussion to have it deleted as too detailed for WP. I think people would be more receptive to that proposal if they could see what becomes of French in Liaison (linguistics) or in Sandhi after the implementation of this renaming proposal. CapnPrep 16:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. I think it makes more sense to decide first whether we want all this content to be on Wikipedia at all; if we don't, then we don't need to worry about the move proposal and creating a doomed article. Ruakh 22:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You are presupposing the speed and outcome of that discussion, but I'm sure it will take some time to convince everyone to migrate all detailed French grammar articles to Wikibooks… In the meantime, why not attempt to fix the crazy naming scheme? Another consideration is that no one dares to add any non-French information to the current article. We would be more likely to get cross-linguistic contributions if we restarted Liaison (linguistics) from scratch. CapnPrep 23:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not arguing that all detailed French grammar articles should be migrated to Wikibooks; it just seems to me that there's a point where we pass from encyclopedic information to more textbook/guide/tutorial-appropriate information. The only French-related articles I feel this way about are French conjugation, French verb morphology, and Liaison (linguistics); some of the others maybe have a bit of unencyclopedic content, or organize encyclopedic content unencyclopedically, but these are the only articles that in my opinion aren't primarily encyclopedic.

Second of all, I'm presupposing neither of those things. It's okay if that discussion takes a while; it's not like we're in a hurry to move the existing article. (Are we?) And are you opposed to shortening the French section? Because if you're not opposed, and no one else is stating their opposition, then WP:BOLD means we don't really need to have a discussion about it before undertaking it.

And I'm certainly not presupposing that such a discussion would necessarily result in my proposal being implemented (shortening the French section significantly, possibly moving the existing text to Wikibooks, and adding information about other languages); I'm simply stating that such a discussion could result in my proposal being implemented, in which case having moved this article will simply make matters much more complicated (since we'll have a weird merge,-trim,-and-not-quite-delete,-per-the-GFDL).

Ruakh 01:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The current article seems perfectly encyclopedic to me (and in fact, not particularly appropriate for a textbook/tutorial in its overall approach to the topic) — it's just poorly named. So yes, I am opposed to shortening it significantly if that means removing the information from WP altogether. CapnPrep 02:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Capitalizing Latin.

Regarding the recent revert war: I'd like to cast my vote for spelling Latin using normal modern conventions — Romance-style capitalization (most words all-lowercase, some words starting with a capital letter for any of various reasons), distinguishing u and v but not i and j, marking long vowels with macrons and leaving short vowels unmarked. —Ruakh_TALK 18:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Some remarks, excuse my english...

1 "In French, most written word-final consonants are silent in most contexts. Liaison is the pronunciation of such a consonant immediately before a following vowel sound. For example, the letter s in the word les ("the") is generally silent, but it is pronounced /z/ in the combination les amis ("the friends"). In certain syntactic contexts, liaison is impossible; in others, it is obligatory; and in yet others, it is possible but not obligatory"

this is a very naive definition, based on the "letter concept" of the vovels and consonants, the rest of the article is more scientific, so it should be stressed here that it is rather the vulgar definition

2 Like elision (as in *je aime → j'aime), it can be characterized functionally as a euphonic strategy for avoiding hiatus. If we look at it like this, we are adopting a synchronic approach. This approach does not explain cases where the first word already ends in a consonant, such as tels‿amis, and is therefore already perfectly euphonic.

very good, and does not explain why hiatus is not avoided in cases like "le plus laid | en france" (compare with les‿enfants)

3 The (usually) silent final consonants of certain words can be pronounced, in certain syntactic contexts, when the following word begins with a vowel. Since the sound thus obtained is an ancient one, spellings that are based on the etymology of the word may not reflect the real pronunciation.

I should specify : "final written consonants" and we are again in the vulgar explanation, based on letters, it would be smarter to refer to latent consonants

4 Littré. A liaison consonant should not be pronounced immediately after [ʁ]. Plural [z] is recognized as an exception to this rule, and various other counterexamples can be observed: pars‿avec lui, fort‿agréable, vers‿une solution.

those examples are not good ! in fort agréable, the liaison with the t is probably an hypercorrectism as you can link with the r but you can say, it's true "for ta gréable" the two other examples simply are out of date : nobody today could say "par za vec lui" or "ver zun solusion" even in poetry or theatre so I think your counter examples are wrong and Littré is still good !

