FOOTNOTE:

[1] Numerous remains of a stone age have been discovered, both on the

coast and in the hinterland. See L. Desplagnes, "L'Archeologie

prehistorique en Guinee francaise," in _Bull. Soc. Geog. Comm. de

Bordeaux_, March 1907, and the authorities there cited.

FRENCH LANGUAGE. I. _Geography._--French is the general name of the

north-north-western group of Romanic dialects, the modern Latin of

northern Gaul (carried by emigration to some places--as lower

Canada--out of France). In a restricted sense it is that variety of the

Parisian dialect which is spoken by the educated, and is the general

literary language of France. The region in which the native language is

termed French consists of the northern half of France (including

Lorraine) and parts of Belgium and Switzerland; its boundaries on the

west are the Atlantic Ocean and the Celtic dialects of Brittany; on the

north-west and north, the English Channel; on the north-east and east

the Teutonic dialects of Belgium, Germany and Switzerland. In the

south-east and south the boundary is to a great extent conventional and

ill-defined, there being originally no linguistic break between the

southern French dialects and the northern Provencal dialects of southern

France, north-western Italy and south-western Switzerland. It is formed

partly by spaces of intermediate dialects (some of whose features are

French, others Provencal), partly by spaces of mixed dialects resulting

from the invasion of the space by more northern and more southern

settlers, partly by lines where the intermediate dialects have been

suppressed by more northern (French) and more southern (Provencal)

dialects without these having mixed. Starting in the west at the mouth

of the Gironde, the boundary runs nearly north soon after passing

Bordeaux; a little north of Angouleme it turns to the east, and runs in

this direction into Switzerland to the north of Geneva.

II. _External History._--(a) _Political._--By the Roman conquests the

language of Rome was spread over the greater part of southern and

western Europe, and gradually supplanted the native tongues. The

language introduced was at first nearly uniform over the whole empire,

Latin provincialisms and many more or less general features of the older

vulgar language being suppressed by the preponderating influence of the

educated speech of the capital. As legions became stationary, as

colonies were formed, and as the natives adopted the language of their

conquerors, this language split up into local dialects, the

distinguishing features of which are due, as far as can be ascertained

(except, to some extent, as to the vocabulary), not to speakers of

different nationalities misspeaking Latin, each with the peculiarities

of his native language, but to the fact that linguistic changes, which

are ever occurring, are not perfectly uniform over a large area, however

homogeneous the speakers. As Gaul was not conquered by Caesar till the

middle of the first century before our era, its Latin cannot have begun

to differ from that of Rome till after that date; but the artificial

retention of classical Latin as the literary and official language after

the popular spoken language had diverged from it, often renders the

chronology of the earlier periods of the Romanic languages obscure. It

is, however, certain that the popular Latin of Gaul had become

differentiated from that of central Italy before the Teutonic conquest

of Gaul, which was not completed till the latter half of the 5th

century; the invaders gradually adopted the language of their more

civilized subjects, which remained unaffected, except in its vocabulary.

Probably by this time it had diverged so widely from the artificially

preserved literary language that it could no longer be regarded merely

as mispronounced Latin; the Latin documents of the next following

centuries contain many clearly popular words and forms, and the literary

and popular languages are distinguished as _latina_ and _romana_. The

term _gallica_, at first denoting the native Celtic language of Gaul, is

found applied to its supplanter before the end of the 9th century, and

survives in the Breton _gallek_, the regular term for "French." After

the Franks in Gaul had abandoned their native Teutonic language, the

term _francisca_, by which this was denoted, came to be applied to the

Romanic one they adopted, and, under the form _francaise_, remains its

native name to this day; but this name was confined to the Romanic of

northern Gaul, which makes it probable that this, at the time of the

adoption of the name _francisca_, had become distinct from the Romanic

of southern Gaul. _Francisca_ is the Teutonic adjective _frankisk_,

which occurs in Old English in the form _frencise_; this word, with its

umlauted _e_ from _a_ with following _i_, survives under the form

_French_, which, though purely Teutonic in origin and form, has long

been exclusively applied to the Romanic language and inhabitants of

Gaul. The German name _franzose_, with its accent on, and _o_ in, the

second syllable, comes from _francois_, a native French form older than

_francais_, but later than the Early Old French _franceis_. The

Scandinavian settlers on the north-west coast of France early in the

10th century quickly lost their native speech, which left no trace

except in some contributions to the vocabulary of the language they

adopted. The main feature since is the growth of the political supremacy

of Paris, carrying with it that of its dialect; in 1539 Francis I.

ordered that all public documents should be in French (of Paris), which

then became the official language of the whole kingdom, though it is

still foreign to nearly half its population.

The conquest of England in 1066 by William, duke of Normandy, introduced

into England, as the language of the rulers and (for a time) most of the

writers, the dialects spoken in Normandy (see also ANGLO-NORMAN

LITERATURE). Confined in their native country to definite areas, these

dialects, following their speakers, became mixed in England, so that

their forms were used to some extent indifferently; and the constant

communication with Normandy maintained during several reigns introduced

also later forms of continental Norman. As the conquerors learned the

language of the conquered, and as the more cultured of the latter

learned that of the former, the Norman of England (including that of the

English-speaking Lowlands of Scotland) became anglicized; instead of

following the changes of the Norman of France, it followed those of

English. The accession in 1154 of Henry II. of Anjou disturbed the

Norman character of Anglo-French, and the loss of Normandy under John in

1204 gave full play to the literary importance of the French of Paris,

many of whose forms afterwards penetrated to England. At the same time

English, with a large French addition to its vocabulary, was steadily

recovering its supremacy, and is officially employed (for the first time

since the Conquest) in the Proclamation of Henry III., 1258. The

semi-artificial result of this mixture of French of different dialects

and of different periods, more or less anglicized according to the date

or education of the speaker or writer, is generally termed "the

Anglo-Norman dialect"; but the term is misleading for a great part of

its existence, because while the French of Normandy was not a single

dialect, the later French of England came from other French provinces

besides Normandy, and being to a considerable extent in artificial

conditions, was checked in the natural development implied by the term

"dialect." The disuse of Anglo-French as a natural language is evidenced

by English being substituted for it in legal proceedings in 1362, and in

schools in 1387; but law reports were written in it up to about 1600,

and, converted into modern literary French, it remains in official use

for giving the royal assent to bills of parliament.

(b) _Literary._--Doubtless because the popular Latin of northern Gaul

changed more rapidly than that of any other part of the empire, French

was, of all the Romanic dialects, the first to be recognized as a

distinct language, and the first to be used in literature; and though

the oldest specimen now extant is probably not the first, it is

considerably earlier than any existing documents of the allied

languages. In 813 the council of Tours ordered certain homilies to be

translated into Rustic Roman or into German; and in 842 Louis the

German, Charles the Bald, and their armies confirmed their engagements

by taking oaths in both languages at Strassburg. These have been

preserved to us by the historian Nithard (who died in 853); and though,

in consequence of the only existing manuscript (at Paris) being more

than a century later than the time of the author, certain alterations

have occurred in the text of the French oaths, they present more archaic

forms (probably of North-Eastern French) than any other document. The

next memorials are a short poem, probably North-Eastern, on St Eulalia,

preserved in a manuscript of the 10th century at Valenciennes, and some

autograph fragments (also at Valenciennes) of a homily on the prophet

Jonah, in mixed Latin and Eastern French, of the same period. To the

same century belong a poem on Christ's Passion, apparently in a mixed

(not intermediate) language of French and Provencal, and one, probably

in South-Eastern French, on St Leger; both are preserved, in different

handwritings, in a MS. at Clermont-Ferrand, whose scribes have

introduced many Provencal forms. After the middle of the 11th century

literary remains are comparatively numerous; the chief early

representative of the main dialects are the following, some of them

preserved in several MSS., the earliest of which, however (the only ones

here mentioned), are in several cases a generation or two later than the

works themselves. In Western French are a verse life of St Alexius

(Alexis), probably Norman, in an Anglo-Norman MS. at Hildesheim; the

epic poem of Roland, possibly also Norman, in an A.-N. MS. at Oxford; a

Norman verbal translation of the Psalms, in an A.-N. MS. also at Oxford;

another later one, from a different Latin version, in an A.-N. MS. at

Cambridge; a Norman translation of the Four Books of Kings, in a

probably A.-N. MS. at Paris. The earliest work in the Parisian dialect

is probably the Travels of Charlemagne, preserved in a late Anglo-Norman

MS. with much altered forms. In Eastern French, of rather later date,

there are translations of the Dialogues of Pope Gregory, in a MS. at

Paris, containing also fragments of Gregory's Moralities, and (still

later) of some Sermons of St Bernard, in a MS. also in Paris. From the

end of the 12th century literary and official documents, often including

local charters, abound in almost every dialect, until the growing

influence of Paris caused its language to supersede in writing the other

local ones. This influence, occasionally apparent about the end of the

12th century, was overpowering in the 15th, when authors, though often

displaying provincialisms, almost all wrote in the dialect of the

capital; the last dialect to lose its literary independence was the

North-Eastern, which, being the Romanic language of Flanders, had a

political life of its own, and (modified by Parisian) was used in

literature after 1400.

III. _Internal History._--Though much has been done in recent years, in

the scientific investigation of the sounds, inflexions, and syntax of

the older stages and dialects of French, much still remains to be done,

and it must suffice here to give a sketch, mainly of the dialects which

were imported into England by the Normans--in which English readers will

probably take most interest, and especially of the features which

explain the forms of English words of French origin. Dates and places

are only approximations, and many statements are liable to be modified

by further researches. The primitive Latin forms given are often not

classical Latin words, but derivatives from these; and reference is

generally made to the Middle English (Chaucerian) pronunciation of

English words, not the modern.

