# Je ne suis pas là pour le moment (prononciation)



## tʃæz

First, as I believe the forum posting guideline policy explicitly asked of me, I'll say I am nowhere near fluent in French. In the upcoming Autumn semester (several months from now) I plan on taking French, but other than that, I'm only minutely self-taught. So, I can neither read nor write very intelligibly in French.

That aside, on to the actual question. I have read through some texts, all online since I haven't come across any book sources yet, about intonation and their relation to rhythmic groups. I've also tried doing various research on rhythmic groups and how they're put together, but overall, the sources assume the reader already is at least somewhat book-smart in French, so I get a little lost. How can I identify where rhythmic groups are formed/split so that I can know where to rise (or in the case of the end of a statement lower) my tone?

In the Vocabulary section of the French forum, I got an answer that led me to the phrase "Je ne suis pas là pour le moment." Now, great, I have the sentence I was looking for and I can spell/understand it. However, I don't know if I can accurately say it out-loud because I don't know the intonation. My gut is telling me, "Je ne suis _pas_ | là _pour_ | le moment," where italics are rising tones and the underline is a lowering tone.

Can anyone please elaborate, confirm, and/or refute any of this for me?

Merci!


----------



## Krom le Barbare

Hmm, hard to explain. The first thing is: French is a not as _musical_ as English is, and there are no definite rules about intonation. For example, words are not stressed like, you know, chicken, specific, assume, are in English. Actually, no words are stressed either inside a sentence. Ex: "*How* can you *say* that?" has got two stressed words, the others are (often) hardly audible. In French, in the same sentence : "*Co*mment pouvez-vous dire ça ?", all the words are "equivalent" or so.

The only rule is that tone lowers at the end of the sentence, except in questions or exclamations where it rises.

Concerning your sentence: "Je ne suis pas là, | pour le moment." would be correct. The coma clearly separates what is important (Je ne suis pas là) from what is not so important (pour le moment). However, on a forum, the sentence is to be read as a sign, with no intonation at all, except maybe for the lowering tone on "moment".

I don't know if I made myself quite clear. First think I would advise you would be to lose any hint of English intonation, especially the stressed words ("e*xam*ple" -eng => "exempl(e)" -fr). 
This is the main thing that betrays an English-speaking guy in France! The second thing is the 'T's, 'P's and 'C's, which are softer in French. "_c_at", "_p_a_p_er" or "_t_as_t_y" sound a bit aggressive to us. You could understand that by having an English guy pronounce "paper" and a French guy pronounce "papier" with their mouth full of semolina; the English one is bound to spray everyone.

Bonne journée.


----------



## tʃæz

Krom le Barbare said:


> Hmm, hard to explain. The first thing is: French is a not as _musical_ as English is, and there are no definite rules about intonation ....
> 
> The only rule is that tone lowers at the end of the sentence, except in questions or exclamations where it rises.



Merci mille fois!

Most of the phonetics and phonology (such as the lack of aspiration in  plosives and the equivalent stress) I have covered and become well  adjusted to. I make it a hobby - hoping to be a future career - to know  and specialise in those things. It was just the intonation (which some  call 'sing-songy,' but that I don't see that so much with) that I wasn't  experienced in, and which I found the least material on.

So, then, 'rhythmic' groups don't really exist in French, primarily? A significant amount of the information that I originally found, which I found in other sources, also, is on 'French Rhythm - Le rythme' on About dot com. It listed 'nominal groups,' 'verbal groups,' and 'prepositional groups,' each of which was apparently divided by intonation, even if subtle.


----------



## Krom le Barbare

Hmpf. I’m not a expert. I don’t regard learning a language with theory as a good method. I’ve learn*t* English alone reading books, listening to the Beatles (or AC/DC) and watching films; I reckon this is the best way when you can’t afford spending months in England (I’m only 18)! « Nominal groups, verbal groups ... » I don’t know what you’re referring to. And frankly, I don’t think this’ll help.
I mean, watching _Reservoir Dogs _helped me more than English classes, so don’t expect me to understand what rythmic groups are. If you’re interested in self-teaching, start with a good book and a dictionnary (I started with _Harry Potter_, Tolkien ...). If you don’t find French books, I advise you to pick the French version of an English-written book you already know (still assuming you have the basics). 
When you’re able to understand more than, say, 70% of any French text, watch French films with French subtitles! 
Of course, OpenSubtitles.org is your friend.

Listening to French is the best way to understand the rhythm of it. I did that with English: you’ve just got to repeat "You' talking to me?" in order to immerse yslf in American intonation ...


