IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) & {./ /. i/.x % y^ ^ 1.0 1.1 U|2£ |2.5 UUi. 11 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 « 6" ► V <9^ /; ^a '^z Photogi'^liic Sciences Corporation \ ^^ \\ V \ <^ O^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4S03 te CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checKed below. L'Insti'iut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger una modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. n n D D n n n n n Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag^e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou pellicul6e Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmies. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires; □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes rr;K Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ LlJ Pages ddcolordes, tachetdes ou piqu^es □ Pages •etached/ Pages d6tach6es r~K Showthrough/ I I Transparence □ Quality ot print varies/ Qualit^ in6gale de I'impression nCncludes supplementary material/ Comprend du material supplementaire □ Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible □ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6X6 filmdes 6 nouveau de fa^on 6 obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at ^he reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 10X VIX 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of : National Library of Canada L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grSce d la g6n6rosit6 de: Bibliothdque nationale du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or Illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^(meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin. compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire fiimd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim^e sont filmds en commen9ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration. soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autias exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, seion le cas: le symbols ^-^> signifie "A SUIVRE". le symbols V signifie "FIN ". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre fllm6s d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, 11 est film6 d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. i I ■ - ^ . ■-- ^ 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 I 1^ / THE DE BRISAY ANALYTICAL FRENCH METHOD. f^' 1 A SCIENTIFIC SYSTEM OF ACQUIRING A THOROUGH CONVERSATIONAL AND LITERARY KNOWLEDGE OF THE FRENCH LANGUAGE. BY CHARLES THEOPHILE DE BRISAY, B.A. Author of the ''Analytical Latin Method," and Principal of the ''Academie De Brisay; Toronto, Canada. IN FOUR PARTS. I=^^K;T I, AUTHOR'S EDITION. Toronto, Canada. 1896. CfWi l'W W I 'i '» < ' B !f . " AHJ. I I? k i Entered according to Act of the Parliament of Canada, in the year one thousand e>ght hundred and ninety-six, by Charles T. De Brisay. at the Department of Agriculture. I ) \ i c (' iiy I i : !• f-> \H PREFACE. IT is nearly two years since the tirst edition of my "Analytical Latin Method " was published ; and although at the time of publishmg that work, I had every reason to feel assured it would be received by a large number of students and teachers, as a welcome relief from the tedious and absurd system of teaching Latin so long in use, I did not look forward to seeing the method so universally approved, nor to the showers of pleasing congratulations from so many persons, in whom it was natural to suppose a strong prejudice would exist against any new way of teaching so sacred a thing as the ancient classics. It would not be true to say the method encountered no opposition and no prejudice. When an author claims as much for his method as I have dune for mine, he must be prepared for incredulous smiles and sarcastic criticisms -and unless he is able to substantiate his claims by ready facts, he wer-^ wiser not to make them. I still stand by the claim made two years ago for my Analytical Method -that Latin studied through it, presents few difficulties, and that a few weeks, or at the most, three months, is sufficient time in which to acquire a practical knowledge of Latin -and in repeating that claim to-day, I have the knowledge and assurance that it is voiced by almost every student of the Analytical Method. But if the publication of that work has opened my eyes to the true feeling among students and teachers regarding the old method of teach- ing the classics, it has also made clear the fact that there exists almost as great a dissatisfaction with the present methods of teaching modern languages. It is therefore, at the request of hundreds of students, that 1 have applied the Analytical Method to French— and this I have done with a double pleasure, because of modern languages, French is the one I love most and know best- In the introduction to this volume (which is itself but an introduc- tion io the course), a fair explanation of the method will be found. I would just add here one word for those over-practical people who might I i\ wmmmmm^ I'KEFACP]. feel they were wasting valuable time, if they were not in the very first lesson introduced to steam-boats and railway stations. We will deal with steamboats, etc., in their proper place ; to begin with such sub- jects is to begin at the wrong end of a langua-.!. And let no one be alarrued at the few Latin roots given in these lessons. No knowledge of Latin is presujjposed as a preliminary to the study of these pages. The object of these roots, if not at once clear, will become manifest after a ahort study of the method. French grammar, as presented in the ordinary text- books, is a mass of arbitrary rules and absurdities. This same grammar, dealt with scientifically, and in its relation to Latin, becomes logical, consistent and full of interest. My former work has done much to destroy the old sophism— "it matters not how one studies, so long as he goes about it with determination,"— a doctrine, the fallacy and absurdity of which, the study of one proposition of Euclid should be sufficient to settle. I trust that this work will not only help further to kill that doctrine, but that it will prove once more what ought now to be known —that there is an easy and a difficult way of doing everything, and that the easy way is the scientific one. C. T. De Brisay. loRONTO, March 1st, 1896. Note.— Works on Greek, German, Spanish and Italian, similar to this one, are in course of preparation, and will be published shortly. ( 14. 4 I '4- r II INTRODUCTION. / ( ti 18 it not strange tliat in the last hundred years — which l\as witnessed sucli tremendous strides in nearly all the arts and s(.iences - so little has been done towards facilitating the acquirement of languages ( It is strange, especially when we consider the many attempts that have been made in that direction. Books by the score liav^ been written on the subject. Latin, Greek, French and German granrraars have been published, until now there are almost as many different text-books on teaching languages— new methods so-called - as there are students if language. Nearly every college can boast of a professor who is the author of a Greek or Latin grammar. And yet what is the excuse for all these works 'I They are one and all servile copies of the first grammar written two thousand years ago by a Greek named Dionysius Thrax. One author will present the Latin verb first ; another the no^ln first and the verb last. A third having found by experiment that if a noun and adjective are placed together, they may be more easily mastered than by taking each separately, imagines he has made a dis- covery which calls for a new work on Latin grammar. A look through the long rows of Gi-eek and Latin grammars, which are to be found at any large second-hand book-store, will be sufficient to convince one that the most important differences in all these works are to be found on their covers. And what I have just said in regard to the works on Tjatin and Greek applies, with some modification, to the works which have been coming from the press for the last 50 or GO years on French, German, Spanish, etc. Since Ollendorff first published his " new method of LEARNING TO READ, WRITE AND SPEAK A LANGUAGE IN SIX MONTHS," books upon books have been published on exactly the same plan, which might all be labelled Ollertdorf. Some authors have even gone so far as to steal his sentences ; and we wonder greatly at this, for OUendorflfs ex- ercises contain the most nonsensical sentences that were ever con- structed or imagined by the human mind. Thus, page after page, does he treat us to composition like the following : " Have you my ass's hay or yours ? I have that which my brother fi INTRODUCTION. has. Has anyone my good letters ? No one has your good letters. Has the tailor's son my good knives or my good thimbles 1 He has neither your good knives nor your good thimbles, but the ugly coats of the stranger's big boys." How can we account for any one supposing that trash of this kind would ever acquaint one with a language ? The answer is simple enough. Ollendorff and his slavish imitators, like the numerous writers on Latin and Greek grammar, laboured under the mistaken idea that to know the principles of a 'anguage — i. e., its grammar, was to know the lan- guage itself, and as the meaningless sentences above noticed illustrate