French President Emmanuel Macron looked to cement his legacy, and take on political opponents, with the inauguration on Monday of a monument to the French language deep in far-right heartland.
French President Emmanuel Macron looked to cement his legacy, and take on political opponents, with the inauguration on Monday of a monument to the French language deep in far-right heartland.
Macron used the occasion to wade into a culture war debate, backing a right-wing bill to ban the use of "inclusive language" -- a popular trend for using both masculine and feminine versions of words when writing.
France must "not give in to fashionable trends," he said as he inaugurated the Cite Internationale de la Langue Francaise just hours before the Senate was due to debate the proposed law.
Modern French presidents love a cultural "grand projet" -- an imposing monument to "scratch" their name on history, as ex-leader Francois Mitterrand put it in the 1980s.
Mitterrand was an avid and controversial legacy-builder, transforming the Louvre museum with a glass pyramid, and erecting the vast Opera Bastille and National Library.
Georges Pompidou built a famous modern art museum in Paris, and Jacques Chirac created the Quai Branly global culture museum on the banks of the Seine.
The practice fell out of fashion this century, but has been revived by Macron, who was already eyeing up a crumbling chateau in the small town of Villers-Cotterets while still a presidential candidate in 2017.
He has overseen the renovation of the Renaissance castle, completed in 1539 under King Francois I, and its transformation into an international centre for the French language.
It hopes to attract 200,000 visitors a year to its large library (replete with AI-supported suggestion engine), interactive exhibits and cultural events.
Perhaps fittingly, the website seems determinedly uninterested in the quality of its English translations, describing the castle as a "high place of the French history and architecture".
Very different. In French, you often simply need to add a letter or two at the end of a male-gendered word to make it female-gendered. A lot of our media simply does something like "word(e)", with the contents of the parenthesis being the additional letters to make a word female-gendered. That way, you can avoid typing mostly the same word twice.
We've been doing this for decades, and is absolutely not a new "woke trend" or whatever bullshit Macron seems to believe it is.
"Latinx" was a stupid trend by white Americans to try and bastardized how a language works.
The very word "Language" comes from the French for "tongue". About a third of the words you use in everyday speech are French. You'd have to be a bit of an ignoramus to not find that interesting
Just curious: how do they manage with their spelling and their phonetics to achieve gender neutrality?
In the article they refer to just
a popular trend for using both masculine and feminine versions of words when writing
which would be as common sense as every speach beginning with the "ladies and gentlemen" clause. Are they going to remove the "ladies" part because it's redundant?
The issue, I’d assume, is that you end up replacing generic masculine words with two words. ‘Dear bakers and female-bakers’ for example. When the more logical approach is to simply turn the generic masculine into the generic it’s being used as anyway. In English, for example, a fireman or policeman does not need to be male, and it suffices to say ‘he is a fireman, she is a fireman’.
When the more logical approach is to simply turn the generic masculine into the generic it’s being used as anyway.
That's still causing the issue of "man as the default," now it's just "we consider women men too." The more logical way would be to use language akin to "firefighter," "officer," or "pig," all naturally neutral words.
Another option is like in German where you invent some sort of new suffix like "*in". For example, Lehrer (m), Lerhrerin (w), Lehrer*in (m/w/d). Prounounced as a sort of shorter than space silence.
I think you're exactly right on that. All the opposition to change is in favor of keeping language as efficient as possible. The smoothest way to get everyone on board with neutral language is to use a term that's both familiar and efficient. If our generic words are masculine, then we can just redefine them as neutral. Some claim this means "women are now men" but long-term it really means "old generic word no longer applies to only men"
The French have started using new typographic conventions to turn nouns and adjectives neutral, or at least dual-gendered. French is a deeply gendered language by default, so for instance the word for author is "auteur" if the author is male and "autrice" if the author is female. If unknown, then... The author is assumed male.
This is of course not great, and so the French people have started using constructions like "auteur.ice" or somesuch in order to include both options in the word. This approach appears to have become reasonably popular.
The French right wing is EXTREMELY upset about this and is seeking to get it outright banned (they may already have succeeded actually).
As far as I understand this museum is the brainchild of the fascist party RN and is entirely about the French language as the right wing thinks it should be spoken, as opposed to how it actually is. So, just yet another instance of taxpayer-funded reactionary crap.
The French have started using new typographic conventions
We've been doing the whole "auteur(ice)" thing for decades already. It's not new. For as long as I can remember, every technical/educational book I've ever read in school did this.
Without knowing much, I feel like it runs into the same problem as Latinx. It is unintuitive to speak the words how they are written. The specific auteur.ice example seems relatively easy to actually speak, but I'm sure other words run into the same problems.
"Inclusive" writing involves writing both masculine and feminine forms of words, separated by dots -- for example "francais.e.s".
The proposed law being debated by the Senate later Monday would ban such phrasing in education and all official texts, from work contracts to court documents to instruction manuals.
Macron appeared supportive, saying: "In this language, the neutral form is provided by the masculine. We don't need to add dots in the middle of words to make it better understood."
Macron is a clown and his opinions on language don't matter.
With that out of the way, grammatical gender in French is a really complex topic.
"Inclusive" language is centuries old through the usage of parenthesis or slashes. Somewhat recently, attempts have been made to codify this practice using a new syntax (auteur·ice), which conservatives aren't on board with (either because they don't want change, or because they can pretend it's a new cultural import from the US and wage some invented culture war).
Progressives aren't universally on board either. The new syntax is quite clunky, doesn't translate to spoken speech, is quite inaccessible to dyslexic people, and completely exclusive of genders outside the binary.
This is all complicated by the fact that French is a very rigid language whose rules are practically set by the "French Academy" (which is a whole other can of conservative worms) which unfortunately gives old curmudgeons immense power to strike down any evolution of the language as "officially improper". Imagine if the Oxford Style Guide or whatever was uniformly taught throughout the English speaking world, and from Mumbai to London to Auckland any step away from these rules at school would get you points deducted, and all administrations were forced by law to follow these rules. Then imagine that it'd been that way for longer than anyone's been alive. That's the world the French live in, and the very concept of written language being "alive" is fundamentally something most people either disagree with outright or at least look at with suspicion or a vague look of incomprehension.