----------



## tʃæz

And I don't know your background. It was just a shot in the dark, hoping to hit something. Still, I've already learned more in the past few days about French from the people on here than I have in the month or so in self-research, and so every little piece of input from you is much appreciated.

Merci beaucoup! =]


----------



## Krom le Barbare

You can study a language for years, I think it will never replace spending one month or two in the country.


> My gut is telling me, "Je ne suis _pas_ | là _pour_ | le moment"


 you can’t guess things like that, it’s got to be in your ear before you actually try and pronounce it. 


> How can I identify where rhythmic groups are formed/split so that I can  know where to rise (or in the case of the end of a statement lower) my  tone?


You can’t, unfortunately. Don’t even try to learn French from a _logic_ point of view! Or in few days, you will be wondering how to guess the gender of a word: why is "girafe" a female word and "éléphant" a male word, in French? ... well ... giraffes are more er ... elegant ... and ... well, they have long legs ... 

Last piece of advice for today: read French, listen to French, think French, eat French (never harms). I wish I could supply you with great French films for you to watch with English subtitles (very useful, when you "begin"), but the only films I see are American ones. As for music: I personnally think non-English-speaking music sucks, especially French one btw. But French litterature is great.

Je reste à ton service, bien sûr.


----------



## TulipinParis

I have to agree with Krom le barbare there. 

I've been living in France for a while and come across words all the time, thinking how would I pronounce that. The tongue is a muscle, it's all about practice, practice, practice. Watch french films, see how their mouth moves, listen to french music and speak it out loud. A good podcast is radiolingua dot com.


----------



## tʃæz

Yes, immersion. I don't know if I would really be able to go to France, but many other aspects I could work on. I learned a song in French not to long ago - La Vie En Rose - only it was a remake which was made to be slower and sweeter; that helped me get used to many of the pronunciations. As for films, I'll look around. I'm sure I can find _something_ somewhere. And I know a couple of people who know at least some French - one who's still learning and one that seems to be fluent.

Again, thank you for all of the help! This one (language) is very new to me, so I'm still quite curious, confused, and almost overwhelmed. It's like looking at a cliff and figuring out how I'm going to begin climbing it.

(Oh, and German was quite funny with the genders, too. There seemed to be absolutely no method to the madness, ever. Some things that were biologically/physically feminine still were given the masculine grammatical gender! So, you simply had to learn the gender alongside the word.)


----------



## Krom le Barbare

> La Vie En Rose


Singing is great! And you haven't got to do too much efforts to remember the pronunciation, the tune helps. (Beware of the old pronunciations by Édith Piaf, like the rolled "R"s.)
If you like it, I’m sure you’ve heard of the film with Marion Cotillard (Oscar for best actress), which "true" name is _La Môme_. I was on the verge of suggesting it, actually, before you posted this. 



> I'm sure I can find _something_ somewhere


Oh yes. Try Claude Lelouch or maybe Chabrol, Truffaut and Godard if you don't mind the seventies. Any film with Gérard Depardieu is worth watching, like Cyrano de Bergerac, Le Comte de Monte-Cristo... The César Awards can help you.

I assume the genders can be awful to learn! It seems so obvious for me that a tiger is a male by default and a ladybird or a whale is a female ... Actually, I couldn't even think of "Mr Giraffe" or "Mrs Walrus". Weird, eh? For instance, for -very- young children, Mickey Mouse just can't be a mouse (he doesn't even look like one), because a mouse is a "she", in France.
For the objects, there is NO rule AT ALL. You could guess "bow tie" is male, but unfortunately, "bra" is male too, whereas "tie" is female. 

 Wine is male, Beer is female. Can't explain why. Guess I have to enjoy the fact that I don't have to learn it.


----------



## tʃæz

Krom le Barbare said:


> (Beware of the old pronunciations by Édith Piaf, like the rolled "R"s.)



While it was La Vie En Rose, originally sung by Édith Piaf, I said it was a remake. The band that redid it was Pomplamoose, and, even though they are from California, the French accent she used sounded more flavored by Canadian French. But that's purely speculation. Regardless, it wasn't as old-fashioned as Piaf's pronunciations. Also, with German, I learned to do a 'French gutteral R,' which is trilled in the back of the throat. And then, with French, I began to learn how to do the even more modern French R which is in the same place, but not trilled. It's kind of like the 'ch' in German as in the word "Ich," but further back. I try to take pieces of other languages which I've learned things about and adjust/apply them to new languages.

