To Amos:

Amaury:

Ok, so the folk process is the process during which a song undergoes changes in its rythm, words, musical structure, or some other aspect.

Like in:

(verse)
À la claire fontaine
M'en allant promener
J'ai trouvé l'eau si belle
Que je m'y suis baigné

(chorus)
Il y a longtemps que je t'aime
Jamais je ne t'oublierai
Jamais je ne t'oublierai

that would become

(verse)
À la claire fontaine
M'en allant promener
J'ai trouvé l'eau si belle
Que je m'y suis baigné...

(chorus)
Fendez le bois
Chauffez le four
Dormez ma belle
Il n'est point jour

In this particular case, the music (ok, you can't hear it) and the chorus have changed, but the words of the basic story have remained the same. That would be a valid example of the folk process?

And "Dormez ma belle" becoming "Dormez la belle" two sentences that make sense and that do not alter the rythm would be an example of Folk process too?

If that is the case, I got no problem with that.

But what I was trying to say is that some of the texts I've seen have errors that alter the meaning of the text, up to a point that it loses some of its sense.

If I would say, in English:

"I eat in a table" instead of "I eat on a table", most people would smile. Likely, if I say: "Oh, that president Bush, she is so militaristic", you would understand perfectly well what I say. Nevermind what century I would have wroten that in, the errors I made would STILL be errors. You don't eat IN a table, whatever the century. And you dont refer to a man as "she", whatever the century, unless it is a very special man.

It is errors of that kind that I was talking about.

If I am totally on the wrong track, please someone point a big neon sign saying: "WRONG WAY" :)

Amaury de Périgny