(a) _Vocabulary._--The fundamental part of the vocabulary of French is

the Latin imported into Gaul, the French words being simply the Latin

words themselves, with the natural changes undergone by all living

speech, or derivatives formed at various dates. Comparatively few words

were introduced from the Celtic language of the native inhabitants

(_bec_, _lieue_ from the Celtic words given by Latin writers as

_beccus_, _leuca_), but the number adopted from the language of the

Teutonic conquerors of Gaul is large (_guerre_ = _werra_; _laid_ =

_laidh_; _choisir_ = _kausjan_). The words were imported at different

periods of the Teutonic supremacy, and consequently show chronological

differences in their sounds (_hair_ = _hatan_; _francais_ = _frankisk_;

_ecrevisse_ = _krebiz_; _echine_ = _skina_). Small separate importations

of Teutonic words resulted from the Scandinavian settlement in France,

and the commercial intercourse with the Low German nations on the North

Sea (_friper_ = Norse _hripa_; _chaloupe_ = Dutch _sloop_; _est_ = Old

English _east_). In the meantime, as Latin (with considerable

alterations in pronunciation, vocabulary, &c.) continued in literary,

official and ecclesiastical use, the popular language borrowed from time

to time various more or less altered classical Latin words; and when the

popular language came to be used in literature, especially in that of

the church, these importations largely increased (_virginitet_ Eulalia =

_virginitatem_; _imagena_ Alexis = _imaginem_--the popular forms would

probably have been _vergedet_, _emain_). At the Renaissance they became

very abundant, and have continued since, stifling to some extent the

developmental power of the language. Imported words, whether Teutonic,

classical Latin or other, often receive some modification at their

importation, and always take part in all subsequent natural phonetic

changes in the language (Early Old French _adversarie_, Modern French

_adversaire_). Those French words which appear to contradict the

phonetic laws were mostly introduced into the language after the taking

place (in words already existing in the language) of the changes

formulated by the laws in question; compare the late imported _laique_

with the inherited _lai_, both from Latin _laicum_. In this and many

other cases the language possesses two forms of the same Latin word, one

descended from it, the other borrowed (_meuble_ and _mobile_ from

_mobilem_). Some Oriental and other foreign words were brought in by the

crusaders (_amiral_ from _amir_); in the 16th century, wars, royal

marriages and literature caused a large number of Italian words

(_soldat_ = _soldato_; _brave_ = _bravo_; _caresser_ = _carezzare_) to

be introduced, and many Spanish ones (_alcove_ = _alcoba_; _habler_ =

_hablar_). A few words have been furnished by Provencal (_abeille_,

_cadenas_), and several have been adopted from other dialects into the

French of Paris (_esquiver_ Norman or Picard for the Paris-French

_eschiver_). German has contributed a few (_blocus_ = _blochus_;

_choucroute_ = _surkrut_); and recently a considerable number have been

imported from England (_drain_, _confortable_, _flirter_). In Old

French, new words are freely formed by derivation, and to a less extent

by composition; in Modern French, borrowing from Latin or other foreign

languages is the more usual course. Of the French words now obsolete

some have disappeared because the things they express are obsolete;

others have been replaced by words of native formation, and many have

been superseded by foreign words generally of literary origin; of those

which survive, many have undergone considerable alterations in meaning.

A large number of Old French words and meanings, now extinct in the

language of Paris, were introduced into English after the Norman

Conquest; and though some have perished, many have survived--_strife_

from Old French _estrif_ (Teutonic _strit_); _quaint_ from _cointe_

(_cognitum_); _remember_ from _remembrer_ (_rememorare_); _chaplet_

(garland) from _chapelet_ (Modern French "chaplet of beads");

_appointment_ (rendezvous) from _appointement_ (now "salary"). Many also

survive in other French dialects.

(b) _Dialects._--The history of the French language from the period of

its earliest extant literary memorials is that of the dialects composing

it. But as the popular notion of a dialect as the speech of a definite

area, possessing certain peculiarities confined to and extending

throughout that area, is far from correct, it will be advisable to drop

the misleading divisions into "Norman dialect," "Picard dialect" and the

like, and take instead each important feature in the chronological order

(as far as can be ascertained) of its development, pointing out roughly

the area in which it exists, and its present state. The local terms used

are intentionally vague, and it does not, for instance, at all follow

that because "Eastern" and "Western" are used to denote the localities

of more than one dialectal feature, the boundary line between the two

divisions is the same in each case. It is, indeed, because dialectal

differences as they arise do not follow the same boundary lines (much

less the political divisions of provinces), but cross one another to any

extent, that to speak of the dialect of a large area as an individual

whole, unless that area is cut off by physical or alien linguistic

boundaries, creates only confusion. Thus the Central French of Paris,

the ancestor of classical Modern French, agrees with a more southern

form of Romanic (Limousin, Auvergne, Forez, Lyonnais, Dauphine) in

having _ts_, not _tsh_, for Latin _k_ (_c_) before _i_ and _e_; _tsh_,

not _k_, for _k_ (_c_) before _a_; and with the whole South in having

_gu_, not _w_, for Teutonic _w_; while it belongs to the East in having

_oi_ for earlier _ei_; and to the West in having _e_, not _ei_, for

Latin _a_; and _i_, not _ei_, from Latin _e_ + _i_. It may be well to

denote that Southern _French_ does not correspond to southern _France_,

whose native language is Provencal. "Modern French" means ordinary

educated Parisian French.

(e) _Phonology._--The history of the sounds of a language is, to a

considerable extent, that of its inflections, which, no less than the

body of a word, are composed of sounds. This fact, and the fact that

unconscious changes are much more reducible to law than conscious ones,

render the phonology of a language by far the surest and widest

foundation for its dialectology, the importance of the sound-changes in

this respect depending, not on their prominence, but on the earliness of

their date. For several centuries after the divergence between spoken

and written Latin, the history of these changes has to be determined

mainly by reasoning, aided by a little direct evidence in the

misspellings of inscriptions the semi-popular forms in glossaries, and

the warnings of Latin grammarians against vulgarities. With the rise of

Romanic literature the materials for tracing the changes become

abundant, though as they do not give us the sounds themselves, but only

their written representations, much difficulty, and some uncertainty,

often attach to deciphering the evidence. Fortunately, early Romanic

orthography, that of Old French included (for which see next section),

was phonetic, as Italian orthography still is; the alphabet was

imperfect, as many new sounds had to be represented which were not

provided for in the Roman alphabet from which it arose, but writers

aimed at representing the sounds they uttered, not at using a fixed

combination of letters for each word, however they pronounced it.

The characteristics of French as distinguished from the allied languages

and from Latin, and the relations of its sounds, inflections and syntax

to those of the last-named language, belong to the general subject of

the Romanic languages. It will be well, however, to mention here some of

the features in which it agrees with the closely related Provencal, and

some in which it differs. As to the latter, it has already been pointed

out that the two languages glide insensibly into one another, there

being a belt of dialects which possess some of the features of each.

French and Provencal of the 10th century--the earliest date at which

documents exist in both--agree to a great extent in the treatment of

Latin final consonants and the vowels preceding them, a matter of great

importance for inflections (numerous French examples occur in this

section), (1) They reject all vowels, except _a_, of Latin final

(unaccented) syllables, unless preceded by certain consonant

combinations or followed by _nt_ (here, as elsewhere, certain exceptions

cannot be noticed); (2) they do not reject _a_ similarly situated; (3)

they reject final (unaccented) _m_; (4) they retain final s. French and

Northern Provencal also agree in changing Latin _ue_ from a

labio-guttural to a labio-palatal vowel; the modern sound (German _ue_)

of the accented vowel of French _lune_, Provencal _luna_, contrasting

with that in Italian and Spanish _luna_, appears to have existed before

the earliest extant documents. The final vowel laws generally apply to

the unaccented vowel preceding the accented syllable, if it is preceded

by another syllable, and followed by a single consonant--_matin_

(_matutinum_), _dortoir_ (_dormitorium_), with vowel dropped; _canevas_

(_cannabaceum_), _armedure_, later _armeure_, now _armure_

(_armaturam_), with _e_ = _[schwa]_, as explained below.

On the other hand, French differs from Provencal: (1) in uniformly

preserving (in Early Old French) Latin final _t_, which is generally

rejected in Provencal--French _aimet_ (Latin _amat_), Provencal _ama_;

_aiment_ (_amant_), Prov. _aman_; (2) in always rejecting, absorbing or

consonantizing the vowel of the last syllable but one, if unaccented; in

such words as _angele_ (often spelt _angle_), the _e_ after the _g_ only

serves to show its soft sound--French _veintre_ (now _vaincre_, Latin

_vincere_), Prov. _vencer_, with accent on first syllable; French

_esclandre_ (_scandalum_), Prov. _escandol_; French _olie_ (dissyllabic,

_i_ = _y_ consonant, now _huile_), Prov. _oli_ (_oleum_); (3) in

changing accented _a_ not in position into _ai_ before nasals and

gutturals and not after a palatal, and elsewhere into _e_ (West French)

or _ei_ (East French), which develops an _i_ before it when preceded by

a palatal--French _main_ (Latin _manum_), Prov. _man_; _aigre_

(_acrem_), _agre_; _ele_ (_alam_), East French _eile_, Prov. _ala_;

_meitie_ (_medietatem_), East French _moitieit_, Prov. _meitat_; (4) in

changing _a_ in unaccented final syllables into the vowel _[schwa]_,

intermediate to _a_ and _e_; this vowel is written _a_ in one or two of

the older documents, elsewhere _e_--French _aime_ (Latin _ama_), Prov.

