| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » anglicism/gallicism |
|
Page 1 of 6 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| retrosorter |
 Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 8:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I've seen many books in libraries that deal with the topic of
anglicisms and the general thrust of these books is how the anglicisms
are polluting the native language. Invariably, the native language in
question is French.
I don't understand why anglicisms are seen as a threat. Sometimes I
feel that English inherently is "badly pronounced French" because there
are so many words of French origin in English that have served to
enrich our vocabulary. English would be much duller language if it had
never been colored by French.
As to the argument that one should use the "proper" French word and not
the anglicized one, I don't see why one can't have both. What
invariably happens over time is that the word will develop a
particular nuance and will give the language a new word with a slightly
different meaning.
So my question is why do francophones angst so much about anglicisms
when anglophones are so receptive to gallicisms? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Areff |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 8:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.usage.english.]
eromlignod wrote:
[quote:ab28afc7fc]I think that another factor is that French seems to be a more fascistic
language.
[/quote:ab28afc7fc]
Should we perhaps say instead that it is 'dirigiste'? Or maybe
"Bonapartist"? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eromlignod |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 8:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
retrosorter wrote:
[quote:ffe7a58f59]I've seen many books in libraries that deal with the topic of
anglicisms and the general thrust of these books is how the
anglicisms
are polluting the native language. Invariably, the native language in
question is French.
I don't understand why anglicisms are seen as a threat. Sometimes I
feel that English inherently is "badly pronounced French" because
there
are so many words of French origin in English that have served to
enrich our vocabulary. English would be much duller language if it
had
never been colored by French.
As to the argument that one should use the "proper" French word and
not
the anglicized one, I don't see why one can't have both. What
invariably happens over time is that the word will develop a
particular nuance and will give the language a new word with a
slightly
different meaning.
So my question is why do francophones angst so much about anglicisms
when anglophones are so receptive to gallicisms?
[/quote:ffe7a58f59]
I don't do nearly as much angsting about anglicisms as I do about your
use of "angst" as a verb.
Seriously though, I agree with you. Had the Normans not invaded in
1066, English would be...well...German, basically. French adds a
certain "romance", don't you think?
Don
Kansas City |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Woodgate |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 8:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I read in sci.lang.translation that retrosorter <hrichler@sympatico.ca>
wrote (in <1115389822.725954.326200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>) about
'anglicism/gallicism', on Fri, 6 May 2005:
[quote:795ea689d8]So my question is why do francophones angst so much about anglicisms
when anglophones are so receptive to gallicisms?
[/quote:795ea689d8]
It's actually a very deep difference. English people borrow freely from
any other language they come into contact with. You used to hear Army
people talking together with half the words being Hindi and one in every
five Swahili! It still goes on; soldiers coming back from the Gulf
pepper their talk with Arabic they've picked up. And this has always
applied to the squaddies as well as officers, but if you told a squaddy
to learn a foreign language, he'd likely decline in forthright terms.
French colonial policy, however, was to teach everyone to speak French.
Not a bad thing, but a different thing.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| wasknijper |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 8:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
retrosorter wrote:
[quote:5bc04c8cbe]I've seen many books in libraries that deal with the topic of
anglicisms and the general thrust of these books is how the anglicisms
are polluting the native language. Invariably, the native language in
question is French.
I don't understand why anglicisms are seen as a threat. Sometimes I
feel that English inherently is "badly pronounced French" because there
are so many words of French origin in English that have served to
enrich our vocabulary. English would be much duller language if it had
never been colored by French.
As to the argument that one should use the "proper" French word and not
the anglicized one, I don't see why one can't have both. What
invariably happens over time is that the word will develop a
particular nuance and will give the language a new word with a slightly
different meaning.
So my question is why do francophones angst so much about anglicisms
when anglophones are so receptive to gallicisms?
