[Home]AcademieFrançaise

MeatballWiki | RecentChanges | Random Page | Indices | Categories
Describing a particular brand of RedPenObsession? / LanguageLawyer? on FrenchWikipedia...

The AcademieFrançaise is an official organism that is trying to preserve the purity of the language. It is made of a panel of old people, mostly men, often famous authors. They update the "official" dictionary, very slowly. The first edition was published in 1694. They are currently working on the 9th edition. They also provide regularly some "advice" of usage : they actively try to make us use one word over another, if they consider the latter more proper. For example, french-speaking people widely use the word "week-end", which means precisely "saturday and sunday". The Academie consider it an anglicism (which it naturally is), and recommand that we use instead "fin de semaine" (which is the exact translation, but just define the end of the week, so could include friday as well). The Academie gave numerous advices on how we should speak correctly, and is actually supported in this, by a rather similar organism in french Canada. For example, Canada recommands the use of courriel, over email. The French Académie agreed on that use, and over the past year, we can see more and more people use this new french word (I personally do support it).

Something that happens quite frequently is that some people use the name of a brand, as if the correct useage of the word. I tried to think of similar examples in english, I am sure they are some as well. Perhaps when you have an headache, you say, "I will take a tylenol", instead of "I will take a pain relief pill". or "wife, change your son pampers, he is smelly" instead of "darling, would you change your son diaper please". In french, there are *many* words that are in reality brand names, and that we use everyday, not meaning the brand itself. The Académie will sometimes recommand that we use a totally weird name instead, word that no one knows at all, or which sounds very ridiculous. Hum...instead of a "chewing-gum", they ask that we say a "machouillon" (totally ridiculous, well-known word now, because of its ridiculous sound, but not used in the least).

Sometimes, some recommandations "work", sometimes it does not. Usually, everyday word tend to change because "official" media shower us with the newly made word. In professional circles, it does not work well, because french work a lot in english, and the more words look like english words, the more chance different language people understand each other. This is why even if my english is not good, I can write professional articles on wikipedia, because I know the jargon. The general text is not very good, but I know the links to specialised already written or future articles very well. The Academie can play at trying to prevent us to use real words that everybody use, but it is NOT welcome to tell professionnals how they should speak :-) If I use "biorémédiation", I know that it is an anglicism of "bioremediation", but that is the word we use, and they are not gonna bug us here fortunately. We create the language, not them. We use it, not them. We create the words we need to communicate, we do not wait 50 years that an academy tells us to say "bionettoyage" for example.

I think it make sense that an organism try to "maintain" the language, to protect it. But I also think the language is mostly a living interaction between people, that people make the language to fit their needs of communication. And that usage should predominate over "freezing made by 90 years old men". And it makes no sense to Wikipedia to tell people how they ought to talk or write. It is not Wikipedia role to make people talk in this or that way, and it is not Wikipedia role to be an extension of the Academie. The Academie is just an opinion among others. An important opinion perhaps, but just an opinion, while the way people talk is "a fact". We report facts first, opinions after. And we should *not* promote one opinion over another.

This is even more true as any french-speaking country does not have the same use of the language, and that is not France role to tell these other countries how they ought to speak to be speaking "correctly". The word "correct" gives me shivers. The Académie word is not the word of God. That goes even further than npov respect, that is just respect of people themselves. Language is not owned by anyone, it is a public ownership, a collective creation. And it holds only because people can share ideas together while using it.

Now, the guy doing this on the french wikipedia, either will end up understanding this, or one of the two of us will leave. Preferably him :-) Meanwhile, I hope Tarquin will keep things on tracks.

I think you may be sensible to that issue of word creation and word use, because that is a bit what you are doing at Meatball. Each time you create a new article, which is an union of two words, with a description of something that is nowhere, just a concept, you create a word, you define it and we start using it. YOU all CREATE words for us to use.

