5 ms·

The French (or rather, the Parisian) zealotry with language purity was always absolutely incomprehensible to me. All languages are bastardized versions of anoth

The French (or rather, the Parisian) zealotry with language purity was always absolutely incomprehensible to me. All languages are bastardized versions of another one. Most are the byproduct of nationalistic fervor, an imposition mandated by the state on the populace in order to create a "single nation". France's attitude to her language is IMHO marred by deep hypocrisy and a backward, reactionary worldview of "preservation" of something that for most is just a tool. Languages live, evolve, and die. We should cherish and try to save as many as we can while giving people the tools to communicate with as many other humans as possible. It's crucial to stop languages from getting extinct, but that cannot mean that nationalistic chauvinism should be tolerated. Languages, especially smaller ones, are incredibly powerful echo chambers. To conclude, it's ironic that France tries so hard to keep French "pure" (from what, I ask myself) when France is one of the worst offenders regarding the utter hostility it has shown multiple times against the linguistic rights of minorites and regional languages. France lost any moral justification to "preserve her national language" when she failed to ratify the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

busterarm 4y ago
One only has to understand the history of France itself. The French language itself and "French identity" is the sole unifying factor tieing together a plethora of distinct cultures and languages that you recognize today as being part of France. Consider that in addition to French, you will also find the following spoken languages: Arabic, Norman, Picard, Poitevin-Saintongeais, Franco-Provencal, Occitan, Catalan, Auvergnat, Corsican, Basque, French Flemish, Lorraine Franconian, Alsatian, and Breton. The idea behind fighting to protect the French language is to protect the unifying institution binding these groups of people together in a harmonious society. France is a melting pot and the government defines France as an inclusive nation with universal values -- advocating assimilation through which immigrants are expected to adhere to French values and cultural norms. Speaking the French language and declaring yourself to be French is what counts. The government thus has an interest in defining exactly what being French is. French citizens still equate their nationality with citizenship as does French law.
- mmarq 4y ago
  France is historically much more uniform than countries like Italy, Spain or the United Kingdom. To give you an example of the Italian language diversity, I don’t understand my mother’s dialect and she was born 30 kilometres from where I was. France having to defend French because it is a melting pot is a fantasy. The Parisian intellectual elite, in lack of a better expression, has a weird fixation on language tradition and a strong contempt for the English language.
- JPLeRouzic 4y ago
  I am French, born in Brittany. France/Parisians has a long history of repression against people from province. Read again what some "great" French writers, like Flaubert, Victor Hugo, Balzac wrote about Breton people in IXX century. "Il est interdit de cracher par terre et de parler Breton" An academy inspector wrote in 1956 in Vannes that a small Breton had half the QI of a Parisian. I was born in 1956 near Vannes.
- random314 4y ago
  Yes, the concept of nationalism and national language is a modern phenomenon. It is helpful in having subjects treat their governments as correct and moral by default and develop a distrust of their neighbors. Noam chomsky has an informative interview. He seems to think the concept of guardianship of a "pure" language is conceptually silly https://youtu.be/hdUbIlwHRkY https://youtu.be/hdUbIlwHRkY
JPLeRouzic 4y ago
I am a 65 French and I agree this is hypocrisy. The quality of spoken French goes lower years after years. The generation before me spoke a much better French than my generation even if we are supposed to be better educated. The same goes for the generations after mine. Most speakers on TV, most journalists and even school teachers are using a small vocabulary (to be better understood?) and they make gross errors. Commonly they are using the wrong gender ("le porte", "le vis"). Most of the time they discuss in a "meta language" that has no meaning ("la météo va s'intensifier", "les prix augmentent à cause de l'inflation"). Many school teachers have not a good understanding of French grammar.
- Aurelius3 4y ago
  The quality of spoken English goes down over time as well, and as far as I know the English language has no institute or governing body which attempts to regulate it. It seems to me that the languages erode regardless of the rules in place to become more convenient for people. It is a shame culturally but at the same time it is difficult to blame people for speaking conveniently. It will be interesting to see where this takes both languages in 50 to 100 years.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    Why is it a shame culturally? What values are you using to establish that one form of the language is "good" or "pure" and another is "worse" or "eroded" and why should others subscribe to that value system? Languages change and always have, people noting this is as old as written record about language. People have also always been complaining about it, and ascribing to it some meaning about the increasing degeneracy of the youth or the decline of society or whatever. The language obviously continues to work fine for the needs people have of it, as it always has. You don't need to like the changes, but you should understand that that is an aesthetic judgement and nothing else. It doesn't indicate or represent anything "going down" or a cultural loss of any kind.
