 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » anglicism/gallicism |
|
Page 5 of 6 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Helmut Richter |
 Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 2:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Atkinson:
[quote:b38991fcf0]The plural is vipilefiti of course
[/quote:b38991fcf0]
An existing loan word with this form of plural is "kitabu" (book, from
Arab) with plural "vitabu".
Another nice loan word is "divai" (wine) borrowed from Malagasy who
borrowed it from French where it was "du vin".
Helmut Richter |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Afoklala |
| Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 3:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Op 7 May 2005 10:31:02 GMT schreef Helmut Richter:
[quote:da9c0411c3]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
[/quote:da9c0411c3]
Note that all these issues apply in exactly the same way to Dutch.
It's not just the French AT ALL.
--
Jan Willem from Odijk, Netherlands
e-mail in From-field is wrong, real e-mail is:
jw point van point dormolen on hccnet point nl
(change point into dot, on into at)
And then there's this:
Why is it called tourist season if we can't shoot at them? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ruud Harmsen |
| Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 3:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
9 May 2005 08:02:41 GMT: Helmut Richter
<a282244@mail.lrz-muenchen.de>: in sci.lang:
[quote:66c2b79513]Another nice loan word is "divai" (wine) borrowed from Malagasy who
borrowed it from French where it was "du vin".
[/quote:66c2b79513]
English decoy, from Dutch "de kooi" (= "de eendekooi", an installation
to catch ducks).
Denim, from French "de Nîmes".
Leroy, from French "le roi".
--
Ruud Harmsen - http://rudhar.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Atkinson |
| Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 3:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Helmut Richter" <a282244@mail.lrz-muenchen.de> wrote...
[quote:6aa5155999]John Atkinson:
The plural is vipilefiti of course
An existing loan word with this form of plural is "kitabu" (book, from
Arab) with plural "vitabu".
[/quote:6aa5155999]
It's said that some people use "vilo" as the plural of "kilo" (kg). I
don't think it's standard though.
[quote:6aa5155999]Another nice loan word is "divai" (wine) borrowed from Malagasy who
borrowed it from French where it was "du vin".
[/quote:6aa5155999]
Presumably via Mauritian or Seychellois creole.
Didn't realise this was the derivation of divai.. Of course this sort
of thing is common in French-based creoles -- e.g., /dife/ (fire),
/dile/ (milk), /delo/ (water) in Seychellois.
Similarly /laso/ (lime - la chaux), /lizje/ (eye, singular, from the
French plural), /za~fa~/ (child, likewise), /zegwij/ (needle) and a few
hundred others.
John. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| retrosorter |
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 5:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I''m curious if countering anglicisms in various languages is dependant
on being able to come up with catchy alternatives, or if the process is
inherently haphazard as to what substitutes to anglicisms are accepted
into the vernacular. For example, in Quebec the term courriel is used
by francophones instead of email; logiciel instead of software and
clavardage instead of chat. I happen to think that the three French
alternatives are clever terms (logiciel is a superior word to software)
and am wondering if this has something to do with their acceptance, but
perhaps that is just my own prejudice. Also I'm wondering if terms
that are accepted over other ones have something to do with them being
shorter. I would think that fil instead of enfilade has a greater
chance of being used than thread .
Any thoughts? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lee Sau Dan |
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 11:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:e31309c8ac]"retrosorter" == retrosorter <hrichler@sympatico.ca> writes:
[/quote:e31309c8ac]
retrosorter> I''m curious if countering anglicisms in various
retrosorter> languages is dependant on being able to come up with
retrosorter> catchy alternatives, or if the process is inherently
retrosorter> haphazard as to what substitutes to anglicisms are
retrosorter> accepted into the vernacular. For example, in Quebec
retrosorter> the term courriel is used by francophones instead of
retrosorter> email; logiciel instead of software and clavardage
retrosorter> instead of chat. I happen to think that the three
retrosorter> French alternatives are clever terms (logiciel is a
retrosorter> superior word to software) and am wondering if this
retrosorter> has something to do with their acceptance, but
retrosorter> perhaps that is just my own prejudice.
While this may not be that common for French, the same thing happens
in Chinese all the time. We generally dislike phonetic borrowings.
So, we always tend to create out new words for new concepts learnt
from other languages, by compounding existing words. Like what
Germans used to do. e.g. Fernseher (instead of Television). We just
do it more exclusively. While the Germans like to show off their long
long compounds (e.g. Bundesverfassungsgericht), that's just a
light-weight application of the idea in the eyes of a Chinese.
retrosorter> Also I'm wondering if terms that are accepted over
retrosorter> other ones have something to do with them being
retrosorter> shorter.
