On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 2:02:02 PM UTC-7, wugi wrote:
> Op 3/06/2021 om 22:49 schreef wugi:
> > Op 3/06/2021 om 18:45 schreef Arnaud Fournet:
> >> Le jeudi 3 juin 2021 à 12:56:27 UTC+2, Dingbat a écrit :
> >>> On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 1:24:51 AM UTC-7, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >>>> Wed, 2 Jun 2021 20:23:11 -0700 (PDT): Dingbat
> >>>> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> scribeva:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 3:01:18 AM UTC-7, Dingbat wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 6:14:02 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 5:24:27 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:38:12 AM UTC-7, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> An articulatory observation about the nasal vowels of French:
> >>>>>>>>> https://rudhar.com/fonetics/nasstrng.htm
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Can a vowel before a nasal consonant be either nasal or
> >>>>>>>> non-nasal and if so, how do you tell whether to make it nasal?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> timbre
> >>>>>>>> entente
> >>>>>>>> lignes
> >>>>>>> Either you know the language or you know the spelling.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There is no nasal consonant in timbre or entente. \
> >>>>>>> There is no nasal vowel in lignes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Listen to Emma pronouncing Macedoine
> >>>>>> Does she have a nasal vowel, a nasal consonant or both?
> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEsOQsabUvUDingbat:" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEsOQsabUvUDingbat:
> >>>>>> Listen to Emma pronouncing Macedoine
> >>>>>> Does she have a nasal vowel, a nasal consonant or both?
> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEsOQsabUvU
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PTD:
> >>>>> Both. As expected in that environment.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My only question in my 1st posting was:
> >>>>> In which contexts is this expected?
> >>>>> Why is it expected for only one of these words?
> >>>> Lots of things language have no why and wherefore. They are as the
> >>>> are.
> >>>>
> >>>>> timbre
> >>>>> entente
> >>>>> lignes
> >>>>> macedoine
> >>>>
> >>>> Are you asking about French words, or English loanwords from French?
> >>> French words. Is there any French word with a nasal vowel followed by
> >>> a nasal stop in a French accent?
> >>
> >> ennui for example
> >> enamouré is another instance, not reflected by spelling.
> >>
> Immanquable et al. which I mentioned elsewhere; unpredictable whether
> im-m... is going to be nasal or not (in most cases not).
>
Thanks. Whether it is predictable was something I wanted to know.

I find this word enigmatic:
encastré
https://forvo.com/word/encastr%C3%A9/

It seems to start with a nasal vowel followed by a nasal stop.
The <c> is pronounced like in Italian!
The <a> is pronounced as <E>!
The terminal vowel sounds like [I]!
(the ending vowel of ancestry)
>
> But those are not with "ending stops", compare:
> >
> > Nous vînmes?
> >
>
> --
> guido wugi

Op 4/06/2021 om 10:07 schreef Dingbat:

>
> I find this word enigmatic:
> encastré
> https://forvo.com/word/encastr%C3%A9/
>
> It seems to start with a nasal vowel followed by a nasal stop.

Where should that 'stop' be?

> The <c> is pronounced like in Italian!

Regular.

> The <a> is pronounced as <E>!

Rince your ears a bit.

> The terminal vowel sounds like [I]!

é ~ longish [I], [I] ~ shortish [e]

> (the ending vowel of ancestry)

Why, it's just standard French pronunciation. en-cas-tré.

--
guido wugi

Op 4/06/2021 om 10:28 schreef mabel wugi:
> Op 4/06/2021 om 10:07 schreef Dingbat:
>
>>
>> I find this word enigmatic:
>> encastré
>> https://forvo.com/word/encastr%C3%A9/
>>

>
>> The <c> is pronounced like in Italian!
>
> Regular.

Have a look at this doublet: châtrer - castrer
https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/châtrer/14931
https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/castrer/13677

--
guido wugi

On 2021-06-04 08:33:21 +0000, mabel wugi said:

> Op 4/06/2021 om 10:28 schreef mabel wugi:
>> Op 4/06/2021 om 10:07 schreef Dingbat:
>>
>>>
>>> I find this word enigmatic:
>>> encastré
>>> https://forvo.com/word/encastr%C3%A9/
>>>
>
>>
>>> The <c> is pronounced like in Italian!
>>
>> Regular.
>
>
> Have a look at this doublet: châtrer - castrer
> https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/châtrer/14931
> https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/castrer/13677

Not to be confused with Castrais, which refers to someone from Castres.
We know someone from Castres, and when we first met him and we asked
him if he was from this region (Provence) he said "Non, je suis
Castrais". As intended, we understood Castrais as castré until he
explained.

