# circumflex accent a clue to an S in English equivalent?



## playgued

Circonflexe

I have been told (a reliable source), that the ê forêt does not change the sound of the e.  Further, that a circonflexe does not change the sound of any vowel it is placed over (i.e. hôtel).  Rather than using the circonflexe to infer a vowel sound, I was informed the circonflexe came into use about 600 to 800 years ago as the French language was pulling itself totally away from its roots in France and in countries which had invaded the lands where the original language was spoken and lands which French speaking peoples had themselves invaded (Angleterre pour example) - (Whew!  That was a tough sentence to get out, I hope it can be understood without 10 hours of intense concentration and yoga!)  And that it's initial (and largely continuing usage) was to denote a missing "s".  Thus, forêt became (by the forces that change language, make it grow) a substitute for forest, and hôtel a substitute for hostel.  This is a fascinating idea.  Kind of akin to "def" being substituted for "definitely!!!"
Anyway this explanation was challenged. I have nowhere to go except here.


----------



## JamesM

That's what I had learned as well. 

I don't think it's much like "def" for "definitely", though. To me, it's more like "o'clock" replacing "of the clock". The mark initially indicates missing letters and eventually becomes part of the word.  The circonflexe is more systematic, of course, but I think the analogy holds on a single word basis.


----------



## lingogal

I'm afraid your reliable source is not so reliable, Playgued! The circonflexe can indeed change the sound of certain vowels: for example, there is a difference in sound between notre and nôtre, as well as a difference in meaning (our, adjective vs. ours, noun). The first has an open "O" sound, somewhat like the u of "cut" in English, while the second (with the circonflexe) has a closed "O" sound like in the word "beau" in French. From my understanding of historical linguistics, the circonflexe did replace an "s" in many cases, but you can't use this "rule" for every time a circonflexe appears. If that were the case, we'd be eating "disner" instead of dinner! Hope this is helpful.


----------



## palomnik

This discussion resembles the blind men with an elephant, and I hope that a French native will eventually weigh in on the subject.

As one more blind man, it's been obvious to me that the _circonflexe_ replaced a mising "s" in a lot of words from the Latin (hôte, evêque). However, it may not necessarily be an "s" that has dropped out; in dîner it is an "n" that has disappeared.

My understanding is that French borrowed the _circonflexe_ from classical Greek, where it was also a sign that a consonant had dropped out, along with other more uncertain things, and that the usage was standardized in the seventeenth century.

This is not to contradict Lingogal's comments about pronunciation change, and in fact it would be normal to expect changes in pronunciation of vowels in Romance languages when a consonant drops out.


----------



## Nizo

According to “A History of the French Language” by Peter Rickard, the Académie française, in the third edition of its dictionary (1740), made some major changes in the spelling of French.  Among these was to suppress the preconsonantal _s_ except where pronounced, and the preceding vowel was given either a circumflex or an acute accent according to the stress (_escole > école_, but _beste > bête_).  In other words, this was a conscious, deliberate decision by the Académie in the mid-18th century.


----------



## nikvin

well, I always understood that the ^ came about eons ago, when monks handwrote all the books, and that the ^ was used to replace an s. A sort of monastical shorthand,and with time the actual sound of the s disappeared. this is what happened in Spanish with the ñ , a quick way of writing a double n, but again with time the letter adopted its own sound and became a letter in its own right. indeed in English, I believe that the letter y was used as a quick way of writing a TH, but this reverted back in jmany instances .


----------



## modus.irrealis

lingogal said:


> The circonflexe can indeed change the sound of certain vowels:


Just to add, I think it only doesn't change _i_ and _u_, while _o, e, _and _a_ are changed, although I guess the change with _a_ is getting rarer and rarer since most people now pronounce _pâte_ and _patte_ the same.



> If that were the case, we'd be eating "disner" instead of dinner! Hope this is helpful.


I always thought that the circumflex did represent a missing _s_, and at atilf.atilf.fr it does show that even _dîner_ was originally _disner_. But after some more searching, I found that _âge_ comes from earlier _äage_, so I guess you're right that it's not always from an _s_.



palomnik said:


> My understanding is that French borrowed the _circonflexe_ from classical Greek, where it was also a sign that a consonant had dropped out, along with other more uncertain things, and that the usage was standardized in the seventeenth century.


Are you sure it was for Greek, because in Greek the circumflex was used to indicate a specific kind of pitch accent for a word, and I can't think of any case where it represented a lost consonant?