principles of grammar just as well as though they had been the utter- ances of divine wisdom, it is not difficult to understand why they should have been invented by Ollendorff, and later copied by authors who can do nothing original — not even improve on such a sentence as,— " Have you your ugly iron button? "* But even should we change every one of Ollendorff's sentences and introduce in their place sensible matter (and this has been done), we would still fail to learn a language by such a method, without spending at least half a lifetime at the work. French is a language which is taught in most of the English schools of America. In the English colleges of this country certainly a great deal of time is spent on the language. Yet how many of that large number who graduate yearly from these institutions of learnii g have even a fair grasp of French ? If we except those students whc> have lived for some time among French people, and thus learned to spe.ik the language, the number is indeed small. But it is not necessary to press further this matter. Many writers within the last ten years have demonstrated the absurdity of attemping to learn a language from precepts. Nay moi'e, they have not only torn to pieces the absurd system noticed above, but have introduced new methods so-called, now generally known as " The Natural Method," *The following passage is from Mr. Du Maurier's famous novel "Trilby" — "It was Lambert, a youth with a singularly facetious face, who 6rst woke the stillness with the following uncalled for remarks in English, very badly pronounced :" " ' Av you seen my fahzere's ole shoes ? ' " " ' I av not seen your fahzere's ole shoes ' " " Then, after a pause," " * Av you seen my fahzere's ole 'at?' " " ' I have not seen your fahzere's ole 'at ' " The meaning and humor of this passage will not be lost to those who have studied even a page of Ollendorff or his imitators. ii p INTRODUCTION. "The Object Method," "The Conversational Method," or hy tlie names of the authors who claim to have invented them. These new metli ids, though diflFering in minor details, are one and the same system of teach- ing a language, and the correct name for that system — if indeed it can be called a system — is " The Natural Method." But what is this " Natural Method .' " The reader has probably heard of it at least, if he has not studied it ; for of late it has been much advertised, not only by its many authors (for many claim it as their own discovery), but by a host of illiterate men and women who finding themselves unable to make a living at anything else have suddenly developed into "professors of languages." All that is required to be a successful teacher of French l)y the "Natural Method," is to l)e able to speak the language fluently, and the less one knows about English, the more capable and wonderful a teacher is he considered to be. Here is one profession in which ignor- ance counts for much, and in which learning is at a discount. The ambitious student never seems at all puzzled to understand how a method which is to acquaint him so easily with French, has failed to acquaint his teacher with English. But let us glance for a moment at the method itself. The professor points to a chair and says, " C'est la cluiise "; to the door and says, " Cest fa parte." He then puts the question, '•'QiCest-ce que c'est?" and the pupil replies, if he can, " C'est la chaise," or " Cest la porte." The professor opens the door and says, ^^J'oiirre la j^orte." Then to the question, ^^ Qu'est-ce que Je /ais," the pupil replies, ^^Voiis onvrez la porte "; and so on in this way, using no English at all, the meanings, of words are conveyed to the student through objects and actions. We see then, why the method has been called the " Object Method." It is certainly in this way that a child learns his mother tongue, and that indeed is the boast that is made for the method by its authors and teachers. But how does a child learn his mother tongue 1 Did the reader ever ask himself how long it took him to learn his mother tongue 1 He did not learn it in six months. In six years he learned it very imperfectly ; and, perhaps even now he may not know it any too well. And yet he followed faithfully all along the " Natural Method." He devoted, not tivo hours a week for six months to the method, but ten hours every day of his life for years. Look at the INTUODUCTION. child in your own honif. From early inoriiiii^' till latj' at night \w hears nothing but English spokeji around liiin. Huch sounds as,** Don't do that," '* Como hero, dear," ** I'll whip you now," he perhaps hears fifty times a day. It is nob to he wondere 1 at that at last ho becomes able, not only to understand these sounda, but also to utter them himself. He hears also many other phrases of a different kind, such as," a strange notion," *' a terrible accident," "it's only human nature," etc., but these sounds fall without effect upon his little ears, for though he may repeat many of them, he does so after the manner of a parrot — without the least conception of what the phrases mean. These words represent ahstract ideas. They are not the names of olijevls which the child sees and feels about him ; they tlo not indicate the relation of these objects to one another ; they are not the language of the child, but of the matured mind. ^ What is the language of the child ? The names of common objects (man, room, door, etc.), the names of some of the patent ijualities of these objects {big, small, red), and the names of the common actions of these objects [cries, falls, swinys). * No one thinks of saying to a child, " What is your idea of justice ? " or " Is consistency a virtue ?" although many such phrases as these, children sometimes hear and learn, but which they cannot understand. Language is then of two kinds — (1) the language which the child learns and speaks, and which even horses, dogs, etc., learn more or less to understand, and (2) the abstract language used by adults, whether educated or not, and of course still more by literary men and women. If then we are asked by what method does a child learn his mother tongue, we reply that a child, «« a child, learns but one portion of his mother tongue, and that portion is drilled and drummed into him from morning till night for weeks and months and years. Were a child allowed to hear the human voice but two or three hours a week, it is probable he would know little of his mother tongue at the age of seven or eight. Does it not seem strange therefore that an imperfect imitation of this natural metliod, — which, like all of nature's methods, is slow and steady, accomplishing its work only in time— should be thought so efficacious a means of teaching a foreign tongue to the adult man or woman already in possession of one or more languages. It is useless to argue that it is the natural metliod. Limit Nature to time and she ti'oy^.'o „„t evidence" „f „J^ """'""""' "' "'" "«" "'' ""' K if ^^ cniki can on v I,.,,,.,, i , ' «"'y to teach hi„ a 1 ^^ ''"' " ^>''.J"^'t Metl-ocl " W. ,. " "^'« nun a Jftntruacro «■., i. * '"^ve not ""gl.t l.ear the „ur,l " |,i,,,, • " ,' ' , '"',™ '» "'"d. I,i.n t„ ,|,i„k .' ""Kl't fail t„ „,nvey e„ |,i,,, ,h„ ^ '**'=''• r<"-lmn» ,.,.<.,, tl,/. .""■""■■■« f"^ week., ;„„,7 ; ; ;;:'™7« "< «» wo.,,, a„,L„e' ; ■■-n.ng of the w„.d /,„„,, „ ,'^, V™^ ■■- - onler to ill„«t,.„te"t,:e *H jeavu,« his p„pi,» ;„ ,,~ f "".'T'-g^P ""Chair, a,„, >ey to h„ ol,,,s the meaning of wo f, 7 ''"' "'"' ^''^ ^'"' '" "'"■ « I those abstract terms, wh.ol, ,,,? """"'' '"■»"'"'■. ''<'"'■•- and tl'o child, are used by „ „ i 7f ""'"''"'' f'™ the llnsaaJe "^ -ery se,uence. ' "" «"'™"«' »" ™ed„cate,l M. .CXoIt th"c^■T:iit:oXx:r;ilh:h?^^^^^ ("■"mmar is so-nething which he ^"'"''"""P'^'^f" l"np„a,, 8-toonte,„ptfor. ?hey L „ to tf'T-n "' """ "'""'"'' '-- knows nothing of grammar, an, ye he" " '' ''"'"'■ ""'^ ~''>-' "» ''",,: I' - a ndstake to suppos a Pre, M iHl "'"""" '"'^'■""'■°"-" H n,ay not know any gramn^atil n^^'; '"""r """""« "'^^ '-■■ "nd when to use un., when ,V am », ' '"""" "•'>» '" use «„ gmmmar which no student I "," ' k" "'""^ ""^ f-""ts S in::::::n;-^ by riiir ""^ -^'-^'^ '■-•"« ^---h - 'anguag, Jhill't ': ZZl ^f "kT ""- "^ «'« P""'ip'e« of suppose his progress wo,,,,. IT" '^''^ *'"" '""gaage, does Z „„ more ■ possible for his apid than it is ? If principles whidi ha iuimense anjou It .ve an lit 10 INTRODUCTION. ■of time be saved 1 And yet we are told, that to the adult who can grasp and understand these principles, we must not teach grammar until he has first learned the language naturally like the child — that is imperfectly, without method and without guide. There is nothing in grammar to impede one's progress with a lan- guage, and everything (when properly taught) to help one in under- standing a language. To attempt to learn a language without being guided by any of its principles, is like attempting to build a house without a plan. Indeed, the Roman language-teachers — the men who taught Greek to the Roman youth — were not long in discovering this fact. In the days of Csesar, Greek was spoken and studied in Rome far more than French is spoken or studied in London to-day ; and it was to facilitate the study of the Greek language tiiat the first grammar was written. Dionysius Thrax was not a philosopher, but a language-teacher. The grammar which he wrote was