Being shorter is one reason. Being "home" is another reason.
retrosorter> I would think that fil instead of enfilade
retrosorter> has a greater chance of being used than thread .
retrosorter> Any thoughts?
It depends on culture. For Chinese, we have the "tradition" of making
up new words from existing Chinese words via compound instead of
phonetic borrowing. And this preference is very deeply rooted.
Growing up in such a culture, Chinese speakers generally dislike
phonetic borrowings. It sounds so stupid to make a sequence of
"unintelligible" sounds (although many know English now) than to use a
long compound built from native Chinese words.
Another factor affecting Chinese is that the phonetic borrowings won't
work across the various mutually unintelligible dialects, if we try to
render them in Chinese characters. If we write those words in Latin
script, then it looks awkward. So, making up a new word out of
Chinese root words is the only way to make the script
dialect-independent.
OTOH, some other cultures like borrowing, and have been borrowing a
lot. Japanese is a typical example. It has more borrowed words than
native words!!! And it is always ready to absorb and nativize foreign
words. e.g. while they have coined the word "denwa" for "telephone",
the recent trend is to use the loan "hon" (from "phone") more often.
--
Lee Sau Dan §õ¦u´° ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: danlee@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Andre Majorel |
| Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 4:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2005-05-06, retrosorter <hrichler@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[quote:30f99d2511]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:30f99d2511]
Firstly, I don't think English is importing French (or foreign)
words at the same rate as vice-versa. It may have had in the
past but you're talking about books that are being published
now. If English were inundated with gallicisms like French is
with anglicisms, you could make a meaningful comparison.
As to why "invariably, the native language is French", this
could be an artefact. North America, isolationist as it is,
seems more interested in French culture than in any other
comparably important European cultures. This probably influences
what North American libraries stock.
That being said...
France has long been one of the most influential countries in
the western world. Some people in France resent becoming a
backwater.
Some people don't like change. I suspect that the French tend to
dislike change more than others.
Using English words for no reason when a suitable French word
already exists is popular among the snob. What language they
come from does not matter ; it's the attitude that's the
problem. French speakers are annoyed at gratuitous use of
anglicisms for the same reason that English speakers are annoyed
at compulsive use of "paradigm" and other buzzwords.
--
André Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/>
(Counterfeit: axulux@hobart.com uzaj@incondensable.com)
What worries me is not the violence of the few, but the
indifference of the many. -- M. L. King |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John J. Chew III |
| Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 10:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <MPG.1cf982f539c27e8b989a3c@news.ntlworld.com>,
the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:ad4942e574]Georges Furieux spake thusly:
retrosorter wrote:
decades because we accept in English that democracy which goes by the
nmae of common usage will win the day
Je ne peux pas comprendre "nmae." Qu'est-ce que c'est?
C'est une faute. Il a voulu dire "name".
[/quote:ad4942e574]
Ou bien peut-etre "namae", qui veut dire "name" (nom) en japonais.
John
--
John Chew (poslfit on MD) * jjchew@math.utoronto.ca * http://www.poslfit.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Georges Furieux |
| Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 11:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
retrosorter wrote:
[quote:7c42a25f22]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
[/quote:7c42a25f22]
Je ne peux pas comprendre "nmae." Qu'est-ce que c'est? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Georges Furieux |
| Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 11:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Lanarcam wrote:
[quote:6e98f2e158]Peter Twydell wrote:
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!
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;)
[/quote:6e98f2e158]
dubya ne peut pas parler anglais. Les Américains le détestent-ils?
"If you're a two-working family like a lotta families are here in
America, and, uhh -- two people working in your family, and the, the
spouse dies early -- before 62, for example -- all of the money that
the spouse has put into the system, uhh, is gum -- held there, and then
when the other spouse retires, he or she gets to choose the benefits
from his or her own work, or the other spouse's benefits, which is ever
higher but not both."
Pourriez-vous traduire cela en Anglais ou Français pour moi? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| the Omrud |
| Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 11:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Georges Furieux spake thusly:
[quote:f3beae6629]
retrosorter wrote:
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
Je ne peux pas comprendre "nmae." Qu'est-ce que c'est?
[/quote:f3beae6629]
C'est une faute. Il a voulu dire "name".
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Georges Furieux |
| Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 11:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
nadagami wrote:
[quote:9c12352c8d]"retrosorter" <hrichler@sympatico.ca> a écrit dans le message de
news:
1115389822.725954.326200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
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?