_ama_; _aimes_ (_amas_), Prov. _amas_; _aimet_ (_amat_), Prov. _ama_;

(5) in changing original _au_ into _o_--French _or_ (_aurum_), Prov.

_aur_; _rober_ (Teutonic _raubon_), Prov. _raubar_; (6) in changing

general Romanic _e_, from accented _e_ and _i_ not in position, into

_ei_--French _veine_ (_venam_), Prov. _vena_; _peil_ (_pilum_), Prov.

_pel_.

As some of the dialectal differences were in existence at the date of

the earliest extant documents, and as the existing materials, till the

latter half of the 11th century, are scanty and of uncertain locality,

the chronological order (here adopted) of the earlier sound-changes is

only tentative.

(1) Northern French has _tsh_ (written _c_ or _ch_) for Latin _k_

(_c_) and _t_ before palatal vowels, where Central and Southern French

have _ts_ (written _c_ or _z_)--North Norman and Picard _chire_

(_ceram_), _brach_ (_brachium_), _plache_ (_plateam_); Parisian, South

Norman, &c., _cire_, _braz_, _place_. Before the close of the Early

Old French period (12th century) _ts_ loses its initial consonant, and

the same happened to _tsh_ a century or two later; with this change

the old distinction is maintained--Modern Guernsey and Picard _chire_,

Modern Picard _plache_ (in ordinary Modern French spelling); usual

French _cire_, _place_. English, having borrowed from North and South

Norman (and later Parisian), has instances of both _tsh_ and _s_, the

former in comparatively small number--_chisel_ (Modern French _ciseau_

= (?) _caesellum_), _escutcheon_ (_ecusson_, _scutionem_); _city_

(_cite_, _civitatem_), _place_. (2) Initial Teutonic _w_ is retained

in the north-east and along the north coast; elsewhere, as in the

other Romance languages, _g_ was prefixed--Picard, &c., _warde_

(Teutonic _warda_), _werre_ (_werra_); Parisian, &c., _guarde_,

_guerre_. In the 12th century the _u_ or _w_ of _gu_ dropped, giving

the Modern French _garde_, _guerre_ (with _gu_ = _g_); _w_ remains in

Picard and Walloon, but in North Normandy it becomes _v_--Modern

Guernsey _vason_, Walloon _wazon_, Modern French _gazon_ (Teutonic

_wason_). English has both forms, sometimes in words originally the

same--_wage_ and _gage_ (Modern French _gage_, Teutonic _wadi_);

_warden_ and _guardian_ (_gardien_, _warding_). (3) Latin _b_ after

accented _a_ in the imperfect of the first conjugation, which becomes

_v_ in Eastern French, in Western French further changes to _w_, and

forms the diphthong _ou_ with the preceding vowel--Norman _amowe_

(_amabam_), _portout_ (_portabat_); Burgundian _ameve_, _portevet_.

_-eve_ is still retained in some places, but generally the imperfect

of the first conjugation is assimilated to that of the others--amoit,

like _avoit_ (_habebat_). (4) The palatalization of every then

existing _k_ and _g_ (hard) when followed by _a_, _i_ or _e_, after

having caused the development of _i_ before the _e_ (East French _ei_)

derived from _a_ not in position, is abandoned in the north, the

consonants returning to ordinary _k_ or _g_, while in the centre and

south they are assibilated to _tsh_ or _dzh_--North Norman and Picard

_cachier_ (_captiare_), _kier_ (_carum_), _cose_ (_causam_), _eskiver_

(Teutonic _skiuhan_), _wiket_ (Teutonic _wik_+_ittum_), _gal_

(_gallum_), _gardin_ (from Teutonic _gard_); South Norman and Parisian

_chacier_, _chier_, _chose_, _eschiver_, _guichet_, _jal_, _jardin_.

Probably in the 14th century the initial consonant of _tsh_, _dzh_

disappeared, giving the modern French _chasser_, _jardin_ with _ch_ =

_sh_ and _j_ = _zh_; but _tsh_ is retained in Walloon, and _dzh_ in

Lorraine. The Northern forms survive--Modern Guernsey _cachier_,

_gardin_; Picard _cacher_, _gardin_. English possesses numerous

examples of both forms, sometimes in related words--_catch_ and

_chase_; _wicket_, _eschew_; _garden_, _jaundice_ (_jaunisse_, from

_galbanum_). (5) For Latin accented _a_ not in position Western French

usually has _e_, Eastern French _ei_, both of which take an _i_ before

them when a palatal precedes--Norman and Parisian _per_ (_parem_),

_oiez_ (_audiatis_); Lorraine _peir_, _oieis_. In the 17th and 18th

centuries close _e_ changed to open _e_, except when final or before a

silent consonant--_amer_ (_amarum_) now having _e_, _aimer_ (_amare_)

retaining _e_. English shows the Western close _e_--_peer_ (Modern

French _pair_, Old French _per_), _chief_ (_chef_, _caput_); Middle

High German the Eastern _ei_--_lameir_ (Modern French _l'amer_,

_l'aimer_, _la mer_ = Latin _mare_). (6) Latin accented _e_ not in

position, when it came to be followed in Old French by _i_ unites with

this to form _i_ in the Western dialects, while the Eastern have the

diphthongs _ei_--Picard, Norman and Parisian _pire_ (_pejor_), _piz_

(_pectus_); Burgundian _peire_, _peiz_. The distinction is still

preserved--Modern French _pire_, _pis_; Modern Burgundian _peire_,

_pei_. English words show always _i_--_price_ (_prix_, _pretium_)

_spite_ (_depit_, _despectum_). (7) The nasalization of vowels

followed by a nasal consonant did not take place simultaneously with

all the vowels. _A_ and _e_ before _n_ (guttural _n_, as in _sing_),

_n_ (palatal _n_), _n_ and _m_ were nasal in the 11th century, such

words as _tant_ (_tantum_) and _gent_ (_gentem_) forming in the Alexis

assonances to themselves, distinct from the assonances with _a_ and

_e_ before non-nasal consonants. In the Roland _umbre_ (_ombre_,

_umbram_) and _culchet_ (_couche_, _collocat_), _fier_ (_ferum_) and

_chiens_ (_canes_), _dit_ (_dictum_) and _vint_ (_venit_), _ceinte_

(_cinctam_) and _veie_ (_voie_, _viam_), _brun_ (Teutonic _brun_) and

_fut_ (_fuit_) assonate freely, though _o_ (_u_) before nasals shows a

tendency to separation. The nasalization of _i_ and _u_ (= Modern

French _u_) did not take place till the 16th century; and in all cases

the loss of the following nasal consonant is quite modern, the older

pronunciation of _tant_, _ombre_ being _tant_, _ombr[schwa]_, not as

now _ta_, _obrh_. The nasalization took place whether the nasal

consonant was or was not followed by a vowel, _femme_ (_feminam_),

_honneur_ (_honorem_) being pronounced with nasal vowels m the first

syllable till after the 16th century, as indicated by the doubling of

the nasal consonant in the spelling and by the phonetic change (in

_femme_ and other words) next to be mentioned. English generally has

_au_ (now often reduced to _a_) for Old French _a_--_vaunt_ (_vanter_,

_vanitare_), _tawny_ (_tanne_ (?) Celtic). (8) The assimilation of

_[~e]_ (nasal _e_) to _a_ (nasal _a_) did not begin till the middle of

the 11th century, and is not yet universal, in France, though

generally a century later. In the Alexis nasal _a_ (as in _tant_) is

never confounded with nasal _e_ (as in _gent_) in the assonances,

though the copyist (a century later) often writes _a_ for nasal _e_ in

unaccented syllables, as in _amfant_ (_enfant_, _infantem_); in the

Roland there are several cases of mixture in the assonances, _gent_,

for instance, occurring in _ant_ stanzas, _tant_ in _ent_ ones.

English has several words with _a_ for _e_ before nasals--_rank_

(_rang_, Old French _renc_, Teutonic _hringa_), _pansy_ (_pensee_,

_pensatam_); but the majority show _e_--_enter_ (_entrer_, _intrare_),

_fleam_ (_flamme_, Old French _fleme_, _phlebotomum_). The distinction

is still preserved in the Norman of Guernsey, where _an_ and _en_,

though both nasal, have different sounds--_lanchier_ (_lancer_,

_lanceare_), but _mentrie_ (Old French _menterie_, from _mentiri_).