--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years

Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> On 2021-06-04 08:33:21 +0000, mabel wugi said:
>
>> Op 4/06/2021 om 10:28 schreef mabel wugi:
>>> Op 4/06/2021 om 10:07 schreef Dingbat:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I find this word enigmatic:
>>>> encastré
>>>> https://forvo.com/word/encastr%C3%A9/
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>>> The <c> is pronounced like in Italian!
>>>
>>> Regular.
>>
>>
>> Have a look at this doublet: châtrer - castrer
>> https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/châtrer/14931
>> https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/castrer/13677
>
> Not to be confused with Castrais, which refers to someone from Castres.
> We know someone from Castres, and when we first met him and we asked
> him if he was from this region (Provence) he said "Non, je suis
> Castrais". As intended, we understood Castrais as castré until he
> explained.
>
>

In the french I was taught, <ai> was just the same as <è>. I've since been
made aware that is often the same as <é>, but not the rules for that. This
looks like as good as time as any other to inquire about those.
What are the rules? Quelles sont-elles, les règles?

On 04.06.2021 10:07, Dingbat wrote:

>>Immanquable et al. which I mentioned elsewhere; unpredictable whether
>>im-m... is going to be nasal or not (in most cases not).
>
>Thanks. Whether it is predictable was something I wanted to know.

Here, the Fr. spelling -mm- helps you. OTOH, it'd be nasalized if the
Fr. spelling were ... "inmanqable", where the Latin prefix in- wouldn't
be transformed becoming en- (in the French & Hispanic style).

>I find this word enigmatic:

Why enigmatic? It's perfect "standard" => "easy" to read to any
foreigner /ɔ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - kas - tre:/.

>encastré
>https://forvo.com/word/encastr%C3%A9/
> >It seems to start with a nasal vowel followed by a nasal stop.
>The <c> is pronounced like in Italian!

i.e., /k/ (as well as in the above mentioned ... manquable)
(BTW: Italian incastrare; participle incastrato; noun incastro)

>The <a> is pronounced as <E>!

?!

>The terminal vowel sounds like [I]!
>(the ending vowel of ancestry)

?! To me it sounds /e:::::::::::::::::::::::::::/. Like
an American English /e/, e.g. in "bed", yet very ... long.
No /i/ or /I/ in it whatsoever. It's an Anglosaxon,
esp. American, habit to make of virtually all -e endings
in foreign words /i(:)/ and /eɪ, ɛɪ/. (Spies, take care of
your tongue training. :-))

In East-Austrian & Vienna-German it could be spelled ... "aunkaßtreh"
and "aungaßtreh" (yet preserving the French pronunciation).
"Aun-" is an unofficial, yet popular spelling, preferred by many
in the Vienna region for almost the same /ɔ~/-nasal. In South-East
Germany, for the same phenomenon (i.e. the regional pronunciation
variants of the German prefix an-) is rendered by an awkward
regional spelling, o-. Awkward, since it doesn't convey any hint
to a foreigner as to what pronunciation is to be expected in those
regional areas of the "lingo". The Austrian spelling counterpart,
aung-, isn't either a good one, but one showing a vivid ... imagination. :-)

But to be aware of what this is about, one should hear several
nativespeakers from Bavaria and Austria uttering this. And only
then also getting aware of the fact, wow,this thing reminds one
the French an-, am-, en-, em-, i.e. "enfant", "Entente" (although
the German prefix an- is etymologically and semantically not quite
related to em-, en-, am-, an- of the western areas of the Romance
world).

The real (i.e., existing!) differences to the French nasal an, am, en,
em, as well as to the Polish one, -ą-, are tiny; and not all
foreigners are able to perceive the differences. (The nasalisation
of aeiouöüɨʉɯ can be achieved by various native-speakers' mouths
in various languages in various ways, that would amaze French and
Poles, who might thing only their idioms have such nasals. :-)
To be precise: I mean all situation where the vowel isn't followed
by a real /n/ pronounced with any contact between the lingual apex
and the the teeth or the alveola or the palate or (as in some
German areas, incl. one former federal chancellor, Helmut Kohl)
the upper lip; be aware: a German minority of native speakers
pronounce /n/ with the tongue tip hitting the (outside) upper lip!
No German language school would teach you this in any
course whatsoever (perhaps in some rare "Germanistik" classes) ;-)))

Tim

On 04.06.2021 11:55, António Marques wrote:

>In the french I was taught, <ai> was just the same as <è>.

