gbs@utgpu.UUCP (06/24/87)
Several comments... It is much easier to understand a language than to speak it, recognition is faster than recall and you don't need to get the grammer right. In Montreal, second largest French speaking population in the world, and home to most of Quebec's anglos it is not uncommon to hear conversations in both languages together - ie the Anglo speaks Anglais and the Francophone speaks French - That way at least the message comes out ungarbled and stands a decent chance of being understood. I have had many such exchanges and find it a lot easier than to have one party scrambling for words and the other trying to figure out what the poor butchered sentances really meant. In print this is even easier since one need not respond in real time. I propose that people post in the language of THEIR choice, and reserve the effort of a good translation to times when your intended audience speaks the other and you want to make sure you are clear. C'est simple. As for having to put up with us poor anglos practicing French at the expense of your having to read our mangled Franglais, Have we complained about your English lately? Translating jargon is probably a waste of time, it won't be used next year anyhow, thats the nature of it... but seriously, for specialized words whats wrong with borrowing them? There never will be a proper Latin root for log in, and what about acronyms like modem. Most attempts are pretty pathetic and don't get used. (Vive les Hambourgois [That's ground middle class for you anglos]) Tell me, what language is the following phase in? "Une pizza all-dressed pi deux Coke" Beats me, but it will buy lunch in east end AND west end Montreal. There is a lot of French in English and vice versa all ready, thats what differentiates live languages from dead ones - dynamic alteration and growth. Just because the "Academie Francais" will take to the year 3000 to even consider it is no reason to reject it. As for trying to add in accents.. can you do without? In Hebrew, where all vowels (well, almost) are sprinkled above and below the words, even in print they leave them out and read the word correctly from context. The Hebrew vowels make a bigger difference to the word than the French accents (which, after all, get left off of capital letters already) Bon Fete to those in Que. and have une bon weekend all: just keep in mind that une chein chaud will bite back, but an 'ot dog can be eaten in either official language. C'est fun - no ? -- Gideon Sheps (or Cheops, as my Egyptian relatives spell it) I am not a number ... ...I am a free variable ! gbs@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu /// gbs@utorgpu.bitnet/EARN/NetNorth \\\/// disclaimer: My Amiga has been known to postnews without asking \\\/
lamy@utegc.UUCP (06/24/87)
Je n'ai pas d'objection a emprunter un mot quand il n'y a pas d'equivalent adequat disponible. Par contre je trouverait bete de parler de "tree pruning" quand il existe un mot francais parfaitement adequat, "emonder". Une autre raison, tres subjective celle-la, est liee a la "musique" du langage. Certains mots "fittent" (gak!) mal dans le rythme normal d'une langue. C'est pourquoi on se retrouve avec Cristobal Colon demoli en Christophe Colomb et en Christopher Columbus. Ca donne des choses cocasses comme "speaker/speakerine". Le francais au Quebec a deja tendance a utiliser des formes syntaxiques de l'anglais (en particulier la tendance a construire un verbe a partir d'un nom -- "magasiner" par exemple). En France, on a moins de scrupules a "faire du shopping" parce que la syntaxe de la langue n'est pas remise en question et qu'on a pas l'impression de vendre son ame au diable en epicant une phrase d'un emprunt ou deux. Enfin, j'espere que vous comprenez que la chose que je parle de est tres subjective :-) Jean-Francois.