(9) The loss of _s_, or rather _z_, before voiced consonants began

early, _s_ being often omitted or wrongly inserted in 12th century

MSS.--Earliest Old French _masle_ (_masculum_), _sisdre_ (_siceram_);

Modern French _male_, _cidre_. In English it has everywhere

disappeared--_male_, _cider_; except in two words, where it appears,

as occasionally in Old French, as _d_--_meddle_ (_meler_,

_misculare_), _medlar_ (_neflier_, Old French also _meslier_,

_mespilarium_). The loss of _s_ before voiceless consonants (except

_f_) is about two centuries later, and it is not universal even in

Parisian--Early Old French _feste_ (_festam_), _escuier_

(_scutarium_); Modern French _fete_, _ecuyer_, but _esperer_

(_sperare_). In the north-east _s_ before _t_ is still

retained--Walloon _chestai_ (_chateau_, _castellum_), _fiess_

(_fete_). English shows _s_ regularly--_feast_, _esquire_. (10) Medial

_dh_ (soft _th_, as in _then_), and final _th_ from Latin _t_ or _d_

between vowels, do not begin to disappear till the latter half of the

11th century. In native French MSS. _dh_ is generally written _d_, and

_th_ written _t_; but the German scribe of the Oaths writes _adjudha_

(_adjutam_), _cadhuna_ (Greek _kata_ and _unam_); and the English one

of the Alexis _cuntretha_ (_contratam_), _lothet_ (_laudatum_), and

that of the Cambridge Psalter _heriteth_ (_hereditatem_). Medial _dh_

often drops even in the last-named MSS., and soon disappears; the same

is true for final _th_ in Western French--Modern French _contree_,

_loue_. But in Eastern French final _th_, to which Latin _t_ between

vowels had probably been reduced through _d_ and _dh_, appears in the

12th century and later as _t_, rhyming on ordinary French final

_t_--Picard and Burgundian _pechiet_ (_peccatum_) _apeleit_

(_appellatum_). In Western French some final _ths_ were saved by being

changed to _f_--Modern French _soif_ (_sitim_), _moeuf_ (obsolete,

_modum_). English has one or two instances of final _th_, none of

medial _dh_--_faith_ (_foi_, _fidem_); Middle English _cariteț_

(_charite_, _caritatem_), _druteth_ (Old French _dru_, Teutonic _drud_);

generally the consonant is lost--_country_, _charity_. Middle High

German shows the Eastern French final consonant--_moraliteit_

(_moralite_, _moralitatem_). (11) _T_ from Latin final _t_, if in an

Old French unaccented syllable, begins to disappear in the Roland,

where sometimes _aimet_ (_amat_), sometimes _aime_, is required by the

metre, and soon drops in all dialects. The Modern French _t_ of

_aime-t-il_ and similar forms is an analogical insertion from such

forms as _dort-il_ (_dormit_), where the _t_ has always existed. (12)

The change of the diphthong _ai_ to _ei_ and afterwards to _ee_ (the

doubling indicates length) had not taken place in the earliest French

documents, words with _ai_ assonating only on words with _a_; in the

Roland such assonances occur, but those of _ai_ on _e_ are more

frequent--_faire_ (_facere_) assonating on _parastre_ (_patraster_)

and on _estes_ (_estis_); and the MS. (half a century later than the

poem) occasionally has _ei_ and _e_ for _ai_--_recleimet_

(_reclamat_), _desfere_ (_disfacere_), the latter agreeing with the

Modern French sound. Before nasals (as in _laine_ = _lanam_) and _ie_

(as in _paye_ = _pacatum_), _ai_ remained a diphthong up to the 16th

century, being apparently _ei_, whose fate in this situation it has

followed. English shows _ai_ regularly before nasals and when final,

and in a few other words--_vain_ (_vain_, _vanum_), _pay_ (_payer_,

_pacare_), _wait_ (_guetter_, Teutonic _wahten_); but before most

consonants it has usually _ee_--_peace_ (_pais_, _pacum_), _feat_

(_fait_, _factum_). (13) The loss or transposition of _i_

(= y-consonant) following the consonant ending an accented syllable

begins in the 12th century--Early Old French _glorie_ (_gloriam_),

_estudie_ (_studium_), _olie_ (_oleum_); Modern French _gloire_,

_etude_, _huile_. English sometimes shows the earlier form--_glory_,

_study_; sometimes the later--_dower_ (_douaire_, Early Old French

_doarie_, _dotarium_), _oil_ (_huile_). (14) The vocalization of _l_

preceded by a vowel and followed by a consonant becomes frequent at

the end of the 12th century; when preceded by open _e_, an _a_

developed before the _l_ while this was a consonant--11th century

_salse_ (_salsa_), _beltet_ (_bellitatem_), _solder_ (_solidare_);

Modern French _sauce_, _beaute_, _souder_. In Parisian, final _el_

followed the fate of _el_ before a consonant, becoming the triphthong

_eau_, but in Norman the vocalization did not take place, and the _l_

was afterwards rejected--Modern French _ruisseau_, Modern Guernsey

_russe_ (_rivicellum_). English words of French origin sometimes show

_l_ before a consonant, but the general form is _u_--_scald_

(_echauder_, _excalidare_), _Walter_ (_Gautier_, Teutonic _Waldhari_);

_sauce_, _beauty_, _soder_. Final _el_ is kept--_veal_ (_veau_,

_vitellum_), _seal_ (_sceau_, _sigillum_). (15) In the east and centre

_ei_ changes to _oi_, while the older sound is retained in the

north-west and west--Norman _estreit_ (_etroit_, _strictum_), _preie_

(_proie_, _praedam_), 12th century Picard, Parisian, &c., _estroit_,

_proie_. But the earliest (10th century) specimens of the latter group

of dialects have _ei_--_pleier_ (_ployer_, _plicare_) Eulalia,

_mettreiet_ (_mettrait_, _mittere habebat_) Jonah. Parisian _oi_,

whether from _ei_ or from Old French _oi_, _oi_, became in the 15th

century _ue_ (spellings with _oue_ or _oe_ are not uncommon--_mirouer_

for _miroir_, _miratorium_), and in the following, in certain words,

_e_, now written _ai_--_francais_, _connaitre_, from _francois_

(_franceis_, _franciscum_), _conoistre_ (_conuistre_, _cognoscere_);

where it did not undergo the latter change it is now _ua_ or

_wa_--_roi_ (_rei_, _regem_), _croix_ (_cruis_, _crucem_). Before

nasals and palatal _l_, _ei_ (now = _e_) was kept--_veine_ (_vena_),

_veille_ (_vigila_), and it everywhere survives unlabialized in Modern

Norman--Guernsey _etelle_ (_etoile_, _stella_) with _e_, _ser_

(_soir_, _serum_) with _e_. English shows generally _ei_ (or _ai_) for

original _ei_--_strait_ (_estreit_), _prey_ (_preie_); but in several

words the later Parisian _oi_--_coy_ (_coi_, _qvietum_), _loyal_

(_loyal_, _legalem_). (16) The splitting of the vowel-sound from

accented Latin _o_ or _u_ not in position, represented in Old French

by _o_ and _u_ indifferently, into _u_, _o_ (before nasals), and _eu_

(the latter at first a diphthong, now = German _oe_), is unknown to

Western French till the 12th century, and is not general in the east.

The sound in 11th century Norman was much nearer to _u_ (Modern French

_ou_) than to _o_ (Modern French _o_), as the words borrowed by

English show _uu_ (at first written _u_, afterwards _ou_ or _ow_),

never _oo_; but was probably not quite _u_, as Modern Norman shows the

same splitting of the sound as Parisian. Examples are--Early Old

French _espose_ or _espuse_ (_sponsam_), _nom_ or _num_ (_nomen_),

_flor_ or _flur_ (_florem_); Modern French _epouse_, _nom_, _fleur_;

Modern Guernsey _goule_ (_gueule_, _gulam_), _nom_, _flleur_. Modern

Picard also shows _u_, which is the regular sound before _r_--_flour_;

but Modern Burgundian often keeps the original Old French _o_--_vo_

(_vous_, _vos_). English shows almost always _uu_--_spouse_, _noun_,

_flower_ (Early Middle English _spuse_, _nun_, _flur_); but _nephew_

with _eu_ (_neveu_, _nepotem_). (17) The loss of the _u_ (or _w_) of

_qu_ dates from the end of the 12th century--Old French _quart_

(_qvartum_), _quitier_ (_qvietare_) with _qu_ = _kw_, Modern French

_quart_, _quitter_ with _qu_ = _k_. In Walloon the _w_ is

preserved--_couar_ (_quart_), _cuitter_; as is the case in

English--_quart_, _quit_. The _w_ of _gw_ seems to have been lost

rather earlier, English having simple _g_--_gage_ (_gage_, older

_guage_, Teutonic _wadi_), _guise_ (_guise_, Teutonic _wisa_). (18)

The change of the diphthong _ou_ to _uu_ did not take place till after

the 12th century, such words as _Anjou_ (_Andegavum_) assonating in

the Roland on _fort_ (_fortem_); and did not occur in Picardy, where

_ou_ became _au caus_ from older _cous_, _cols_ (_cous_, _collos_)

coinciding with _caus_ from _calz_ (_chauds_, _calidos_). English

keeps _ou_ distinct from _uu_--_vault_ for _vaut_ (Modern French

_voute_, _volvitam_), _soder_ (_souder_, _solidare_). (19) The change

of the diphthong _ie_ to simple _e_ is specially Anglo-Norman, in Old

French of the Continent these sounds never rhyme, in that of England

they constantly do, and English words show, with rare exceptions, the

simple vowel--_fierce_ (Old French _fiers_, _ferus_), chief (_chief_,

_caput_), with _ie_ = _ee_; but _pannier_ (_panier_, _panarium_). At

the beginning of the modern period, Parisian dropped the _i_ of _ie_

when preceded by _ch_ or _j_--_chef_, _abreger_ (Old French

_abregier_, _abbreviare_); elsewhere (except in verbs) _ie_ is

retained--_fier_ (_ferum_), _pitie_ (_pietatem_). Modern Guernsey

retains _ie_ after _ch_--_ap'rchier_ (_approcher_, _adpropeare_).(20)

Some of the Modern French changes have found their places under older

ones; those remaining to be noticed are so recent that English

examples of the older forms are superfluous. In the 16th century the

diphthong _au_ changed to _ao_ and then to _o_, its present sound,

rendering, for instance, _maux_ (Old French _mals_, _malos_) identical

with _mots_ (_muttos_). The _au_ of _eau_ underwent the same change,

but its _e_ was still sounded as _[schwa]_ (the _e_ of _que_); in the

next century this was dropped, making _veaux_ (Old French _veels_,

_vitellos_) identical with _vaux_ (_vals_, _valles_). (21) A more

general and very important change began much earlier than the last;

this is the loss of many final consonants. In Early Old French every

consonant was pronounced as written; by degrees many of them

disappeared when followed by another consonant, whether in the same

word (in which case they were generally omitted in writing) or in a

following one. This was the state of things in the 16th century; those

final consonants which are usually silent in Modern French were still

sounded, if before a vowel or at the end of a sentence or a line of

poetry, but generally not elsewhere. Thus a large number of French

words had two forms; the Old French _fort_ appeared as _for_ (though

still written _fort_) before a consonant, fort elsewhere. At a later

period final consonants were lost (with certain exceptions) when the

word stood at the end of a sentence or of a line of poetry; but they

are generally kept when followed by a word beginning with a vowel.