Me too.

>I've since been made aware that is often the same as <é>, but not the rules for that.

Yes, indeed.

>What are the rules? Quelles sont-elles, les règles?

Thank goodness that "elles sont" much more ... regular, i.e. not
as overwhelmed by ... whole lotta exceptions, as is the case in
the universe of English spellings (an utterly ... "libertarian"
world :-D).

Tim

On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 4:33:27 AM UTC-4, wugi wrote:
> Op 4/06/2021 om 10:28 schreef mabel wugi:
> > Op 4/06/2021 om 10:07 schreef Dingbat:
> >
> >>
> >> I find this word enigmatic:
> >> encastré
> >> https://forvo.com/word/encastr%C3%A9/
> >>
>
> >
> >> The <c> is pronounced like in Italian!
> >
> > Regular.
> Have a look at this doublet: châtrer - castrer
> https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/châtrer/14931
> https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/castrer/13677
>
>
> --
> guido wugi

Do not castrate a chaste rat...

Op 4/06/2021 om 13:18 schreef Tim Lang:
> On 04.06.2021 10:07, Dingbat wrote:
>
>>> Immanquable et al. which I mentioned elsewhere; unpredictable whether
>>> im-m... is going to be nasal or not (in most cases not).
>>
>> Thanks. Whether it is predictable was something I wanted to know.
>
> Here, the Fr. spelling -mm- helps you. OTOH, it'd be nasalized if the

No, it doesn't.

> Fr. spelling were ... "inmanqable", where the Latin prefix in- wouldn't

That would be the perfect spelling solution, but... too obvious:
l'inmanquable immeuble.

> be transformed becoming en- (in the French & Hispanic style).
>
>> I find this word enigmatic:
>
> Why enigmatic? It's perfect "standard" => "easy" to read to any
> foreigner /ɔ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - kas - tre:/.
>
>> encastré
>> https://forvo.com/word/encastr%C3%A9/
>> >It seems to start with a nasal vowel followed by a nasal stop.
>> The <c> is pronounced like in Italian!
>
> i.e., /k/ (as well as in the above mentioned ... manquable)
> (BTW: Italian incastrare; participle incastrato; noun incastro)
>
>> The <a> is pronounced as <E>!
>
> ?!
>
>> The terminal vowel sounds like [I]!
>> (the ending vowel of ancestry)
>
> ?! To me it sounds /e:::::::::::::::::::::::::::/. Like

But in the given sample it sounds just rather short, [I]ish.

> an American English /e/, e.g. in "bed", yet very ... long.
> No /i/ or /I/ in it whatsoever.

--
guido wugi

Op 4/06/2021 om 14:07 schreef mabel wugi:

>> Here, the Fr. spelling -mm- helps you. OTOH, it'd be nasalized if the
>
> No, it doesn't.

(I meant, spelling does not help)

--
guido wugi

Op 4/06/2021 om 11:55 schreef António Marques:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>> On 2021-06-04 08:33:21 +0000, mabel wugi said:
>>
>>> Op 4/06/2021 om 10:28 schreef mabel wugi:
>>>> Op 4/06/2021 om 10:07 schreef Dingbat:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I find this word enigmatic:
>>>>> encastré
>>>>> https://forvo.com/word/encastr%C3%A9/
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The <c> is pronounced like in Italian!
>>>>
>>>> Regular.
>>>
>>>
>>> Have a look at this doublet: châtrer - castrer
>>> https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/châtrer/14931
>>> https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/castrer/13677
>>
>> Not to be confused with Castrais, which refers to someone from Castres.
>> We know someone from Castres, and when we first met him and we asked
>> him if he was from this region (Provence) he said "Non, je suis
>> Castrais". As intended, we understood Castrais as castré until he
>> explained.
>>
>>
>
> In the french I was taught, <ai> was just the same as <è>. I've since been
> made aware that is often the same as <é>, but not the rules for that. This
> looks like as good as time as any other to inquire about those.
> What are the rules? Quelles sont-elles, les règles?
>

There aren't clear ones, and if there are, they're not universal. From
what there is, the distinction is better maintained in eg. Belgium
(except dialectical) than in 'mainstream' Île de France (which is also
in the stage of coinciding -in and -un).