----------



## Whodunit

I don't think you can make a rule for all kinds of the French circumflexes, but if I had to, it would be as follows:

a pre-consonantial _s_ was dropped for phonetic reasons: _forêt _(< OF _forest_ < La _forestem silvam_)_, bête _(< La _bestia_)_, île _(< Prov. _isla _< La _insula_) _, être/êtes _(< La _esse/essere_, cf. Gr. _εστιν_, NHG _ist_ etc.)_, aumônes_ (< Gr. ελεημοσυνη), _tête _(< La _testa_), _goût_ (< La _gustus_), _evêché_ (< OFr _evesquiet_ < La _episcopus_), ...
the first of two similar (?) consonants was dropped: _âme_ (< OFr. _anme_ < La _anima_), _gêne _(< _géhenne _< Hebr. _גהינם_ (?) _gèhinnom_) - hypothetical!
to distinguish between two homonymes: _sûr - sur, dû - du_
to keep the originally long pronunciation of a Greek pre-consonantial vowel: _théâtre _(< Gr. _θεᾱτρον_), _idolâtre _(< Gr. _ειδωλολᾱτρος_), _dôme _(< Gr. _δῶμα_) - hypthetical!
inexplicable: _môme _(because it's a modern word?), _tôle_ (maybe from Latin _tabula_?)
The most important "rule" is the first and third one.


----------



## Spectre scolaire

palomnik said:
			
		

> My understanding is that French borrowed the _circonflexe_ from classical Greek, where it was also a sign that a consonant had dropped out


 Could you elaborate on that?!
 ​*PS*: I forgot to post my question. Now I see that _modus.irrealis_ is as curious as I am...


----------



## Outsider

playgued said:


> Further, that a circonflexe does not change the sound of any vowel it is placed over (i.e. hôtel).


Not true. The vowel _ê_ is usually open, whereas it would often be close or _muet_ otherwise, in the same position (although _forêt_ is an exception to this, I believe). The vowel _ô_ is close in standard French (it could be open instead). The vowel _â_ is back, whereas it could be a front vowel otherwise. (Of these three, the first distinction is the most important.)

Furthermore, in some conservative dialects of French vowels with a circumflex are usually long, as opposed to short.

More about the circumflex in French.


----------



## palomnik

Regarding the questions on my comment about the circumflex in Classical Greek, it is true that the sign itself was created as a tonal indication by Aristophanes of Byzantium (not the playwright) at the time when the original pitch accent of Classical Greek was being lost as the _koine _developed, since non-Greeks were learning Greek and losing the proper intonation. Exactly what it represented in terms of the actual sound is open to conjecture; presumably it was a rise and fall in pitch on the same syllable.

In fact, if you look closer into the morphology changes between Archaic and Classical Greek, you realize that in the positions where the circumflex occurs there was originally a consonant that dropped out between two vowels, and the vowels coalesced into one syllable. No doubt this was the reason that these syllables had a rise and fall in pitch on the same syllable.

All this talk about Classical Greek is making me want to break out my books and get to work on it again - I love Classical Greek! - but I have too many other projects going on.


----------



## Aoyama

Whodunit (post #8) is very thorough and very right in his/her explanation.
Let me add my grain of salt :


> inexplicable: _môme _(because it's a modern word?), _tôle_ (maybe from Latin _tabula_?)


most probably for prononciation reasons, by analogy with *côte/cote* where the *ô* is a closed *o* (c_ôte_ coming from costa).


----------



## Qcumber

Whodunit said:


> inexplicable: _môme _(because it's a modern word?), _tôle_ (maybe from Latin _tabula_?)


The grave accent is not used on <o>, only the circumflex is, hence <ô>, to indicate the /o/ is closed.
This is a general rule, except for the <é> Vs <è> contrast, the grave accent is not used to indicate the closing of the vowel. It is a mere grammatical diacritic.
e.g. *ou* "or" Vs *où*, "where" are both pronounced .
Conversely the /u/ of *voûte* "vault" is different: it is longer [u:] and, perhaps, more closed than .


----------



## Whodunit

Aoyama said:


> Whodunit (post #8) is very thorough and very right in his/her explanation.


 
I'm still not sure about the second point, though. 



> most probably for prononciation reasons, by analogy with *côte/cote* where the *ô* is a closed *o* (c_ôte_ coming from costa).


 


Qcumber said:


> The grave accent is not used on <o>, only the circumflex is, hence <ô>, to indicate the /o/ is closed.