So that is one of the angers I felt and lead me to the sick leave. The Papotages issue that created so much dissent, the association that might decide things for us while it is only a little bit of the community, the rules that some consider they are not bound to follow (such as images copyrights), discussions going nowhere, discussions considered fights by default to the point it is best to say nothing at all, npov and the Académie ruling now. That angered me too much. Not me alone considering the number of people who thought of leaving, or the ones that actually left in the past month. I also made *many* mistakes, which further angered me, and made me lose focus on what was important. So, I lost time and energy. I just have to think about what to do, and how we can all help. And yes, I think we grew too quickly in the past three months. With the number of old hands who left, and the number of newbies, some messages were just not offered at the right time, at the right people. We grow in numbers of pages, we grow in number of contributors, we grow in content, but to my opinion, we regressed in community. We might have to follow and welcome new ones better for a new team. I dunno what TarQuin feeling is there though. The wiki life cycle turning :-)

My...I messed the place again. Sorry. These were just thoughts following last discussion. About using anger in a more constructive ways :-) -- AntHere

To give a quick response, it seems to me the person who is doing this is either a legalist or deeply insecure about his culture or both. Legalists can be stumped by creating more rules for them. People feeling insecure about their culture should be made to feel positive about their culture. However, I do not know what role l'Academie plays in the French psyche. Probably more significant a one than I could ever appreciate. I'm sorry he drove you to leave the helm. -- SunirShah

make no mistake Sunir. This one did not drove me to "leave the helm". I have been thinking of making a break since mid november, but someone convinced me to hold on then. This case alone would not drive me away. Lack of fairness has been a constant fight since april 2002 ;-) Just one more would not be such a big deal. What happened is that I realised I felt not able to deal with him and to find an agreement with him, because of the anger that was in me, that anger I have been accumulating in the past two months. That person has been working in the art of printing for at least 20 years, so see himself an expert not to be contradicted on the matter. That is fair. However, I consider myself more an expert than him in what is *really* non negociable on Wikipedia. I am not very fond of rules, but neutrality is one that should be non-negociable. I fear he considers himself a defenser of the french language, and see his defending "correct" language over "spoken and written" language a real duty. Correct language being defined by Academie Française, Official Typographic Rules and similar stuff. An apostolate for him. I represent another apostolate :-) I see no problem for him to represent these official rules, as long as they are identified as such, just a pov, not for us to claim this is the "correct" way. So, he is more of a legalist I would say. Perhaps, if he is a legalist, could he be defeated by us using our "rules" ? Such as a NPOV rule. But this would require us to be very persistant, to enforce strictly that rule, to appear strong, firms, certain of ourselves, and united (which is not the case currently even on that non-negociable rule). And certainly to approach him quietly, and if necessary to spent hours discussing the rule. Perhaps to convince him to fight *for* other rules that needs to be, if that is what he likes doing. Some people just like to hold that role. And if all that fail, to have him go away as painlessly as possible. I tried to discuss npov with him a couple of days, and realised I had so much anger and resentment in me because of other fights, I was no more able to approach him the right way. Even after me been away for a good week now, he was still throwing flames at me yesterday, like against a ghost. It is maybe a mistake of me to quit the argument unresolved, but...as long as I do not see what to do, and how to have him respect our basic rules, as much as the Academie Française recommandations, I'll stay away, because I end up doing more bad than good. I need to regain peace first and see what to do best.

You may have put up a CommunityWiki:WallOfSilence.

Unfortunately, that is very possible. In which case, I will not go back there before much later. If ever. Participation in such a project must bring a reward of some sort to make up for the frustration and anger. For any participant. This one as well. Possibly, his participation is more important than mine now :-)

The EnglishWikipedia has a semi-official rule stating that British and American forms of English are equally acceptable, which I misrepresent as saying:

The actual rule isn't this elegant. Regardless, we have interesting debates on the relative merits of football, soccer, and football (soccer). --MartinHarper

Both rules are ok by me. Are you sure the second is really followed ? :-)

Debate on relative merits of soccer and football (soccer) is just fine. What is wrong is to write: "It is best to call this sport, 'soccer' rather than 'football'". That is such a meaningless fight. But in the end, the question is "what to do with someone convinced he hold the "truth", when this "truth" goes against the rules of a place ?" and consider being asked to follow these rules, an insufferable attempt on his integrity.

([fr:Académie Française] - [en:Académie Française] - [exemples Pdv]

CategoryCase

Discussion

MeatballWiki | RecentChanges | Random Page | Indices | Categories
Edit text of this page | View other revisions
Search: