Posted on 10/27/2017 10:59:50 PM PDT by Olog-hai
The official guardians of the French tongue the Académie Française sounded the alarm bell this week saying the language was in “mortal danger”. And it’s nothing to do with English this time.
The so-called “immortals” at the Académie Française, the official body tasked with guarding the French language from unwanted influences (like English) don’t speak out often, but when they do, people tend to listen; and on Thursday night, the Académie issued a “solemn warning” intended to grab the attention of the government.
The immortals are furious about the rise of so-called “inclusive writing”, which basically puts the masculine AND feminine forms of nouns in the text. While its aim is to promote gender equality and reduce sexist stereotypes to “make women more visible” in texts, the Académie called it an “aberration”, which “now puts the French language in mortal danger, for which our nation will be accountable to future generations.”
Previously, texts have in French have only included the masculine form of nouns: for example, citoyen (citizen), consommateurs (consumers) or agriculteurs (farmers); but if inclusive writing was used, the words word be written as follows to include the feminine and plural forms: citoyen.ne.s, consommateur.rice.s, agriculteur.rice.s. Other examples include acteur.rice.s (actor/actress), ingénieur.e.s (engineer) and directeur.rice.s (directors). …
(Excerpt) Read more at thelocal.fr ...
The extinction of culture, language... something the Globalists and Left care little about.
You would think they would be more concerned with the mortal danger posed by all of those terrorists running around in their country.
You see it everywhere, in English.
“Anyone who says that THEY...”
“If your SON comes home and tells you that THEY...”
Domestically inside France, it’s being replaced by Arabic anyway.
It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course, the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn’t only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take “good”, for instance. If you have a word like “good”, what need is there for a word like “bad”? “Ungood” will do just as well — better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of “good”, what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like “excellent” and “splendid” and all the rest of them? “Plusgood” covers the meaning, or “doubleplusgood” if you want something stronger still. Of course, we use those forms already. but in the final version of Newspeak, there’ll be nothing else. In the end, the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words — in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.’s idea originally, of course. […]I would say they care about redefining it, of course. This is what they are doing.
Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end, we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we’re not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year, fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline; reality control. But in the end, there won’t be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak. …
— Nineteen Eighty-Four, Part 1, Chapter 5: Syme to Winston
Parlez-vous muzzieais?
The immortals are furious about the rise of so-called “inclusive writing”, which basically puts the masculine AND feminine forms of nouns in the text.The whole rest of the world already has the idea that the French are, uh, as it were, a little bit too much in touch with their feminine side, as it is, so I don't blame the so-called immortals for pitching a hissy. Thanks Olog-hai.
“The extinction of culture, language... something the Globalists and Left care little about.”
Unless it’s some tribal dialect spoken by three people.
France is being destroyed by feminism and Islam.
You would think they would be more concerned with the mortal danger posed by all of those terrorists running around in their country.
Or the routine burning of cars.
The police failing to record crime so as to keep crime stats low.
Or the spread of Sharia barbarism.
Or the enslavement of women, the rape of women, the murder of women.
I appreciate your Orwell quote (I've read the book literally dozens of times), but would like to point out that, in the case at hand, the goal is to limit freedom not by reducing the vocabulary, but rather by constantly expanding it - to the point where intelligible discourse (and even thought) become arduous and/or nearly impossible.
Imagine, if you will, the near impossibility of substituting a good, meaningful English sentence like
"Independent, hardscrabble yeoman farmers are the backbone of American society; to deny them their Right to bear arms would emasculate the Nation."
with some "Politically Correct" version.
Of course, it would be possible to "translate" the individual words - but much power and meaning would be lost, and the Language Police themselves are working to continually sanction previously acceptable words (q.v. "gentleman of color," "Colored," "Negro," "Black," "Afro-American," "African-American," "Person of Color") and re-draw lines so that the average speaker has to be constantly on guard about expressing himself.
Regards,
Your example is a huge pet peeve of mine. I mean, how hard is it to say (or write, type, etc.) “he or she?”
I woukd think that Arabic is a larger existential threat.
I generally think the French are way to fussy with the language but this makes sense. Younger people know longer understand what “man” and “mankind” mean in English.
Of course, it isn’t laziness. It’s ideology.
The Brits have been saying “anyone...they” for ages. The really egregious thing is using “they” when the antecedent is a particular MALE.
The left is insane. They plan to control thinking through the language. It eventually works. They repeat over and over again, and it affects our minds.
That’s why they glory in saying “her wife” and “his husband” and “he’s pregnant”.
Here’s a little French language of my own: “Hey, $hitface leftists! Shut the f*ck up! No one likes you!”
At least we are not alone in agonizing over the demise of our native language. The French are in a towering tizzy, as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.