    - Aurelius3 4y ago
      I can agree with this line of thought, however, I feel obliged to warn you where this supposed reality can lead and I want you to consider if this violates any other beliefs you may hold. Another poster mentioned that the English have a rather strong dislike of prescriptivism, I think this is true, although I only have anecdotal evidence for this. Following this I find that the English and there derivatives in America also have a strong belief in multiculturalism, or the idea that varying cultures/perspectives strengthens a group. I would say that in certain intervals these two cannot coexist. Taking the example of french Canadians, they are considered to be relatively intolerant compared to the rest of Canada when it comes to religion, culture, language, immigration, and other facets of multiculturalism in an attempt to protect themselves. Yet it was that same multiculturalist mindset that saved them when the English let off and accepted them into Canadian goverment, giving them many rights even above the rest of Canada. So you can see that the lack of defence against cultural change inevitably results in another culture with a more defensive nature taking ground... But if you attempt to fight back it wouldn't be multicultural of you... So you can see that these two beliefs conflict at certain extremes. Karl Popper would have considered this to be an example of the paradox of tolerance (And I would add intolerance, as too much language purity gets you into a situation where your parisian institute bans the word poggers). With this in mind I find your purely relativistic idea that all languages are equal, or more importantly that we should treat them as all equal, as somewhat misguided, and in many ways supremacist (it is easy for the culturally dominant, in this case the english, to wave hands and act like everyone else is irrational for trying to protect their culture, when it is implicitly understood if they don't then English will swallow it whole).
Glawen 4y ago
So you state rightfully that Parisian suppressed regional language (my grandmother and father were not allowed to speak alsatian at school), but you are using it to support the use of English? Why should we make amends to English? Why not reviving regional language, try to bolster their use? I don't know, we could impose that all adverts and documents are shown on french and regional language. Because now, I only see English everywhere and I'm really pissed off
- qalmakka 4y ago
  I support the right of people to speak whatever and however they want. If people want to speak English, just let them. Languages are tools, they are not pieces of art to be kept around for your own amusement, they are not religious texts dictated from a higher power. They are something that arises from the people for the sake of the people themselves. French, Italian, Spanish came about when Latin got corrupted and hybridized with other languages, changing its sounds and evolving together with the people that spoke them. English itself is basically 30% French - and yet it's still English, isn't it? Loanwords are just what they are - loanwords. In the end, the end goal is to be understood, and to understand those that speak to you, and if a loanword expresses a concept in a way that's more broadly understood and universally recognized (i.e., "computer"), why should people reject it? The whole concept of "language purity" is just a silly show of chauvinism, a "fear" of contamination from foreign influence that ignores the fact that all languages are artificial constructs. Most national languages have been born out of coercion and nationalism, and only in recent times they have been "standardized". Most languages are basically just the dialect of the capital, that for some queer reason was picked to be the most noble of them all. Knowing English is crucial and its teaching should be of paramount importance because it has become the lingua franca of the modern world. It's the koiné that allows people from various backgrounds and various places to communicate. It allows people to cut intermediaries and learn from each other, directly, what other parts of the world have to say, removing from governments and national media the ability to spin things around. I know lots of people that only know Italian, and thus only know what the Italian media wants to talk about, or cares about. Local languages quickly become a way to gatekeep people, and cut them out of the source of global discussion about topics and ideas. I personally think that languages should be taught and preserved, because every single language you know gives you a different outlook on life, things, and concepts. Every tongue has its set of things it cares about, its own history, its own value, and everyone should be bilingual to truly understand that there's a wider world outside of their small garden. We cannot, however, allow this to hamper the progress we've made in understanding each other. We should always keep our mother tongue close to us, without forgetting what languages are for.