-ai ~ é: parlai ~ parlé, parler, parlez etc.
-ais, -ait, -aient ~ è: mais ~ mets
-aise ~ è: (ma)laise ~ (mé)lèze.

But the increased confusion é,è shows up in spelling errors between
parlai and parlais, parlerai and parlerais (besides between homophonic
parlé, parler and parlez). Also in spelling confusion éléverai/élèverai;
accéderai/accèderai....

--
guido wugi

Op 4/06/2021 om 14:21 schreef mabel wugi:

> -ais, -ait, -aient ~ è: mais ~ mets

I meant short è like in très.

> -aise ~ è: (ma)laise ~ (mé)lèze.

I meant long è: like in Thérèse.

(Though vowel length is also fuzzy in French)

--
guido wugi

Op 4/06/2021 om 14:21 schreef mabel wugi:
> There aren't clear ones, and if there are, they're not universal. From
> what there is, the distinction is better maintained in eg. Belgium
> (except dialectical) than in 'mainstream' Île de France (which is also
> in the stage of coinciding -in and -un).
>
> -ai ~ é: parlai ~ parlé, parler, parlez etc.
> -ais, -ait, -aient ~ è: mais ~ mets
> -aise ~ è: (ma)laise ~ (mé)lèze.

Aime, -aire, -aine, aide, aigu, aile, glaive, laize...: all long è:

--
guido wugi

Fri, 4 Jun 2021 01:07:28 -0700 (PDT): Dingbat
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> scribeva:
>I find this word enigmatic:
>encastré
>https://forvo.com/word/encastr%C3%A9/
>
>It seems to start with a nasal vowel followed by a nasal stop.

I don't hear that. It's [A~] or maybe even [O~].

>The <c> is pronounced like in Italian!

Yes, what else? A simple [k], as the spelling rules of ALL Romance
languages dictate.

>The <a> is pronounced as <E>!

No, [ä] or [a]. Central or front, fully open.

>The terminal vowel sounds like [I]!
> (the ending vowel of ancestry)

Not surprising. The phonetic difference between [e] and [I] is largely
undefined.

I clearly hear a cardinal [e], however, as expected.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Fri, 4 Jun 2021 10:28:56 +0200: mabel wugi <wugi@scarlet.be> scribeva:

>Op 4/06/2021 om 10:07 schreef Dingbat:
>
>>
>> I find this word enigmatic:
>> encastré
>> https://forvo.com/word/encastr%C3%A9/
>>
>> It seems to start with a nasal vowel followed by a nasal stop.
>
>Where should that 'stop' be?

For starting pressure build-up for the [k], you have to close the
nasal passage. In that sense, these is a stop.

>> The <c> is pronounced like in Italian!
>
>Regular.
>
>> The <a> is pronounced as <E>!
>
>Rince your ears a bit.
>
>> The terminal vowel sounds like [I]!
>
>é ~ longish [I], [I] ~ shortish [e]
>
>> (the ending vowel of ancestry)
>
>Why, it's just standard French pronunciation. en-cas-tré.

Agreed.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Fri, 4 Jun 2021 10:46:20 +0200: Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> scribeva:
>> Have a look at this doublet: châtrer - castrer
>> https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/châtrer/14931
>> https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/castrer/13677
>
>Not to be confused with Castrais, which refers to someone from Castres.
>We know someone from Castres, and when we first met him and we asked
>him if he was from this region (Provence) he said "Non, je suis
>Castrais". As intended, we understood Castrais as castré until he
>explained.

In many regions of France (I always forget which ones) there is very
little difference, if any.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Fri, 4 Jun 2021 09:55:21 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
<antonioprm@sapo.pt> scribeva:
>In the french I was taught, <ai> was just the same as <è>. I've since been
>made aware that is often the same as <é>, but not the rules for that. This
>looks like as good as time as any other to inquire about those.
>What are the rules? Quelles sont-elles, les règles?