(22) A still later change is the general loss of the vowel (written e)

of unaccented final syllables; this vowel preserved in the 16th

century the sound _[schwa]_, which it had in Early Old French. In

later Anglo-Norman final _[schwa]_ (like every other sound) was

treated exactly as the same sound in Middle English; that is, it came

to be omitted or retained at pleasure, and in the 15th century

disappeared. In Old French the loss of final _[schwa]_ is confined to

a few words and forms; the 10th century _saveiet_ (_sapebat_ for

_sapiebat_) became in the 11th _saveit_, and _ore_ (_ad horam_), _ele_

(_illam_) develop the abbreviated _or, el_. In the 15th century

_[schwa]_ before a vowel generally disappears--_mur_, Old French

_meur_ (_maturum_); and in the 16th, though still written, _[schwa]_

after an unaccented vowel, and in the syllable _ent_ after a vowel,

does the same--_vraiment_, Old French _vraiement_ (_veraca mente_);

_avoient_ two syllables, as now (_avaient_), in Old French three

syllables (as _habebant_). These phenomena occur much earlier in the

anglicized French of England--13th century _aveynt_ (Old French

_aveient_). But the universal loss of final _e_, which has clipped a

syllable from half the French vocabulary, did not take place till the

18th century, after the general loss of final consonants; _fort_ and

_forte_, distinguished at the end of a sentence or line in the 16th

century as _fort_ and _fort[schwa]_, remain distinguished, but as

_for_ and _fort_. The metre of poetry is still constructed on the

obsolete pronunciation, which is even revived in singing; "dites, la

jeune belle," actually four syllables (_dit, la zhoen bel_), is

considered as seven, fitted with music accordingly, and sung to fit

the music (_dit[schwa], la zhoena bel[schwa]_). (23) In Old French, as

in the other Romanic languages, the stress (force, accent) is on the

syllable which was accented in Latin; compare the treatment of the

accented and unaccented vowels in _latro amas_, giving _lere, aime_,

and in _latronem, amatis_, giving _laron, amez_, the accented vowels

being those which rhyme or assonate. At present, stress in French is

much less marked than in English, German or Italian, and is to a

certain extent variable; which is partly the reason why most native

French scholars find no difficulty in maintaining that the stress in

living Modern French is on the same syllable as in Old French. The

fact that stress in the French of to-day is independent of length

(quantity) and pitch (tone) largely aids the confusion; for though the

final and originally accented syllable (not counting the silent e as a

syllable) is now generally pronounced with less force, it very often

has a long vowel with raised pitch. In actual pronunciation the chief

stress is usually on the first syllable (counting according to the

sounds, not the spelling), but in many polysyllables it is on the last

but one; thus in _caution_ the accented (strong) syllable cau, in

_occasion_ it is _ca_. Poetry is still written according to the

original place of the stress; the rhyme-syllables of _larron, aimez_

are still _ron_ and _mez_, which when set to music receive an accented

(strong) note, and are sung accordingly, though in speech the la and

ai generally have the principal stress. In reading poetry, as

distinguished from singing, the modern pronunciation is used, both as

to the loss of the final _[schwa]_ and the displacement of the stress,

the result being that the theoretical metre in which the poetry is

written disappears. (24) In certain cases accented vowels were

lengthened in Old French, as before a lost s; this was indicated in

the 16th century by a circumflex--_bete_, Old French _beste_

(_bestiam_), _ame_, Old French _anme_ (_anima_). The same occurred in

the plural of many nouns, where a consonant was lost before the _s_ of

the flection; thus singular _coc_ with short vowel, plural _cos_ with

long. The plural _cos_, though spelt _cogs_ instead of _co_ (= _koo_),

is still sometimes to be heard, but, like other similar ones, is

generally refashioned after the singular, becoming _kok_. In present

French, except where a difference of quality has resulted, as in

_cote_ (Old French _coste, costam_) with _o_ and _cotte_ (Old French

_cote_), with _o_, short and long vowels generally run together,

quantity being now variable and uncertain; but at the beginning of

this century the Early Modern distinctions appear to have been

generally preserved.

(d) _Orthography._--The history of French spelling is based on that of

French sounds; as already stated, the former (apart from a few Latinisms

in the earliest documents) for several centuries faithfully followed the

latter. When the popular Latin of Gaul was first written, its sounds

were represented by the letters of the Roman alphabet; but these were

employed, not in the values they had in the time of Caesar, but in those

they had acquired in consequence of the phonetic changes that had

meantime taken place. Thus, as the Latin sound _u_ had become _o_ (close

_o_) and _u_ had become _y_ (French _u_, German _ue_), the letter _u_ was

used sometimes to denote the sound _o_, sometimes the sound _y_; as

Latin _k_ (written _c_) had become _tsh_ or _ts_, according to dialect,

before _e_ and _i_, _c_ was used to represent those sounds as well as

that of _k_. The chief features of early French orthography (apart from

the specialities of individual MSS., especially the earliest) are

therefore these:--_c_ stood for _k_ and _tsh_ or _ts_; _d_ for _d_ and

_dh_ (soft _th_); _e_ for _e_, _e_, and _[schwa]_; _g_ for _g_ and _dzh_;

_h_ was often written in words of Latin origin where not sounded; _i_

(_j_) stood for _i_, _y_ consonant, and _dzh_; _o_ for _o_ (Anglo-Norman

_u_) and _o_; _s_ for _s_ and _z_; _t_ for _t_ and _th_; _u_ (_v_) for

_o_ (Anglo-Norman _u_), _y_ and _v_; _y_ (rare) for _i_; _z_ for _dz_

and _ts_. Some new sounds had also to be provided for: where _tsh_ had

to be distinguished from non-final _ts_, _ch_--at first, as in Italian,

denoting _k_ before _i_ and _e_ (_chi_ = _ki_ from _qvi_)--was used for

it; palatal _l_ was represented by _ill_, which when final usually lost

one _l_, and after _i_ dropped its _i_; palatal _n_ by _gn_, _ng_ or

_ngn_, to which _i_ was often prefixed; and the new letter _w_,

originally _uu_ (_vv_), and sometimes representing merely _uv_ or _vu_,

was employed for the consonant-sound still denoted by it in English. All

combinations of vowel-letters represented diphthongs; thus _ai_ denoted

_a_ followed by _i_, _ou_ either _ou_ or _ou_, _ui_ either _oi_

(Anglo-Norman _ui_) or _yi_, and similarly with the others--_ei_, _eu_,

_oi_, _iu_, _ie_, _ue_ (and _oe_), and the triphthong _ieu_. Silent

letters, except initial _h_ in Latin words, are very rare; though MSS.

copied from older ones often retain letters whose sounds, though

existing in the language of the author, had disappeared from that of the

more modern scribe. The subsequent changes in orthography are due mainly

to changes of sound, and find their explanation in the phonology. Thus,

as Old French progresses, _s_, having become silent before voiced

consonants, indicates only the length of the preceding vowel; _e_ before

nasals, from the change of _[~e]_ (nasal _e_) to _a_ (nasal _a_),

represents _a_; _c_, from the change of _ts_ to _s_, represents _s_;

_qu_ and _gu_, from the loss of the _w_ of _kw_ and _gw_, represent _k_

and _g_ (hard); _ai_, from the change of _ai_ to _e_, represents _e_;

_ou_, from the change of _ou_ and _ou_ to _u_, represents _u_; _ch_ and

_g_, from the change of _tsh_ and _dzh_ to _sh_ and _zh_, represent _sh_

and _zh_; _eu_ and ue, originally representing diphthongs, represent oe

(German _oe_); _z_, from the change of _ts_ and _dz_ to _s_ and _z_,

represents _s_ and _z_. The new values of some of these letters were

applied to words not originally spelt with them: Old French _k_ before

_i_ and _e_ was replaced by _qu_ (_evesque_, _eveske_, Latin

_episcopum_); Old French _u_ and _o_ for _o_, after this sound had split

into _eu_ and _u_, were replaced in the latter case by _ou_ (_rous_, for

_ros_ or _rus_, Latin _russum_); _s_ was accidentally inserted to mark a

long vowel (_pasle_, _pale_, Latin _pallidum_); _eu_ replaced _ue_ and

_oe_ (_neuf_, _nuef_, Latin _novum_ and _novem_); _z_ replaced _s_ after

_e_ (_nez_, _nes_, _nasum_). The use of _x_ for final _s_ is due to an

orthographical mistake; the MS. contraction of _us_ being something like

_x_ was at last confused with it (_iex_ for _ieus_, _oculos_), and, its

meaning being forgotten, _u_ was inserted before the _x_ (_yeux_) which

thus meant no more than _s_, and was used for it after other vowels

(_voix_ for _vois_, _vocem_). As literature came to be extensively

cultivated, traditional as distinct from phonetic spelling began to be

influential; and in the 14th century, the close of the Old French

period, this influence, though not overpowering, was strong--stronger

than in England at that time. About the same period there arose

etymological as distinct from traditional spelling. This practice, the

alteration of traditional spelling by the insertion or substitution of

letters which occurred (or were supposed to occur) in the Latin (or

supposed Latin) originals of the French words, became very prevalent in

the three following centuries, when such forms as _debvoir_ (_debere_)

