4 ms·
I think one of the reasons is elegance. As in coding, you try to minimise special cases, so whenever you need to introduce a new word you go back to the roots o
by Udik 8y ago
I think one of the reasons is elegance. As in coding, you try to minimise special cases, so whenever you need to introduce a new word you go back to the roots of the language and try to derive it from what's already there. In this way the chosen word is more integrated in the language (has more connections with other existing words), its pronunciation is more predictable, and its derivation follows the same rules as the majority of the other words. Thus minimising entropy and surprise.
- freddie_mercury 8y agoBut according to the OP following Latin increases surprise. Hence my question. "yet, it's far more likely for the public to simply add an 'e' to the end of 'docteur" It isn't "elegant" if the public is "far more likely" to do it a different way.
- zapzupnz 8y agoThat depends heavily on your idea of elegance. Even if the French say they ignore the Académie Française, the really is that their pronouncements carry a lot of weight since those enter the language through the public education curriculum.
- Udik 8y agoGood point. I guess that, as always, what counts as a "surprise" depends on your overall knowledge of the system. (For example: an eclipse of the moon is a surprise if you don't know astronomy, the absence of an expected one would be a far bigger surprise for those who do). I've found the following declaration from the Academie: "formes telles que professeure, recteure, sapeuse-pompière, auteure, ingénieure, procureure [..] sont contraires aux règles ordinaires de dérivation et constituent de véritables barbarismes" So, it feels wrong to them, who know the derivation rules. Probably it feels slightly more obvious to those who don't.