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prononciation_du_fran%C3%A7ais#Voyelles_2
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 11:54:33 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Fri, 4 Jun 2021 01:07:28 -0700 (PDT): Dingbat
> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> scribeva:

> >I find this word enigmatic:
> >encastré
> >https://forvo.com/word/encastr%C3%A9/
>
> >The terminal vowel sounds like [I]!
> > (the ending vowel of ancestry)

(In early-20th-century RP. I don't know where Indian English stands
on that suffix.)

> Not surprising. The phonetic difference between [e] and [I] is largely
> undefined.

What an odd thing to say. If those two phones belong to different
phonemes in one's native language, one has no trouble distinguishing
them. (Anyway you probably meant [E] and [I]?)

For [e]/[I], mate/mitt in English; for [E]/[I], met/mitt.

> I clearly hear a cardinal [e], however, as expected.

You need to ask Ranjit to lay out the Malayalam vowel system
to see why he hears what he hears.

Op 4/06/2021 om 19:58 schreef Peter T. Daniels:

>> Not surprising. The phonetic difference between [e] and [I] is largely
>> undefined.

> What an odd thing to say. If those two phones belong to different

I agree with Ruud.

> phonemes in one's native language, one has no trouble distinguishing
> them. (Anyway you probably meant [E] and [I]?)

No.

> For [e]/[I], mate/mitt in English; for [E]/[I], met/mitt. long in meer.

For [e]/[I], smeer/smeed/smid in Dutch. [I] (very) short in smid, [e.]
half long in smeed, [e:] long in smeer. Same mouth position each vowel.

--
guido wugi

On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 3:16:02 PM UTC-4, wugi wrote:
> Op 4/06/2021 om 19:58 schreef Peter T. Daniels:

DO NOT DELETE ATTRIBUTIONS

> >> Not surprising. The phonetic difference between [e] and [I] is largely
> >> undefined.
> > What an odd thing to say. If those two phones belong to different
>
> I agree with Ruud.

Maybe he is misusing "undefined." What do you think he meant by it?

> > phonemes in one's native language, one has no trouble distinguishing
> > them. (Anyway you probably meant [E] and [I]?)
>
> No.

[e] and [I] are quite different

> > For [e]/[I], mate/mitt in English; for [E]/[I], met/mitt. long in meer.
>
> For [e]/[I], smeer/smeed/smid in Dutch. [I] (very) short in smid, [e.]
> half long in smeed, [e:] long in smeer. Same mouth position each vowel.

If those are phonemically different, there is no reason for Ruud
to find them hard to distinguish.

On 2021-06-04, Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

> [e] and [I] are quite different

You need to listen to some New Zealanders. Their DRESS vowel is
described as [e] or raised [e], but is frequently mistaken for the
KIT vowel by AmE speakers.

Obligatory sketch from _Flight of the Concords_:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRdg1MOYxHo

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 10:58:42 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 11:54:33 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > Fri, 4 Jun 2021 01:07:28 -0700 (PDT): Dingbat
> > <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> scribeva:
>
> > >I find this word enigmatic:
> > >encastré
> > >https://forvo.com/word/encastr%C3%A9/
> >
> > >The terminal vowel sounds like [I]!
> > > (the ending vowel of ancestry)
> (In early-20th-century RP. I don't know where Indian English stands
> on that suffix.)
> > Not surprising. The phonetic difference between [e] and [I] is largely
> > undefined.
> What an odd thing to say. If those two phones belong to different
> phonemes in one's native language, one has no trouble distinguishing
> them. (Anyway you probably meant [E] and [I]?)
>
He couldn't have meant [E]. It is too far from [I] to be identified as [I].
>
> For [e]/[I], mate/mitt in English; for [E]/[I], met/mitt.
> > I clearly hear a cardinal [e], however, as expected.

mate has [eI], not [e].

> You need to ask Ranjit to lay out the Malayalam vowel system
> to see why he hears what he hears.

The Malayalam short e is slightly more open than cardinal e on a chart I've seen.
The German [I] is slightly more closed than cardinal e on a chart I've seen..
Both are retracted from the fronted position of cardinal e.
The two are equidistant from cardinal e as far as I can tell.
I don't remember an English chart but English doesn't have an [e].
I've heard it from Anglophones only in a French word like
DEPARTMENT, the political division in France, and not all
Anglophones manage to make it a pure vowel.