 
Yep, that's it! Similar words should be _dôme, Rhône, pôle_ etc.


----------



## eleve

the circumflex not only replaces the letter 's' but also some others.It carries the transformation of a word from one form to another through ages.

aage----âge
saoul----soûl
meur----mûr
dixme----dîme

it carries etymological significance.


----------



## Aoyama

> the circumflex not only replaces the letter 's' but also some others.It carries the transformation of a word from one form to another through ages.
> (....)
> 
> it carries etymological significance.


Absolutely. It is, therefore, NOT an accent linked to _accentuation _(pronounciation) like the accent aigu or the accent grave, though it acts, phonetically, as an accent grave (normally NOT as an accent aigu, though this rule is sometimes forgotten in contemporary French).
The accent circonflexe may replace _several_ missing letters like in :
île (insula, cf. insulaire)
âme (anima, cf. animal, animé)
âne (asinus)
etc.
The accent circonflexe may also be a simple _diacritical sign_ used to differentiate two homonyms :
dû (pp. devoir, due feminine) /du partitive article
crû/cru
tâche (but cf. English ta*s*k)/tache
etc.


----------



## Whodunit

Aoyama said:


> Absolutely. It is, therefore, NOT an accent linked to _accentuation _(pronounciation) like the accent aigu or the accent grave, though it acts, phonetically, as an accent grave (normally NOT as an accent aigu, though this rule is sometimes forgotten in contemporary French).
> The accent circonflexe may replace _several_ missing letters like in :
> île (insula, cf. insulaire)
> âme (anima, cf. animal, animé)
> âne (asinus)
> etc.



That reminds me of the Greek _iota subscriptum_: An almost silent _i_ sounds after another "stronger" vowel was not pronounced anymore, although it was written after the capital letters* (and as a small _iota_ below the preceding vowel): τῷ θεῷ/ΤΩΙ ΘΕΩΙ  (pronounced: tō theṓ) = "to the God";   Ἅιδης (pronounced: hādês) = "Hades"

If I look at the French words, the following development could have taken place:
île < iula < insula
âme < aima < anima
âne < aine < asine < asinus

The circonflexe-letter is usually longer than one without a circonflexe, so the following vowel _i_/_u_ could have become weaker and the former got an elongated pronunciation, merged with the following _i_/_u_.

This is just a wild guess, and I have no idea whether such a phenomenon has ever appeared in English. 




*that one is usually called _iota adscriptum_, as it is written *to/next to* the preceding vowel.


----------



## Outsider

Whodunit said:


> If I look at the French words, the following development could have taken place:
> île < iula < insula
> âme < aima < anima
> âne < aine < asine < asinus


I believe it was more like:

insula > isla (cf. Spanish) > isle (medieval French) > île (modern French)
asinus > asno (cf. Portuguese) > asne > âne
anima > anma > alma (cf. Spanish) > aume > âme


----------



## Whodunit

Outsider said:


> I believe it was more like:
> 
> insula > isla (cf. Spanish) > isle (medieval French) > île (modern French)
> asinus > asno (cf. Portuguese) > asne > âne
> anima > anma > alma (cf. Spanish) > aume > âme



Thank you. As I said, it was just a wild guess. But please explain something to me:

How can an _n_ be omitted just out of the blue? Is it typical for Old Romance languages? (first example)
How come a nasal sound (_n_) becomes an approximant (_l_)? (third example)
Are they typical changes among the Romance languages?


----------



## Outsider

The first sound change was indeed typical. Intervocalic _-ns-_ was often simplified to _-s-_. Example: _defensa_ (Lat.) > _defesa_ (Sp, Port.) And I guess I should have included another intermediate stage: _insula > isula > is'la_.

The second was less typical, but if memory serves me it's the usually accepted derivation. You see, in Vulgar Latin / Old Romance many unstressed vowels disappeared. So you would get _anima_ > _an'ma_, but I guess the "lost" vowel left some "coloring" residual which made this "n" sound kind of like an "l". Besides, the consonant cluster "nm" was unusual in Latin, and nonexistent in early Romance, so there was probably a tendency to replace it with another one, by analogy.

Interesting how your Germanic instincts would have suggested entirely different sound changes!


----------



## Whodunit

Outsider said:


> The first sound change was indeed typical. Intervocalic _-ns-_ was often simplified to _-s-_. Example: _defensa_ (Lat.) > _defesa_ (Sp, Port.) And I guess I should have included another intermediate stage: _insula > isula > is'la_.



