| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » anglicism/gallicism |
|
Page 2 of 6 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Zetla Plane |
 Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 11:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Fri, 06 May 2005 16:53:45 +0000, Areff nous disait :
[quote:a4be4ab5b5]eromlignod wrote:
I think that another factor is that French seems to be a more fascistic
language.
Should we perhaps say instead that it is 'dirigiste'? Or maybe
"Bonapartist"?
[/quote:a4be4ab5b5]
Jacobine or Jacobinist (to sound english aka "the last lingua franca") if
you want to keep tied to the Académie Française.
But this is as nothing to do with fascism, it's related with "centralism"
(toutes les routes mènent à Rome): meter, kilogrammes, kilometers...And
then a so called established langage...
Anyway what was the point of you cross post?
Another english speaking that realise that his langage is half french?
Or just start another french-bashing troll?
--
"The problem with the french is that they don't have a word for
entrepeneur"
G.W.B Junior World Entrepreneur |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eromlignod |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 1:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Whoa! Before everyone gets out their torches and pitchforks, let me
explain my choice of words.
I only used the term "fascistic" in a facetious manner in contrast to
"democratic". Fascism is loosely defined as a dictatorially-controlled
system. It was my (mis-?)understanding that some sort of board
determines the gender of French nouns, not les gens. I never said or
meant that France is fascistic.
You can let the general public kick a word around and see how it comes
out, but the fact is that it must eventually be declared to be either
masculine or feminine. Then one will be right and one will be wrong.
There are no shades of gray; one must know to precede the word with la
or le, etc. in daily conversation. Some entity must eventually decree
what the gender will be. The public at large will not always be
unanimous in opinion.
As for the cross-post, je suis en boulôt et il faut que j'employe
"Google Groups". Replies to posts here are apparently distributed
among all the groups that are involved in the thread. I only intended
to address alt.usage.english. Sorry.
Don
Kansas City |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| nadagami |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 1:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"retrosorter" <hrichler@sympatico.ca> a écrit dans le message de news:
1115389822.725954.326200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
[quote:6b15b20544]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:6b15b20544]
Sorry, but I am not enough fluent in English to explain my point of view in
the language of the initial thread.
Au Québec, la langue anglaise est perçue comme une menace en raison du
rapport de force inégal qui existe entre la population francophone et la
population anglophone nord-américaine.
En Amérique du Nord, le nombre fort important de locuteurs anglophones et la
puissance d'attraction de cette langue créent chez les francophones du
Québec une crainte légitime de perte d'identité linguistique. Il est vrai
aussi que, au Québec, les francophes ont dû apprendre à composer avec une
volonté avouée d'assimilation des locuteurs francophones à l'ensemble de la
population anglophone. En souhaitant la disparition de la langue française
au Canada ainsi qu'au Québec, la communauté anglophone du Canada a créé un
climat propice qui a amené les francophones du Québec à percevoir la langue
anglaise comme une menace à leur identité linguistique.
Par ailleurs, au Québec, l'usage abusif d'une terminologie anglaise tend à
maintenir en éveil un sentiment d'insécurité provoquée par la perte possible
de la langue maternelle qu'est le francais pour la majorité des Québécois.
Il faut donc voir ces remarques désobligeantes à l'égard de la langue
anglaise comme un réflexe de protection.
Il est à noter que la réalité linguistique des francophones du Québec
diffère de celle des francophones d'Europe, et en particulier de la réalité
linguistique propre à la France.
Je suis d'accord cependant sur le principe que les Franco-québécois
devraient sans crainte faire usage des expressions ou du vocabulaire anglais
couramment employés tout en adaptant ces expressions ou mots d'après la
phonétique de la langue française, et aussi selon le sens que les locutaires
franco-québécois donnent à ces mots.
nadagami |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eromlignod |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 1:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Zetla Plane wrote:
[quote:082e6d8d31]Fri, 06 May 2005 16:53:45 +0000, Areff nous disait :
eromlignod wrote:
I think that another factor is that French seems to be a more
fascistic
language.
Should we perhaps say instead that it is 'dirigiste'? Or maybe
"Bonapartist"?
Jacobine or Jacobinist (to sound english aka "the last lingua
franca") if
you want to keep tied to the Académie Française.
But this is as nothing to do with fascism, it's related with
"centralism"
(toutes les routes mènent à Rome): meter, kilogrammes,
kilometers...And
then a so called established langage...
Anyway what was the point of you cross post?
Another english speaking that realise that his langage is half
french?
Or just start another french-bashing troll?
--
"The problem with the french is that they don't have a word for
entrepeneur"
G.W.B Junior World Entrepreneur[/quote:082e6d8d31] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 2:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
eromlignod wrote:
[quote:d8b5fcd3b3]As for the cross-post, je suis en boulôt et il faut que j'employe
"Google Groups". Replies to posts here are apparently distributed
among all the groups that are involved in the thread. I only intended
to address alt.usage.english. Sorry.
[/quote:d8b5fcd3b3]
Then why did you send your message to sci.lang only?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| J. J. Lodder |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 2:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Prai Jei <pvstownsend@zyx-abc.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
[quote:756368249b]eromlignod (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
1115398544.266232.170180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
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.
