Spelling Reform
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 2086
- Joined: Sun 14 Apr 2013 14:37
Spelling Reform
A wonderfully French fuss has broken out over the fact that some spelling changes have started to be reflected in school textbooks. It has everything to remind you that the place is bonkers.
First, they were promulgated by the Académie in 1990: if there's anything sillier than having a language police, it's having one whose recommendations are ignored for 26 years.
Second, though mostly intelligible, they are not compulsory: they just set up alternatives which are now acceptable. The Académie thinks it is now OK to put "ognons" for "oignons", but any adult (for example a prospective employer) is still going to regard it as illiterate for the next twenty years or so.
Third, they just introduce new arbitrary rules: it's OK to lose the circumflex on "î" or "û", for example, because it doesn't change the sound, except for a string of cases where it still isn't.
Fourth, some of it seems bonkers or silly. "Nénuphar" and "nénufar" are now both OK (because the "ph" is an "etymological spelling" of a non-French word) but still not (so far as I know) "farmacie" as well as "pharmacie". And you can now say "weekend" as well as "week-end" (which may be a comfort for us anglophones), but who is going to give a light if they are already in the habit of using franglais?
Still, if you are ready to study the full 2000 instances, you will be able to help with the kids' homework.
[/quote]
First, they were promulgated by the Académie in 1990: if there's anything sillier than having a language police, it's having one whose recommendations are ignored for 26 years.
Second, though mostly intelligible, they are not compulsory: they just set up alternatives which are now acceptable. The Académie thinks it is now OK to put "ognons" for "oignons", but any adult (for example a prospective employer) is still going to regard it as illiterate for the next twenty years or so.
Third, they just introduce new arbitrary rules: it's OK to lose the circumflex on "î" or "û", for example, because it doesn't change the sound, except for a string of cases where it still isn't.
Fourth, some of it seems bonkers or silly. "Nénuphar" and "nénufar" are now both OK (because the "ph" is an "etymological spelling" of a non-French word) but still not (so far as I know) "farmacie" as well as "pharmacie". And you can now say "weekend" as well as "week-end" (which may be a comfort for us anglophones), but who is going to give a light if they are already in the habit of using franglais?
Still, if you are ready to study the full 2000 instances, you will be able to help with the kids' homework.
[/quote]
- Kate
- Administrator
- Posts: 1903
- Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005 19:48
- Contact:
- sue and paul
- Rank 5
- Posts: 945
- Joined: Tue 11 Jul 2006 13:18
- Contact:
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 2086
- Joined: Sun 14 Apr 2013 14:37
Maybe not. But if you ever did find one, you wouldn't need the circumflex to tell you what sort you'd got. Or then again perhaps not: maybe they are the strong, silent type. Or else they all come from Mur de Bretagne, the only hit I found on google without the circumflex.Kate wrote:Haha...and homme mûr against homme mur. Does the first even exist?