5 [taːtɑ̃dy].) this phonetic transcription is not good, the tilde should be on top of the a instead of the d, but this a smal problem. the great problem is that the [aː] does not retranscript the prononciation of this phonemes : a long a is not prononced here but rather a long a with two peaks of intensity !

6 Careful pronunciation (but without the obligatory reading of “null e’s”) is necessary in a formal setting. yes, it is what I call diction (see the diction page in french) The voice is a tool of persuasion: it reflects, through a pronunciation perceived as correct (according to prevailing norms), intellectual qualities, culture, self-control, and wit. Pushed too far, the over-proliferation of liaisons can render a speech ridiculous. or prononciation of all the null e's, yes it's true (and that why the "midi" accent still is laughed at in french...

It has been pointed out that French politicians and speakers (Jacques Chirac, for example) pronounce some liaison consonants, independently of the following word, introducing a pause or a schwa afterwards. For example, ils ont entendu (“they heard”) is normally pronounced /il.z‿ɔ̃ ɑ̃.tɑ̃.dy/ or, in more careful speech, /il.z‿ɔ̃.t‿ɑ̃.tɑ̃.dy/. A speaker using this "politician" pronunciation would say /il.z‿ɔ̃t ǀ ɑ̃.tɑ̃.dy/ (where /ǀ/ represents a pause; ils ont'… entendu). One might even hear ils ont décidé (“they decided”) pronounced /il.z‿ɔ̃t ǀ de.si.de/ (ils ont’… décidé) or /il.z‿ɔ̃.təː(ːːː) de.si.de/ (ils ont’euh… décidé). In the first example, we have liaison without enchaînement, not the normal configuration in ordinary speech. In the second, the liaison is completely non-standard, since it introduces a liaison consonant before another consonant.

the presence of a schwa or a pause in some liaisons can occur in normal native speaker speech, when he hezitates

the same can be true for the apperance of the t in "is ont décidé" (maybe the speaker was hezitating between "décidé" et "envisagé") if the phenomenon stay rare...

but in the case of Chirac, there is a real deformation of the normal process of the liaison, attested by the high frequencie of such prononciations,

taking Chirac as an "example" is dangerous : he doesnt only prononce his liaisons with pauses or shwa but with glottal stops. (Kwowing that glottal stop never occur in obligatory liaison, what can we deduce of their systematic presence in optional liaisons in some speakers speech ?)

that kind of deformation of the liaison, and the production of unnecessary glottal stops can be heard in a growing number of speakers (are they still native speakers of french ? lot of them have a mixed background of overseas/north african/occitan family, Chirac and Bayrou are in the third category, Royal in the first one and other distortions of the caracteristic french phonological system can be observed in their speech : Chirac says "la pé" instead of correct "la pè" for the words "la paix", Royal pronounce her imparfait "mangeais" like "manger")

those speakers, apparently native french, doesnt not display the genuine mecanisms of the french language. Scholars wanting to study those pure phenomenons in french have be very carefull before accepting anybody that dont have an other mother language than french as a "native french speaker" (Bayrou also speaks "bearnais", a variety of occitan; probably Chirac understands the corrèze variety of occitan too, but does he speaks, I dont know ? Does Royal speaks or have spoken in her childhood an african language ? where did their parents come from ?). Especially the mother tongue (see the debate on that concept) of the parents and grand-parents, insisting on matriarcal genealogy. On the other hand, Sarkozy, who emigrated to France at the age of eleven has probably learnd the language by immersion in a traditional speaking environment and does not display phonological deformation, even if his prononciation sometimes seems a little exotic (?)

stefjourdan@caramail.com (user "motunono" in french wikipedia)

Thanks, those are very helpful comments. I'd just add, in regard to the examples from Littré, that it is valuable if the article also covers now-obsolete systems of liaison, with a clear specification, of course, that they are obsolete. I'd hate to see valuable information about past speakers' preferences removed from the encyclopedia, just because it is no longer current; the article is not a how-to and can consider the subject diachronically. Wareh 15:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Liaison with -t- in inverted verbs

Not all traditional grammars agree whether this really belongs liaison or not, partly because many naively define liaison as pronounciation of silent letters, while here there is an additional lette. Of course, linguistically it is obviously one other instance of that specific French sandhi feature, so it may well belong here.

