It is a well-known fact that French is the “language of Molière,” just as English is the language of Shakespeare, and German and Spanish are the languages of Goethe and Cervantes. Yet if a French speaker were to delve into the original text of Le Bourgeois gentilhomme or Les Fourberies de Scapin, they would understand very little. Words, grammar, spelling, and even pronunciation have changed enormously. From the Oaths of Strasbourg that brought it to life in the ninth century to the present day, French – like all languages – is constantly evolving.
Mistakes often become the norm. For example, the past participle agreeing with the auxiliary avoir which tends to be invariable. Good! One less headache for those speaking and learning French. This argument is made by a group of French, Belgian, Swiss, and Quebecer academics in a short, explicitly titled book published last May: Le français va très bien, merci (“French is doing just fine, thank you”). For the Linguistes Atterré(e)s (“The appalled linguists”), as the 18 authors call themselves, the “accumulation of doom-mongering statements on the current state of our language has prevented people from understanding its immense vitality, its fascinating and perpetual ability to adapt to change, and even from believing in its future.”
But surely the French language is under threat from English? Isn’t the alarming number of borrowings by the former from the latter a sign of the defeat and planned obsolescence of French? Are we not condemned to speak the linguistic monstrosity that is Frenglish? Well, as it happens, such lamenting and wringing of hands has no scientific basis, say the authors. While there are Anglicisms, they are merely “lexical borrowings, part of a gradual process of appropriation.” Spoiler (“to give away a twist or an ending”) – which some would like to see replaced by divulgâcher (a mixture of divulguer, “to divulge,” and gâcher, “to ruin”) – is not an English verb, and “to spoil” is itself derived from the Old French espoillier, meaning “to strip.” Just like pressing, playback, tennisman, zapping, and many other false Anglicisms, it has now become a French word in its own right.
This debate is nothing new. As observed in another work with a similar tone, Le français est à nous ! Petit manuel d’émancipation linguistique (2019), many English words and calques (meaning literal translations such as guerre froide for “Cold War”) were adopted as far back as the 18th century. A large number are found in the political and legal spheres, such as vote, comité, jury, majorité, minorité, verdict, coalition, legislature, and even véto and ultimatum, Latin terms that had been redefined in English. And just like English, which has borrowed countless words from the Gallic tongue, French is able to integrate many foreign words without losing its essence. In fact, these additions enrich it even further!
Another preconception that the Linguistes Atterré(e)s are fighting is that “spelling makes a language.” In reality, spelling often has no logical or even etymological reason behind it. The current spelling of various words is not proof of an overarching linguistic plan, but rather of a succession of small adjustments made by chance over many years. Examples abound: Nénufar (“waterlily,” originally a Persian word) became nénuphar in 1935 for no good reason. Dompter (“to tame”) is from the Latin domitare, and should not include a “p.” Posthume (another Latin loan from postumus) has no connection with humus and certainly has no business including an “h.” Meanwhile, aspect, respect, and suspect have all kept their original silent “c” but objet, préfet, projet, sujet, and rejet have not. Et cetera.