[/quote:5bc04c8cbe]
Simply compare the importance of French as an international language in
the 19th century, and in 2005, and you know why. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Twydell |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 9:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In message <FnYlhmOUS4eCFwAM@jmwa.demon.co.uk>, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> writes
[quote:217f95e95d]I read in sci.lang.translation that retrosorter <hrichler@sympatico.ca
wrote (in <1115389822.725954.326200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>)
about 'anglicism/gallicism', on Fri, 6 May 2005:
So my question is why do francophones angst so much about anglicisms
when anglophones are so receptive to gallicisms?
It's actually a very deep difference. English people borrow freely from
any other language they come into contact with. You used to hear Army
people talking together with half the words being Hindi and one in
every five Swahili! It still goes on; soldiers coming back from the
Gulf pepper their talk with Arabic they've picked up. And this has
always applied to the squaddies as well as officers, but if you told a
squaddy to learn a foreign language, he'd likely decline in forthright terms.
French colonial policy, however, was to teach everyone to speak French.
Not a bad thing, but a different thing.
[/quote:217f95e95d]
I think it goes deeper than that. The French resent the fact that
English has replaced French as the dominant international means of
communication. Its being the language of the rosbifs is bad enough, but
it's also the language of the (in their eyes) unspeakable and barbaric
Americans.
C'est la vie!
--
Peter
Ying tong iddle-i po! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| retrosorter |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 9:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I chose the term "angsting" deliberately to highlight the flexibilty of
English. Sure, "angst" as a verb is not yet accepted by most
dictionaries but I suspect it will be found as such within the next two
decades because we accept in English that democracy which goes by the
nmae of common usage will win the day |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Woodgate |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 10:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I read in sci.lang.translation that eromlignod <eromlignod@aol.com>
wrote (in <1115391033.158455.244580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>) about
'anglicism/gallicism', on Fri, 6 May 2005:
[quote:10587afc9e]Seriously though, I agree with you. Had the Normans not invaded in
1066, English would be...well...German, basically.
[/quote:10587afc9e]
Only very basically. Anglo-Saxon looks and sounds very different. There
is a lot of Latin in modern English that didn't come through Normandy,
too.
[quote:10587afc9e]French adds a certain "romance", don't you think?
[/quote:10587afc9e]
Of course, and so do the contributions from the other 100+ languages
that can be identified as contributors, and one or two that aren't
identified.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lanarcam |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 10:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Twydell wrote:
[quote:59f699a8c3]In message <FnYlhmOUS4eCFwAM@jmwa.demon.co.uk>, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> writes
I read in sci.lang.translation that retrosorter
hrichler@sympatico.ca
wrote (in <1115389822.725954.326200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>)
about 'anglicism/gallicism', on Fri, 6 May 2005:
So my question is why do francophones angst so much about
anglicisms
when anglophones are so receptive to gallicisms?
It's actually a very deep difference. English people borrow freely
from
any other language they come into contact with. You used to hear
Army
people talking together with half the words being Hindi and one in
every five Swahili! It still goes on; soldiers coming back from the
Gulf pepper their talk with Arabic they've picked up. And this has
always applied to the squaddies as well as officers, but if you told
a
squaddy to learn a foreign language, he'd likely decline in
forthright terms.
French colonial policy, however, was to teach everyone to speak
French.
Not a bad thing, but a different thing.
I think it goes deeper than that. The French resent the fact that
English has replaced French as the dominant international means of
communication. Its being the language of the rosbifs is bad enough,
but
it's also the language of the (in their eyes) unspeakable and
barbaric
Americans.
C'est la vie!
[/quote:59f699a8c3]
Well...
English words are often used by snubs who pretend some expressions
are untranslatable where in fact they don't master their own language
or want to impress others.
People fluent in franglais are never fluent in english. They don't use
english words because they love the language.
On the other hand those who do will never use english words out
of context except as a joke.
It is a fact that if your language declines, lacking terms to express
new concepts, you are left behind, especially when you are not fluent
in english. You coud use an english word without knowing the exact
meaning.
I am not sure english people were particularly happy to see that their
new rulers spoke french after William visited them some years ago;) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Woodgate |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 10:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I read in sci.lang.translation that Peter Twydell
<peter@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote (in <vT3MMtA624eCFwHY@ntlworld.com>)
about 'anglicism/gallicism', on Fri, 6 May 2005:
[quote:9f60247469]I think it goes deeper than that. The French resent the fact that
English has replaced French as the dominant international means of
communication. Its being the language of the rosbifs is bad enough, but
it's also the language of the (in their eyes) unspeakable and barbaric
Americans.