busterarm 4y ago

One only has to understand the history of France itself. The French language itself and "French identity" is the sole unifying factor tieing together a plethora of distinct cultures and languages that you recognize today as being part of France. Consider that in addition to French, you will also find the following spoken languages: Arabic, Norman, Picard, Poitevin-Saintongeais, Franco-Provencal, Occitan, Catalan, Auvergnat, Corsican, Basque, French Flemish, Lorraine Franconian, Alsatian, and Breton. The idea behind fighting to protect the French language is to protect the unifying institution binding these groups of people together in a harmonious society. France is a melting pot and the government defines France as an inclusive nation with universal values -- advocating assimilation through which immigrants are expected to adhere to French values and cultural norms. Speaking the French language and declaring yourself to be French is what counts. The government thus has an interest in defining exactly what being French is. French citizens still equate their nationality with citizenship as does French law.

mmarq 4y ago
France is historically much more uniform than countries like Italy, Spain or the United Kingdom. To give you an example of the Italian language diversity, I don’t understand my mother’s dialect and she was born 30 kilometres from where I was. France having to defend French because it is a melting pot is a fantasy. The Parisian intellectual elite, in lack of a better expression, has a weird fixation on language tradition and a strong contempt for the English language.
JPLeRouzic 4y ago
I am French, born in Brittany. France/Parisians has a long history of repression against people from province. Read again what some "great" French writers, like Flaubert, Victor Hugo, Balzac wrote about Breton people in IXX century. "Il est interdit de cracher par terre et de parler Breton" An academy inspector wrote in 1956 in Vannes that a small Breton had half the QI of a Parisian. I was born in 1956 near Vannes.
random314 4y ago
Yes, the concept of nationalism and national language is a modern phenomenon. It is helpful in having subjects treat their governments as correct and moral by default and develop a distrust of their neighbors. Noam chomsky has an informative interview. He seems to think the concept of guardianship of a "pure" language is conceptually silly https://youtu.be/hdUbIlwHRkY https://youtu.be/hdUbIlwHRkY

JPLeRouzic 4y ago

I am a 65 French and I agree this is hypocrisy. The quality of spoken French goes lower years after years. The generation before me spoke a much better French than my generation even if we are supposed to be better educated. The same goes for the generations after mine. Most speakers on TV, most journalists and even school teachers are using a small vocabulary (to be better understood?) and they make gross errors. Commonly they are using the wrong gender ("le porte", "le vis"). Most of the time they discuss in a "meta language" that has no meaning ("la météo va s'intensifier", "les prix augmentent à cause de l'inflation"). Many school teachers have not a good understanding of French grammar.

