Talk:Quebec French phonology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What I'd appreciate a lot is if two speakers, one Quebecois and the other French, read and recorded a sample text for comparison. ______________

It would be helpful if the article weren't so jargonized. I find it very hard to glean useful information here. It seems to be written for professional linguists. Nine999999999s 20:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)nine999999999s

actually, as a native speaker and a university professor of linguistics, I can attest that there is a bunch of non sense or ill-formulated stuff in there. poorly documented as well. needs a MAJOR clean-up 67.68.132.157 05:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] /ɛ/ and /e/

Even if Parisian/Metropolitan French merges some of the French vowels, I don't agree when it is said that it merges /ɛ/ and /e/. Apart from merging the declensions -ai/-ais (for the future and the conditional tenses, both pronounced /ɛ/), we can still distinguish "ses" and "sait". Transcendency (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some clarification is in order. I don't see any part saying that there's a complete merger, just some instances where the open vowel becomes more tense. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone originally put a distinction between /ɜː/ and /ɛ/. I removed /ɜː/ because it's not a phoneme in either French or Canadian French, and replaced it with /e/. /ɛ/ and /e/ are often interchangeable (if not merged) in various Hexagonal French dialects, although some do retain the difference, most don't, but the distinction is still strong in Québec French. Now that I look back, it might have been intended to distinguish /ɛ/ and /ɛː/ instead (although /ɛː/ was never a phoneme in Hexagonal French). But to be honest, the whole first line is kind of ugly, and doesn't actually introduce the topic, so I'd say remove it (or incorporate it elsewhere), and create a better summary for the article. - Io Katai (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] /d͡z t͡s/ vs. /dz ts/

I understand the reason for the change, since such symbols as ʦ and ʣ are now not considered standard IPA, however I do not believe that changing them to [dz] and [ts] is a better alternative. For one, both /d/ and /t/ affricate before the front high vowels [y] and [i], meaning that they're entirely allophonic to the underlying /d/ and /t/. I think the distinction should be kept in order not to confuse [pət.si] from [pə.tsi], which is generally how the sequence /ts/ (and /dz/) is handled at the exception of word-initially (e.g. tsar). Compare words such as trente-six, where the sequence [ts] can further be reduced to [s] in some speakers. And then you'd also have to consider the assimilation of loan words, whereas most speakers will completely omit final plurals in English words, some others (usually closer to the Ontarian border) won't hesitate to pronounce final stop-fricative sequences (e.g. chats [tʃats]) - Io Katai (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. User:Jasy jatere has claimed here that it is only slight affrication and [t^s] and [d^z] may be a better representation. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)