[/quote:9f60247469]
I suspect that only a very few French people hold that view to the
extent of losing one wink of sleep a year over it. There is a vocal
minority of language defenders and it has some power, whereas the
British English purists are only allowed to write one letter to 'The
Times' a month about the degradation of the language.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Woodgate |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 10:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I read in sci.lang.translation that Lanarcam <lanarcam1@yahoo.fr> wrote
(in <1115395392.953700.314940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>) about
'anglicism/gallicism', on Fri, 6 May 2005:
[quote:a356d8aa8d]I am not sure english people were particularly happy to see that their
new rulers spoke french after William visited them some years ago;)
[/quote:a356d8aa8d]
Wasn't much of a worry to most people. More concerned with growing
enough food.
Then later we had at least one Welsh-speaking king (Henry Tudor), Dutch
William II (who probably spoke French a bit) and then two
German-speaking Georges. It's possible that William V will choose to
speak Klingon.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eromlignod |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 10:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Woodgate wrote:
[quote:540c68f235]I suspect that only a very few French people hold that view to the
extent of losing one wink of sleep a year over it. There is a vocal
minority of language defenders and it has some power, whereas the
British English purists are only allowed to write one letter to 'The
Times' a month about the degradation of the language.
[/quote:540c68f235]
I think that another factor is that French seems to be a more fascistic
language. For example, if a new noun comes along in French, someone
must ordain whether it is a boy or a girl. English is more of a
democratic language. We simply force words into being by popular vote,
as was pointed out by the OP in his defense of the word "angst" as a
verb. English lexicographers are little more than linguistic
pollsters.
Don
Kansas City |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lanarcam |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 11:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Woodgate wrote:
[quote:6f4dfce530]I read in sci.lang.translation that Lanarcam <lanarcam1@yahoo.fr
wrote
(in <1115395392.953700.314940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>) about
'anglicism/gallicism', on Fri, 6 May 2005:
I am not sure english people were particularly happy to see that
their
new rulers spoke french after William visited them some years ago;)
Wasn't much of a worry to most people. More concerned with growing
enough food.
[/quote:6f4dfce530]
And then paying taxes to french speaking rulers;)
[quote:6f4dfce530]Then later we had at least one Welsh-speaking king (Henry Tudor),
Dutch
William II (who probably spoke French a bit) and then two
German-speaking Georges. It's possible that William V will choose to
speak Klingon.[/quote:6f4dfce530] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lanarcam |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 11:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Woodgate wrote:
[quote:7b7c46e2c3]I read in sci.lang.translation that Peter Twydell
peter@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote (in <vT3MMtA624eCFwHY@ntlworld.com>)
about 'anglicism/gallicism', on Fri, 6 May 2005:
I think it goes deeper than that. The French resent the fact that
English has replaced French as the dominant international means of
communication. Its being the language of the rosbifs is bad enough,
but
it's also the language of the (in their eyes) unspeakable and
barbaric
Americans.
I suspect that only a very few French people hold that view to the
extent of losing one wink of sleep a year over it. There is a vocal
minority of language defenders and it has some power, whereas the
British English purists are only allowed to write one letter to 'The
Times' a month about the degradation of the language.
[/quote:7b7c46e2c3]
Your suspicions are founded, indeed;) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Prai Jei |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 11:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
eromlignod (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
<1115398544.266232.170180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
[quote:2757091bab]I think that another factor is that French seems to be a more fascistic
language. For example, if a new noun comes along in French, someone
must ordain whether it is a boy or a girl.
[/quote:2757091bab]
How *is* that decided? Who says whether it's a le or a la?
And what about other languages? Who says if the latest German agglutination
is a der, die or das, or if the latest respelling of an English word to
make it Welsh is a hwn or a hon?
--
The problem it was designed to solve, wasn't a problem.
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:52 pm
|
|