Parlez-vous franglais ?

Thank you Henri for your comments. psychology has always interested me all the more so since my husband is a pediatrician.

Hi Philippe-Henri, hi everyone,

I'm afraid I'm far behind with my posting.

Philippe-Henri a écrit:...
Yes, several related language topics haven’t to do any longer with «Do you speak Frenglish? But even that subject didn’t stir up much enthusiasm among our Froggies. May they realize they actually speak Frenglish themselves?

Looking at language in a larger scope, ranging from the Babel Tower legend to Ferdinand de Saussure and Noam Chomsky, one cane notice a general trend to link language to particular populations, mostly referring to a particular territory. Several countries, such as France, have included their «national» language(s) in their Constitution, thus claiming their language as a part of their national patrimony. The obvious idea behind this is purely political: centralization of power. (One can find a similar pattern in religion, where a «church» tries to gain widespread authority by imposing its dogmas)...

> centralization of power
As you prolly know it, France was "united" long ago when diplomacy and democracy were not on fashion.
Regarding languages, France was mainly composed of 2 regions: the southern part in which they were using the "Langue d'Oc" and the northern one with the "Langue d'Oï".
Despiste Alienor d'Aquitaine was born in the south (Bordeaux) and promoted the troubadours and l'"Amour courtois", the Langue d'Oï became the official language.
The south had a more advanced civilization but Aliénor just imported the best features to the north and didn't support the southern part much... I must remind you Aliénor became the wife of 2 kings (including an English one) and the mother of 3 kings.
To centralize France, in addition to the official language (I mean this eliminated the Langue d'Oc), the king exterminated the Cathars (I mean he killed lots of people).

Hi Philippe-Henri,

Philippe-Henri a écrit:... As a liberal, i.e. naturally opposed to any alienation of freedom, I believe it’s no good to think, speak or live according to a «model» imposed from the outside. This applies to language too...

A liberal is not an anarchist, is it?
"Aurea mediocritas".
Another definition of liberal is someone who accepts things as they are LOL
> I believe it’s no good to think, speak or live according to a «model» imposed from the outside.
Think according to ONE single model: no!! to a model: maybe.
To belong to a society, a community, we have to make an effort and speak and live according to a common way.
On the other hand, having an aim, a target, a direction is a good way to go forward, straight ahead and progress especially for a society

Hi Philippe-Henri, hi everyone,

Philippe-Henri a écrit:... In France, the latest spelling reform carried out by the Académie Française has been overwhelmingly ignored by schools, writers and media. The Francophonie and the Alliance Française pretend to promote French language and culture abroad. Actually, they are State agencies that try to restore France’s supremacy in the world.

The Dutch, who have may dialects, realized that they could sell their books and trade one with another if they used a common language that would be understood by all dialect speakers. They created, without the help of any external authority, the so-called Standard Dutch. The Belgian failed to grasp that opportunity and are still divided into a patchwork of local communities that are unable to understand one another. A governmental Language Union was set up, to no avail. Either country, though speaking the same language, has to subtitle its TV programmes for the other. So what’s an «academy» for? Language regulates itself, just like our body, which adapts itself to environmental stimuli.

The Académie française is far too slow. We need to communicate and to use new words before the guys make a decision so we now, usually take the American ones which are often also the ones chosen by other countries and it's better than having the ridiculous reverse order (SIDA/AIDS, ONU/UNO, OGM/GMO for a few acronyms).
As for Académie française, it was created by Richelieu. It was so slow to create THE expected dictionary (the mission they had) that, as far as I know, there was a second organization which was created for the same purpose.

In France, we are better to add new structures than to simplify and get rid of old ones.

Philippe-Henri a écrit:... The Dutch, who have may dialects, realized that they could sell their books and trade one with another if they used a common language that would be understood by all dialect speakers. They created, without the help of any external authority, the so-called Standard Dutch. The Belgian failed to grasp that opportunity and are still divided into a patchwork of local communities that are unable to understand one another. A governmental Language Union was set up, to no avail. Either country, though speaking the same language, has to subtitle its TV programmes for the other. So what’s an «academy» for? Language regulates itself, just like our body, which adapts itself to environmental stimuli.

I'm surprised that, as a liberal, you would like Belgian to follow the Dutch model or the French one.
Every country had its own reasons and politics, and decide independently.

Belgium was created as an artificial country in order to avoid any powerful nation in front of England.

The Académie française has nothing to do with Belgium.
> what’s an «academy» for?
The main justification of the Académie française is glory and a few seats for good friends of the mighty.

