François c'est pas

[Lionel Edwards]

I know this is an English language group, but one of
the great English language songs contains the line
"François c'est pas" - and my CSE French isn't up to that:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHCdS7O248g>

[henh...@gmail.com]

What's your question?

i'm sure it's answered here: https://genius.com/6568402

[Hibou]

« C'est pas » is an informal way of saying « ce n'est pas », "it isn't".

That may or may not make sense when plugged into the lyrics (Henhanna's
link (France Soir is an evening paper)).

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 31.12.2022 kl. 09.17 skrev Hibou:

> « C'est pas » is an informal way of saying « ce n'est pas », "it isn't".

I seem to remember that I've benn told (or have read) that modern French
drops the "ne" in negating sentences. Is that correct, and if so, is it
normal language or informal (as you suggest here)?

--
Bertel

[occam]

Non, c'est pas vrai. (You can get away with it when speaking, but you'll
never pass your baccalauréat with that kind slap-dash grammar.)

[bruce bowser]

Dans ce cas, qu'est-ce que cela signifie: "La France sera essentielle a l'Europe"? An English speaker could think that this means: "The French evening essential to Europe". Instead of saying: "La soirée française indispensable à l'Europe".

[Bebercito]

Le samedi 31 décembre 2022 à 17:50:18 UTC+1, bruce bowser a écrit :
> On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 3:17:21 AM UTC-5, Hibou wrote:
> > Le 30/12/2022 à 23:43, Lionel Edwards a écrit :
> > >
> > > I know this is an English language group, but one of
> > > the great English language songs contains the line
> > > "François c'est pas" - and my CSE French isn't up to that:
> > >
> > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHCdS7O248g>
> > « C'est pas » is an informal way of saying « ce n'est pas », "it isn't".
> >
> > That may or may not make sense when plugged into the lyrics (Henhanna's
> > link (France Soir is an evening paper)).

It (somehow) does, as in the lyrics "France Soir c'est pas Flash et Nous Deux",
all three names have to do with French press.

> Dans ce cas, qu'est-ce que cela signifie: "La France sera essentielle a l'Europe"?

"France will be essential to Europe".

> An English speaker could think that this means: "The French evening essential to Europe". Instead of saying: "La soirée française indispensable à l'Europe".

They'd be wrong either way, as "sera" means "evening" in Italian, not in French.

[bruce bowser]

Thus, it means ... what in Switzerland? [Ainsi, cela signifie... quoi en Suisse ?]

[Peter Moylan]

On 01/01/23 07:18, Bebercito wrote:
> Le samedi 31 décembre 2022 à 17:50:18 UTC+1, bruce bowser a écrit :
>> On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 3:17:21 AM UTC-5, Hibou wrote:
>>> Le 30/12/2022 à 23:43, Lionel Edwards a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> I know this is an English language group, but one of
>>>> the great English language songs contains the line
>>>> "François c'est pas" - and my CSE French isn't up to that:
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHCdS7O248g>
>>> « C'est pas » is an informal way of saying « ce n'est pas », "it isn't".
>>>
>>> That may or may not make sense when plugged into the lyrics (Henhanna's
>>> link (France Soir is an evening paper)).
>
> It (somehow) does, as in the lyrics "France Soir c'est pas Flash et Nous Deux",
> all three names have to do with French press.

To make (a limited amount of) sense of those lyrics, you have to look at
two adjacent lines.

France Soir c'est pas Flash et Nous Deux

François c'est pas, Flash ain't no dude

where the second line is a modification of the first. Neither line makes
much sense on its own. The point seems to be that the two lines are
related in some way.

But don't expect complete sense of this. It's rap.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[Bebercito]

Play on words, obviously, with "France Soir"/François and "et nous deux"/"ain't
no dude" sounding (sort of) similar.

[Peter T. Daniels]

If it's _English_. then "France Soir" and "Francois" are perfect
rhymes. It's a pun. ("Nous Deux" capitalized presumably
also refers to something and rap-rhymes with "no dude.")

[Bebercito]

For non-rhotic speakers, that is.

> It's a pun. ("Nous Deux" capitalized presumably
> also refers to something and rap-rhymes with "no dude.")