found to be a wonderful help to the Roman youths, and ali who pursued the study of Greek ; so much so, that similar works soon followed on Latin grammar — and these gram- mars have been little improved on to the present day. Is it not strange, then, that any set of men should now be found advocating a return to a method which the Roman youths and teachers found imperfect and ^nefficaciovs, and should despise the very helps which the Romans hailed with delight? It is strange, and yet the fact is easily explained. When Dionysius wrote his work on Greek grammar, he never in- tended that Greek was to be studied through it alone. It was meant to contain simply the guiding principles to aid the student in the study of the Greek language. And the same may be said of the grammars which followed his. Modein teachers seem to have mistaken the mean- ing and intention of the ancient grammarians, and instead of fc>llowing up the teaching of a language by a reference to its principles, they have confined themselves to the teaching of these pritidples using only the language as a means of illustrating them. When a student is taken tljrough long lists of sentences like, Avez-vous vu le vieux chapeau de tnon pere. Non, Je n'ai 2)as vii le vieux chapiau de voire jjere, etc., it is principles of French grammar he is studying, and not the French lan- ; uage. It will be understood then how natural is the recent movement I I ^' -. '» INTRODUCTION. against the study of grammar, and liow natural it is to itiagine that grammar is a hindrance rather than a help to one in the study of a language. To study a language without its grammar is certainly a great deal better than to study grammar without the language to which it belongs; and so, while I cannot regard the "Object Method" as suitable for any but Kindergarten classes, I believe it to be much superior to the absurd system which for so long a time has held a place in our schools. The way in which my " Analytical Latin Method " has been received by students and teachers, and the gratifying results which have invari- ably followed the study of Latin by this method, is a proof, I think, t, i) that the principles of a language to be understood and appreciated, must be uncovered smd seen in the language itself. Since the publica- tion of that work, I have not found a single student following the method who did not express both appreciation of the beauty and logic of the Latin language, as well as surprise at the short time in which the language could be learned. I do not hesitate, therefore, to adopt this same Analytical Method in teaching the scientific principles of French. , A method for French, however, would not meet the needs of the f present day, if it did not, above all else, enable one to speak the language. And now, what constitutes the difference between speaking and writing a language ? It is this : in writing we have time to think out and compose the constructions we use ; when we speak we make use of constructions that are ready-made. When you say, " Good morning ! It's a nice day?" it must be evident you do not weave this sentence out of the several ideas — good, day, morning, nice, etc. The construc- tion was made for you long before you were born, and handed down to you by your parents, and yo i now use it as a unified exj^ression, no more thinking of its component parts than you think of the letters M-A-N when you utter the word man. Now speaking a language is little more than uttering these ready- made expressions. If we fay it is the intellectual act or connecting to- gether two or more of these stereotyped expressions, we shall have given a fair definition of what ordinary conversation is. Listen but for a few minutes to any English person and you will hear expression^" like this : ^^It's-just-a-qnestion-whether," ^^ I'd-like-to-know- 12 INTRODUCTION. II why" ^^ He^s-here" ^^ He did-it," etc. Now, the intellectual element in conversation consists not in uttering any one of these expressions, but in connecting two or more of them together. And hence it is that we never see a person pause and scratch liis h ad in the middle of one if these ready-made constructions. Never do we hear — ^' It's just a — a — ques- tion— whether —he did it" though we might hear everyday, ^^ It'sjust-a- question-whetlier — ah — whether — ah — he-did-it." The mind is exercised in connecting together the two ideas, but not in forging together either of the constructions which express those ideas. The two constructions ae rfady-made, and the mind selects them with as little effort as though they were two single words. But where are these constructions stored 1 How are they preserved since they have so little in common with the intellect? They are preserved in exactly the same way in which any combina- tions of movements, such as the movements in walking, dancing, play- ing the piano, juggling, etc., are remembered. The motor nerves and the muscles of the body, are capable of being impressed in such a way that movements which they have once set up, they reproduce with greater ease a second time, and with each reproduction, the habit be- comes more fixed and stable, until at last the movements are performed automatically, (or with the slightest provocation) and unconsciously. ]t is for this reason that we often recite verses without knowing what we are saying ; it is for this reason that we can use long combinations of words, grammatically constructed, without the slightest effort ; in short, it is for this reason that we can speak a language ; and fluency of speech varies in proportion as the motor nerves have or have nob been firmly impi-essed with and accustomed to these comb' lations of move- ments.* Now there is but one way to train the motor nerves to these combi- nations of movements, and that is by practice — by frequent repetition of the same combinations. Before the student may utter with fluency and ease, such expressions ^s, Est-ce que vous avez froid aux pieds ? Ca me fait Je la peine, etc., he will require to repeat them several times. But with such practice, fluency and ease will certainly result, f * I liiive gone more fully into this subject 'n the introductory pamphlet, on my " Analytical Latin Method." See chapte* on " Motor Memory." t It is probable that the lingual nerves are more easily impressed by fixed com- binations of movements than the motor nerves of any other part of the body. lement in 5iors, but s that we e if these ■a — ques- Tsjust-a- exercised fr either tructions s though reserved !ombina- iff, play- INTRODUCTION. 13 ) Here then is the second principle which we must follow if we wish to master a language— repetition of its fixed constructions. But there is a third principle, rot less important than the two pre- ceding. We have seen how the grammar of a language must be learned, and we have seen how we caa speak a language, provided we have the vocabulary. And now, how can we acquire that vocabulary ? How are we to remember all these new sounds for objects, actions and quali- ties 1 Can they too be handed over to the motor nerves ? No ; they must be grasped by the intellect. The acquiring' of a vocabulary has always been a serious task for the student of languages. What student has not wished that there might be such a thing as sugar-coated language-pills, to be taken in doses of ten or twenty every night befoie retiring, and which would leave his mind enriched with as many new words in the morning ? If we had but some such invention as that, this nation would soon be a nation of linguists. As far as I know, words cannot be got into the mind by any such process as that just suggested. I have, however, another method to oflPer the student which will prove little more of a tax on the memory, and which certainly will be less hard on the stomach. What are words ? When a new invention is brought out, and the inventor desires to give it a ^ame, does he make a leap in the air, give utterance to some strange sound unheard of before, and adopt this sound as the name of his invention ? Of course not ; because such a name would convey no meaning to anyone. If no appropriate name exists to describe the in- vention, a new name is manufactured by means of one or more words already existing, and we say a new word has been coined. Now this process of making words out of words, which we see going on to-day in English and French, has been going on since the very birth of these languages. French did not always possess the vocabulary it has to- day. And yet it has created now new words. New words have grown, have evolved naturally, or have been consciously manufac- tured out of old ones, but no new elements have been created. Such words as brassard {armor for the arm), hrasser {to stir), brassage {brewage), brasseur {brewer), brasserie {brewery), embrasser {to embrace), embrassade (embracement), etc., are all from the one word bras, and would not exist had the parent bras not first existed. '< t 14 INTRODUCTION. I remember some foolish young people, who, dissatisfied with both French and English, because too many persons could understand these languages, resolved to invent a language of their own. They created a few words, but did not get much further, for they soon found out they could not remember their own creations. And why was this? Be- cause the sounds they adopted as the names of things, actions and qualities, were