for _devoir_, _faulx_ (_falsum_) for _faus_, _autheur_ (_auctorem_,

supposed to be _authorem_) for _auteur_, _poids_ (supposed to be from

_pondus_, really from _pensum_) for _pois_, were the rule. But besides

the etymological, there was a phonetic school of spelling (Ramus, in

1562, for instance, writes _eime_, _eimates_--with _e_ = _e_, _e_ = _e_,

and _e_ = _[schwa]_--for _aimai_, _aimastes_), which, though

unsuccessful on the whole, had some effect in correcting the excesses of

the other, so that in the 17th century most of these inserted letters

began to drop; of those which remain, some (_flegme_ for _flemme_ or

_fleume_, Latin _phlegma_) have corrupted the pronunciation. Some

important reforms--as the dropping of silent _s_, and its replacement by

a circumflex over the vowel when this was long; the frequent distinction

of close and open _e_ by acute and grave accents; the restriction of _i_

and _u_ to the vowel sound, of _j_ and _v_ to the consonant; and the

introduction from Spain of the cedilla to distinguish _c_ = _s_ from _c_

= _k_ before _a_, _u_ and _o_--are due to the 16th century. The

replacement of _oi_, where it had assumed the value _e_, by _ai_, did

not begin till the last century, and was not the rule till the present

one. Indeed, since the 16th century the changes in French spelling have

been small, compared with the changes of the sounds; final consonants

and final _e_ (unaccented) are still written, though the sounds they

represent have disappeared.

Still, a marked effort towards the simplification of French orthography

was made in the third edition of the _Dictionary_ of the French Academy

(1740), practically the work of the Abbe d'Olivet. While in the first

(1694) and second (1718) editions of this dictionary words were

overburdened with silent letters, supposed to represent better the

etymology, in the third edition the spelling of about 5000 words (out of

about 18,000) was altered and made more in conformity with the

pronunciation. So, for instance, _c_ was dropped in _beinfaicteur_ and

_object_, _c_ in _scavoir_, _d_ in _advocat_, _s_ in _accroistre_,

_albastre_, _aspre_ and _bastard_, _e_ in the past part. _creu_, _deu_,

_veu_, and in such words as _alleure_, _souilleure_; _y_ was replaced by

_i_ in _cecy, celuy, gay, joye_, &c. But those changes were not made

systematically, and many pedantic spellings were left untouched, while

many inconsistencies still remain in the present orthography (_siffler_

and _persifler_, _souffler_ and _boursoufler_, &c). The consequence of

those efforts in contrary directions is that French orthography is now

quite as traditional and unphonetic as English, and gives an even falser

notion than this of the actual state of the language it is supposed to

represent. Many of the features of Old French orthography, early and

late, are preserved in English orthography; to it we owe the use of _c_

for _s_ (Old English _c_ = _k_ only), of _j_ (_i_) for _dzh_, of _v_

(_u_) for _v_ (in Old English written _f_), and probably of _ch_ for

_tsh_. The English _w_ is purely French, the Old English letter being

the runic _Ț_. When French was introduced into England, _kw_ had not

lost its _w_, and the French _qu_, with that value, replaced the Old

English _cȚ_ (_queen_ for _cȚ_en). In Norman, Old French _o_ had become

very like _u_, and in England went entirely into it; _o_, which was one

of its French signs, thus came to be often used for _u_ in English

(_come_ for _cume_). _U_, having often in Old French its Modern French

value, was so used in England, and replaced the Old English _y_ (_busy_

for _bysi_, Middle English _brud_ for _bryd_), and _y_ was often used

for _i_ (_day_ for _dai_). In the 13th century, when _ou_ had come to

represent _u_ in France, it was borrowed by English, and used for the

long sound of that vowel (_sour_ for _sur_); and _gu_, which had come to

mean simply _g_ (hard), was occasionally used to represent the sound _g_

before _i_ and _e_ (_guess_ for _gesse_). Some of the Early Modern

etymological spellings were imitated in England; _fleam_ and _autour_

were replaced by _phlegm_ and _authour_, the latter spelling having

corrupted the pronunciation.

(e) _Inflections._--In the earliest Old French extant, the influence

of analogy, especially in verbal forms, is very marked when these are

compared with Latin (thus the present participles of all conjugations

take _ant_, the ending of the first, Latin _antem_), and becomes

stronger as the language progresses. Such isolated inflectional changes

as _saveit_ into _savoit_, which are cases of regular phonetic changes,

are not noticed here.

(i.) _Verbs._--(1) In the oldest French texts the Latin pluperfect

(with the sense of the perfect) occasionally occurs--_avret_

(_habuerat_), _roveret_ (_rogaverat_); it disappears before the 12th

century. (2) The _u_ of the ending of the 1st pers. plur. _mus_ drops

in Old French, except in the perfect, where its presence (as

_[schwa]_) is not yet satisfactorily explained--_amoms_ (_amamus_,

influenced by _sumus_), but _amames_ (_amavimus_). In Picard the

atonic ending _mes_ is extended to all tenses, giving _amomes_, &c.

(3) In the present indicative, 2nd person plur., the ending _ez_ of

the first conjugation (Latin _atis_) extends, even in the earliest

documents, to all verbs--_avez, recevez, oez_ (_habetis_, _recipitis,

auditis_) like _amez_ (_amatis_); such forms as _dites_, _faites_

(_dicitis_, _facitis_) being exceptional archaisms. This levelling of

the conjugation does not appear at such an early time in the future

(formed from the infinitive and from _habetis_ reduced to _etis_); in

the Roland both forms occur, _portereiz_ (_portare habetis_)

assonating on _rei_ (_roi, regem_), and the younger _porterez_ on

_citet_ (_cite_, _civitatem_), but about the end of the 13th century

the older form _-eiz_, _-oiz_, is dropped, and _-ez_ becomes gradually

the uniform ending for this 2nd person of the plural in the future

tense. (4) In Eastern French the 1st plur., when preceded by _i_, has

_e_, not _o_, before the nasal, while Western French has _u_ (or _o_),

as in the present; _posciomes_ (_posseamus_) in the Jonah homily makes

it probable that the latter is the older form--Picard _aviemes_,

Burgundian _aviens_, Norman _aviums_ (_habebamus_). (5) The

subjunctive of the first conjugation has at first in the singular no

final _e_, in accordance with the final vowel laws--_plur_, _plurs_,

_plurt_ (_plorem_, _plores_, _ploret_). The forms are gradually

assimilated to those of the other conjugations, which, deriving from

Latin _am_, _as_, _at_, have _e_, _es_, _e_(_t_); Modern French

_pleure_, _pleures_, _pleure_, like _perde_, _perdes_, _perde_

(_perdam_, _perdas_, _perdat_). (6) In Old French the present

subjunctive and the 1st sing. pres. ind. generally show the influence

of the _i_ or _e_ of the Latin _iam_, _eam_, _io_, _eo_--Old French

_muire_ or _moerge_ (_moriat_ for _moriatur_), _tiegne_ or _tienge_

(_teneat_), _muir_ or _moerc_ (_morio_ for _morior_), _tieng_ or

_tienc_ (_teneo_). By degrees these forms are levelled under the other

present forms--Modern French _meure_ and _meurs_ following _meurt_

(_morit_ for _moritur_), _tienne_ and _tiens_ following _tient_

(_tenet_). A few of the older forms remain--the vowel of _aie_

(_habeam_) and _ai_ (_habeo_) contrasting with that of _a_ (_habet_).

(7) A levelling of which instances occur in the 11th century, but

which is not yet complete, is that of the accented and unaccented

stem-syllables of verbs. In Old French many verb-stems with shifting

accent vary in accordance with phonetic laws--_parler_ (_parabolare_),

_amer_ (_amare_) have in the present indicative _parol_ (_parabolo_),

_paroles_ (_parabolas_), _parolet_ (_parabolat_), _parlums_

(_parabolamus_), _parlez_ (_parabolatis_), _parolent_ (_parabolant_);

_aim_ (_amo_), _aimes_ (_amas_), _aimet_ (_amat_), _amums_ (_amamus_),

_amez_ (_amatis_), _aiment_ (_amant_). In the first case the

unaccented, in the second the accented form has prevailed--Modern

French _parle_, _parler_; _aime_, _aimer_. In several verbs, as

_tenir_ (_tenere_), the distinction is retained--_tiens_, _tiens_,

_tient_, _tenons_, _tenez_, _tiennent_. (8) In Old French, as stated

above, _ie_ instead of _e_ from _a_ occurs after a palatal (which, if

a consonant, often split into _i_ with a dental); the diphthong thus

appears in several forms of many verbs of the 1st

conjugation--_preier_ (= _prei-ier_, _precare_), _vengier_

(_vindicare_), _laissier_ (_laxare_), _aidier_ (_adjutare_). At the

close of the Old French period, those verbs in which the stem ends in

a dental replace _ie_ by the _e_ of other verbs--Old French

_laissier_, _aidier_, _laissiez_ (_laxatis_), _aidiez_ (adjutatis);

Modern French _laisser_, _aider_, _laissez_, _aidez_, by analogy of

_aimer_, _aimez_. The older forms generally remain in

Picard--_laissier_, _aidier_. (9) The addition of _e_ to the 1st sing.