Aurelius3 4y ago
The quality of spoken English goes down over time as well, and as far as I know the English language has no institute or governing body which attempts to regulate it. It seems to me that the languages erode regardless of the rules in place to become more convenient for people. It is a shame culturally but at the same time it is difficult to blame people for speaking conveniently. It will be interesting to see where this takes both languages in 50 to 100 years.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  Why is it a shame culturally? What values are you using to establish that one form of the language is "good" or "pure" and another is "worse" or "eroded" and why should others subscribe to that value system? Languages change and always have, people noting this is as old as written record about language. People have also always been complaining about it, and ascribing to it some meaning about the increasing degeneracy of the youth or the decline of society or whatever. The language obviously continues to work fine for the needs people have of it, as it always has. You don't need to like the changes, but you should understand that that is an aesthetic judgement and nothing else. It doesn't indicate or represent anything "going down" or a cultural loss of any kind.
  - Aurelius3 4y ago
    I can agree with this line of thought, however, I feel obliged to warn you where this supposed reality can lead and I want you to consider if this violates any other beliefs you may hold. Another poster mentioned that the English have a rather strong dislike of prescriptivism, I think this is true, although I only have anecdotal evidence for this. Following this I find that the English and there derivatives in America also have a strong belief in multiculturalism, or the idea that varying cultures/perspectives strengthens a group. I would say that in certain intervals these two cannot coexist. Taking the example of french Canadians, they are considered to be relatively intolerant compared to the rest of Canada when it comes to religion, culture, language, immigration, and other facets of multiculturalism in an attempt to protect themselves. Yet it was that same multiculturalist mindset that saved them when the English let off and accepted them into Canadian goverment, giving them many rights even above the rest of Canada. So you can see that the lack of defence against cultural change inevitably results in another culture with a more defensive nature taking ground... But if you attempt to fight back it wouldn't be multicultural of you... So you can see that these two beliefs conflict at certain extremes. Karl Popper would have considered this to be an example of the paradox of tolerance (And I would add intolerance, as too much language purity gets you into a situation where your parisian institute bans the word poggers). With this in mind I find your purely relativistic idea that all languages are equal, or more importantly that we should treat them as all equal, as somewhat misguided, and in many ways supremacist (it is easy for the culturally dominant, in this case the english, to wave hands and act like everyone else is irrational for trying to protect their culture, when it is implicitly understood if they don't then English will swallow it whole).

Glawen 4y ago

So you state rightfully that Parisian suppressed regional language (my grandmother and father were not allowed to speak alsatian at school), but you are using it to support the use of English? Why should we make amends to English? Why not reviving regional language, try to bolster their use? I don't know, we could impose that all adverts and documents are shown on french and regional language. Because now, I only see English everywhere and I'm really pissed off

qalmakka 4y ago
I support the right of people to speak whatever and however they want. If people want to speak English, just let them. Languages are tools, they are not pieces of art to be kept around for your own amusement, they are not religious texts dictated from a higher power. They are something that arises from the people for the sake of the people themselves. French, Italian, Spanish came about when Latin got corrupted and hybridized with other languages, changing its sounds and evolving together with the people that spoke them. English itself is basically 30% French - and yet it's still English, isn't it? Loanwords are just what they are - loanwords. In the end, the end goal is to be understood, and to understand those that speak to you, and if a loanword expresses a concept in a way that's more broadly understood and universally recognized (i.e., "computer"), why should people reject it? The whole concept of "language purity" is just a silly show of chauvinism, a "fear" of contamination from foreign influence that ignores the fact that all languages are artificial constructs. Most national languages have been born out of coercion and nationalism, and only in recent times they have been "standardized". Most languages are basically just the dialect of the capital, that for some queer reason was picked to be the most noble of them all. Knowing English is crucial and its teaching should be of paramount importance because it has become the lingua franca of the modern world. It's the koiné that allows people from various backgrounds and various places to communicate. It allows people to cut intermediaries and learn from each other, directly, what other parts of the world have to say, removing from governments and national media the ability to spin things around. I know lots of people that only know Italian, and thus only know what the Italian media wants to talk about, or cares about. Local languages quickly become a way to gatekeep people, and cut them out of the source of global discussion about topics and ideas. I personally think that languages should be taught and preserved, because every single language you know gives you a different outlook on life, things, and concepts. Every tongue has its set of things it cares about, its own history, its own value, and everyone should be bilingual to truly understand that there's a wider world outside of their small garden. We cannot, however, allow this to hamper the progress we've made in understanding each other. We should always keep our mother tongue close to us, without forgetting what languages are for.