Except that the two don't rhyme. You could have mentioned the double
(N-D) alliteration, OTOH.

[Peter T. Daniels]

What do you think "If it's _English_" means? (And not Scottish,
or American, or ....)

> > It's a pun. ("Nous Deux" capitalized presumably
> > also refers to something and rap-rhymes with "no dude.")
>
> Except that the two don't rhyme. You could have mentioned the double
> (N-D) alliteration, OTOH.

What do you think "rap-rhymes" indicated?

There is really no requirement that you post a comment on
_everything_ I write.

[Pierre Jelenc]

In article <ea0cdbde-b166-4828...@googlegroups.com>,

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous_deux_(magazine)

It was very well known back then, perhaps still is. It does not appear to
have a working web site.

Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc
The Gigometer www.gigometer.com
The NYC Beer Guide www.nycbeer.org

[Bebercito]

In context, that it's not French, obviously. Besides, "English" alone by convention
designates all dialects of English.

> (And not Scottish,
> or American,

Then you meant "British English".

> or ....)
> > > It's a pun. ("Nous Deux" capitalized presumably
> > > also refers to something and rap-rhymes with "no dude.")
> >
> > Except that the two don't rhyme. You could have mentioned the double
> > (N-D) alliteration, OTOH.
> What do you think "rap-rhymes" indicated?

"Rap-rhymes" refer to a specific structure of verses, but are actual
rhymes - and "deux" and "dude" don't rhyme.

>
> There is really no requirement that you post a comment on
> _everything_

... nonsensical...

> I write.

(Which still makes a lot of posts, granted.)

[Peter T. Daniels]

Don't be ridiculous. Look at the first line of the thread.

> Besides, "English" alone by convention
> designates all dialects of English.

By whose "convention"?

> > (And not Scottish,
> > or American,
>
> Then you meant "British English".

It's unfortunate that you hang out here so much yet have so
little grasp of the conversational practices here.

> > or ....)
> > > > It's a pun. ("Nous Deux" capitalized presumably
> > > > also refers to something and rap-rhymes with "no dude.")
> > > Except that the two don't rhyme. You could have mentioned the double
> > > (N-D) alliteration, OTOH.
> > What do you think "rap-rhymes" indicated?
>
> "Rap-rhymes" refer to a specific structure of verses, but are actual
> rhymes - and "deux" and "dude" don't rhyme.

So you've never heard rapping in English.

> > There is really no requirement that you post a comment on
> > _everything_
> ... nonsensical...
>
> > I write.
>
> (Which still makes a lot of posts, granted.)

You are basically _never_ right when you try to "correct" something
I say about English.

[Bebercito]

By implicit convention, since precisely "English" has a modificator
("Br-", "Am-", "Can-", "Aus-", "NZ-", you name it) for all dialects of the
corresponding language.

> > > (And not Scottish,
> > > or American,
> >
> > Then you meant "British English".
> It's unfortunate that you hang out here so much yet have so
> little grasp of the conversational practices here.

Stange that you say that, because I've always noticed that posters here
take care to specify the variety of English they mean - which is
understandable since aue is often about discussing differences between
English dialects. I can't remember ever seeing "English" used here to refer
to British English, BTW.

> > > or ....)
> > > > > It's a pun. ("Nous Deux" capitalized presumably
> > > > > also refers to something and rap-rhymes with "no dude.")
> > > > Except that the two don't rhyme. You could have mentioned the double
> > > > (N-D) alliteration, OTOH.
> > > What do you think "rap-rhymes" indicated?
> >
> > "Rap-rhymes" refer to a specific structure of verses, but are actual
> > rhymes - and "deux" and "dude" don't rhyme.
> So you've never heard rapping in English.

I have, but a rhyme is a rhyme. If it's only approximate as in the case
discussed, then "doggerel verse" could be an apt term.

[Peter Moylan]

To an English speaker, the French "r" is close to inaudible. Thus, even
a rhotic speaker of English who has learnt some French will leave the
"r" silent in "soir".