pres. ind. of all verbs of the first conjugation is rare before the

13th century, but is usual in the 15th; it is probably due to the

analogy of the third person--Old French _chant_ (_canto_), _aim_

(_amo_); Modern French _chante_, _aime_. (10) In the 13th century _s_

is occasionally added to the 1st pers. sing., except those ending in

_e_ (= _[schwa]_) and _ai_, and to the 2nd sing. of imperatives; at the

close of the 16th century this becomes the rule, and extends to

imperfects and conditionals in _oie_ after the loss of their _e_. It

appears to be due to the influence of the 2nd pers. sing.--Old French

_vend_ (_vendo_ and _vende_), _vendoie_ (_vendebam_), _parti_

(_partivi_), _ting_ (_tenui_); Modern French _vends_, _vendais_,

_partis_, _tins_; and _donne_ (_dona_) in certain cases becomes

_donnes_. (11) The 1st and 2nd plur. of the pres. subj., which in Old

French were generally similar to those of the indicative, gradually

take an _i_ before them, which is the rule after the 16th century--Old

French _perdons_ (_perdamus_), _perdez_ (_perdatis_); Modern French

_perdions_, _perdiez_, apparently by analogy of the imp. ind. (12) The

loss in Late Old French of final _s_, _t_, &c., when preceding another

consonant, caused many words to have in reality (though often

concealed by orthography) double forms of inflection--one without

termination, the other with. Thus in the 16th century the 2nd sing.

pres. ind. _dors_ (_dormis_) and the 3rd _dort_ (_dormit_) were

distinguished as _dorz_ and _dort_ when before a vowel, as _dors_ and

_dort_ at the end of a sentence or line of poetry, but ran together as

_dor_ when followed by a consonant. Still later, the loss of the final

consonant when not followed by a vowel further reduced the cases in

which the forms were distinguished, so that the actual French

conjugation is considerably simpler than is shown by the customary

spellings, except when, in consequence of an immediately following

vowel, the old terminations occasionally appear. Even here the

antiquity is to a considerable extent artificial or delusive, some of

the insertions being due to analogy, and the popular language often

omitting the traditional consonant or inserting a different one. (13)

The subsequent general loss of _e_ = _[schwa]_ in unaccented final

syllables has still further reduced the inflections, but not the

distinctive forms--_perd_ (_perdit_) and _perde_ (_perdat_) being

generally distinguished as _per_ and _perd_, and before a vowel as

_pert_ and _perd_.

(ii.) _Substantives._--(1) In Early Old French (as in Provencal) there

are two main declensions, the masculine and the feminine; with a few

exceptions the former distinguishes nominative and accusative in both

numbers, the latter in neither. The nom. and acc. sing, and acc. plur.

mas. correspond to those of the Latin 2nd or 3rd declension, the nom.

plur. to that of the 2nd declension. The sing, fem. corresponds to the

nom. and acc. of the Latin 1st declension, or to the acc. of the 3rd;

the plur. fem. to the acc. of the 1st declension, or to the nom. and

acc. of the 3rd. Thus masc. _tors_ (_taurus_), _lere_ (_latro_); _tor_

(_taurum_), _laron_ (_latronem_); _tor_ (_tauri_), _laron_ (_latroni_

for _-nes_); _tors_ (_tauros_), _larons_ (_latrones_); but fem. only

_ele_ (_ala_ and _alam_), _flor_ (_florem_); _eles_ (_alas_), _flors_

(_flores_ nom. and acc.). About the end of the 11th century feminines

not ending in _e_ = _[schwa]_ take, by analogy of the masculines, _s_

in the nom. sing., thus distinguishing nom. _flors_ from acc. _flor_.

A century later, masculines without _s_ in the nom. sing. take this

consonant by analogy of the other masculines, giving _leres_ as nom.

similar to _tors_. In Anglo-Norman the accusative forms very early

begin to replace the nominative, and soon supersede them, the language

following the tendency of contemporaneous English. In continental

French the declension-system was preserved much longer, and did not

break up till the 14th century, though acc. forms are occasionally

substituted for nom. (rarely nom. for acc.) before that date. It must

be noticed, however, that in the current language the reduction of the

declension to one case (generally the accusative) per number appears

much earlier than in the language of literature proper and poetry;

Froissart, for instance, _c._ 1400, in his poetical works is much more

careful of the declension than in his Chronicles. In the 15th century

the modern system of one case is fully established; the form kept is

almost always the accusative (sing. without _s_, plural with _s_), but

in a few words, such as _fils_ (_filius_), _soeur_ (_soror_), _pastre_

(_pastor_), and in proper names such as _Georges_, _Gilles_, &c.,

often used as vocative (therefore with the form of nom.); the nom.

survives in the sing. Occasionally both forms exist, in different

senses--_sire_ (_senior_) and _seigneur_ (_seniorem_), _on_ (_homo_)

and _homme_ (_hominem_). (2) Latin neuters are generally masculine in

Old French, and inflected according to their analogy, as _ciels_

(_caelus_ for _caelum_ nom.), _ciel_ (_caelum_ acc.), _ciel_ (_caeli_

for _caela_ nom.), _ciels_ (_caelos_ for _caela_ acc.); but in some

cases the form of the Latin neuter is preserved, as in _cors_, now

_corps_, Lat. _corpus_; _tens_, now _temps_, Lat. _tempus_. Many

neuters lose their singular form and treat the plural as a feminine

singular, as in the related languages--_merveille_ (_mirabilia_),

_feuille_ (_folia_). But in a few words the neuter plural termination

is used, as in Italian, in its primitive sense--_carre_ (_carra_,

which exists as well as _carri_), _paire_ (_Lat. paria_); Modern

French _chars_, _paires_. (3) In Old French the inflectional _s_ often

causes phonetic changes in the stem; thus palatal _l_ before _s_ takes

_t_ after it, and becomes dental _l_, which afterwards changes to _u_

or drops--_fil_ (_filium_ and _filii_) with palatal _l_, _filz_

(_filius_ and _filios_), afterwards _fiz_, with _z_ = _ts_ (preserved

in English _Fitz_), and then _fis_, as now (spelt _fils_). Many

consonants before _s_, as the _t_ of _fiz_, disappear, and _l_ is

vocalized--_vif_ (_vivum_), _mal_ (_malum_), nominative sing. and acc.

plur. _vis_, _maus_ (earlier _mals_). These forms of the plural are

retained in the 16th century, though often etymologically spelt with

the consonant of the singular, as in _vifs_, pronounced _vis_; but in

Late Modern French many of them disappear, _vifs_, with _f_ sounded as

in the singular, being the plural of _vif_, _bals_ (formerly _baux_)

that of _bal_. In many words, as _chant_ (_cantus_) and _champs_

(_campos_) with silent _t_ and _p_ (Old French _chans_ in both cases),

_maux_ (Old French _mals_, sing. _mal_), _yeux_ (_oculos_, Old French

_oelz_, sing. _oeil_) the old change in the stem is kept. Sometimes,

as in _cieux_ (_caelos_) and _ciels_, the old traditional and the

modern analogical forms coexist, with different meanings. (4) The

modern loss of final _s_ (except when kept as _z_ before a vowel) has

seriously modified the French declension, the singulars _fort_ (_for_)

and _forte_ (_fort_) being generally undistinguishable from their

plurals _forts_ and _fortes_. The subsequent loss of _[schwa]_ in

finals has not affected the relation between sing. and plur. forms;

but with the frequent recoining of the plural forms on the singular

present Modern French has very often no distinction between sing. and

plur., except before a vowel. Such plurals as _maux_ have always been

distinct from their singular _mal_; in those whose singular ends in

_s_ there never was any distinction, Old French _laz_ (now spelt

_lacs_) corresponding to _laqveus_, _laqveum_, _laqvei_ and _laqveos_.

(iii.) _Adjectives._--(1) The terminations of the cases and numbers of

adjectives are the same as those of substantives, and are treated in

the preceding paragraph. The feminine generally takes no _e_ if the

masc. has none, and if there is no distinction in Latin--fem. sing.

_fort_ (_fortem_), _grant_ (_grandem_), fem. plur. _forz_ (_fortes_),

_granz_ (_grandes_), like the acc. masc. Certain adjectives of this

class, and among them all the adjectives formed with the Latin suffix

_-ensis_, take regularly, even in the oldest French, the feminine

ending _e_, in _Provencal_ a (_courtois_, fem. _courtoise_; _commun_,

fem. _commune_). To these must not be added _dous_ (Mod. Fr. _dolz_,

_dous_), fem. _douce_, which probably comes from a Low Latin

_dulcius_, _dulcia_. In the 11th century some other feminines,

originally without _e_, begin in Norman to take this

termination--_grande_ (in a feminine assonance in the Alexis), plur.

_grandes_; but other dialects generally preserve the original form

till the 14th century. In the 16th century the _e_ is general in the

feminine, and is now universal, except in a few

expressions--_grand'mere_ (with erroneous apostrophe, _grandem_,

_matrem_), _lettres royaux_ (_literas regales_), and most adverbs from

adjectives in _-ant_, _-ent_--_couramment_ (_currante_ for _-ente

mente_), _sciemment_ (_sciente mente_). (2) Several adjectives have in

Modern French replaced the masc. by the feminine--Old French masc.

_roit_ (_rigidum_), fem. _roide_ (_rigidam_); Modern French _roide_

for both genders. (3) In Old French several Latin simple comparatives

are preserved--_maiur_ (_majorem_), nom. _maire_ (_major_); _graignur_

(_grandiorem_), nom. _graindre_ (_grandior_); only a few of these now

survive--_pire_ (_pejor_), _meilleur_ (_meliorem_), with their

adverbial neuters _pis_ (_pejus_), _mieux_ (_melius_). The few simple

superlatives found in Old French, as _merme_ (_minimum_), _pesme_

(_pessimus_), _proisme_ (_proximum_), _haltisme_ (_altissimum_), this

last one being clearly a literary word, are now extinct, and, when

they existed, had hardly the meaning of a superlative. (4) The modern

loss of many final consonants when not before vowels, and the

subsequent loss of final _[schwa]_, have greatly affected the

distinction between the masc. and fem. of adjectives--_fort_ and

_forte_ are still distinguished as _for_ and _fort_, but _amer_

(_amarum_) and _amere_ (_amaram_), with their plurals _amers_ and

_ameres_, have run together.