I'll make sure to look into all of those movies. Again, merci, merci, merci! You've been a great deal of help.


----------



## Krom le Barbare

"Ich" [iʃ] is a bad example, isn't it? "J. S. Ba*ch*" or even Scot "Lo*ch*" are the ones we usually give. I must admit it is pretty hard to catch, for it is softer and sounds more like you are being strangled. But I think you're going to have _much more_ trouble with nasal vowels ... hé hé héhttp://forum.wordreference.com/member.php?u=436122


----------



## tʃæz

Krom le Barbare said:


> "Ich" [iʃ] is a bad example, isn't it? "J. S. Ba*ch*" or even Scot "Lo*ch*" are the ones we usually give. I must admit it is pretty hard to catch, for it is softer and sounds more like you are being strangled. But I think you're going to have _much more_ trouble with nasal vowels ... hé hé hé



Oh, no. In (what I've found to be) most varieties of German, it's not [ʃ]. The 'ch' as in 'Ich' is [ç], the slightly fronted and softer equivalent of [x] or even [χ]. It's more palatal (like [j], [c], [ɕ]), which is why it follows the front vowels _, [ɪ], [ʏ], and so on. French, as far as I know, doesn't have this sound. So, how I say the French R - voiceless - sounds like if I said the 'ch' in 'Ich,' but further back in the mouth.

Oh, and also, I've done pretty well with nasal vowels. It's doing the R's repeatedly that's my most recent challenge._


----------



## Languagethinkerlover

tʃæz said:


> First, as I believe the forum posting guideline policy explicitly asked of me, I'll say I am nowhere near fluent in French. In the upcoming Autumn semester (several months from now) I plan on taking French, but other than that, I'm only minutely self-taught. So, I can neither read nor write very intelligibly in French.
> 
> That aside, on to the actual question. I have read through some texts, all online since I haven't come across any book sources yet, about intonation and their relation to rhythmic groups. I've also tried doing various research on rhythmic groups and how they're put together, but overall, the sources assume the reader already is at least somewhat book-smart in French, so I get a little lost. How can I identify where rhythmic groups are formed/split so that I can know where to rise (or in the case of the end of a statement lower) my tone?
> 
> In the Vocabulary section of the French forum, I got an answer that led me to the phrase "Je ne suis pas là pour le moment." Now, great, I have the sentence I was looking for and I can spell/understand it. However, I don't know if I can accurately say it out-loud because I don't know the intonation. My gut is telling me, "Je ne suis _pas_ | là _pour_ | le moment," where italics are rising tones and the underline is a lowering tone.
> 
> Can anyone please elaborate, confirm, and/or refute any of this for me?
> 
> Merci!




 I see that you underlined the second part of 'moment.' I've been told more than once that in French, the stress is always on the last part of the word. For example, 'Avétis,' you would put more stress on the 'tis' part of the name. 

 If I made the mistake of not putting the stress on the end of the word, they were sure to correct me and tell me why I have to do it.


----------



## tʃæz

Languagethinkerlover said:


> I see that you underlined the second part of 'moment.' I've been told more than once that in French, the stress is always on the last part of the word. For example, 'Avétis,' you would put more stress on the 'tis' part of the name.
> 
> If I made the mistake of not putting the stress on the end of the word, they were sure to correct me and tell me why I have to do it.



Doesn't that somewhat contradict how French isn't supposed to have _any_ stressed syllables? I've been told time and time again that the syllables are all even.


----------



## DearPrudence

tʃæz said:


> Doesn't that somewhat contradict how French isn't supposed to have _any_ stressed syllables? I've been told time and time again that the syllables are all even.


Exactly.
That would actually sound strange if you stressed a syllable like you do in English.


----------



## Outsider

I second the idea that French words do give the _impression_ of being stressed always on the last syllable. But perhaps "stress" isn't the right phonetic term... Pitch? Tone?... Or maybe it's just an illusion that those of us who speak languages with a stress accent get when we hear languages without it. (But if so, why?)


----------



## Languagethinkerlover

Hi,

 I've done a little research and found the below paragraph on the internet. Honestly I don't care about stress on words. It's the people who were correcting me who kept bothering me about it. I hope this helps...for all I know it could vary by country and/or specific speakers. 