I suspect that non-rhotic English developed from those English speakers
who, under the influence of Norman French, used a back-of-the-tongue "r"
rather than the stronger front-of-the-tongue "r" than is now the typical
English "r". (To the point, in the case of some speakers, where an
internal "r" soulds like a "w" to others.) In the right environments -
in particular, an "r" at the end of a word where the following word
begins with a consonant - that kind of "r" is so nearly inaudible that
it was able to just fade away.

[Bebercito]

There must be a difference, as M-W, which gives AmE (rhotic)
pronunciations, lists François (Premier) as fräⁿˈswä and the French
river Loire (which rhymes with "soir" in French) as ˈlwär.

[Peter Moylan]

On 02/01/23 18:32, Bebercito wrote:
> Le lundi 2 janvier 2023 à 01:55:19 UTC+1, Peter Moylan a écrit :
>> On 02/01/23 05:46, Bebercito wrote:
>>> Le dimanche 1 janvier 2023 à 16:24:15 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a
>>> écrit

>>>> If it's _English_. then "France Soir" and "Francois"are
>>>> perfect rhymes.
>>>
>>> For non-rhotic speakers, that is.
>> To an English speaker, the French "r" is close to inaudible. Thus,
>> even a rhotic speaker of English who has learnt some French will
>> leave the "r" silent in "soir".
>
> There must be a difference, as M-W, which gives AmE (rhotic)
> pronunciations, lists François (Premier) as fräⁿˈswä and the French
> river Loire (which rhymes with "soir" in French) as ˈlwär.

Does it have an entry for the river Loir?

The reason I ask is that learners of French often pick up the idea that
the final letter in a French word is silent. (A rule with many
exceptions, but you have to learn more French to know that.) So the 's'
in François and the 'e' in Loire are silent, but the 'r' in Loire is not
silent because it's not the final letter.

[Bebercito]

But the -r in (the river) "Loir" is not silent either in French. M-W does have an
entry for "loir" (not for "Loir"), which means "dormouse" in French, and gives
the pronunciations of ˈlȯi(ə)r and ˈlwär for it. (Incidentally, I didn't know French
"loir" had been borrowed into English.)

[CDB]

On 1/1/2023 4:09 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

[The Pete and BFirst Law of Holeseeb Show]

> You are basically _never_ right when you try to "correct" something
> I say about English.

Sig! Sig!

[Jerry Friedman]

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 12:56:12 AM UTC-7, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 02/01/23 18:32, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le lundi 2 janvier 2023 à 01:55:19 UTC+1, Peter Moylan a écrit :
> >> On 02/01/23 05:46, Bebercito wrote:
> >>> Le dimanche 1 janvier 2023 à 16:24:15 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a
> >>> écrit
> >>>> If it's _English_. then "France Soir" and "Francois"are
> >>>> perfect rhymes.
> >>>
> >>> For non-rhotic speakers, that is.
> >> To an English speaker, the French "r" is close to inaudible. Thus,
> >> even a rhotic speaker of English who has learnt some French will
> >> leave the "r" silent in "soir".
> >
> > There must be a difference, as M-W, which gives AmE (rhotic)
> > pronunciations, lists François (Premier) as fräⁿˈswä and the French
> > river Loire (which rhymes with "soir" in French) as ˈlwär.

> Does it have an entry for the river Loir?
>
> The reason I ask is that learners of French often pick up the idea that
> the final letter in a French word is silent. (A rule with many
> exceptions, but you have to learn more French to know that.)

...

Thus I've heard "reservwa" and "o vwa" (au 'voir) from rhotic speakers.
On the other hand, I've never heard "premier" with a silent "r" from a
rhotic speaker, even though that "r" is silent in French.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 7:55:19 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:

> I suspect that non-rhotic English developed from those English speakers
> who, under the influence of Norman French, used a back-of-the-tongue "r"
> rather than the stronger front-of-the-tongue "r" than is now the typical
> English "r".

There's rather a long gap between 1066 and 1800ish!

You'd also need to find evidence that Norman French used that sort of r.

> (To the point, in the case of some speakers, where an
> internal "r" soulds like a "w" to others.) In the right environments -
> in particular, an "r" at the end of a word where the following word
> begins with a consonant - that kind of "r" is so nearly inaudible that
> it was able to just fade away.