Le vendredi 4 juin 2021 à 11:55:29 UTC+2, António Marques a écrit :
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> > On 2021-06-04 08:33:21 +0000, mabel wugi said:
> >
> >> Op 4/06/2021 om 10:28 schreef mabel wugi:
> >>> Op 4/06/2021 om 10:07 schreef Dingbat:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I find this word enigmatic:
> >>>> encastré
> >>>> https://forvo.com/word/encastr%C3%A9/
> >>>>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> The <c> is pronounced like in Italian!
> >>>
> >>> Regular.
> >>
> >>
> >> Have a look at this doublet: châtrer - castrer
> >> https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/châtrer/14931
> >> https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/castrer/13677
> >
> > Not to be confused with Castrais, which refers to someone from Castres.
> > We know someone from Castres, and when we first met him and we asked
> > him if he was from this region (Provence) he said "Non, je suis
> > Castrais". As intended, we understood Castrais as castré until he
> > explained.
> >
> >
> In the french I was taught, <ai> was just the same as <è>. I've since been -,
> made aware that is often the same as <é>, but not the rules for that.. This
> looks like as good as time as any other to inquire about those.
> What are the rules? Quelles sont-elles, les règles?

In theory, as is inherited from Middle French,
digraph -ai# should be closed é
digraph -ai- followed by -e(s), -s, -t, -ent, should be open è
Now, it's obvious that present-day speakers tend to harmonize their oral practice to spelling,
so that most people who have a distinction between é and è would pronounce ai as è in all cases,
which from a diachronical point of view is incorrect.
In theory, inherited phonology would mean aimai is émé, but aimais is émè, gai is gé but gaie is gè, etc.
I seriously doubt that present-day francophones respect that.
About all have spelling-driven phonology, not inherited phonology.
Of course, all those who have no distinction between é and è are unaware of these issues.

Le vendredi 4 juin 2021 à 14:21:15 UTC+2, wugi a écrit :
> Op 4/06/2021 om 11:55 schreef António Marques:
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> >> On 2021-06-04 08:33:21 +0000, mabel wugi said:
> >>
> >>> Op 4/06/2021 om 10:28 schreef mabel wugi:
> >>>> Op 4/06/2021 om 10:07 schreef Dingbat:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I find this word enigmatic:
> >>>>> encastré
> >>>>> https://forvo.com/word/encastr%C3%A9/
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> The <c> is pronounced like in Italian!
> >>>>
> >>>> Regular.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Have a look at this doublet: châtrer - castrer
> >>> https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/châtrer/14931
> >>> https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/castrer/13677
> >>
> >> Not to be confused with Castrais, which refers to someone from Castres..
> >> We know someone from Castres, and when we first met him and we asked
> >> him if he was from this region (Provence) he said "Non, je suis
> >> Castrais". As intended, we understood Castrais as castré until he
> >> explained.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > In the french I was taught, <ai> was just the same as <è>. I've since been
> > made aware that is often the same as <é>, but not the rules for that. This
> > looks like as good as time as any other to inquire about those.
> > What are the rules? Quelles sont-elles, les règles?
> >
> There aren't clear ones, and if there are, they're not universal. From
> what there is, the distinction is better maintained in eg. Belgium
> (except dialectical) than in 'mainstream' Île de France (which is also
> in the stage of coinciding -in and -un).
>
> -ai ~ é: parlai ~ parlé, parler, parlez etc.
> -ais, -ait, -aient ~ è: mais ~ mets
> -aise ~ è: (ma)laise ~ (mé)lèze.

It's the theoretical phonology of Parisian French,
but I seriously doubt present-day speakers abide by these laws.

> But the increased confusion é,è shows up in spelling errors between
> parlai and parlais, parlerai and parlerais (besides between homophonic
> parlé, parler and parlez). Also in spelling confusion éléverai/élèverai;
> accéderai/accèderai....

There's a lot of confusion in actual speech and idiolects.

>
> --
> guido wugi

On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 8:33:06 AM UTC-4, Arnaud Fournet wrote:

> It's the theoretical phonology of Parisian French,
> but I seriously doubt present-day speakers abide by these laws.

you are among the best practitioners of the futile and baseless discipline of linguistics - but you pulled the rug out from under it, with that statement.

Most of linguistics is like "israel's right to defend itself" - the utterer knows that the only purpose is to mortify the listener.