However, I am quite doubtful of this sentence :

Depending on the word, this -t- may be deemed to be euphonic, but in 100% of cases it is the preservation of an ancient t.

I do not think this is true for 1st group verbs, for final latin -t did not remained unchanged there : after the still preserved ultimate vowel (a > e) it was weakened to a fricative [θ], still written t in the oldest Old French texts (e.g. The Song of Roland's last line Si falt la geste que Turoldus declinet "Here ends the story that Turoldus tells"), and disappeared quickly. You have donat > donet > done "gives" (now written donne).
On the other hand, in 2nd and 3rd verb groups the ultimate vowel was regularly dropped (as is regular when not a) and the final -t, now after another consonant, was not weakened and kept in Old French. It disappeared only much afterwards with most other final consonants in the course of Middle French. E. g. debet > deift (in Oaths of Strasbourg) > deit > doit "must, has to", dicit > dist "says" (now dit), *finiscit > finist "finishes, ends" (now finit).
The usual explanation I know of is that the t is indeed historical in 2nd and 3rd group verbs, where it is a regular case of liaison : doit-il, dit-il, finit-il, and that it was analogically extended to 1st group verbs.

That section would then need to be checked and sourced. Bertrand Bellet (on French Wikipedia) 13:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I'm not sure it would be appropriate to put all of this historical detail into the article. I suggest simply rewriting the statement you quoted to make it less disputable. I don't agree, by the way, that this is "obviously" an instance of liaison in modern French, since the inverted forms "donne-t-il", "dit-il" etc. behave like single words, and many linguists would treat the appearance of "/t/" as a word-internal morphological phenomenon. But again, this doesn't really need to go into the article. CapnPrep 12:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

November 2007 edit dispute

The version that I tried to edit (but got reverted) contains incorrect OR:

• "The French could of course have chosen to always write the consonant (e.g. il parlet)"

No. This would mean that "Jean parlet t-à sa mère" is predicted to be a good liaison, but it is in fact a hypercorrection. Contrast with "Jean et Marie parlent t-à leur mère", which has a completely different status.

• "This occurs with the present tense of all non-er verbs"

No. Not ouvrir, (ac)cueillir, assaillir, …, or avoir

I attempted to sidestep the issue of diachronic continuity, because so far I have not found a source to confirm the very strong claim that "in 100% of cases it is the preservation of an ancient t". In the following examples, what evidence is there that an ancient t is still preserved?

et je cuit que si fera il (Erec et Enide, 12th cent.)

Et lors a il encontré jusqu'a vint homes armez (Queste, 13th cent.)

The answer is not "obvious if you know French and Latin"; we will never know exactly what happened during all the centuries in between. Restoring this controversial, flagged statement without attempting to provide a source is unacceptable.

In my edits, I also removed the Latin "sources" because, for example, while chante does come from cantat, and on does come from homo, the suggestion that chante-t-on is the direct descendant of the Latin sentence cantat homo is ridiculous (among other things, because on developed as a proclitic to the verb). The final sentence "No French speaker would ever even accidentally say parl'il", although plausible, is also completely unverified OR. CapnPrep (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: I found an article that states clearly that -t disappeared for four centuries before being reintroduced as a "ridiculous" popular pronunciation in the 15th century, and was not recognized as correct written French until the 17th century. A quote from the author that directly contradicts the previous version of this section: "je me permettrai de rappeler que ce t, quoi qu'en disent les auteurs de certaines grammaires dites "classiques," n'est dû ni à 'l'euphonie' ni à une prétendue survivance du t primitif" (p. 89). CapnPrep (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Impossible liaisons ?

As a native speaker, I am afraid that the "impossible liaisons" category is indeed artificially inflated, as warned before in the text. Acceptability of utterances is known to vary quite a bit between speakers, and I do not agree that these ones are impossible :

• between a non-pronominal subject and the verb: Mes amis arrivent [mezami.aʁiv] ("My friends are arriving.")
• between two complements of a ditransitive verb: donner des cadeaux à Jean [dekado.aʒɑ̃] ("give presents to Jean")

Mes‿amis‿arrivent and donner des cadeaux‿à Jean definitely sound quite stilted, but not plainly wrong to me... as for instance linking the t of et "and" would be, a widely acknowledged impossibility both in grammars and in actual use, that should be mentioned.

