Quote:
but if there is no e after the g, it would be pronounced as a hard g (as in "green"), not as a soft g (as in "gentle"). this is why i added the e, the same as why there is an e but no u in french (hard g would be spelled chronophague).
what is the rule that you are basing your spelling on ?
|
Yes, it would be pronounced with a hard "g." Extremely uneuphonious. Which, as I noted, could well be why it was never taken up in English.
The only rule I based my observation on is that since the root is "-phag(o)-" and the suffix "-ous", no "e" comes in if the word is normally constructed (without the insertion of an arbitrary "e" for the sake of euphony). The French word has the same roots but is built differently. The only comparable English word I can think of is "anthropophagous" (man-eating, or cannibalistic), which is rare and would probably only be used facetiously, anyway.