How *is* that decided? Who says whether it's a le or a la?
[/quote:756368249b]
It isn't at first, for a neologism.
The French don't know if it's 'le teapot' or 'la teapot',
for example.
[quote:756368249b]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?
[/quote:756368249b]
Undecided too, in may cases.
The Dutch for example cannot agree
whether it should be 'de modem' or 'het modem'.
Time will tell,
Jan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| retrosorter |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 3:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ironically, "roast" and "beef" are words that come from French. Years
ago in Quebec, signs that had the words STOP and ARRET on them often
had the the former word scratched out because it was supposedly a
dreaded anglicism, Then someone realized that the English word "'stop"
derived from the French étouper. Oops! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mark |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 6:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Lanarcam wrote:
[quote:f7e6f7b693]John Woodgate wrote:
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.
And then paying taxes to french speaking rulers;)
[/quote:f7e6f7b693]
Sounds a bit like Québec, that... Ooops, don't flame me pleeeease !! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Franceski |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 7:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Mark" <mark@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:A6Uee.21056$VL3.818682@news20.bellglobal.com...
[quote:1b0dede5c2]Lanarcam wrote:
John Woodgate wrote:
I read in sci.lang.translation that Lanarcam <lanarcam1@yahoo.fr
wrote
(in <1115395392.953700.314940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>) about
'anglicism/gallicism', on Fri, 6 May 2005:
I am not sure english people were particularly happy to see that
their
new rulers spoke french after William visited them some years ago;)
Wasn't much of a worry to most people. More concerned with growing
enough food.
And then paying taxes to french speaking rulers;)
Sounds a bit like Québec, that... Ooops, don't flame me pleeeease !!
[/quote:1b0dede5c2]
So funny! You must be kind of a jokebox. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mark |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 8:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Franceski wrote:
[quote:fa8cf9f86d]"Mark" <mark@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:A6Uee.21056$VL3.818682@news20.bellglobal.com...
Lanarcam wrote:
John Woodgate wrote:
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.
And then paying taxes to french speaking rulers;)
Sounds a bit like Québec, that... Ooops, don't flame me pleeeease !!
So funny! You must be kind of a jokebox.
Faut bien s'amuser...et ce genre de chose doit faire rire les anglophones.[/quote:fa8cf9f86d] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pierre Renault |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 10:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I've not bothered to page through the other replies, its fairly obvious I'm
not going to follow the same tact.
[quote:8de695afd1]I've seen many books in libraries that deal with the topic of
anglicisms
[/quote:8de695afd1]
Do you read them or do you just see them?
[quote:8de695afd1]Invariably, the native language in question is French.
[/quote:8de695afd1]
Well, considering your address (and our common recent and less-recent
history), I'm not surprised. There are probably very few books on the
inroads of English into Polish or of Urdu into Italian in Canadian
librairies and bookstores.
[quote:8de695afd1]I don't understand why anglicisms are seen as a threat.
[/quote:8de695afd1]
In the context you're involved in (Canada), it has as much to do with
keeping French, French, as with the after-effects of English colonialism
and colonialist attitudes.
To not recognise and take note of that last bit, in my opinion, requires
willfully blinding oneself to recent and not-so-recent history in Canada
(and a fair amount of insensitivity).
[quote:8de695afd1]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.
[/quote:8de695afd1]
That is romanticism. Pure and simple. English would not have been duller.
It would simply have been different. There's also an underlying theme in
that position that a language that doesn't borrow is necessarily poorer for
it.
Mandarin (written Chinese, in other words) borrows very, very little from
other languages (I'm told there are only two word-concepts that had to be
borrowed, "boycott" is one).
What the heck is wrong with those Chinese, anyway? They don't even bother
with Greek- and Roman-based words, prefixes, and suffixes (like sub-, poly-
, hexa-) like normal people.
Weird, isn't it, that Mandarin somehow manages to be a very very rich
language (more than a half-million words in the dictionaries!) with
practically no input from English.
The whole point (richness) is irrelevant, terribly subjective, and subject
to whatever interpretation suits whatever point you want to make.
[quote:8de695afd1]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.
[/quote:8de695afd1]
Having both is like constantly broadcasting the weather in Farenheit and
Celsius. Why bother with Celsius, anyway, when you can keep farenheiting?
Why can't French be allowed or be praised for coming up with new words on
its own?
You know. All by itself. Without help from English? Just like a grown-up.
You live in a part of the world where the french-speaking population is
particularly clever at coming up with new words, all on their own. They're
certainly much better at it than the French (from France).
I note that, rather than praising the inventiveness of your fellow
contrymen, you think they're closed-minded.
Has it occurred to you that a unilingual francophone might
independently come up with a term to describe something new, that works in
French the way French works, makes sense in French, and that everyone who
is French would understand quickly?
And has it occurred to you that the reason that the word was invented has
a*b*s*o*l*u*t*e*l*y no anti-English motivation to it?
That the person simply invented it as a matter of course; the same way
"google", as a verb, was coined in the English language?
Has it occurred to you that it might make more sense to use the French
word?
