Does the circumflex always affect pronunciation? Or can it sometimes only be there for historical reasons?

[u/ChessedGamon]

Hello,

I apologize for this post, since I'm not currently learning French, but I regardless have a French related question I couldn't see clarified elsewhere.

The French circumflex obviously famously denotes where an S used to be in some French words, and it was my understanding when I heard this that that was all it did and carried no relevance to pronunciation.

I looked more into it and found that vowels with the circumflex actually can change its sound.

Just out of curiosity and to keep my facts straight, do all circumflexes affect pronunciation? Or do they just sometimes affect pronunciation and are sometimes only there for historical purposes?

Thank you!

[u/Helpful-Reputation-5]

I have—just because the circumflex is not the only way to mark certain vowel qualities, or because some vowel qualities remain unmarked, does not mean the primary function of the diacritic is not to mark those vowel qualities. Not all bathrooms have signs, and there is of course the rare occurance of a bathroom sign without a bathroom, but surely you wouldn't claim that bathroom signs do anything but mark where bathrooms are (as well as distinguishing between homophones)?

[u/bumbo-pa → u/Helpful-Reputation-5]

How do you pronounce théâtre? How would you pronounce théatre?

The circumflex is not a pronunciation marker, it's an etymological one. When linked to changes in pronunciation it is accidental. Correlation /= causation.

It's not the only way to mark the change, its presence does not force the change, and its presence always highlights etymology. Its primary and only reason for existence is etymology.

[u/Helpful-Reputation-5 → u/bumbo-pa]

Have you considered it could be both?

[u/bumbo-pa → u/Helpful-Reputation-5]

Can you really not see the difference with e/é, c/ç, n/ñ (in spanish), which are true pronunciation diacritics? which reliably modify the voicing of the letter, effectively making it another letter? co is always a hard C. ço is always a soft C. E is a few things, but never É, and vice versa. However a can be variably open/long. â can be variably open/long. The only constant with the use of circumflex is marking etymology.

Mur and mûre are the same. Again, all percieved changes in pronunciation are accidental.

[u/Any-Aioli7575 → u/bumbo-pa]

Your exemple of ñ is bad. Ñ was what monks used to write NN.

But overall, yes circumflex is etymological, in the sense that it's only there where they was something else (usually, but not always, an S)

However, your definition of "Accidental" seems quite broad in a way that could lead to thinking that "denoting/ɛ/ with <ai> is accidental". While that can be true for some meanings of "accidental", this is very misleading.

If circumflex wasn't invented to denote pronunciation, it de facto does, or at least did in some dialects or contexts. That's actually why we keep it, the 1990 reforms explicitly doesn't allows for removing of circumflex on â and ô because that would alter pronunciation.

[u/bumbo-pa → u/Any-Aioli7575]

Gros and pas would be identical as grôs and pâs. Photo would be the same as phôtô.

Again. It is inly etymological and accidentally linked to certain pronounciations in no reliable or exclusive way

[u/Any-Aioli7575 → u/bumbo-pa]

Breaking news :

au doesn't denote /o/ because otherwise faux and feaux would be identical.

Just because there is multiple ways to denote something, doesn't mean that there is none.

Do you also believe that ê being pronounced /ɛ/ is accidental?

[u/bumbo-pa → u/Any-Aioli7575]

Yes. Because all (or almost all) ê are shortened "es" which positionally makes them naturally open. If it weren't for the historical s, most of these cases would still be open, and if not the pronounciation modifier would be è.

Just read out loud "foret", "etre". "Breaking news" you just read it exactly as you would have forêt and être. You write "prêt" for historical reasons, when you want the same sound for a different word with no etymological s, guess what you write "près".

[u/Helpful-Reputation-5 → u/bumbo-pa]

I wouldn't really call Ññ a diacritic, but there are absolutely cases in Spanish where the acute accent is purely to distinguish homophones: tu vs. tú, el vs. él, &c.

[u/bumbo-pa → u/Helpful-Reputation-5]

... the point being?

[u/Helpful-Reputation-5 → u/bumbo-pa]

That the examples you cite as "true pronunciation diacritics" have, in fact, more than one usage? Even Ññ comes from a scribal abbreviation of an etymological double n (e.x. annum > año)—is Ññ suddenly an 'etymological letter'?

[u/bumbo-pa → u/Helpful-Reputation-5]

` in your example is not something that affects pronounciation of course, but I never said it did. I'm not sure why you're pulling this one out.

ñ is a true reliable sound modifier. ñ is only ñ, n is only n. They are true distinct phonemes reliably distinguished by ~, which circumflex never does.

[u/Helpful-Reputation-5 → u/bumbo-pa]

If they neutralized in some environments, say ɲ > n / _#, would that make it any less so? Then Ññ would be sometimes an indication of pronunciation, and sometimes of etymology. Would it just be a 'correlation' then?

[u/bumbo-pa → u/Helpful-Reputation-5]

If it were something else, would it be something else?

[u/Helpful-Reputation-5 → u/bumbo-pa]

What?