All right, I should bear that in mind. 



> The second was less typical, but if memory serves me it's the usually accepted derivation. You see, in Vulgar Latin / Old Romance many unstressed vowels disappeared. So you would get _anima_ > _an'ma_, but I guess the "lost" vowel left some "coloring" residual which made this "n" sound kind of like an "l". Besides, the consonant cluster "nm" was unusual in Latin, and nonexistent in early Romance, so there was probably a tendency to replace it with another one, by analogy.



I supposed something like that, but was not so sure, since I couldn't have come up with other examples.



> Interesting how your Germanic instincts would have suggested entirely different sound changes!



This time, the instincts were rather Greek than Germanic. I don't know of such (typical) changes in the Germanic languages.


----------



## ayupshiplad

Another example I can think of, replacing an 's' between Portuguese and French is 'même- mesmo'. Just thought I'd add something!


----------



## Forero

I would opt for the theory that the "s" sound gradually disappeared, like it is doing in some varieties of Spanish ("ehpañol"), leaving a lengthened vowel.  "n" also modifies (nasalizes) and lengthens a vowel as it disappears.  Sometimes, as in Catalá, the nasality is later lost.


----------



## Qcumber

Forero said:


> I would opt for the theory that the "s" sound gradually disappeared, like it is doing in some varieties of Spanish ("ehpañol"), leaving a lengthened vowel. "n" also modifies (nasalizes) and lengthens a vowel as it disappears. Sometimes, as in Catalá, the nasality is later lost.


Where can this pronunciation - _español_ [e: pa 'njol] -be heard?


----------



## Outsider

Qcumber said:


> Where can this pronunciation - _español_ [e: pa 'njol] -be heard?


Your question is off topic, but there have been many threads in the Spanish language forums about this. Search for the phrase "aspirated s" in the Grammar forum.


----------



## Nanon

Dear All,

Maybe some of you already know that the Académie Française emitted new rules in 1990. These rules include the suppression of unnecessary î and û, which do not reflect an opposition in modern French (as Modus Irrealis mentioned).

Quoting from the report issued by the Conseil Supérieur de la Langue Française: 
_L’accent circonflexe représente une importante          difficulté de l’orthographe du français, et même l’usage          des personnes instruites est loin d’être satisfaisant à cet          égard._
_L’emploi incohérent et arbitraire de cet accent          empêche tout enseignement systématique ou historique._​ _ Vulgo_, it's a mess... 

See also this part (in the "Analyses" section): 
_Certes, le circonflexe paraît à certains          inséparable de l’image visuelle de quelques mots et suscite même          des investissements affectifs (mais aucun adulte, rappelons-le, ne sera          tenu de renoncer à l’utiliser)._​        It sounds like a justification for conservatism to me...  
However, I confess that I do not apply these new rules myself (I am an adult... thus familiar with the "old" spelling), and I think few people do. I am afraid the scope of the reform is rather narrow and limited to (primary?) schools at this stage... Maybe proofreading? 
Let's meet in, say, 2107 and see if the changes have been adopted...



Outsider said:


> Example: _defensa_ (Lat.) > _defesa_ (Sp, Port.)


Sorry, Out, it's _defensa_ in Spanish, but _mesa_ would illustrate the change exactly in the same way (Lat. _mensa_).


----------



## domangelo

Nizo said:


> According to “A History of the French Language” by Peter Rickard, the Académie française, in the third edition of its dictionary (1740), made some major changes in the spelling of French.  Among these was to suppress the preconsonantal _s_ except where pronounced, and the preceding vowel was given either a circumflex or an acute accent according to the stress (_escole > école_, but _beste > bête_).  In other words, this was a conscious, deliberate decision by the Académie in the mid-18th century.



This is an interesting bit of information regarding the Académie française. It represents some practical housecleaning that illustrates the innovative power of such an institution. Contrast this with the situation in Spanish, where the same tendency to drop the preconsonantal s in speech exists, but where the Real Academia has never banished it from the written language. Has this decision (probably conscious, as I am sure that they were well aware of the French decision), been beneficial in half heartedly preserving these s sounds (if such a thing is a benefit)?  Their erratic use in Spanish sounds sloppy and detracts from the prestige of Spanish among the less well informed second language learners, (i.e., nearly everyone), while the loss of the s in French goes completely unnoticed.