To Gérard

The «langue d’oc» was spoken in «Pais d’oc» or «Oc-citania», a region that covered Northern Italy (Piedmont and surrounding valleys), parts of Eastern Spain and of the South-eastern France, by then a Roman province called «Gallia Cisalpina». This province had been «romanized» long before the blood- and powerthirsty Roman Hitler (Gaius Iulius Caesar) started slaughtering the other Gauls who lived in what is now France, Switzerland, Belgium and the southern part of the Netherlands, up to River Rhine.

The funny thing is that there’s no word in Latin for «yes». To say «yes» you had to answer something like «that’s it» (hoc sic), which became «oc». The northern area of Roman Gaul, which was fully romanized only half a millennium later, maintained strong Germanic and Celtic traditions: to say «yes» you had to reply «oil» (hoc ille = this one) which evolved into o-il = o-i = oui).

The Cathars were exterminated by vassals of the kings of the Northern French House of Capets, who on the pretext of giving in to the Pope’s demand to root out Christian heresy, actually had their eye on the wealthy earldom of Toulouse (Raymond V, VI and VII), which eventually became part of France.

Centralization of France, at the time a dwarf kingdom, started with Philip the Fair (1268-1314), who managed to change the feudal system of scattered clans into one central authority. He was the guy who clipped the Pope's wings and did outrageously away with his holy soldiers, the Knights Templar, to illegally seize their property and fortune. Since then, the French kings have always tried to preserve and promote their concept of central power. Still today, roads, railways, administrative and economic structures converge, like a spider’s web, to one single central spot: Paris.

French, as a national language, reflects such idea of centralization.

Hi Philippe-Henri, hi everyone,

I second you
Thank you very much for details I didn't know.

> Since then, the French kings have always tried to preserve and promote their concept of central power
Centralization was a perfect way to pacify the country as the king had his hand on every region... a big problem is the infantilization of all of the provinces.
It's a pity as Paris was nothing compared to many other regions of France. Beyond marriages and wars, the kings found smart methods to reach their aim of centralization such as the "Court" which led nobles coming to the capital city and led to impoverishment of the regions.
French language couldn't be standardized (I mean made uniform) till the 20th century.

Did you intentionaly forgot south-west in the regions speaking this langue d'Oc? As far as I know, Toulouse was the capital city of the region.
As I was born in Provence (south-east of France), I tend to neglect reading and studying language and history of my region...
I confirm that several villages of Italy cannot speak Italian but French, still nowadays.
I confirm Catalogne is a region located in Spain and France; the colors of Provence and Catalogne are similar ("blood and gold").
I confirm Navarre is lying on both sides of the Pyrénées and Navarrenx is the entrance of the region.

Yes, the kings of France, like any king, have always tried to preserve their central (personal) power. Such form of monocracy works perfectly for small kingdoms but gets itself into a mess when it has to deal with thousands or millions of subjects. They then have to «delegate» i.e. to share power with their vassals, which is the main source of disguised dictatorship, internal conflicts, nepotism, corruption and murdering. I’m not sure that «centralization [of France] was a perfect way to pacify the country.» Political centralization is a direct way to «muzzle» local leaders and to discriminate regional identities, cultures and traditions. The main purpose of «power» (= money) is to hold power in as few hands as possible and to «legally» eradicate any threat to disruption. The end justifies the means, as Niccolo Machiavelli already said five hundred years ago. Western democracies actually develop a «panem & circenses» strategy: get your job, your TV, your album-albums, your football league, your twitter and facebook and shut up! Thus, we are still ruled by «kings». Kings of drugs cartels and widespread blackmailing practices. No, no ermine robes of State. Just white-collared godfathers who collect money where money is. Just corrupt politicians who call us to the polls every five years to say in which sauce we want to be fried…

I didn’t forget intentionally South-Western France in the langue-d’Oc speaking regions. For me, Toulouse lies between South and West. Anyway, Toulouse, however powerful and wealthy, was but a regional capital of Occitanie, which encompasses the whole «Midi» of France and parts of Northern Italy.

I agree that border regions like Catalonia, Bearn, Navarra, Basque Country, Andorra, Llivia, Val d’Aoste… have, for historical reasons, preserved their language and culture. The same applies to Savoy, Alsace, Flanders, Philippeville, Mariembourg. This shows that language and culture are the real representatives of natural identity. Political borders and passports are bullshit.

Hi Philippe-Henri,

Thanks again for your words.

Philippe-Henri a écrit:Yes, the kings of France, like any king, have always tried to preserve their central (personal) power. Such form of monocracy works perfectly for small kingdoms but gets itself into a mess when it has to deal with thousands or millions of subjects. They then have to «delegate» i.e. to share power with their vassals, which is the main source of disguised dictatorship, internal conflicts, nepotism, corruption and murdering. I’m not sure that «centralization [of France] was a perfect way to pacify the country.»

