|Linguistics: Applied Linguistics|
Wasn't also a loss of the circumflex? Quête -> quete; êtat -> etat
- Not to my knowledge. The official report goes on conserve l’accent circonflexe sur a, e, et o, mais sur i et sur u il n’est plus obligatoire... Removing the circumflex in <quête> would change it from /kE:t/ to /k@t/. As of <êtat>, it doesn't exist, I believe you meant <état> which is unchanged too because there is no problem with it: /eta/. --Valmi 18:44, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I find this passage lacking both objectivity and historical accuracy:
"Interestingly, some spellings were also complicated with the addition of a mute T ending.
- parens → parents (parents)"
"Parens" was the plural form of "parent", thus the reintroduction of t was logical. That t wasn't always mute! It had been customary to say /parA~t_s/, but when the /t_s/ affricates formed from latin /k/ before /i/ and /e/ reduced to /s/, the /t_s/ affricates at the end of words ending in /t/ tagged along, later causing this orthographic discrepancy.
Basically, they did not make something more complex, they eliminated a complication!--126.96.36.199 21:31, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Addressed. As I mentionned earlier, I have a strong POV on the subject, so tight scrutiny of what I wrote is appreciated.
- I didn't see fit to add the whole explanation as you provided it, but I think it may be of interest to create an article French orthography – that is if anyone show interest, which so far they haven't. --Valmi 20:09, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone know why in the 1740 Académie française quote all the letters with an accent have been bolded? If there's no logical reason for that, I will unbold them. Hardouin 17:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Because in 1740 the Academy was approving of the existence of those diacritics for the first time. Actually the sole reason why this quote is interesting is to show the heavily reformed orthography. This is why I didn't even translate it into English. --Valmi ✒ 15:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Spelling reform and the Wikipedia
What is the French Wikipedia's position on the 1990 reform ? Has the new spelling been used in Wikipedia articles yet ? 188.8.131.52 01:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Most importantly, all OI digraphs that represented /ɛ/ were changed to AI, thus changing the whole imperfect conjugation of all verbs.
Not quite true, the nous and vous forms didn't change, so it wasn't the whole conjugation.
- nous étions vous étiez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- aimé-je ? → aimè-je ? [ɛmɛʒ] (do I like?)
I don't know what that is, but it's not french in either case.
- Why is it not French? Do you mean the reformed spelling? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The "intro" to this page jumps right in with a bunch of technical jargon, and it's not clear at all what the big picture view of this subject is. Obviously it's related to French language, and I might even know what the general subject is about, but there's no indication in the article as to what that might be. I think it needs a clear, concise introduction that includes a general description of what "Reforms of French Orthography" is and how it fits into the world around us, without assuming prior technical knowledge on the part of the reader. I found the page linked in an update to the French OOo language tools, and it was really uninformative to me as a lay reader. --banzaimonkey (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
"that distinguishes men of letters from ignoramuses and simple women"
I looked around for a sors of this quote but didnt find it. But i found wat seems to be the orijinal book on Google Books. I kant reed French tho, but perhaps somone kan chek the introduktion to see if the quote is ther or not.Deleet (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC) http://books.google.dk/books?id=y57VIFOi41MC&printsec=frontcover&hl=da&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
- That is not the first edition of the dictionary, and the quote was not taken from the dictionary, but from another document published by the Académie. I have added a source. CapnPrep (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Article on 1990 Orthography Changes
The French Wikipedia has a massive article on the orthography reforms of 1990 (See here). As far as I can tell, this Wikipedia doesn't have an independent article for this set of changes (although they are dealt with fairly thoroughly in this article). The French article contains more details about the changes themselves, as well as information about they are used in various francophone countries. I could translate the French article into a new article on the English Wikipedia if anyone thinks it would be worth it. I probably won't act without any further affirmation, and even if I do it will be a while, as it is quite a large article. Thanks for your opinion, Symphonic Spenguin (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
What about splitting the section "Rectifications of 1990"?
There has been a separate article regarding these contents in several other languages including French, Russian, etc. Meanwhile, those pages as well as relevant pages on Wiktionary are connected on one Wikidata item. In the English article, too much has been written inside, which is much better to split the section into the separate article, whilst expanding the article according to the French version.The current version really needs to be completely renovated! I'll try my best to translate it from French with my limited French ability. -- UNITE TOGETHER, STRIVE FOR SURVIVAL! 03:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)