Bertrand Bellet (on French Wikipedia) 13:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, does French liaison occur between a verb and a following noun phrase, and is it obligatory? Does it sound it stilted or is it natural?

For example:

Je suis_aux_Etats-Unis. Je vais_en France. Nous_avons_une clef.

I was curious because the examples in the main article do not include these. It does say that a noun phrase subject cannot make liaison with a following verb (ie Mes_amis arrivent). I am also curious how this applies to all the verb forms that end in various other consonants besides -s. Why do they exist?

~Misel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.161.60 (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It’s optional and mostly avoided.

"Je vais_en France" is correct but "Je suis_aux_États-Unis" and "Nous_avons_une_clef" are avoided, probably because of the non euphonic, "lisp-ish", aliterations /zoze/ and /zavɔ̃zyn/" (so "stilted", see Fr. v. zozoter = to lisp). Two consecutive, but different, liaisons are possible: "Ils sont_aux_États-Unis". -- 82.67.107.44 (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC) (A french French speaker.)

Liaison in Names?

Do liaisons ever occur between names? For example, could Francois Olivier become Francois_Olivier? I've never heard the combination pronounced (by a French speaker). Is the liaison possible, or are names a "forbidden" case? Emmastaffron (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It is "forbidden". CapnPrep (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Obligatory liaison

Liaison with inverted verbs

The following doesn't make sense because "on parle" means "we speak", and not "one speaks": on parle [ɔ̃ pɑʁl] parle-t-on [pɑʁl.t‿ɔ̃] one speaks. Deus911 23:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The pronoun On has several meaning in French, because it is impersonnal by itself.

In popular language, on is used nearly always instead of nous "we" (because it gives simpler and shorter conjugated forms). This does never happen in the sustained level of language, where on is only used to be really impersonnal and very general without necessaily implying "nous" (it then means "les gens"). There's even a form, l’on which clearly marks the fact that it is impersonnal and is used in active form instead of using a passive form (without the par quelqu'un "by someone" complement.

So if you translate popular vernacular spoken French, you will translate on as we, most of the time, and for serious written texts, you'll translate it almost always as the impersonnal "one". verdy_p (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thre are many ways of translating "on", even in formal writing. A decent translation into English of 'on' will go beyond translating "on" which litterally means "one" and involve reformulating the phrase so as to make the object the subject and using the passive:

• "On a noté les différences de prix" > "Differences in prices have been noted";

  "On observe une croissance énorme" > "Huge growth has been observed".

are but two simple but frequent examples. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

La Vie en rose

The example je sens-t-en moi is obscure, I can only find sources online stating je sens dans moi which is correct French as far as I know. Simon de Danser (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. CapnPrep (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

reason for enchainement: avoid vowel-initial syllables, NOT closed syllables

It's claimed that enchainement is used to avoid closed syllables. But this is certainly false; schwa deletion is precisely used to GENERATE closed syllables. It's rather that enchainement avoids vowel-initial syllables. French, like Egyptian Arabic, has a strong preference for canonically heavy syllables (CVC or CVV; French doesn't have phonemic length anymore so in practice this amounts to a CVC preference), and both languages use the same strategies to generate this: (1) elision in vowel-vowel sequences; (2) resyllabification ("enchainement") across word boundaries; (3) deletion of "weak" vowels (/ǝ/ in French, /i/ and /u/ in Egyptian Arabic) in VCVCV contexts; (4) vowel insertion to break up CCC sequences (non-standard in French, but common, as in "arc /ǝ/ de triomphe"). (French uses liaison as an additional strategy, while Egyptian Arabic uses vowel lengthening and shortening as additional strategies.) In French, liaison, elision and enchainement all avoid vowel-initial syllables, while enchainement works even in CVCC.VC --> CVC.CVC contexts, where it avoids vowel-initial syllables but has no effect on the closedness of the syllables. Benwing (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you about the tendency to avoid onsetless syllables (and this is stated in the article). But "a strong preference" for CVC syllables is incorrect. It is true that schwa deletion generates a lot of closed syllables, but it is the only productive process that does so. I would say that the motivation for schwa deletion is not the creation of closed syllables, but… well, the deletion of schwa. Enchainement, schwa insertion, and liaison cannot produce new closed syllables. Maybe you mean that enchainement simplifies complex codas VCC.V → VC.CVC, but it more often eliminates the coda altogether and generates an open syllable VC.V → V.CV.