----------



## elizabeth_b

Outsider said:


> The first sound change was indeed typical. Intervocalic _-ns-_ was often simplified to _-s-_. Example: *defensa (Lat.) > defesa (Sp, Port.) *And I guess


 
Sorry Outsider but I don't think the -ns example applies to Spanish. In Spanish, at least in this words the *ns* es preserved:

Defensa (latin) = defensa (spanish)
Offensa (latin) = ofensa (spanish)
annuens (latin)= anuencia


----------



## Forero

elizabeth_b said:


> Sorry Outsider but I don't think the -ns example applies to Spanish.



I think it applies to a few words in Vulgar Latin:

L _mensa_ > VL _mesa_ > Sp _mesa_, Fr _moise_.
L _mensis_ > VL _mesis_ > Sp _mes_, Fr _mois_.
L _sponsa_ > VL _isposa_ > Sp _esposa_, Fr _épouse_.
L _prensa_ > VL _presa_? > Sp _presa_, Fr _presse_.
L _insula_ > VL _isla_ > Sp _isla_, Fr _île_.

Only this last one gets the circumflex, for missing _s_.


----------



## elizabeth_b

Forero said:


> I think it applies to a few words in Vulgar Latin:
> 
> L _mensa_ > VL _mesa_ > Sp _mesa_, Fr _moise_.
> L _mensis_ > VL _mesis_ > Sp _mes_, Fr _mois_.
> L _sponsa_ > VL _isposa_ > Sp _esposa_, Fr _épouse_.
> L _prensa_ > VL _presa_? > Sp _presa_, Fr _presse_.
> L _insula_ > VL _isla_ > Sp _isla_, Fr _île_.
> 
> Only this last one gets the circumflex, for missing _s_.


 
Then it will be interesting to know which is the rule for preserving or not the ns sound in Spanish.  In the words I mentioned before and in prensa it doesn't apply.  In Spanish is *prensa.  *
But it will be another thread theme.


----------



## Forero

elizabeth_b said:


> Then it will be interesting to know which is the rule for preserving or not the ns sound in Spanish.  In the words I mentioned before and in prensa it doesn't apply.  In Spanish is *prensa.  *
> But it will be another thread theme.



Actually both _prensa_ and _presa_ exist in modern Spanish.  _Prensa_ is a loan word from scientific Latin, but _presa_ comes from Vulgar Latin.  The original Latin word is the same for both.

If there is a rule, it seems to be that Spanish might not itself delete _n_ before _s_ (except by analogy?), but must have inherited its examples of this from VL (or other Romance languages).

French, however, seems to be more innovative (and may borrow more from Provençal than Spanish does).  Is there a French word where _n_ is replaced by a circonflexe before _s_?


----------



## Nanon

domangelo said:


> This is an interesting bit of information regarding the Académie française. It represents some practical housecleaning that illustrates the innovative power of such an institution. Contrast this with the situation in Spanish, where the same tendency to drop the preconsonantal s in speech exists, but where the Real Academia has never banished it from the written language. Has this decision (probably conscious, as I am sure that they were well aware of the French decision), been beneficial in half heartedly preserving these s sounds (if such a thing is a benefit)?  Their erratic use in Spanish sounds sloppy and detracts from the prestige of Spanish among the less well informed second language learners, (i.e., nearly everyone), while the loss of the s in French goes completely unnoticed.



In fact, dropping the preconsonantal s in French was not only practical housecleaning. It reflected the state of the "official" variant of the French language of the XVIII century, while the s subsisted in regional variants (and still exists in Occitan: testa, festa...).


----------



## Forero

Whodunit said:


> Thank you. As I said, it was just a wild guess. But please explain something to me:
> 
> How can an _n_ be omitted just out of the blue? Is it typical for Old Romance languages? (first example)
> How come a nasal sound (_n_) becomes an approximant (_l_)? (third example)
> Are they typical changes among the Romance languages?





Outsider said:


> Interesting how your Germanic instincts would have suggested entirely different sound changes!




Actually ns -> s is quite common in Germanic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingvaeonic_nasal_spirant_law
cf. Himmel, heaven.  Not sure if n -> l is typical, but it happens.


----------



## Slim Harpo

Bonjour,

I recently heard that a word with a circonflex accent sometimes offers a clue to an English cognate, if you start by inserting an S after the accented vowel. For example: forêt = forest, hôte=hoste.  I'm wondering if someone has an idea about the frequency of this very useful linguistic link. 