barren, lifeless sounds, without meaning. Had nations attempted to make new languages on this principle, they would have failed just as certainly. Why do we call " to stir" brasser, in French. Because it means to move with the bras. What does embrasser mean 1 To enfold in the bras. And brassard ? A piece of armor for the bras. And from bras- ser we make brassage, brasseiir, brasserie, etc. What a beautiful thing is language ! And yet how simple ! Out of a single form, what a family of words ! How full of life and meaning are these words, and how easily remembered ! But curiosity will lead the reader to another question. Where did these root-words like bras come from ? Did French create them ? No ; they were transmitted to the Gauls by the Romans. French is simply a development of popular Latin. In fact, it is difficult to say at what period in the history of its development, it should cease to be called Latin and termed French, Out of about 4,000 Latia words, the every-day vocabulary of the Ro- man soldiers and the common people of the Roman Empire, have grown and evolved, by the process already described, nearly 8,000 French words. That is to say, 4,000 Latin words have grown to 12,000 in French. But it is not necessary to know these 4,000 Latin words in order to appreciate fully the 12,000 words which form the basis of popular French. And now let us see why. We must not forget that Latin, at the time of the dissolution of the Roman Empire, was a fully developed language, just as French is to-Jay, and that the process of forming words from words had been going on for several centuries in Latin. Thus from the word jiedem (foot), the Romans made pedica (/ootsnare), which gave in turn impedicare (to ensnare or fetter) ; and these derivations go to make up most of the 4,009 words before mentioned. But as we have little to learn from natives, we may pass them over, and instead of ref rring the French may pass ( / 1 'Y. ('■ piege {trap) first to pedica. (wl \ is only its old form), we may refer INTRODUCTION. 15 Out of rder to jpular )f the lo-Jay, )ig on the ye (to the from rench refer ') i ( it directly to pedem. And so if we thus treat French and Latin as one language— ai J there is no break but time between them — our 4,000 Latin roots will dwindle down to about five or six hundred. It may be important to the philologist to know that certain words are entirely of French growth, and that others existed before the birth of tlie French language, but for ordinary purposes it matters little whether such a word as jnt'ge is the direct offspring of pied, or whether the Latin pedem fivst yielded pedica ; ior pieye h pedica mispronounced.* But these 500 or 600 roots whicli form the basis of Latin have given us more than the 4,000 French words, which have now grown to 12,000. For the Savants of the 16th century finding the French lan- guage too poor to express their ideas, rushed headlong into Latin, and taking from that language hundreds upon hundreds of words, used them as French, with scarcely any change in their form and mean- ing. And since the 16th century classical Latin words have been flowing into French more or less steadily, and at the present day the stream- flows on with redoubled energy. Thus it is, then, that while pedeoh has given such forms as piege, ple'ton, empecher, etc., it is equally the parent of such words as pedale, bibede, expedition, etc., pure Latin words taken into French, but whose meanings are not seen in the Latin originals, (pedalis, expeditio), but in the root pedem, from which those originals grew. We see then that about 500 or 600 roots have given over 20,000 French words — or almost the whole French language.! Now, few students will care for such a vocabulary as this ; for many of these words are seldom used. If we desired to know them all it would not be a very difficult matter to do so, but we will be satisfied with about n third of that number — and that is more than most writers use in all their works. Shall we then follow any system in learning these words? We know that the methods in use at the present day follow no sys- * We can go still further : a few Low Latin roots are of German origin, and in many cases these (Jerman roots have allied forms in Latin ; in such cases we can disregard the German altogether, and take the allied Latin form. Thus, patte (foot), is probably of German origin, but the German root, pat, is the same word as the Sanscrit pada, the Greek podon, the Latin pedem, aad French pied. t French, also, has a number of words of German origin, and some learned" words of Greek origin. Many of the Latin words which have come into French since the 16th century are used in literature only, but journalism has done much, to ])opularize a large number of these words, and they seem to be replacing many, of the older words even in the conversation of the uneducated. 16 INTRODUCTION. tern — and we also know the result. Who would think of trying to master Euclid's Geometry by selecting propositions here and there at random from his system ? And yet, have we not seen that words are related to each other by a perfect system ? This being so, they cannot be properly understood or even remembered to any great number when learned as isolated sounds. On the other hand, if we take them in connected groups — in fami- lies, if you will — a dozen words can be learned with almost the same eiTort as one. And 500 families of 12 give a vocabulary of G,000 words. When a student is made to memorize Spicier {grocer) before epice (sp'ce), or brasserie {hreivery\ before brasser {to stir), or /jartier (basket) before jyain (bread), he is surely being made to learn a language back- wards, — nay, he is being made study a lot of meaningless sounds, void of all interest. On the other hand, to learn a language, not as a child is obliged to learn it, but as the nation made it and learned it, is not a labor, but an exercise, interesting, delightful and above all beneficial. No dou])t the nursery can teach us many interesting facts about language and how it should be learned, but language is not made by children ; &nd he is a narrow-minded philosopher indeec, who would shut himself up in a nursery, watch the persistent eflForts of young children to speak, and from these observations alone found a system by which to teach the adult mind a foreign tongue. A whole generation cannoJ teach us what a language is, and the history of a nation leaves still much untold. Much stress is laid, by the exponents of the Natural Method, on what they call thinking in a foreign, language. I do not wish to deny that to a f'ertain extent they enable a student to discard his mother tongue. As far as a few familiar objects are concerned, one can hear the foreign words, and think of the objects they represent, without first thinking of their English names. And the same thing may be said of a small number of verbs and adjectives. But true thinking in a language is more than this. How many English persons can feel the force and meaning of words like aniiti^, effronterie, grossieretS, embellissement, agrandissement, etc.? They may imagine they are thinking in French when they use these words for their conceptions of the ^ngihh friendship, effrontery, coarse- ne:>s, embellishment, aggrandisement, etc.; but until they can from the f ^ V f. c t 'r f INTRODUCTION. ir Idea 6eW« lead themselves in thought to emhellissement, from the idea grand io agrand^sse,nent, from front to efron^erie, from ami to a.M, Ta , -^J^" ^have to lean on English for their abstract conceptions, and do their philosophizing in their own language. It hardly needs be pointed out that the method followed in this work will lead th« students at once to think in French. Brasse is a word which when learned with bras, has far more force than the meaningless English sound/«^/.o«., and the English stir loses its vigour as soon as ftra...r reveals the image of bras; and who is there who will not better appreciate the English emimce when he learns that it means to take in the bras ? What a dead thing is English compared with this language whose words reveal so beautifully their living elements ! _ It would be an exaggeration to say that the student, after studying (these lessons would find himself thinking in French when attempting to speak English ; but we can safely say at least, that he will, on complet- ing this course, have a scientific knowledge of French, a grander concep- tion of what language is, and r truer appreciation of his mother tongue i M DIRECTIONS FOR STUDY. i ) The student who pays attention to the three principles laid down in the Introduction to these lessons, will not study French in vain. Let us repeat those principles : [I > i- \ I. The meaning of French words must be got at, not from the Eng- lish, but by analyzing the words and observing their roots, except of course, in case of root-words, where the meaning may be taken from the English. (Root-words only are given in Lesson I.). . II. Close attention must be paid to the grammatical notes in study- ing the exercises, and in no case must the notes be learned apart from the sentences to which they refer. | III. The conversational exercises should be recited frequently, until the constructions become so familiar that they can be repeated mechanically, or almost without any thought of what is being said.