And that carried over to utterance-final r?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 9:44:31 AM UTC-5, CDB wrote:
> On 1/1/2023 4:09 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> [The Pete and BFirst Law of Holeseeb Show]

????

> > You are basically _never_ right when you try to "correct" something
> > I say about English.
>
> Sig! Sig!

You cannot rip that out of the context -- viz., the identity of "You."

[Peter Moylan]

I'd guess that that is because "premier" is a fully naturalised English
word. We don't think of it as a French word.

[Peter Moylan]

On 03/01/23 02:51, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 7:55:19 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>> I suspect that non-rhotic English developed from those English
>> speakers who, under the influence of Norman French, used a
>> back-of-the-tongue "r" rather than the stronger front-of-the-tongue
>> "r" than is now the typical English "r".
>
> There's rather a long gap between 1066 and 1800ish!

Yes, but that kind of 'r' persisted right into the 20th century,
admittedly only for a minority of speakers.

Compare the "very" of certain English upper-class accents with the
"vewy" of Elmer Fudd English. There's not a lot of difference.

> You'd also need to find evidence that Norman French used that sort of
> r.
>
>> (To the point, in the case of some speakers, where an internal "r"
>> soulds like a "w" to others.) In the right environments - in
>> particular, an "r" at the end of a word where the following word
>> begins with a consonant - that kind of "r" is so nearly inaudible
>> that it was able to just fade away.
>
> And that carried over to utterance-final r?
>

[CDB]

On 1/2/2023 10:54 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> CDB wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>> [The Pete and BFirst Law of Holeseeb Show]

> ????

Pete and Beeb. I inadvertently pressed "paste" in midstream; the
intrusion was what I had copied when looking to see what the other laws
of holes were.

>>> You are basically _never_ right when you try to "correct" something
>>> I say about English.

>> Sig! Sig!

> You cannot rip that out of the context -- viz., the identity of "You."

I have the impression that the "you" is plural.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 7:49:56 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 03/01/23 02:51, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 7:55:19 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:

> >> I suspect that non-rhotic English developed from those English
> >> speakers who, under the influence of Norman French, used a
> >> back-of-the-tongue "r" rather than the stronger front-of-the-tongue
> >> "r" than is now the typical English "r".
> >
> > There's rather a long gap between 1066 and 1800ish!
> Yes, but that kind of 'r' persisted right into the 20th century,
> admittedly only for a minority of speakers.
>
> Compare the "very" of certain English upper-class accents with the
> "vewy" of Elmer Fudd English. There's not a lot of difference.

I thought your "back-of-the-tongue" r was the ModFr uvular r.

The Fudd speech impediment doesn't sound to me much like the
Early RP version from Frank Muir (who must have been terribly
elderly when the made *My Word* in the 1970s).

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:25:37 AM UTC-5, CDB wrote:
> On 1/2/2023 10:54 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > CDB wrote:
> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> >> [The Pete and BFirst Law of Holeseeb Show]
> > ????
>
> Pete and Beeb. I inadvertently pressed "paste" in midstream; the
> intrusion was what I had copied when looking to see what the other laws
> of holes were.

Maybe that would be clearer if "Holeseeb" made sense.

> >>> You are basically _never_ right when you try to "correct" something
> >>> I say about English.
>
> >> Sig! Sig!
>
> > You cannot rip that out of the context -- viz., the identity of "You."
> I have the impression that the "you" is plural.

No, just bebe... .

[Bebercito]

That doesn't make the "axiom" any more cogent.

[Rich Ulrich]

I thought that the recommended .sig could be singular and insulting -
/You are basically _never_ right when you try to "correct" something./

Or potentially plural -
/You are basically _never_ right when you try to "correct" something
I say./

--
Rich Ulrich

[Janet]

In article <e87f469f-46c9-468c-af51-
1acb32...@googlegroups.com>, gram...@verizon.net
says...