> perfect
I was thinking of what Louis XIV did with Versailles.
He gathered "everyone" there. This way he could have the regional leaders under his eyes. He designed a fashion consisting in members of the Court just wishing to reach the close circle and spending lots of money in clothing (and not organize armies). This roughly led the entire country to peace.
Having princes, dukes, earls, etc. (responsible for states and regions of the UK) in London, around the monarch, is similar politics.

Political centralization is a direct way to «muzzle» local leaders and to discriminate regional identities, cultures and traditions. The main purpose of «power» (= money) is to hold power in as few hands as possible and to «legally» eradicate any threat to disruption. The end justifies the means, as Niccolo Machiavelli already said five hundred years ago.

I said "perfect" but there are many drawbacks obviously.

Western democracies actually develop a «panem & circenses» strategy: get your job, your TV, your album-albums, your football league, your twitter and facebook and shut up! Thus, we are still ruled by «kings». Kings of drugs cartels and widespread blackmailing practices. No, no ermine robes of State. Just white-collared godfathers who collect money where money is. Just corrupt politicians who call us to the polls every five years to say in which sauce we want to be fried…

I like your right description of present world.

I didn’t forget intentionally South-Western France in the langue-d’Oc speaking regions. For me, Toulouse lies between South and West. Anyway, Toulouse, however powerful and wealthy, was but a regional capital of Occitanie, which encompasses the whole «Midi» of France and parts of Northern Italy.

I agree that border regions like Catalonia, Bearn, Navarra, Basque Country, Andorra, Llivia, Val d’Aoste… have, for historical reasons, preserved their language and culture. The same applies to Savoy, Alsace, Flanders, Philippeville, Mariembourg. This shows that language and culture are the real representatives of natural identity. Political borders and passports are bullshit.

> encompasses the whole «Midi» of France and parts of Northern Italy.
Regarding Toulouse, that depends on the period.
OK Toulouse was the capital of Occitanie (Langue d'Oc).
However, Toulouse doesn't belong to Provence (region or language).
Though Occitanie, "pays de langue d'Oc", Cathars, etc. were important in southern France, there was a reawakening of the south east of France in the middle of the 19th century (mainly led by Frédéric Mistral, a poet): this movement ignored Toulouse but covered a region located east of the Rhone river, south of Grenoble, excluding Côte d'Azur. This movement declared a strong relationship with the Catalan people (the regional anthem of Provence refers to Catalans who stored their sacred cup - "Coupo Santo") - see "Félibrige".

to Gerard
Re: Louis XIV

I don’t fully agree with you about Louis XIV’s merits. He lived off the sweat of his people. Versailles was built to the greater glory of himself, with money from the peasants, who starved to hunger, disease and death. He was a megalomaniac, believed himself to be of divine origin (!). Physically he must have been a shorty because it was forbidden to represent him standing upright amidst his courtiers. These courtiers were a select bunch of bootlickers who exploited the privileges of their nobility, exempted from taxes. Louis did not lead his country to peace. He had many enemies beyond his borders (Netherlands, Flanders, Franche-Comté - War of Devolution). He made some major mistakes, the greatest blunder being his Revocation (1685) of Henry IV’s Edict of Nantes. This insane revocation sparked the war off again between Catholics and Protestants after the end of bloody religion wars and nearly a century of peace. Second top-class blunder in rank was Louis XIV’s evil genius Colbert, who introduced a French protectionist import system, thus closing the door to the process of European economic integration, which had started at the Westphalia peace treaties (1648) .

On top of all that, Louis seized Lille (1667), which was certainly the greatest misfortune the city ever experienced.

Philippe-Henri,

When I wrote Louis the XIVth did well with the Court at Versailles, it was from his own point of view.
What I quickly described is what he needed to do to get peace in France. When he was a kid (and the king) there were lots of powerful regions which threatened his throne.
As for peace between nations, there were several wars and I don't think many key-nations were not involved except a few marriages.

Dear all, I agree that the kings of France were always centralizing, but this tendancy was continued by the Republic. The french academy was created by Richelieu, and there are two consequences, the first being good (in my opinion) and the second not so good. The first consequence is that, since its creation, in the XVII° century, the French did not evolve very much. We can very well read texts of the XVII° century. On the contrary, texts of the XVI° century are readable with more difficulties and texts more ancien are hardly understandable. The second consequence, harmful, is that the french academy prevents the rapid formation of new words. So, when we need a new word, we use the american word which is pronounced like tagalog (I recognise that it is not fair for the tagalog speaking people). People of the Quebec, more threatened by english make more effort to create new words. In the XIX° century, people were more courageous. When thy needed a new word, they make it from greek or latin roots. The nearly disapearing of the local language is due to the school of the republic where everybody was obliged to speak french in school.