* The pronunciation of French is exceedingly difficult for English stu- dents, and the only way to acquire it is by hearing the language spoken. There are many books professing to give exact signs for French pro- nunciation, but these signs are wi rse than useless. If the student is a beginner, he should seek the assistance of some one who can speak French. Of course one might learn to read and write the language without learning to speak it, but it is not advisable to do this if assistance with the pronunciation can be had. No studt'nt is so far advanced that he cannot be greatly benefited even by the first few lessons of this course ; and yet few persons there are who will find any trouble in following these lessons. *rhe style followed throughout the firat four lessons is conversational. (18) v- \, h\ 'p: I i i\ PREMIERE LEOON ■■ La table. (tabula) La fille. (JilaJ THE TABLE. THE OIRL. Le bras. Le nom. La t^te. La fumee. (testaj (fumuH) THE HEAD. THE 8M0KE. Le pied. Le cou. Le cbamp. Le feu. (1) (campus) (focus) THE FIELD. THE FIKE. /I*' :/;l (brachium) (nomen) (pedem) (collum) THE ARM. "HE NAME. THE FOOT. THE NECK L'epine. L'echelle. L'homrae. (2) (spina) (acala) (homo) THE THORN. THE LADDER. THE MAN. La fille est (is) dans (in) le champ. L'homme est dans le champ aussi (also). Je vois (i s»E) la tete de (op) Thomme et (and) le cou de la fille. Je vois aussi dans le champ '■} Une echelle, une table et un feu. (3) L'echelle est sur (on) la table, et le pied de l'homme est sur I'echelle. Le feu est sous ( under) la table— ah non ! le feu est derriere (behinq) la table entre (between) l'homme et la fille. A present (now) je vois deux (two) feux. L'homme a (has) une epine dans le pied. II (he) est dans la misere (misery). Et la fille, elle (she) est daus la misere aussi, car (because) (1) L.a FILLE (feminine), but lo uras (masculine) ; words ending in any letter but e (silent) are masculine, because derived fiom words whicli were masculine or neuter in Latin. In late Latin, the neuter became confounded with the masc. and disappeared, hence we have no neuter in French. Most nouns ending in e (silent) are feminine, being derived from feminine Latin nouns. Con ; the Latin 1 often becomes u in French. (2) L'6pln« ; for the sake of euphony (sound), we write 1* instead of lu or le, before words beginning with a vowel (that is, a, e, », o. «, y). So 1' uomme (pro- nounced L'OM and formerly so written), not 1«» homme, because h is silent, and must be treated as non existent. (3) Une TABLE, a table, but an rav, a fire; use one with a feminine noun, un with a masc. noun (19) 20 PHEMlfcRE LE(;ON. ' t I , I I I elle aime (loves) I'homme. Je ne vois pas (i bee not) I'^pine, mais uut) je vois les pieds de rhotnme et les bras de la fille (4) Oui (yes), je peux voir (am able to see) auesi, entre la fille et I'homme, la fumee du feu. (5) Ah ! a present (now) je vois les deux feux et la fumee dee (op the) deux feux. (6) Regardez I'homme; il parle (speaks) k (to) la fille. Non; la fille parle a I'homme. Aliens (let us go) parler h la fille. AUons parler il I'homme. Allons au champ. AUons aux champs. (7) Ah, nous sommes (we are) dans le champ. Mais oii (where) est la fille ? Ou est I'homme 1 Ou sont (are) la table, I'echelle, et les deux feux? Je ne les (thkm) vois pas. lis (they) ne sont pas ici (here). Ah oui ! Je les vois. Voyet-vous cette (that) fumee ? Cette fumee vient (comes) de (from) I'autre (other) champ. Cette fum^e vient des (PROM THE) feux dans I'autre champ. Eh bien (well), la fille et I'homme sont la (there) ou (where) vous voyez cette fumee. (8) Oui ; ils sont 1^ : je suis certain, a present, que (that) je les vois : 1^ ! les voyez- vous 1 Regardez encore : mais a present je ne les vois (4) Les PIED8 (plural) ; we add s to a noun in the plural. Of course if the noun happens to end in a in the singular (as bras), we do not add a second a. Observe that le, la (or 1') become lea in the plural. (5) Da FEU ( = DE LE feu) ; in early French, de le, became DEL (As in Italian), and then L softened into n (see ecu Obs. 2) which gave ileu or du. So we now no longer write de le, but du. though the old form de 1* still persists before words (masc. or fern.) beginning with a vowel, because it is more euphonious. (6) Feux (plural) ; in early French x (and even z) was written indifferently for a in the plm'al of many nouns. Hence some words have retained the old style of plural, viz. , words ending in eu or an. Dea ; de les became dela, then des, so now we never say de les. (7) Au CHAMP (to the JieldJ; k le in early French became al. and then 1, softened into n (see Obs. 5) which gave au. The .>ld form U V is only used before words beginning with a vowel (as a l'hohme). A les, became als, and then aus or aux. See Obs. 6. (8) De means /rom as well as of. Dea; why not de les ? see obs. 6. L&; note the accent, and do not confound this word with la (the). So too distinguish k (to) from a (has). \ h / ( PREMlkllE LE('ON. 21 .V / k (I de la funi^ li' cause (DE0AU8E) de la funit'e. Ah, \k ! je lea vols: I'homme est devant (before) le feu, et la fille est derri^re la table pres (near) de rhomine. Les voyez-vous ? lis sont pres de nous. AUons dans I'autre champ. Mais regardez cet autre champ; regardez ce champ, regardez cette fille. (O) Ce champ-ci (this field here) est grand (bio), plus grand (more LAKQE) que les autres champs, plus grand que ce champ-li (that field there). Plus grand ? Ah oui, car ce champ-1^ est trej (very) petit (small). I La fille et I'homme sont dans ce champ la. i L'horame est grand. , > La fille est grande. (10) Les hommes sont presque toujours (nkarlv always) grandg ; mais les filles ne sont pas toujours grandes ; elles (they) sont presque toujours petitea. (11) Toujours petitea ! non, non, cette fille la-bas (over there) dans I'autre champ n'est pas petite. Elle est grande, tres grande, presque aussi (as; grande que l'horame. (12) Mais ou est-elle a present, cette grande fille ? Je ne la (her) vois pas. Et cet homme, ou est-il a present ? Je ne le (him) vois pas. Je veux (want) voir la fille; oui, Je veux la (her) voir. Je veux lui (to her) parler. (9) Cet, oe . « cette; the old form cet contracts to ce, except when a vowel follows it (as CET AUTRE) ; cette of course is the feminine form of cet (or oe). (10) Grand (masc.) referring to homme; but grande (fem.) referring to fille. We add e to the adjective in the feminine. In English we say, a Mg man, and a blgr ijirl, but in French we must make the adjective agree with its noun. (11) Petites .... grands etc.; though the 8 is not pronounced here, it must be written, to make the adjectives agree with their nouns. (12) N' eat pas (= ne est pas) ; pas always takes before the verb the negative particle ne, which however contracts to n* before a vowel. Whenever the student meets an apostrophe (as l' j' n' d') he may know then an e has been dropped for euphony. 22 PUEMlfcUE LEyON. Je veux voir I'homme ausHi : Je veux le (him) voir. Je veux lul (to him) pnrler. ' • On Hont-ils 1 Je veux les (tiikm) voir. Je veux leur (to them) parler. (13) Ah! je LA voifl— la petite fille : je lk vois— rhonmie. Ha! Ha' je LE8 voia ! je les voia ! Je peux les voir a prt^sent : je peux LEUR parler. II y a (there is) un feu dans ce champ-ci. II y a de la (of the = some) fum^e dans ce champ-lA (14; II y a une fille dans ce champ-ci. II y a del (of the = some) filles dans ce champ-1^. Qui, il y a des 611es, des hommes, det tables, des (^chelles et de la fum^e dans I'autre champ. Verbe ftTRE (to be) Je suis ) Tu es ) II est ^ Nous sommes j Vous etes / lis sont. j ^ ' Verbe AVOIR (to havk» J'ai ) Tu as ) II a ) Nous avons / Vous avez j lis ont. j CONVERSATIONAL EXERCISE NoTB. — The student should learn the answers to the questions below, so as to be able to reply without hesitation. It is practice of this kind (for the motor nerves) that will enable him to speak French. The greater the practice, the more fluent and easy will speech become. See Introduction, page 11. Q. Que (what) voyez-vous dans le champ, Monsieur D 1 R. Je vois une table, une echelle, un feu, un homme, etc. (13) Lul leur; notice that LUi means to him or to her (like Lat. Dative, itli), and leur to them. (14) De la FUMi^E (of the tmok*) - some smoke; we could not say, IL Y A fcm^e. The expression il y a (there is or there are) is idiomatic. (15) These verbs are given here for reference only : they must not be learned by rote. PREMlfcRE LEpON. 