>
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 7:49:56 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 03/01/23 02:51, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 7:55:19 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> > >> I suspect that non-rhotic English developed from those English
> > >> speakers who, under the influence of Norman French, used a
> > >> back-of-the-tongue "r" rather than the stronger front-of-the-tongue
> > >> "r" than is now the typical English "r".
> > >
> > > There's rather a long gap between 1066 and 1800ish!
> > Yes, but that kind of 'r' persisted right into the 20th century,
> > admittedly only for a minority of speakers.
> >
> > Compare the "very" of certain English upper-class accents with the
> > "vewy" of Elmer Fudd English. There's not a lot of difference.
>
> I thought your "back-of-the-tongue" r was the ModFr uvular r.
>
> The Fudd speech impediment doesn't sound to me much like the
> Early RP version from Frank Muir (who must have been terribly
> elderly when the made *My Word* in the 1970s).

Frank Muir was born in 1920, the son of working class
parents. He wrote and took part in "My Word " from 1956
on.

Janet

[bruce bowser]

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 7:49:56 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 03/01/23 02:51, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 7:55:19 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >
> >> I suspect that non-rhotic English developed from those English
> >> speakers who, under the influence of Norman French, used a
> >> back-of-the-tongue "r" rather than the stronger front-of-the-tongue
> >> "r" than is now the typical English "r".
> >
> > There's rather a long gap between 1066 and 1800ish!
> Yes, but that kind of 'r' persisted right into the 20th century,
> admittedly only for a minority of speakers.
>
> Compare the "very" of certain English upper-class accents with the
> "vewy" of Elmer Fudd English. There's not a lot of difference.

"Wascally Wabbit !! By Elmer Fudd
==============
Wascally Wabbit !! Oh soon he must die
he's annoying and stupid and gweedy
he should go in a pot, I won't tell a lie
for I'm hungry and Bugsy could feed me.

I'm Elmer the bwave, a hunter I am
through the fowest I sneak, oh so wary
you may know my friend, Yosemite Sam
he's annoying as well and he's hairy.

And as for that duck I'll shoot him as well
yes Daffy he's called with feathers of black
my wife waits at home, shes called Tinkerbell
together well feast, a cartoony snack.

Wemember the Wabbit, shed a few tears
think of me too as I chew on his ears."

-- https://allpoetry.com/poem/6150050-Wascally-Wabbit----By-Elmer-Fudd-by-Black-Narcissus

[Peter T. Daniels]

That puts his accent in the "more Catholic than the Pope" category
-- when you escape your class background, you overcompensate in
your accent.

> He wrote and took part in "My Word " from 1956
> on.

So he was only in his late 50s when he was on WFMT every Friday
at 5:30. (And "My Music" was on Mondays at the same time.)

[Snidely]

On Tuesday, Peter T. Daniels yelped out that:

Janet probably didn't turn in to WMFT very often.

The syndication recycled the programs for quite a while; MyWd and MyMu
were on KUSC or other SoCal public radio stations in the '90s. ISTR
that only Ian had a decent singing voice.

/dps




--
"Inviting people to laugh with you while you are laughing at yourself
is a good thing to do, You may be a fool but you're the fool in
charge." -- Carl Reiner

[Ross Clark]

This discussion has run over a number of points covered in sci.lang a
few years ago. (See "Iony" thread, 2013.) Just to recall:

- Wotacism ([w]-like articulation of /r/) occurs on both sides of the
Atlantic. (The subject has been touched on recently with the death of
Barbara Walters.) PTD alone seemed to feel there was some essential
difference between them.

- Despite the existence of a stereotyped wotic-speaking upperclass twit,
there is no particular correlation of this phonetic peculiarity with
social class.

- The uvular (back of the tongue) /r/ appears first in Parisian French
around 1700, and from there influences other varieties of French (and
indeed other European languages). There is no evidence that Norman
French had anything but an apical trilled /r/ of the kind inherited from
Latin. (The common kind of English /r/ today is, of course, different
from both.) I don't know of any evidence that Norman French /r/
pronunciation had any influence on English /r/. After Norman French
ceased to be spoken even by the ruling class (by about 1400) it was
several centuries before London speakers (ca. 1800) began to become
non-rhotic (drop their /r/'s in certain environments).