# Pronunciation of accented "e" (é, è & ê) in French ~1800



## berndf

Today we have é=[e] and è=ê=[ɛ]. Was this true in the late 18th/early 19th century as well? I am particularly interested in ê; was it homophone with è at that time too? Today there is a semi-phonemic difference between [ɛ] and [ɛ:] (_mettre_ vs. _maître_). Was there maybe a consistent quantity difference between è and ê and if so, when did it end?

The reason why I am asking it that Walker describes the long English "a" as in _n*a*me_ as identical to French "ê". According to text book knowledge about the Great Vowel Shift it should have been [e:] in his days and not [ɛ:] any more. I wonder why he chose to compare it to "ê" and not to "é".


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> Today we have é=[e] and è=ê=[ɛ].


Actually ‹ê› can be pronounced [e] in non-final open syllables_, _depending on the speaker and on the word. For example: _r*ê*ver_, _dép*ê*cher_, _b*ê*tise_. And you won't find any length distinctions in these contexts (because the syllable is unstressed).

As for ‹ê› in stressed closed syllables (_r*ê*ve_, _b*ê*te_, etc.), the pronunciation has been [ɛ(ː)] since the 16th century, in accordance with the _loi de position_. See Thurot I (p. 62f).


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> Actually ‹ê› can be pronounced [e] in non-final open syllables_, _depending on the speaker and on the word. For example: _r*ê*ver_, _dép*ê*cher_, _b*ê*tise_. And you won't find any length distinctions in these contexts (because the syllable is unstressed).


Of course. Separation of open and closed "e" is notoriously difficult in unstressed syllables and varies between speakers.


CapnPrep said:


> As for ‹ê› in stressed closed syllables (_r*ê*ve_, _b*ê*te_, etc.), the pronunciation has been [ɛ(ː)] since the 16th century, in accordance with the _loi de position_. See Thurot I (p. 62f).


Ok, this means that length varied already in the 18th century ("... au gré du poëte, long ou bref"). Thank you.


----------



## Dan2

berndf said:


> Today we have é=[e] and è=ê=[ɛ].


In addition to CapnPrep's remarks, note that "è" and "ê" have _very_ different _quality_ in traditional Quebec French.  Since Quebec was settled before 1800, this may be relevant, depending on whether France or Quebec has the more conservative pronunciation.  (Quebec is more conservative in not merging the two vowels, but that doesn't tell us anything about absolute vowel quality in 1800.)


----------



## berndf

Dan2 said:


> ..."è" and "ê" have _very_ different _quality_ in traditional Quebec French.


Interesting. Can you explain?


----------



## arsham

In words like "fenêtre" Quebecors would pronounce "ê" as a diphthongue. I know that Old French did have a large number of diphthongues but I am not sure whether they survived in later periods.


----------



## Dan2

Right.  "ê" is something like an [a] gliding into [e].  There are some famous minimal pairs, like "faite" [fɛt] vs "fête", approx'ly [faet] (monosyllabic).

However... there are lengthening environments in Quebec French, such as before /r/, and a lengthened "è", as in "père", undergoes a diphthongization similar to the historically long "ê".

(I think I have the phonology right; getting the exact vowel qualities would require a dialect-specific phonetic study...  )


----------



## berndf

Dan2 said:


> Right.  "ê" is something like an [a] gliding into [e].  There are some famous minimal pairs, like "faite" [fɛt] vs "fête", approx'ly [faet] (monosyllabic).


Ah, I see. But that does not only affect ê but all [ɛ:]s, like in _père_, doesn't it?


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> Ok, this means that length varied already in the 18th century ("... au gré du poëte, long ou bref").


Yes, but the general tendency was for the vowel to be long. See Thurot II (p. 593ff) for details.


----------



## Dan2

berndf said:


> Ah, I see. But that does not only affect ê but all [ɛ:]s, like in _père_, doesn't it?


Right, as I said in the middle paragraph of my previous post, #7 (so "père" but not "je (ré)pète).  But I guess it bears repeating, since it seems to establish that the diphthongization was an innovation in Quebec French.

In fact, the diphthongization of /ɛ:/ seems to be part of a more general diphthongization process that affects most or all non-high long vowels in Quebec French. "pâte" is diphthongized, but not "patte", for ex.

All this is interesting, but I guess it doesn't shed any light on what Walker meant back in the 18th century. Just be aware that


berndf said:


> Today we have é=[e] and è=ê=[ɛ].


doesn't go over well on this side of the Atlantic.


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> Yes, but the general tendency was for the vowel to be long. See Thurot II (p. 593ff) for details.


Thank you. That makes a lot of sense. The occurrence in place where you would expect compensatory lengthening (_estre>être_) always made be wonder, if ^ wasn't originally a length indicator. Evolution like _Chaalons>Châlons_ and _Aaron>Âron_ are of cause a very clear signal.

That means that there is a strong probability Walker selected "ê" as a comparison for quantity and not for quality and we can't really say whether he meant [e:] or [ɛ:]. Would you agree?
(Here is the reference, p.10, #73)


----------



## berndf

Dan2 said:


> doesn't go over well on this side of the Atlantic.


Given the context of my question, Québec French obviously wasn't high on by agenda. And... not all North American French speakers speak Québec French.


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> That means that there is a strong probability Walker selected "ê" as a comparison for quantity and not for quality and we can't really say whether he meant [e:] or [ɛ:]. Would you agree?


I don't know… It really seems to me that he is saying that English _trade_, _pain_, _bear_, etc. have the same vowel sound (quality and quantity) as French _être_ and _tête_.


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> I don't know… It really seems to me that he is saying that English _trade_, _pain_, _bear_, etc. have the same vowel sound (quality and quantity) as French _être_ and _tête_.