23 Q. Qui (who) est cet horarn*, «t qui (who) cette HUel R. Jean est lo nova de rhonuue, et Jeanne le noni do la Hlle. Q. Estce que (is it that) IVchelle est dans le feu? > in the ladder, etc. 1) R. Non, Mongieur, IVchelle n'est pas dans le feu. Elle ^'siik » it) est pn'8 du feu : elle est devant(iN front of) le feu, on derrit're lo feu. Q. Estrce (ju'il y a (is it that there is?) de la fumte dans ce chainp-ci ? R. Oui Monsieur, il y a de la fumee, un feu, des tables, des echelles, etc., dans ce chain p-ci. Q. Est-ce qu'il y a des filles dans I'autre chump 1 R. Non, Monsieur, il n'y a pas de Hlles dans I'uutre champ. (16) Q. Est-ce qu'il y a des homines dans I'autre champ ? R. Non, Monsieur, il n'y a pas d'hoinmes, pas de filles, pas d'j'^chelles, pas de fumee, pas d'«''pine8 — rien (nothing) dans I'autre champ. Q. Cette fille que (whom) vous voyez dans le champ, est-elle plus grand e que I'homme 1 R. Non, Monsieur, ©lie n' est pas plus grande, mais elle est prestjue aussi grande que I'homme. Q. 1 .a voyez- vous k present ? R. Oui, Monsieur, je In vois. Je peux la voir. Q. Voulez-vous (wish you) lul parler? R. Non, Monsieur, je ne veux pas lul parler, mais je veux la voir. Q. Est-co que vous avez des filles (daughters), Monsieur 1 R. Oui Monsieur, j'ai quatre (four) filles. Q. Sont-elles (are they ?) grandes ou petites ? R. J'ai deux grandes filles et deux petites filles. Q. Est-ce que c'est la fille de Monsieur Duval qui est avec (with) cet homme dans le champ la-bas ? R. Non, c'est la fille de Monsieur Dubois. Voici (here is) la fille de Monsieur Duval. Q. C'est la fille de Monsieur Dubois, qui est pres de nous, n'est-ce pas 1 (is it not so?) R, Non, Monsieur, voil4 (there is) la fille de Monsieur Dubois, la-bas. (t7) (16) Pas do filles (not of girls), not pas des filles (not of the (some) girls); in a negative sentence we use de without the article le, 1st. (Remember that DES = DE LES). (17) 7olol (= VOIS ici), used in the sense of here is, so voll& (= vois la), there is. DEUXIEMB LEOOX Note A.— The words which appear in italics in the following exercises, are all from the same root, and though the English equivalents of these words are given (so as to help the student to grasp their meaning), little attention should be paid to the English, but great attention to the French words themselves, in noticing how they are connected in meaning with the root-word. Thus on meeting une brasse, the student must not think of fathom but of deux bras. So brasserie should not suggect brewery, but a place where men brassent beer. In other words, Frenv^h must be made the medium of thought. Le Bras (Brachium). L'homme a deux bras. Avec les deux bras il embrasse (il prend dans les bras); il prend (takes) une brassee (armful) d'epines. Ce qu'il prend dans les bras est une brassee ; mais une brasse (fathom) est la longueur (length) de deux bras. Les filles portent (carry, wear) au bras des bracelets. Elles les portent toujours a Vnvant-bras (forearm). Avec les bras on peut (one is able) brasser (to stir) le feu; on peut aussi brasser de la biere. Dans les brasseries (breweries) on brasse (stir) de la biore. Cet homme la-bas est un brasseur (brewer) de Paris. Les bras des arbres (trees) sont des branches. Cet arbre-ci est tres branchu (full of branches). Avec deux branches on peut faire (to make) un brancard. (1) Le Pled (Pedem). L'homme a deux pieds. II est done (then) un bipede et non pas un quadrupede (quatre pieds). Nous allons aux champs a pied (on foot) ; nous sommes des pistons (pedestrians). Cette lille a le pied sur la pddale de ce piano, mais cet homme a marche (has walked) dans un piege (trap) : il est empetre (ensnared) et il ne peut pas se (himself) depetrer. Ah, Monsieur, un piege n'est pas un marchepied (footstool). II y a un marcfiepied devant le piMestal (pedestal) de cette colonne (column). Mais regardez cet homme : il pie'tine (kicks) de rage. Pie'tinez (kick), Monsieur, mais n'enipi^tez (encroach) pas sur ce champ, car nous avons des pieges pour (for) enipecher (to prevent) cela (that). ( 1 ) Brancard, a hand-barrow ; also the shafts of a cart, (a/rmor/o^ the arm), and bbassaoe (brewage). (24) Notice also bf. jsard Voull self) NToye FOOT] il pat — WMi DEUXTfcME LE^ON. m Voulez-vous voir cet homme? Eh bien, dt^pechez-vous (hurry your- self). L'homme a des pieds, mais le chien (dog) a des pattes. (2) Voyez-vous ce verre (drinking-glass)? II est epate (broken at the foot). Et voyez-vous cet homme ? II a des patiiis (skates) aux pieds : il patine (skates : o'est un patineur (skater). (3) Le cou (Collum). Vous avez au cou un col (collar) et non pas un collier. (4) Ce cheval (horse) a au cou un collier et un licou (halter). Les filles portent des collerettes. VoiU le collet de mon habit (coat). Je prend (take) cet homme au collet— je le collete (collar him). Cette fille est decollete'e (bare at the neck). Voulez vous la decoller ? (to cut head from thi: neck). Coi:.me ces deux filles s'accolent (hug one another) ! Elles se n] donnent (give) des accolades (des embrassades). Qui est cet homme f-'« qui porte des marchandises a son (his) cou? C'est un colporteur (peddler) ; c'est un homme qui colporte (peddlesV L'homme (homo from humus, ground). Le mot (word) homme vient (comes) du latin homo. Mais ce mot HOMO vient d un autre mot latin, humus (terre). II est done bien vrai (TRUE) que l'homme est forme de la poudre de la terre. Oui, l'homme est forme de humus, mais il n'a pas toujours trop (too m\XQh)dlmmilite ; il n'est pas toujours trop humble. II est plus humain (ju' humble. Selon (ACCORDING TO) I'etymologie, Yhumanitti ne differe pas beaucoup de VhumilitiK Un jour (some day) vous serez (will be) inhume (buried). II faut etre inhume avant que (before) I'on peut etre ■ea/iwm?', n'est-ce pas? Voyez-vous ce bonhomme (good old man) pres de nous 1 II a . beaucoup de bonhomie (good nature). L'autre la-bas c'est un homicide * (murderer). Cette fille la-bas est trop hommasse (masculine). Cet homme lui rend des hommages (homage, honor). (5) Autrefois (formerly) on disait (one said) "Tom," et non pas "Thomme," ainsi (thus^ "I'om voit," et 'Tom dit," etc. Aujourd' (2) Pattes, the/ee< or legs of most of the lower animals. (3) Note also une DEPfecHE (dispatch) expedier (to send on), exi-editiOxV, etc. (4) Col and cou are really the same word. See Les. I., Obs I Collier, a collar for dogs or horses; also a necklace. (5) Note also humiliek (to humble) humaniser, surhumain (superhuman) INHUMATION, etc, ' 26 DEUXifeME LE(^'ON. hui (to-day) il faut dire (it is necessary to say) "I'on voit," et "ron dit," etc. (6) La tcte (testa, skull) (7) Get homme parle a cette fille. C'est un tete-a-tete. L'homme est tetu (headstrong) ; il est entet^ (obstinatb). II veut eteter (clip top off) cet arbre. Le nom (nomen). Vous avez un nom et un surnom. Ce monsieur se nomme Napoleon Duval. II etait (was) autrefois un homme de renom — il etait tres renomme: aujourd' hui il n'a que (has but) de Vignominie. II ne sera pas nomm^ president aux nominations deniain (to-morrow). II est aujourd' hui le chef nominal. Le mot "Jean" est un nom — le nom d'un homme. Le mot *' bras" est un nom (noun) aussi ; mais le mot " vous " est un pronom (pour nom\ parce que (because that) ce mot prend la place du mot "Jean." (8) Le champ (campus). Nous sommes aux champs. Comme j'aime la campagne (country) et la vie (life) cJiampetre ! Regardez ces campagnards (country folk). Voici un champignon (mushroom or toadstool). J'aime beaucoup la sauce aux cJiampignons. C'est ici que le general se campe (encamps). Le campement est. I'afTaire d'un grand general. Ce general est un vaillant cluimpion. Mais Messieurs, il faut d^camper (to move on). (O) La table (tabula, a board). J'ecris (write) sur le tableau (blackboard). Voici une table, et voila une tablette (shelf). Ces filles s'attahlent (seat themselves at table) sans (avithout) tabliers (aprons). (10^ (6) On VOIT ; we use os very much in French — in all cases where no particular person (or persons) is referred to. After si, et and ou we generally write I'ON (on with the article) because it is more euphonious. The Germans say man siEHT; the English, one sees. (7) The circumflex mark (introduced in the 16th century) serves to mark the suppression of a letter (as tete for teste, etre for estre). Up to 1740 the Dictionary of the French Academy retained the s in words like tete. (8) Note also IGNOMINEUX, DilNOMINATION, NOMENCLATURE, NOMINATIIT, etc. (9) Champion, formerly one who fought on, the field, now any brave fighter — a champion. Note also champaonol, fieldmouxe. (10) Fublena, a hoard, hence also a picture maile ou wood or canvas. Tablier. also means a board on which to play chess, draughts, etc. DEUXlfcME LEgON. 27 L'eplne (spina). Est-ce une ^pine ou une epingle (pin) 1 C'est une epingle. Get arbuste epineux (thorny) est Vepine-viiiette (barberry-tree). Voila Vaub^pine (hawthorn) ; voici des 4pinards (spinagb). Dans ces e'piniers (thicket) il y a des feux. Ce bel arbre est Vepinette (spruce tree) du Canada. Examinons le dos (back) de cet homme. Voyez- vous Vepine (spine) dr dos, le nerf spinal et la moelle (marrow) tpiniere ? L'echelle (scala). Voici une petite ^chelle — une echellette. (11) Voyez-vous les echelons (rungs) de cette echelle ? Et voyez-vous ces escaliers (stairs) la-bas ? Les soldats (soldiers) ont escalade (scaled) cette place. Je suis certain que le steamer fait escale (lowers its ladder — stops) ici. Le feu (focus). Je suis pres du yew. J'aime mon /oyer (hearth). 