Furthermore, this person claimed that the English variant represents a "fossil", so to speak, of what the borrowed French word used to be. Meaning that , historically, "forêt" used to have an S after the E. I find that fascinating, but above all, extremely useful as a vocabulary-building tool (if it's true).

I welcome any and all ideas on the subject! Merci beaucoup de votre aide.


----------



## Outsider

See this previous thread: L'accent circonflexe en français.


----------



## Slim Harpo

Merci mille fois Outsider, a very enlightening thread indeed!


----------



## Xanthius

lingogal said:


> [...] there is a difference in sound between notre and nôtre, as well as a difference in meaning (our, adjective vs. ours, noun). The first has an open "O" sound, somewhat like the u of "cut" in English, while the second (with the circonflexe) has a closed "O" sound like in the word "beau" in French.



Does this sound change hold true for _votre _and _vôtre _?  I guess it does?????

What about _côté _and _coté _?


----------



## Aoyama

> Does this sound change hold true for _votre _and _vôtre _? I guess it does?????
> 
> What about _côté _and _coté _?


It does, indeed, in both examples.
Côte (coast)/ cote (rate, appraisal price)
Compare also with coût (cost) ...


----------



## Outsider

As for the circumflex in _vôtre_, it has to do mostly with pronunciation, although I think the Latin etymon was _vo*s*trum_.

See also the thread All languages: Diacritics.


----------



## Aoyama

> As for the circumflex in _vôtre_, it has to do mostly with pronunciation, although I think the Latin etymon was _vo*s*trum_.


Not only with pronunciation but also (as diacritical accents or marks are for) with _differentiating_ meaning, like *du /* *dû* ,*sur / sûr* ,*cru / crû* etc.


----------



## Outsider

I agree, that's the main function of the circumflex in the pair _votre/vôtre_. The pronoun is accented, while the adjective is not (I think they both originate in Latin _vostrum_). There may also be a difference of pronunciation, but now I remember reading that in southern France the two words are pronounced the same way.


----------



## barbour

Sorry to join so late, but I would like to posit something to which someone here may have an answer:

I once learned - and I have no idea where at all! - that the French circumflex was instituted around the time of early printing presses so that the use of certain letters - such as "s" would not have to be replaced as often when they broke. For example, _coste_, a slope (from the ancient 'coste', from the coastlines remaining from an old meandering river originating as an ocean even more anciently, what remains from the geological cutting), now being a _côte._ Is this only someone's wishful thinking, or is there truth here? The diacritical simply makes the physical letter stronger when used in older presses?


----------



## djmc

I don't think it was universal, but many fonts in books printed before the nineteenth century had an s which did not terminate a word appearing as an f without the bar. This change seems unconnected with the dropping of s and using the circumflex. Texts of seventeenth century authors printed in the eighteenth century use the normalised spelling. I would imagine as suggested earlier that the normalised spelling was established by the Académie française.


----------



## berndf

The "long ſ" was the normal shape of the lower case letter. The "round s" was a variant shape at the end of the word. This had actually nothing to do with French but was a general feature of the alphabets in use in Europe at the time.


----------



## berndf

In the 18th century when the circonflexe was introduced as marker for lost sounds, mainly /s/ in front of other consonants the compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel was still present as far as I know. The ^ as a length or weight indicator makes a lot of sense. In linguistics the ^ is still today often used as a vowel length marker.


----------



## djmc

I realise that this was a characteristic of the fonts used. The special form of the lower case  s was used in some cases but not in others and this for several languages. I don't have that many books printed before the nineteenth century (mostly in Latin, English and French), but some do and some do not.


----------



## berndf

I can't recall ever having seen a book printed before the mid 18th century that didn't use the long s in antiqua printing; in black letter printing its use has always remained mandatory.

But if you are aware that it is a typographic issue independent of French, why do you think this is relevant to this discussion. I can't quite see the point you're trying to make.


----------



## Testing1234567

Outsider said:


> I agree, that's the main function of the circumflex in the pair _votre/vôtre_. The pronoun is accented, while the adjective is not (I think they both originate in Latin _vostrum_). There may also be a difference of pronunciation, but now I remember reading that in southern France the two words are pronounced the same way.


votre: /v*ɔ*tʁ/
vôtre: /v*o*tʁ/


----------



## berndf

Testing1234567 said:


> votre: /v*ɔ*tʁ/
> vôtre: /v*o*tʁ/


And in the south:
votre: /v*ɔ*tʁ/
vôtre: /v*ɔ*tʁ/


----------