/tɹɛ:d/, /pɛ:n/,/bɛ:ɚ/. Is that what you read? ... And /wʰɛːɹɛː/ for _where_ as a variant of /wʰɛːɹɛ/ which he considers the normal pronunciation -- most interesting.


----------



## arsham

Bear in mind that in some cases ê and even é stand for a historical "es" so not all ê's have a distinct phonetic value. My guess is that the existence of diphthongs in Quebec French is an anglicism, because Middle French is nearly devoid any diphthongs! Let's wait for an expert's opinion!


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> Today we have é=[e] and è=ê=[ɛ]. Was this true in the late 18th/early 19th century as well? I am particularly interested in ê; was it homophone with è at that time too? Today there is a semi-phonemic difference between [ɛ] and [ɛ:] (_mettre_ vs. _maître_). Was there maybe a consistent quantity difference between è and ê and if so, when did it end?



According to wikipedia, at least, lengthened vowels (those that would have a circumflex) started losing their length around 1700.  According to their table some [ɛ:] were originally [e:], than become [ɛ].  Unfortunately they do not give an example.  Other than that modern [ɛ] evolved from many different sources that have converged in modern speech. See here
From my personal experience, in regional speech in certain areas of France, pronouncing é or é: for ê is commonplace (I just heard "fenéét" as I have a big problem with one!), yet it is considered incorrect. Just to say at the beginning of the 1800's that pronunciation would certainly have been around.  I can imagine under certain circumstances (lots of if's on both sides) someone's "tête" could be/have been someone else's "Tate".



> Bear in mind that in some cases ê and even é stand for a historical "es" so not all ê's have a distinct phonetic value. My guess is that the existence of diphthongs in Quebec French is an anglicism, because Middle French is nearly devoid any diphthongs! Let's wait for an expert's opinion!


If I remember right, Canada was settled mostly 1600-1700's (Quebec founded 1608), plus the colonizers were from western France, so that could account for the longer and closed vowels.  It doesn't necessarily have to be an anglicism, maybe just retention of older speech.  Just as they keep /mwe/ not /mwa/ for "moi".


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> From my personal experience, in regional speech in certain areas of France, pronouncing é or é


I think mainly in your area. Do you mean like this pronunciation by a Belgian speaker? Where do you live exactly?


----------



## arsham

The distinction between é and è is phonetic, the former is closed and the latter is open. But ê mostly results from historical "es" as in fenêtre (cf. German Fenster). The loss of a consonant can lengthen a vowel but it is not done in a systematic way in French. Unlike English and German, vowel length is not the primary criterion in defining vowels.


----------



## berndf

arsham said:


> The distinction between é and è is phonetic, the former is closed and the latter is open. But ê mostly results from historical "es" as in fenêtre (cf. German Fenster). The loss of a consonant can lengthen a vowel but it is not done in a systematic way in French. Unlike English and German, vowel length is not the primary criterion in defining vowels.


Of course. Nobody here doubted that vowel length is non-phonemic. Yet, ê in stressed syllables are predominantly long and this obviously was even more consistently so 200 years ago.


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> I think mainly in your area. Do you mean like this pronunciation by a Belgian speaker? Where do you live exactly?



Yes. In Lorraine. From this source which seems correct, closing and lengthening vowels is common.
If it is/was limited to North-East France and Belgium... I don't see why Walker should have compared it to English long A.   /e:/ must have been more widespread back then.  I'm sure I've heard pére somewhere else, just to remember
Perhaps the English vowel has changed too?


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> Perhaps the English vowel has changed too?


The English vowel _certainly_ changed. At that time, it was a pure monophthong. According to traditional textbook wisdom, the "long a" went from (17th century) [ɛ:] (like a longFrench è) to [e:] (like a long French é) and then to the 20th century [eɪ] and now mostly [ɛɪ] (or at least with a lowered [e]). The question which motivates me is whether it was still [ɛ:] in Regency English or already [e:].


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> The English vowel _certainly_ changed. At that time, it was a pure monophthong. According to traditional textbook wisdom, the "long a" went from (17th century) [ɛ:] (like a longFrench è) to [e:] (like a long French é) and then to the 20th century [eɪ] and now mostly [ɛɪ] (or at least with a lowered [e]). The question which motivates me is whether it was still [ɛ:] in Regency English or already [e:].


Thanks again for the information!  It seems right on.  I had thought that dipthonging occurred early in English given the presence of y (day, they) or i (wait) in spelling.
My hunch is at some time in the transformation of vowel sounds in English/French the two languages crossed, so Tate/tête would have sounded similar, or at least similar enough to Walker's ears.  Also, perhaps in conservative/academic speech older pronunciations hung on for some time long after most people had switched.  I've often had professors explain sound differences that are outdated.


----------



## berndf

The diphthong in "day" was lost relatively early during the Great Vowel Shift which causes the vowels in "n*a*me" and "d*ay*" to merge. In Shakespeare's time the process was probably already completed. And the merged vowel remained a monophthong until the 19th century when it became a diphthong again.

The diphthongization of "I" was a different process which started much earlier, first probably as a sliding [ɪj] and the first part then successively lowered until it reached [a].

Here is a useful overview.


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> That means that there is a strong probability Walker selected "ê" as a comparison for quantity and not for quality and we can't really say whether he meant [e:] or [ɛ:]. Would you agree?
> (Here is the reference, p.10, #73)


By the way, earlier in the same book (p. xvi) he says that the "long slender English _a_" as in _fate_ and _paper_ corresponds to French _fée_ and _épée_…


----------



## berndf

Thank you very much for spotting this, CapnPrep.

According what you wrote in #2, the two passages seem to be in conflict. What do you construe from that?


----------