'La.fougue (fire) de ce cheval est terrible. Cet homme aussi est d'un temperament fougueux (fiery). Est-ce une arme a feu qu'il a ? Oui, c'est \xn fusil (gun). Viola un fusilier (pusileer). Les soldats vont (are going) V" fusilier (to shoot him). (12) / La fumee (pumus). (13) Cet homme fume (smokes). C'est un fumeur (smoker). Je n'aime pas la fumee, mais j'aime le parfum (perfume.) Ce monsieur vend des parfums. C'est un parfumeur. Tl va /wm/g'er (fumigate) cet habit, ha, fumigation est Vsiction defumiyer. On dit Za /wm^e du feu, mais lesfume'es du vin. (14) (11) The affix ette denotes smaUness ; thus echellette (little ladder), tablettb (little table, t It inuis on pout Yallomjer (stretch ol't) encore un yvw (a litilk). Voulez-voufi rallontjer (lenothen^ votre habit? (21). Je trouve (find) le temps (time) long. II y a lomjtemps ijue je suis ici. Pourquoi voulez vous prolonger le temps? Je suis I dn (far) de cliez moi (my home), et je m'y eloiyne toujours. (22;. Je peux voir les feux dans le lointain (distanceX lis sont bien ^loiijui's (far off) de nous. Prenez (take) cette lonifue rue (.spy-olass) et vous pourrez (will be able) les voir. (23). Gra« (crassus, thick, fat), /at. Get honnne est gras. Cette femme est graaae. (24). Ce monsieur (jrasseie {il parte gras) : c'est un grnsufi/eur. Je n'ainie pas le gi'aHnei/ement. (26). A imez-xous \a, graiase (hhkase)! La graisne? Non, c'est lx>n pour yram^T nos bottes (uooTS), mais ce n'est pas bon pour I'estomac d'un hoinnie. Les Anglais, les Allemands, etles Americains aiment beaucoup la graisse et tout ce *\\x\e%tgraisseux ; mais nous autrcs francj-ais, nous en- graissmis (grow fat) sans manger (to eat) de la graisse. Nous de'graissons (skim off the grease) toujours la soupe uvant de la luettre (to put) sur la table. Voila de bon engrais (ferd) pour les bceuf.s (oxen). (26). Voila un gros (uig) liomine. Et quelle groane femme I (27). Et r on me dit qu'elle yro-sit (is growing bigger) encore (yet). EUe est deja (already) d'une grosseur horrible. Ah ! je n'aime pas cet liomme ; il est grassier (coarse). II agit (acts") grossierement. Je n'aime pas la grossierctd (coarseness). Qu'est-ce que c'est done que <<*a ? Ah ! c'est de la cra»se (dirt). Mod fusil est crasse et vous allez crasser le v6tre. Ah ! que cet honmie est crasseux (dirty) ! (21) Longnear ; note the n which preserves the hard sound of g, and compare allonger (pronounced alloxjbr). (22) Ohec, from Latin casa, cottage, but only used in the expressions OHE/ Moi, CHEZ TOi, CHEZ DUVAL etc. T (Lat. IBI) there ; hence je m'y Eloigns, / am get- ling farther from there. (23) Note also lonqitudb, oblonu, pROLoyoATioy, eloiunemsnt, etc. (24) GraMe ; adjectives ending in • double this letter before adding the fern e. See Obs. 15. (25) Oraaaeyear, a person who pronounces the letter r aa if his throat were clogged up. (26) BniT'*!* nieans also manure to enrich land ' (27) Note the doubling of ■ in the feminine. See Obs. 24. 36 TRO'.SlfeME lEVON. CON V KRSATIONAL EXERCISE. . Ou ea-tu, Jean ? Me \o\\k (here i am). Et Jules, ou est-il, lui (where is hr— he). Le voila avec moi. Est-ce son livre (book) que tu as li ? Non, ce n'est pas le hi en, c'eht celul (the one) que vous ui'avez donne hier. U I'a— le sien (he has IT— his). Eh bien ! rends lui sa lettre. Ce n'est pas sa lettre (}uh j'ai ; c'est la MiENne— celle (toe one) que j'ai ^crite hier. II I'a- la siENne. (28). Comment! c'est la TiENne, ({ue tu as la? Oui oelle-ci (this onr here) est la MiENne ; voila la bienho. Et ces lettres-ci, k qui sont-elles ? Celle8-1^ (those there) sont a Mile. Duval. Ce sont celleb qu' elle a ecrites hier. Celleb ci sont a moi, CELLE8-la sont a Jules, et celleb-I^ sur la table la-bas sont a Mile. Dubois. Est-ce que (!es patins-ci sont k toi aussi 1 Non, xoilk leB mienb, voili les patina de Jules ies sienb). Jules, voici les tienb. Voila mes lettres (les MiENnes) ; voila les TiENnes, yoil4 celles de Mile. Duval (les siENneB), et voici les v6tres (yours). Ou sont les patina de Mile. Duval ? Oeuz (those) de Mile. Duval ? — elle les a— les siens. Ceux-cl ne sont pas a elle, ni ceux-lk. (20). Et Mile, Dubois, en a-t-ellc une paire aussi ? Non, elle n'en a pas. (30). Btals-tu (were you) chez Dubois hier? (See Obs. 22 ) Que vous importe ? ^what matters it to you ?— what buainesa of yours ?) Quoi? que ni' importe ? Reponds-moi (answer me) ! Ydtaistu? Oui, j' y etals. Est-ce que mesdemoiselles Duval y etaient aussi ? Non ; Jules et moi^ nous y iiitions, mais personne d'autre (no onb elsb). (S8) La mleni^A la alenne, etc., fern, of le mien, lb tien, etc. We have already seen that adjectives ending in ten double n before adding the fem. e. Mien, tien, etc , though pronouns now, were once adjectives (used thus : La MIEN PERE for mon f^re). Celul ; we should expect the maso. to be oel, but notice that it is celul. (29) Oellea (pi. of CELLE). Ceox ( = OELS) ; the maso. pi. is quite regular, a being for 1 and x for «, (30) A-t ELLE ? ; so A-T-IL ?, A-T-ON ; remember that the old form of a was a(w See Obs. 2. TROISlfcME LECI-ON. 87 Voug y KTiEZ tou8 les deux (both of you) ? Oui, noua y etions tuiis les deux. (31). Avals-tu (had you h ton livre francjais avec toi ? Non, mais Jules AVAIT le sien. I^es Duval n' AVAient pas les leurs (thbihs). Comment I vouh n' AViEZqu' un livre entre vous <|uatre? (thk four OF you). Nous n' Avio.NH qu' un livre entre nous cinq. Nous .'tions cinq (five). (32). SERaa-tu (will you be) ici demain ? Oui, j'y sKKal. Est-ce que Jules y HBRa aussi ? Oui, nous y sEKong tous les deux. Ijes Duval y sKRont aussi. Y SBRez-vous ? (33). AuRas-tu (will you have) ton livre demuin ? Oui domain je I'AURal ; et Jules AURa le sien aussi. Ah oui ! nous aiko/is nos livres demain. Mais je ne sais pas si (whether) les Duval AURont leu leurs, AuRez-vous le votre ? (34). Oui, j' aurai le mien, et je I'apporteral avec moi. Je vous donneral une longue le^'on demain. Maintenant, mcs enfants, il faut vous dire au revoir. . , (31) J'ktais, tu ^TAis, il ETAiT, iLs (or KLLEs) tTAiKNT- all protiouiiuecl alike, though spelled diflFerently. But note nous etions uml vols ktiez. (32) J'avais, Tti AVAIS, IL AVAIT, ILS AVAIENT— all proiiouiicc'd alike. Observf that the ending ENT is always silent. Note nous avions and vors aviez, and distinguish them from nous avons and vous avez (you have). (3.S) SERaB, SERal, etc. ; note that the future is made up of the stem ser aii.l Ai, AS, A, etc. (the present of the verb avoir). See Obs 5. (34) AuRas, AUBal, etc.; note the stem anr and the endiuL's as. ai a etc See Obs. 33. «,,... r fi '^ QUATRIBMR LEGON Gourlr (ourrere^ P. P.— Couru {run). II court, ils courent, nous courons, vous courez, tu coure, je cours. (1). Pourquoi (for what) ces hommes courent-ihl lis vont secourir (HELP) leuis amis : ils vont au secours de leurs amis. Au secours ! au secours ! le couranf de la riviere les eniporte. Ou», mais ne partez pas (don't start off) a la course (on foot) : pre nez (take) ce coursier (COARSER, HORSE). Tout semble (seems) concovrir (to concur) a m' empecher. Quel concours d' homme ! eh bien ! dans I'affliction il faut reconrir a Dieu. Mais je n' a. pas le temps de discourir (to discourse*. II faut parcourir (run all ovf^') la ville (city). Dema n je veux faire une excursion a la campagne. Apres-demain (day after to- morrow) je vais commencer un co'urs de lalin a 1' AcaHemie. Mais voila un courrier (messenger) qui in' apporte une lettre. Cette It-ttre "Pst r arant coureur {\e frecurseur) de ma moit (death). Kenianiuez aussi les mots concurrent, concurrence, occ^irrence, etc. Finir (finis, end\ P.P. — finl Je tin!i Nous fin-l88 ons Tu finis Vous fin-iss-ez li finit II tin-Iss-ent. (2). J' ai fini. Je fiiiirai demain. Nous avons p esque fini la qua'rieme le»j'on. Nous la tinirons aujourd' hui. Nous arrivons enjin (at last) a Ih^fin de ce livre (book). Toute chose r une Jin excepte ce qui fst injini. Et coinmf nt peut-on (1) Il corRt ; note the personal-ending t, and remember that it is dropped from verbs of the or conjugation only (e.g. verbs like nONNer, roBTer, etc. ), See Les. Ill , Obs. 2. Jecoam; sis properly the ending of the 2nd person sing. tn), and old French said Je cour, Je vof, etc. Towards the end of the middle ages, however, a was added to the 1st person of all verbs save those of the er conj. (hence JE von, but je donnk). (2) Nors FiK-iM-ONS ; note the syllable Im which appears between the stem and the ending of the verb in the plural. All verbs of the Ir conjugation (some 350 verbs) take this syllr.ole with the exception of 22 verbs (COCRIR, venir, etc.). (38) \ 1 1 \u gUATUlfcMfc: LEl/UN. 39 defitiir (defink) l' infini ? Comment peut-on fii donner uoe dejinitioii ? Uinjini est ihdejiniamhle. Mais plus (no more) de philosophir. Enire IVtymologie et la philoso| hie 11 y a une grande affinilt^. Hi r (yestekday) j'ai parcouru le pays (country) justju 'aux (uKiHT to) conjins de la France ajin (in order) de vous voir, et aujourd' hui me voila 'onjine dans cette petite place. Autrefois pour niettre .A« (to put an end) a une cause on payait (paid) wne.^nance (fine) ; aujourd' hui les finances est I'argent (money) of journal) ; we have already noticed the tendency of 1 to cliange to u. This change is almost certain when 1 is followed by a consonant. Hence, words ending in 1 change that letter into u as soon as we add the sign of the plural. But we have also seen that u prefers x to s as the mark (jf the plural. Hence journaux, chevaux, animaux, etc , for journals, chevals, animals, etc. (11) JouRNALlsnie ; the suffix Isme (from the Latin ismus) is a masculine ter- mination ; hence all works like JOURNALisme, PROTKSTANTl«mo, etc., are mascu- line. Journallat^ : the suffix Iste denotes a trade or profession. Hence words like JOURNALlste, DENTlste, etc , are masculine. These two classes of words form, therefore, an important exception to the rule in Les. I., Obs. L • (12) SOJOURNER. . . . SEJOUR, ctc. ; let the student remember that the meanings of all these words must be gathered from their use in the sentences and from the root- words, more than from the English words, which represent but imperfectly their meanings. 