French words are sometimes said to be *stressed on the final syllable*. In fact, however, it may be said that French has no _word_ stress at all; instead, stress is placed on the *final syllable* (or, if the final is a schwa, the next-to-final syllable) of a _string_ of words. This string may be equivalent to a clause or a phrase. When a word is said alone, its last syllable is also the end of the phrase, so the stress is placed there.
http://www.answers.com/topic/stress-language


​


----------



## tʃæz

Okay, thanks for that clarification. One thing about language - any language - is that different speakers will still have different methods of speaking the language. So, for a learner, it kind of ends up being an accumulation of whatever they learn from whichever fluent speakers they encounter. If, however, a learner has a single, long time influence, there may be different circumstances; I'm not quite sure.


----------



## Outsider

Interesting, and perhaps that helps us answer tʃæz's question. I believe the right intonation in his sentence is "Je ne suis pas là | pour le moment".


----------



## tʃæz

The pronunciation I've settled on is along the lines of: [ʒǝn.sɥi.pa.lá puʁ.lǝ.mɔ.mɑ̀̃] (and, because of the nasal accent, you can't see the grave accent identifying where the tone lowers over the ɑ.)


----------



## Krom le Barbare

@Outsider & Languagethinkerlover 
Quite right, but I must insist on the weak difference between stressed and non-stressed syllabes. Musically speaking, I tend to imitate British accent (in that case, Welsh): [ ... ] You can’t find more singsong a voice than Bedevere’s! 
Well, I reckon it’s harder to find this "tune" when we (the French) speak. Perhaps I'm not well placed to discuss this.

Edit: @tʃæz I agree with your pronunciation. Now, your able to say one French sentence perfectly!  I advise you to switch to the next one: "Parlez-vous anglais ?"


----------



## tʃæz

Krom le Barbare said:


> @tʃæz I agree with your pronunciation. Now, your able to say one French sentence perfectly!  I advise you to switch to the next one: "Parlez-vous anglais ?"



Haha, yes, thank you. [paʁ.le.vu.ɑ̃.glɛ́] is what I get from reading it.


----------



## Krom le Barbare

Correct! However, the pronunciation of "anglais" may vary depending on the area (France is not very large, but there are almost as many accents as départements): for instance, in the South-West, where I live, everybody pronounces [ɑ̃.gle]. In fact, even if this is the wrong pronunciation, pronouncing "closed vowels", as their equivalent "open vowels", (when ending a word with a mute "e", like in "rose" - pronounced [rhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-mid_back_rounded_vowelɔz] instead of [roz]) is very usual, especially in the South. 

You've been warned. Anyway, nobody -or so- will laugh at you if you speak a clean French, so ... You can forget the previous paragraph.


----------



## tʃæz

Krom le Barbare said:


> You've been warned. Anyway, nobody -or so- will laugh at you if you speak a clean French, so ... You can forget the previous paragraph.



Oh, no, that's very useful. When learning German, I learned more of an Austro-Bavarian equivalent, rather than the Standard 'Hochdeutch.' A lot of people compared Hochdeutsch to the London Accent, which kind of sounds snobby or overly proper. Also, Bavarian flavors are 'softer' and nicer sounding. Saying [ɑ̃.gle] is also easier/simpler to me, so I think I'd go with that.


----------



## Krom le Barbare

> Saying [ɑ̃.gle] is also easier/simpler to me, so I think I'd go with that


I agree with this decision. Actually, this is the reason why most French pronounce it that way: this is easier. For instance, « Il est anglais » (He is English) should be pronounced [il.ɛ́t.ã.glɛ́]; however, 95% of the French would say [il.e.ɑ̃.gle] (sorry for my poor skill with the IPA) ...


----------



## tʃæz

Krom le Barbare said:


> For instance, « Il est anglais » (He is English) should be pronounced [il.ɛ́t.ã.glɛ́]; however, 95% of the French would say [il.e.ɑ̃.gle] (sorry for my poor skill with the IPA) ...



Actually, your IPA is perfect (except maybe the accute accent over the ɛ́ should be taken off unless you mean both of those to raise in tone.) Most people I know don't even know what the IPA _is_, even though I go on about it more than they can bear. xD But I described French to my mom as being a rather relaxed language. In fact, I screw up much more often if I try too _hard_ at pronouncing the words. The more that I relax myself and just start talking, the better I speak it.


----------



## Krom le Barbare

> the accute accent over the ɛ́


I haven’t got IPA on my keyobard, I simply copied and pasted your ɛ́. 


> I go on about it more than they can bear


Everything related to French language fascinates me, in fact. You won’t bore me with IPA (which is called API in French, btw) or even more complex stuff, I’m too used to bore people with noticing their every French mistakes. But I don’t know much about phonetics, even if I’m curious about it.