"E-mail" is not obvious to someone French who does not understand English;
"courriel" is (its meaning and usage is exactly like "courrier", but its
electronic).
To you, "courriel" just this weird word you don't understand. To someone
French, its meaning is very clear.
The meaning of "dépanneur" (a Canadian neologism) is clear to anyone French
who sees it on a sign. Even someone seeing the word for the first time.
How closed minded of Quebeckers (I'm not one, BTW) to invent "dépanneur"
don't you think?
"Shareware" has no obvious meaning in French. It has obvious meaning in
English (ware that is shared). Enough to enable someone to more-or-less
figure it out.
"Partagiciel" (from "logiciel" - software - and "partager" - to share) is
fairly obvious once you know "logiciel" (itself coined from "logique" and
"matrice" (matrix) and "matériel" ("tool", in this context). It also breeds
"gratuiciel" (freeware, from "gratuit"), progiciel (proware), etc.
Do you really think that the reason people began using the term "5-10-15"
(a store that sells cheap items) has to do with not using an English word?
The term was currently used in French in New Brunswick as well as in Quebec
as far back as when my mother was a child.
Is there the possibility that this very, very old term, used throughout
French-speaking Canada, is simply an independent invention that has nothing
to with not using an English word?
Why, oh why do we have to call it a "chinese paté" anyway? Why can't we
just call it "sheperd's pie" (like normal people).
All those French invented words have the advantage that they fit into a
well-established language system, and can quickly be understood by a
native.
What are the advantages of simply borrowing the English word?
There are none, except that it makes it easier for someone who doesn't
really want to learn a foreign language to understand bits of it.
[quote:8de695afd1]So my question is why do francophones angst so much about anglicisms
when anglophones are so receptive to gallicisms?
[/quote:8de695afd1]
If only both parts of the statement were true...
Pierre |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michèle |
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 11:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Pierre Renault avait énoncé :
[quote:18ac191b6e]I don't understand why anglicisms are seen as a threat.
Not by everybody.
What are the advantages of simply borrowing the English word?
There are none, except that it makes it easier for someone who doesn't
really want to learn a foreign language to understand bits of it.
???
So my question is why do francophones angst so much about anglicisms
when anglophones are so receptive to gallicisms?
If only both parts of the statement were true...
Pierre
[/quote:18ac191b6e]
--
-- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| pikatxu |
| Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 3:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:fdf35c2ec3]"E-mail" is not obvious to someone French who does not understand English;
"courriel" is (its meaning and usage is exactly like "courrier", but its
electronic).
To you, "courriel" just this weird word you don't understand. To someone
French, its meaning is very clear.
[/quote:fdf35c2ec3]
That's why yesterday, my sister asked what a courriel is, and said "Ah,
c'est un email !"
[quote:fdf35c2ec3]The meaning of "dépanneur" (a Canadian neologism) is clear to anyone French
who sees it on a sign. Even someone seeing the word for the first time.
How closed minded of Quebeckers (I'm not one, BTW) to invent "dépanneur"
don't you think?
[/quote:fdf35c2ec3]
I didn't know dépanneur was a quebecism, we use it quite often in Europe |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Helmut Richter |
| Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 4:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[Followup-To: sci.lang]
Christian Weisgerber:
[quote:9f66359ae4]Take a look at de.etc.sprache.deutsch and you will find plenty of
moaning and whining about anglicisms in German. Presumably there
have also been books written about this. (Two hundred years ago
it was about gallicisms.)
[/quote:9f66359ae4]
I had the chance to read such a book recently, "Deutsch und anders" by
Dieter E. Zimmer (ISBN 3-498-07661-2). It seems to be one of the more
intelligent ones. It deals not only with anglicisms but also with bad
translations into German, with false politeness, and other language
changes.
Zimmer does not complain about taking over words from other languages,
which he considers a quite normal process. He complains about the
syntactic code switches which occur because the new words are *not*
adopted syntactically and morphologically into German. Example: one could
not say "ein easyes Leben führen" and there is not yet any consensus
whether any of "upgedated", "upgedatet", "geupdatet", ... is German.
This phenomenon as such is not new either: the word "rosa" in "eine rosa
Bluse" has been uninflected during decades without causing trouble. The
new problem is the density of anglicisms in some sentences so that the
speaker is no longer using German syntax and morphology with occasional
exceptions but rather is constantly switching grammar. As a result, one
sees more and more sentences by native German speakers that are
constructed like bad literal translations from English: "in 2005", "in
Deutsch", "er hat eine gute Zeit", "es gibt einen mehr", "um das Doppelte
größer", "mehr und mehr", ... . Then the false friends: "realisieren" in
the meaning of "realise, perceive", "adressieren" in the meaning of
"address a problem", "physikalisch" in the meaning of "physical, bodily",
.... In addition, wrong and incompresible spelling according to English
rules abounds:
Wir sollten diesen Gesicht's Punkt in 2006 einmal mehr adressieren.
(Wir sollten 2006 diesen Gesichtspunkt noch einmal ins Auge fassen.)
Helmut Richter |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Robert Lieblich |
| Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 6:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:56 am
|
|