4i QaATRlfcME LE(;OX. Le Boeuf (bovbm), ox. Quel animal est-ce? C'est un bieuf. Ces animaux (Obs. 10) sont -tJes bceu/s. (13;. Ce btpuf beugh (bellows). Entendez-vous (do you hear ?) le beugle- ment d\x h(v\il 1 Ainiez-vous le boeuf {z':ef)1 Oui, Monsieur, servez- nioi au bifteck (beefsteak) s'il vous plait (if you please). (14). Aimez-vous le beurre (butter) ? Oui, je veux beurrer (to butter) mon pain (bread). (15)- Votre pain est deja beurre. Donnez done una beurrde (a buttered slice) a Jules. AUons au beurrier (butter dealer). Allons plutok (rather) a la beurrerie (butter factory). Ce bouvitr (ox driver) vient de la bouverie (ox stable). Ces petits boeufs sont des bouvillons (YOUN(i steers). Mais ne par Ions plus de la race bovine. Lii baH« (basis) base. Voyez-vous la base de ce piedestal 1 Voila la base de ce systeme : <*'e.st la-dessus (sur tela) que je base mon systeme. Ce terrain est tres bas (low). Cette table est trop BASSe. (Les. III. Obfi. 24. ) Le mot bas vient du ftas-latin bassus. Mais ce mot bassus vient du latin basis (la base). Est-ce que cet homme est en haut ou €V7 bas (BELOW)? Tl est Id-bas. II agit bassement (Les. III. Obs. 9). Mon dieu ! quelle bassesse ! (baseness>. Qu' est-ce qu' il a done aux pieds ? tJne paire de bas (stockings). Est-ce (lue vous chantez (sing) la basse ? Non, je ne chante pas du tout (at all). II est si difficile de hausser et A'abaisser (lower) la voix (voice). Oui, Vabaissement de la voix est une chose assez (enough) difficile. Regardez done comme la (i;j) Boeuf; pronounced htuft; the plural is pronounced 6ew. ( 14) Bifteck ; a corruption of the English btefottak, but the English beef is simply tlie French hcexif. (15) BEUKRer ; notice how verbs are made from nouns by adding er. Verbs are also made from adjectives by adding Ir (e g., okand, urandik). That is to Hay, verbs made from nouns belong to the er conjugation, while those made from adjectives belong to the Ir conjugation. These are the two living conjugations of the French language — livivrj, because new verbs are being added to them every year. They together embrace about 4,000 verbs (3,620 in or and 350 in tp), all of which are regular, excepting aller and envoyer of the er conj., and 22 verbs of the Ir conj. The other two conjugations (which we will consider later) are dead conjugations — dead because no new verbs are being added to them. They together embrace only 90 verbs, the small legacy Latin bequeathed to French in the beginning of this language. .1 II QUATRlfcME LtVON. li riviere baisse ( lowkrs). Oui, je vois 9a. Mais parlez plus has : rahausrz (lower) votre voix. (16). On dit que le prix du ble (corn) a hnisH^ Ah oui ! le ble est an rabais. (17;. Le Domicile (domus, hou8e\ ckmiicile. J'ai Hxe inon domicile a Rome: je suis domicilie dans Rome. 3h peux voir tous les jours le dome de St. Pierre. Est-ce que les affiaires domesliques vous interessent ? Oh ! oui, car je suis le domestique (ser- vant) chez Monsieur Dubois. Le chien est un animal domest'qiie. 11 y ades animaux qui se domes- tifjuent facilement. Voyez-vous cette dame (domina) ? Oui, Modame, je la vois : c'est Madame Dubois. Et voyez-vous cette demoiselle ? C'est Mademoiselle Dubois. Je les aime beaucoup, les dames et les demoiselles. Les demoiselles Dubois sont tres aimables. Voici Mesdemoiselles Morin avec Me»dames Pelletier et Girard. (18). Voila la dame de carreau (the queen of diamonds). Aimez-vous le jeu de dames (checkeks) ? Regardez done, j'ai deja une da7ne damee (a king crowned). Me voila a dame aussi : damez-moi (crown me). Ah ! ce damier est trop petit : il nous en faut un autre. Ah ! dame .' celui-ce peut faire. ( 1 9). Savez-vous que c'est Dimanche (dominica, Lord's Day) aujourd' hui ? Qu' est-ce que §a me fait ? Vous voulez toujours nous dominer ; mais vous allez vous faiie dompfer (domitare, fo tame) : je ^nis un bon dompteur d'animaux. Animal indompte (un- tamed) ! eces-vous indomptalle ? Remarquez aussi les mots, jiredominer, le domaine, domestication, etc. CONVERSATIONAL EXERCISE. Quels noms sont du genre masculin ? Les noms qui ne terminent pas en e muet (mute) "sont du genre masculin : le pied, le uras, le co u, etc. (16) AbalMcr and BAissER have pretty much the same meaning, though the former strictly means to lower to something, the latter simply to lower. In conver.sa- tion, baisser is the word nearly always heard. Rabiiisser means to lower ftvther. (17) Note also butard, loio bom, a bastard. (18) Dame (domina from domus), formerly app'ied only to the mistress of a house or a lady of rank; now applied to any married woman. Demoiselle, for- merly a littl", lady, now applied politely to al! unmarried women. Distinguish between dame and maOAME. (19) Ah dame! (0 domine, O Lord.') a common exclamation which has lost much of its original meaning. Damier. checker hoard. 44 (^UATRliiME LEVON. 11 Estce que cette regie est absolue ? Non, cette regie presente quelques exceptions. Les noms abstraits en Eun, ion (ou son), tk, sont feminins : on dit la grandeur, une ex- ception, la BONTK. II y a aussi exception pour quelques autres noms : on dit la mer, la mort, la voix, la fin, une part et la plupart {greater part). (20) Est-ce tous les nonis termines en o muet sont du genre feminin 1 Non, rnais la plupart lesont. Nous avoni deja donne quelques noms masculins termines en e muet : uii arbre, un Pii'XiE, un livre, un cadre, du beurre, du SUCRE, etc. II faut remarquer aussi que les suffixes, age et Isme sont des lerminaisons masculines. II faut done dii'e le BRASsRgre, le poRTagre, le JOURNALisrae, le PROTESTANTisme, etc Comment forme-ton le pluriel des noms? Pour former le pluriel des noms on ajoute (add) s au siugulier. Est-ce que cette regie fst absolue? Non cette regie presente <|uelques exceptions Quand le nom est termine au singulier par un 8, un x ou un z (bras, voix, nez), le aom ne change pas au pluriel parce qu'il en a d^ja la marque. Quels noms prennent x au pluriel ? Les noins termines au singulier par iiu ou eu prennent x au pluriel. En outre (besides) les noms termines au singulier par al prennent x au pluriel, parce que le 1 du singulier devient u au pluriel : cheval, CHEVAUX, etc. ON THE PLACING OF THE ACCENTS. Words like le, dans, pied, est, etc., have but one syllable. Words \\\ie par-lez, der-rie-re, pre-mier, e'-pi-ne, e-chel-le, ini-se-re, etc., have two or more syllables. But how do we divide words into syllables ? Why not divide them thus : ep-in-e, mis-er-e, ech-el-le, etc. ? Becaus > each consonant belongs to the vowel that follows it, not to the vowel that precedes it. In ('•pi-ne, p belongs to i, and n to e ; so in mi se-re, m belongs to i, s to e and /• to e. Then why not pa-rlez, instead of par- lez ? Because lez is a complete syllable in itself, and r must be added io pa. So e che\-\e, der-rie-re, fu-sil, etc. (21) And note that as soon (20) There are also one or two others which we will note later. . (21) Par-Iez : M'hen two consonants come together (as in pab-lez) one consonant goes with each syllable, except of course where the consonants combine so as to form a single articulation as CH in lE-chEL-LE. Cn, ph, th, sh and ON are in- separable combinations, and the letters R and L likewise combine with most con- sonants, as KN-CA-drEK (not en-cad-be»), ta-We (not tab-le). 1/ K r n QUATRlfcME LEVON. 45 Vu 3 :) y t n d n It o u- f as we add a vowel to a word (as the feminine e to an adjective), we disturb the division of the syllables in that word. Thus, pre-mier, but pre-mie-re, pied, but pie-des-tal,fort h\Jitfor-te, etc. Now, the letter e (unaccented) when it stands alone or ends a syllable has hardly any sound. Thus, in e'-pi-ne, the e in the last syllable is scarcely heard. So au-tre-ment is pronounced almost as if written autr'ment, and bras-se-rie as if written braas'rie. If instead of ending a syllable, however, the e is joined with a con- sonant, so that the consonant ends the syllable (as in the syllable chel of ^■chel-le, or der of der-rie-re^, then e has a broad open sound, and is pronounced with the mouth well open. Note the following : collet au-tel, ter-re, c'-pi-nette, preB-que. (22). In many words e ends a syllable unaccompanied by any consonant, and has nevertheless the open sound above noticed. In such cases, how- ever, it takes a grave accent, thus : »»i-se-re, der-rie-re, (pronounced as if spelt mi-serre, der-rier-re). Note the following : bie-re, bi-pe-de je col-lh-te, dif-Je-re, ^-pi-niere, al-te-re, ri-vik-re, pres, trbs, ex-ces, aprhs. (23). E may also end a syllable unaccompanied by a consonant, and have the sound of the English a in/ate, but it then takes an acute acct lit. Note the following : e-pi-ne, c c/'elle, don-ne, ai-ine,/ume('. Without accents, these words would be pronounced 'pin', 'cheW, donti, etc. The e has the same sound as the er of dissyllables ; i.e., mine and aimer are pronounced alike. The e with a circumflex has also the open sound, because, as we have seen (Les. II. Obs. 7,*, the circumflex denotes that a consonant has been elided. Note e-tre, te-te, em-pe-cher, etc. The "rule then for the placing of accents is this : — Divide the word into syllables, and if the syllable containing e ends in a consonant, no accent will be required. If, however, e ends a syllable, it will require a grave (22) When a tvord, however, ends in ez (chez, parlez) or a word of two or niore syllables in er (as don-ner, par-ler, por-tier, CA-Hiim), this Bz or er is pro- nounced like the English a in/a