So there is no conspiracy of strategies working towards CVC.CVC structure. If this were the case, we would expect to see productive examples of the following: silent final consonants reappearing before a pause V(C)# → VC#, leftward resyllabification of initial consonant clusters V.CCV → VC.CV, various phenomena of coda epenthesis V.CV → VC.CV, etc.

If you have sources about CVC in French (and the comparison with Egyptian Arabic), we could discuss them at Talk:French phonology. (By the way, I recently removed your statements about this from that article, because they were unsourced and, I felt, inappropriate for the lead of the article.)

Anyway, you were right to tag the unattributed statement claiming that French has 70% open syllables. The figure seems dubiously low: Delattre (1965, p. 42), for example, gives 76%. CapnPrep (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick clarification: French schwa-deletion is motivated by the fact that schwas are usually post-tonic, and post-tonic syllables have a cross-linguistic tendency to generally weaken and drop over time. So, it has everything to do with being a casualty of word stress, and nothing to do with deliberately generating closed syllables. Closed syllables are just a side effect. Torvalu4 (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Embedded template

Without it, all lines with a nasal vowel together with a liaison symbol go screwed up for the 3 computers in my home with Chrome and 2 of them with Firefox. It must be very widespread, because when I use Win7 all other diacritics and bridges that are messed up with XP and were with Vista work perfectly. It does not affect readability, but is very ugly. Can I restore it? Lguipontes (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible image for article

Bal des 4 zarts 1893

-- AnonMoos (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Liaison in other languages

If this section were right, liaison would happen in every language, which is not the case. The phenomenon is not liaison, it's enchaînement, linking of a final consonant which would be pronounced anyway to a word beginning with a vowel. Liaison is pronouncing a normally silent final consonant. Thus, it's characteristic of French. --Explosivo (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Impossible liaison: aspirated H

For impossible liaison before some words beginning with h. I heard that words of Latin origin allow a liaison and elision (l'homme (lum), aucun homme (okuh num), but words of Frankish/Germanic origin do not (le homard (luh omar), aucun homard (okuh omar)). In French dictionaries the aspirate-h are marked as *h in the H section, where no liaison or elision before the h is allowed, although h is no longer pronounced in French in any case. A non-French speaker won't be able to tell unless they study how the word is marked in a dictionary. 66.241.130.86 (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC) Oh, I guess a discussion of this is already included in the "aspirated h" link anyway. 66.241.130.86 (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent move

Albeit a bit old, the current title was nonetheless a result of a proper proposal (#Requested move 2 above) so I have to call into question Emir's approval of SpikeballUnion's request at WP:RM/TR as "technical", much less "uncontroversial". WP:Article titles prompts us to use concise titles, and since there is only one article about a phonological process called "liaison", while just "Liaison (phonological process)" may be rather acceptable, including both "French" and "phonological process" in the parenthetical disambiguation is inherently redundant. Nardog (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@SpikeballUnion: This move has been contested and reverted. If you want the move to take place then please open a formal RM discussion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nardog: I made the move because I believed the article was for the definition of the word "liaison" in French at first. It turns out it was for the phonological process in French. The brackets should clarify what the title actually is, not merely display some term associate with it. Just like how you have Africa (Toto song) and Africa (Roman province), the brackets should clarify what "Liaison" actually is. SpikeballUnion (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, sometimes the disambiguator is an associated term; for example, Tim James (basketball) is not a basketball and Property (philosophy) is not a philosophy. Gorobay (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Neuf is the only French word ending on mute -f.

Are you sure it's mute? All dictionaries state that -f is always pronounced, in TV shows I hear the same ("neuf lettres" always with [f], but "six lettres" without [s]). And the change -f -> -v here can be either euphonic or similar to adjectives ending in -f (vif/vive, neuf/neuve etc.). PS, -q in "cinq" is also pronounced everywhere. Siealex (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)