(f) _Derivation._--Most of the Old French prefixes and suffixes are

descendants of Latin ones, but a few are Teutonic (_ard = hard_), and

some are later borrowings from Latin (_arie_, afterwards _aire_, from

_arium_). In Modern French many old affixes are hardly used for forming

new words; the inherited _ier_ (_arium_) is yielding to the borrowed

_aire_, the popular _contre_ (_contra_) to the learned anti (Greek), and

the native _ee_ (_atam_) to the Italian _ade_. The suffixes of many

words have been assimilated to more common ones; thus _sengler_

(_singularem_) is now _sanglier_.

(g) _Syntax._--Old French syntax, gradually changing from the 10th to

the 14th century, has a character of its own, distinct from that of

Modern French; though when compared with Latin syntax it appears

decidedly modern.

(1) The general formal distinction between nominative and accusative

is the chief feature which causes French syntax to resemble that of

Latin and differ from that of the modern language; and as the

distinction had to be replaced by a comparatively fixed word-order, a

serious loss of freedom ensued. If the forms are modernized while the

word-order is kept, the Old French _l'archevesque ne puet flechir li

reis Henris_ (Latin _archiepiscopum non potest flectere rex Henricus_)

assumes a totally different meaning--_l'archeveque ne peut flechir le

roi Henri_. (2) The replacement of the nominative form of nouns by the

accusative is itself a syntactical feature, though treated above under

inflection. A more modern instance is exhibited by the personal

pronouns, which, when not immediately the subject of a verb,

occasionally take even in Old French, and regularly in the 16th

century, the accusative form; the Old French _je qui sui_ (_ego qvi

sum_) becomes _moi qui suis_, though the older usage survives in the

legal phrase _je soussigne_.... (3) The definite article is now

required in many cases where Old French dispenses with it--_jo cunquis

Engleterre, suffrir mort_ (as Modern French _avoir faim_); Modern

French _l'Angleterre, la mort_. (4) Old French had distinct pronouns

for "this" and "that"--_cest_ (_ecce istum_) and _cel_ (_ecce

illium_), with their cases. Both exist in the 16th century, but the

present language employs _cet_ as adjective, _cel_ as substantive, in

both meanings, marking the old distinction by affixing the adverbs

_ci_ and _la_--_cet homme-ci, cet homme-la_; _celui-ci, celui-la_. (5)

In Old French, the verbal terminations being clear, the subject

pronoun is usually not expressed--_si ferai_ (_sic facere habeo_),

_est durs_ (_durus est_), _que feras_ (_quid facere habes_)? In the

16th century the use of the pronoun is general, and is now universal,

except in one or two impersonal phrases, as _n'importe, peu s'en

faut_. (6) The present participle in Old French in its uninflected

form coincided with the gerund (_amant = amantem_ and _amando_), and

in the modern language has been replaced by the latter, except where

it has become adjectival; the Old French _complaingnans leur dolours_

(Latin _plangentes_) is now _plaignant leurs douleurs_ (Latin

_plangendo_). The now extinct use of _estre_ with the participle

present for the simple verb is not uncommon in Old French down to the

16th century--_sont disanz_ (_sunt dicentes_) = Modern French _ils

disent_ (as English _they are saying_). (7) In present Modern French

the preterite participle when used with _avoir_ to form verb-tenses is

invariable, except when the object precedes (an exception now

vanishing in the conversational language)--_j'ai ecrit les lettres,

les lettres que j'ai ecrites_. In Old French down to the 16th century,

formal concord was more common (though by no means necessary), partly

because the object preceded the participle much oftener than now--_ad

la culur muee_ (_habet colorem mutatam_), _ad faite sa venjance, les

turs ad rendues_. (8) The sentences just quoted will serve as

specimens of the freedom of Old French word-order--the object standing

either before verb and participle, between them, or after both. The

predicative adjective can stand before or after the verb--_halt sunt

li pui_ (Latin _podia_), _e tenebrus e grant_. (9) In Old French _ne_

(Early Old French _nen_, Latin _non_) suffices for the negation

without _pas_ (_passum_), _point_ (_punctum_) or _mie_ (_micam_, now

obsolete), though these are frequently used--_jo ne sui lis sire_ (_je

ne suis pas ton seigneur_), _autre feme nen ara_ (_il n'aura pas autre

femme_). In principal sentences Modern French uses _ne_ by itself only

in certain cases--_je ne puis marcher, je n'ai rien_. The slight

weight as a negation usually attached to ne has caused several

originally positive words to take a negative meaning--_rien_ (Latin

_rem_) now meaning "nothing" as well as "something." (10) In Old

French interrogation was expressed with substantives as with pronouns

by putting them after the verb--_est Saul entre les prophetes?_ In

Modern French the pronominal inversion (the substantive being

prefixed) or a verbal periphrasis must be used--_Saul est-il?_ or

_est-ce que Saul est?_

(h) _Summary._--Looking at the internal history of the French language

as a whole, there is no such strongly marked division as exists

between Old and Middle English, or even between Middle and Modern

English. Some of the most important changes are quite modern, and are

concealed by the traditional orthography; but, even making allowance

for this, the difference between French of the 11th century and that

of the 20th is less than that between English of the same dates. The

most important change in itself and for its effects is probably that

which is usually made the division between Old and Modern French, the

loss of the formal distinction between nominative and accusative; next

to this are perhaps the gradual loss of many final consonants, the

still recent loss of the vowel of unaccented final syllables, and the

extension of analogy in conjugation and declension. In its

construction Old French is distinguished by a freedom strongly

contrasting with the strictness of the modern language, and bears, as

might be expected, a much stronger resemblance than the latter to the

other Romanic dialects. In many features, indeed, both positive and

negative, Modern French forms a class by itself, distinct in character

from the other modern representatives of Latin.

IV. BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The few works which treat of French philology as a

whole are now in many respects antiquated, and the important

discoveries of recent years, which have revolutionized our ideas of

Old French phonology and dialectology, are scattered in various

editions, periodicals, and separate treatises. For many things Diez's

_Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen_ (4th edition--a reprint of the

3rd--Bonn, 1876-1877; French translation, Paris, 1872-1875) is still

very valuable; Burguy's _Grammaire de la Langue d'Oil_ (2nd edition--a

reprint of the 1st--Berlin, 1869-1870) is useful only as a collection

of examples. Schwan's _Grammatik des Altfranzoesischen_, as revised by

Behrens in the 3rd edition (Leipzig, 1898; French translation, Leipzig

and Paris, 1900), is by far the best old French grammar we possess.

For the history of French language in general see F. Brunot, _Histoire

de la langue francaise des origines a 1900_ (Paris, 1905, 1906, &c.).

For the history of spelling, A. F. Didot, _Observations sur

l'orthographe ou ortografie francaise suivies d'une histoire de la

reforme orthographique depuis le XV^e siecle jusqu'a nos jours_ (2nd

ed., Paris, 1868). For the history of French sounds: Ch. Thurot, _De

la prononciation francaise depuis le commencement du XVI^e siecle,

d'apres les temoignages des grammairiens_ (2 vols., Paris, 1881-1883).

For the history of syntax, apart from various grammatical works of a

general character, much is to be gathered from Ad. Tobler's

_Vermischte Beitraege zur franzoesischen Grammatik_ (3 parts, 1886,

1894, 1899, parts i. and ii. in second editions, 1902, 1906). G.

Paris's edition of _La Vie de S. Alexis_ (Paris, 1872) was the pioneer

of, and retains an important place among, the recent original works on

Old French. Darmesteter and Hatzfeld's _Le Seizieme Siecle_ (Paris,

1878) contains the first good account of Early Modern French. Littre's

_Dictionnaire de la langue francaise_ (4 vols., Paris, 1863-1869, and

a Supplement, 1877); and Hatzfeld, Darmesteter and Thomas, _Dict.

general de la langue francaise_, more condensed (2 vols., Paris,

1888-1900), contain much useful and often original information about

the etymology and history of French words. For the etymology of many

French (and also Provencal) words, reference must be made to Ant.

Thomas's _Essais de philologie francaise_ (Paris, 1897) and _Nouveaux

essais de philologie francaise_ (Paris, 1904). But there is no French

dictionary properly historical. A _Dictionnaire historique de la

langue francaise_ was begun by the Academie francaise (4 vols.,

1859-1894), but it was, from the first, antiquated. It contains only

one letter (A) and has not been continued. The leading periodicals now

in existence are the _Romania_ (Paris), founded (in 1872) and edited

by P. Meyer and G. Paris (with Ant. Thomas since the death of G. Paris

in 1903), and the _Zeitschrift fuer romanische Philologie_ (Halle),

founded (in 1877) and edited by G. Groeber. To these reference should

be made for information as to the very numerous articles, treatises

and editions by the many and often distinguished scholars who,

especially in France and Germany, now prosecute the scientific study

of the language. It may be well to mention that, Old French phonology

especially being complicated, and as yet incompletely investigated,

these publications, the views in which are of various degrees of

value, require not mere acquiescent reading, but critical study. The

dialects of France in their present state (_patois_) are now being

scientifically investigated. The special works on the subject

(dictionaries, grammars, &c.) cannot be fully indicated here; we must

limit ourselves to the mention of Behren's _Bibliographie des patois

gallo-romans_ (2nd ed., revised Berlin, 1893), and of Gillieron and

Edmont's _Atlas linguistique de la France_ (1902 et seq.), a huge

publication planned to contain about 1800 maps. (H. N.; P. M.)