On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 02:00:35PM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
>
> - my wife proves you wrong. (don't worry. you're not alone.) nobody
> guesses that english is not her native tongue.
But she lives in this U.S. context. I'm speaking about "off the ground"
speakers.
>
> - the rules are in proper dictionaries like the oed. entries include
> usage over time illustrated by quoted text and generally include
> the earliest known reference.
This does not contradict what I say. There are probably better, longer
dictionnaries with quotations and the like. But for the main part, even
in "short" french dictionnaries, there is no problem. Variations are
only needed in some specific and YMMV grammatical situations. We have
the Académie Française, and the language has been ruled _before_ mass
came to schools. I do think that a foreigner can speak a perfect french
while being "off the ground". I doubt for high level english, and there
are several levels in english---it is for example astonishing the
difference in vocabulary (number of different words used) between an
U.S. television series, and a British one; at least it was the case some
years ago; you need far less words to follow an U.S. series... On the
contrary, due to her poor imagination, an Agatha Christie novel can be
used for english beginners (because she always does the same thing),
while a John Dickson Carr will be more challenging.
There is not such a dramatic difference in french: beautifully written
french chooses better words, and organizes them better; but the words
are the same. As usual, the difference is not in erudition (number of
words), but in rules: the sentences constructed.
>
> - i think you're drawing perhaps too bright a line.
> new connotations for particular words crop up all the time, especially
> in small groups. i'm sure the one-word private joke is a common
> experience in many languages. i can recall a few from germany.
> schädelbräu comes to mind.
In french, the creation is more with small sentences, than with
overloading words. And new words are constructed by etymology (just a
new specimen placed in the already established evolution tree) and by
making a proper name a common one.
Well, we are far off...
--
Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com>
http://www.kergis.com/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C