An example of French complexity I love; hardly anybody knows it, even in France: "les gens" ("_people_") is always a plural noun.  You may know that in French, qualitificatives can be placed before or after the noun, depending on the qualificative, and always agrees in gender and number with the noun (eg "la jeune femme blonde", "_the blonde young woman_"). Well, "gens" is a curious word: when the qualificative is before "gens", it has to be in a female form (ie with an ending "e", most of the time), whereas if it is after, it has to be in the male form ... Example: "Les vieilles gens sont patients" = "_Old people are patient_".


----------



## tʃæz

Krom le Barbare said:


> An example of French complexity I love; hardly anybody knows it, even in France: "les gens" ("_people_") is always a plural noun.  You may know that in French, qualitificatives can be placed before or after the noun, depending on the qualificative, and always agrees in gender and number with the noun (eg "la jeune femme blonde", "_the blonde young woman_"). Well, "gens" is a curious word: when the qualificative is before "gens", it has to be in a female form (ie with an ending "e", most of the time), whereas if it is after, it has to be in the male form ... Example: "Les vieilles gens sont patients" = "_Old people are patient_".



That is interesting. However, I haven't really gotten as far in learning as knowing the inner-workings of French, so I didn't actually know _exactly_ about qualificatives. I had some vague idea, which is quite common among many European languages. But I'm similar with English. Technically, it's incorrect in English to say "people" to refer to multiple _persons_, for 'people' stands for a group of persons, and "peoples" refers to multiple groups of persons. But everyone just say people for both senses. So, correct sentences would be: "Many more persons came to the party than I would've thought," and "Americans are a richer people than they would think." But, like the word "whom," it's being simplified and "persons" is almost extinct.


----------



## Krom le Barbare

Interesting too! I knew that, but what I found interesting is that you have one word to designate two things we clearly set apart. When speaking of "_a people_" (for instance, Gipsies), we use the word "un peuple" (from which the English "people" comes), whereas when speaking of "_the people_" or (plural of "a person"), we use "les gens", or "les personnes". 
Ex: 
This *people* has been slaughtered = Ce *peuple* a été massacré
(Some) *People* have been slaughtered = Des* gens* ont été massacrés
These *people* (or persons) have been slaughtered = Ces *personnes* ont été massacrées

I wouldn't regard "many people" as incorrect, though. Guess I'm more flexible than I am with my fellow citizens!

I always wondered how you could bear having just one word, _you_, to say "tu" and "vous", no matter how many people you're adressing. I mean ... you always have to specify who you're talking about, haven't you? Suppose you have A and B in front of you; if you're talking to A and then you say "I like you", B cannot know if you include him/her in the "you"! Bad example, again, but ... well, that doesn't happen in French, except when you are calling one person "vous" as a mark of respect (which is rather common, I must confess).

Anyway, I'm afraid French is much tougher to learn (than English), especially when it comes to the times. Well, an simple example can show this :
En: 
I put, you put, he/she/it puts, we put, you put, they put (present)
I put, you put, he/she/it put, we put, you put, they put (past)

Fr: 
je pose, tu poses, il/elle pose, nous posons, vous posez, ils/elles posent (present)
je posais, tu posais, il/elle posait, nous posions, vous posiez, ils/elles posaient (past 1st form: "imparfait")
je posai (verbally extinct), tu posas, il/elle posa, nous posâmes (extinct), vous posâtes (extinct), ils/elles posèrent (past 2nd form: "passé simple")

... In English, you can't tell if _they put_ means "several male persons put now", "several female persons put now", "several male persons put before now", "several female persons put before now", "several male and female persons put now" or "several male and female persons put before now". 
In French, all we cannot tell is whether "ils" designate "several male people" or "several people including one male at least".


----------



## tʃæz

Krom le Barbare said:


> I always wondered how you could bear having just one word, _you_, to say "tu" and "vous", no matter how many people you're adressing.



English, over the many, many years, has largely _lost_ its conjugations. Now, that's to say that they used to be there. 'You' used to mean the dative & accusative form of 'ye,' both of which were *plural* (possessive form 'your,' which is also still in use.) What were the singular forms? 'Thou' and 'thee' (and possessive 'thine.') Now, genders weren't really applied much for a great deal of English's existence, but pronouns, even in Middle English, where much more heavily conjugated than they are in modern day.

Also, if you notice in English verb agreement, you *never* say 'you is' (except in some dialects which literally make the verb agree with the situation rather than just the adjacent or related pronoun.) So, even if 'you' is referring to a singular person, you should always say 'you are' because of its history of being plural.


----------