Sorry, but I am not enough fluent in English to explain my point of
view in
the language of the initial thread.
[/quote:9c12352c8d]
Ce n'est pas un problème.
[quote:9c12352c8d]
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.
[/quote:9c12352c8d]
Le niveau de l'instruction française dans les écoles américaines est
très mauvais. C'est un problème sérieux.
[quote:9c12352c8d]
nadagami[/quote:9c12352c8d] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mark |
| Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 2:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
the Omrud wrote:
[quote:7ee92bfcaa]Georges Furieux spake thusly:
retrosorter wrote:
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
Je ne peux pas comprendre "nmae." Qu'est-ce que c'est?
C'est une faute. Il a voulu dire "name".
Non, c'était voulu, afin de montrer la souplesse de la langue anglaise.[/quote:7ee92bfcaa]
Mais certains d'origine francophone ne comprendrait pas ça  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Raymond S. Wise |
| Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 12:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Georges Furieux" <bugme_69@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116696668.829396.131230@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[Georges Furieux a écrit dans son message...]
Lanarcam wrote:
[quote:1821dcacbc]Peter Twydell wrote:
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!
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;)
[/quote:1821dcacbc]
dubya ne peut pas parler anglais. Les Américains le détestent-ils?
"If you're a two-working family like a lotta families are here in
America, and, uhh -- two people working in your family, and the, the
spouse dies early -- before 62, for example -- all of the money that
the spouse has put into the system, uhh, is gum -- held there, and then
when the other spouse retires, he or she gets to choose the benefits
from his or her own work, or the other spouse's benefits, which is ever
higher but not both."
Pourriez-vous traduire cela en Anglais ou Français pour moi?
[ma traduction de la citation de G. W. Bush et mes commentaires--R. S. Wise]
"If you're a two-working-parent family, as are many families here in
America--there are two people working in your family--and one of the spouses
dies early--before 62, for example--all of the money which that spouse put
into the system is held there, and then when the surviving spouse retires,
he or she gets to choose either the benefits due him or her from his or her
own work, or the benefits accrued by the deceased spouse. The surviving
spouse may choose whichever benefit plan gives a higher return, but may not
stay on both plans."
Je dirais que "uhh" est une graphie non standard - on écrit normalement
"uh". Et "gum" est une représentation d'un mot abandonné - probablement
"government" - et je dirais que le "m" n'est pas là dans la version
originale. On peut écouter les paroles de Bush dont représente la
transcription à
http://www.dubyaspeak.com/family.phtml
Je ne suis pas un admirateur de George W. Bush, mais ce qu'il a dit ne m'a
posé aucun problème parce que ce dont Bush a parlé était déja bien connu par
beaucoup d'Américains.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis (Minnesota) É.-U.
mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels |
| Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 7:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
[quote:dded717e0a]
"Georges Furieux" <bugme_69@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116696668.829396.131230@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
dubya ne peut pas parler anglais. Les Américains le détestent-ils?
"If you're a two-working family like a lotta families are here in
America, and, uhh -- two people working in your family, and the, the
spouse dies early -- before 62, for example -- all of the money that
the spouse has put into the system, uhh, is gum -- held there, and then
when the other spouse retires, he or she gets to choose the benefits
from his or her own work, or the other spouse's benefits, which is ever
higher but not both."
Pourriez-vous traduire cela en Anglais ou Français pour moi?
[ma traduction de la citation de G. W. Bush et mes commentaires--R. S. Wise]
"If you're a two-working-parent family, as are many families here in
America--there are two people working in your family--and one of the spouses
dies early--before 62, for example--all of the money which that spouse put
into the system is held there, and then when the surviving spouse retires,
he or she gets to choose either the benefits due him or her from his or her
own work, or the benefits accrued by the deceased spouse. The surviving
spouse may choose whichever benefit plan gives a higher return, but may not
stay on both plans."
Je dirais que "uhh" est une graphie non standard - on écrit normalement
"uh". Et "gum" est une représentation d'un mot abandonné - probablement
"government" - et je dirais que le "m" n'est pas là dans la version
originale. On peut écouter les paroles de Bush dont représente la
transcription à
http://www.dubyaspeak.com/family.phtml
Je ne suis pas un admirateur de George W. Bush, mais ce qu'il a dit ne m'a
posé aucun problème parce que ce dont Bush a parlé était déja bien connu par
beaucoup d'Américains.
[/quote:dded717e0a]
I suspect "M. Furieux" has never before encountered a transcription of
colloquial speech.
Heaven help him if he ever encounters a transcription of spoken French!
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 5:53 am
|
|