jbergeron@watvlsi.UUCP (06/24/87)
In article <8706241320.AA15463@ephemeral.ai.toronto.edu> lamy@ai.toronto.edu (Jean-Francois Lamy) writes: >Le francais au Quebec a deja tendance a utiliser des formes syntaxiques >de l'anglais (en particulier la tendance a construire un verbe a partir d'un >nom -- "magasiner" par exemple). En France, on a moins de scrupules a >"faire du shopping" parce que la syntaxe de la langue n'est pas remise en >question et qu'on a pas l'impression de vendre son ame au diable en epicant >une phrase d'un emprunt ou deux. Corrige-moi si j'ai tord mais je crois que la France cherche toujours a` adopter une loi semblable a` la loi 101 au Que'bec pour prote'ger la langue qui s'anglicise de plus en plus parce que l'anglais 'fait chic' la-bas. Au Que'bec, nous n'utilison jamais les mots 'pull' pour un chandail, 'week-end' pour une fin-de-semaine, 'look' pour allure, etc... J'ai tendance a` croire que les Franc/ais utilisent plus de mots anglais (par opposition a` anglicisme) avec une prononciation tout a` fait franc/aise. Par exemple, 'faire du shopping', qui se traduit par 'faire des courses', n'apporte rien de nouveau, seulement un synonyme. Au Que'bec, nous avons pluto^t tendance a` forger de nouveaux mots. 'Foresterie', qui a e'te' re'cemment adopte' par l'Acade'mie en est un exemple, tout comme 'magasiner'. Cependant, je t'accorderai que nous n'utilisons que les mots anglais en ce qui concerne l'automobile. Janick (Ou` est donc cette barre a` jack....) Bergeron
jmlang@water.UUCP (06/25/87)
In article <1987Jun24.013852.13984@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> gbs@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Gideon Sheps) writes: > >Several comments... >I propose that people post in the language of THEIR choice, and reserve >the effort of a good translation to times when your intended audience >speaks the other and you want to make sure you are clear. C'est simple. I agree 100%. >Translating jargon is probably a waste of time, it won't be used next year >anyhow, thats the nature of it... but seriously, for specialized words >whats wrong with borrowing them? Nothing wrong with borrowing them when alternatives do not already exists. Sometimes however, the word that deserves to be borrowed is impossible to pronounce in French. A lot of English sounds simply do not exist in French (the two "TH" for instance.. [as in 'the' and 'both']). Think about the trouble you have getting words like 'lune' right. > >As for trying to add in accents.. can you do without? In Hebrew, where all >vowels (well, almost) are sprinkled above and below the words, even in print >they leave them out and read the word correctly from context. The Hebrew >vowels make a bigger difference to the word than the French accents (which, >after all, get left off of capital letters already) > I'd like to get rid of the accents, but it is so ingrained in the language it is pathetic. It is much faster to read text with proper accents, even if they follow the letters, than to read unaccented words. Imagine reading English written solely in capital letters -- it is possible, but slows you down tremendously. The Hebrew analogy is not valid in my opinion. Their written language does not use vowels (at least used not to). That's the way they are used to read it. Similarly in English: how do you read the letters "ough"? [sample : bought, though, bough, rough etc...]. English and French used to be written without space between words. It was probably quite readable back then. Not so now. My point is that French is written with accents just about everywhere. If somebody does not conform to usage it slows the reader down considerably. Mind you, if the reason you ask whether we can do without is because you never remember where to put them, well please post your messages without them. In that sense, we can do without. You will not become 'red face' by making silly mistakes, and we shall still be able to read what you are saying, only a little slower. >Bon Fete to those in Que. > And I trust that you also include people outside of Que'bec. > > >C'est fun - no ? Oui. >-- >Gideon Sheps (or Cheops, as my Egyptian relatives spell it) -- Je'ro^me M. Lang || jmlang@water.bitnet jmlang@water.uucp Dept of Applied Math || jmlang%water@waterloo.csnet U of Waterloo || jmlang%water%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
gbs@utgpu.UUCP (06/26/87)
Well, personally (speaking as an anglo) I have more trouble with the chopped up words than I do missing the accents. What, for example, becomes of "c'est" and other such words with apostrophies? If we want to use a character as itself do we precede it with a backslash now? :-) c\'est tres confusing. moving along... If there exists a good word or a viable translation then of course it deserves to be used over the borrowed phrase. There exist translations for many standard things (computer,disk, computer science,etc) but some things just refuse translation (or don\'t take kindly to it). Yes, I heard a while ago that France was trying to pull a 101, that doesn\'t mean it\'s a smart thing to do. How do you really expect to legislate a language ? You can legislate the dictionary, but can you really get the people to follow along? Who REALLY decides what is and is not part of a language, what is language - is it not a convention for communication? "Chair" is meaningless by itself, we agree that when I say chair I mean a certain type of object. So if the majority of a language's speakers decide to use a certain word to mean a certain thing then that word is a part of the language. It may not be "official" until it makes it into a dictionary, but who really cares about what is or is not official? (aside from academics and politicians) Sounds a lot like a book I once read called 1984 ... a certain sense of what we call in English - "Deja vu" -- Gideon Sheps (or Cheops, as my Egyptian relatives spell it) I am not a number ... ...I am a free variable ! gbs@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu /// gbs@utorgpu.bitnet/EARN/NetNorth \\\/// disclaimer: My Amiga has been known to postnews without asking \\\/