How The French Take English Internet Words And Make Them Acceptable For French Ears

from the non! dept

More than six years ago, we wrote about how the French, ever protective of their language, had rejected a bunch of commonly used words to describe new technologies such as email, and created their own official French-approved versions. The process, of course, is an ongoing one, and an attendee at a recent meeting explains the process by which the French come up with officially acceptable French ways of saying things like "ipod" and "pharming." As the article says: "The words are created by a panel of industrialists and savants, either from scratch or based on observations of evolving usage. The Ministry of the Economy, Finance and Industry has set up a Special Commission on Terminology and Neologisms in Electronic Communications to carry out such work." Apparently, just letting languages evolve naturally (while perhaps requiring that much less bureaucracy) is just way too messy.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Obsidian, 15 Dec 2006 @ 11:19am

    "We didn't sit on the fence. America didn't want to join a war that wasn't ours. Whenever we did, for what ever reason, we did save your ass. The war was NOT turning. Check your history."

    How wrong you are. The Nazis were running out of steam before America even entered the war. If YOU will read your history, you'll see that Hitler's forces had gotten their asses thoroughly kicked trying to invade the Soviet Union in February of 1943, just a couple of months after we declared war on them, but before we'd actually entered combat. That was just the latest of a number of failed attempts to invade Russia, all of which were devastating for the Nazis, and most of which were before entered the war. Add to that the fact that Hitler had stopped producing weapons and recruiting troops the previous year, meaning that their defeat at the hands of the Russians resulted in a MAJOR loss of both, and a longer period of time spent replenishing those losses, and the defeat of the Nazi's was guaranteed. WWII would have been won by the Allies with or without America's help. What America did was bring the war to a closing sooner, and with fewer lives lost, than it would have been otherwise, and it is a notable achievement, but America was not the savior it tries to pretend to be. I think we as a country feel guilty that we waited for so long to enter the battle that we have make our contribution seem greater that it actually was via revisionist history.

    The Soviets are the ones who really won the war. They spent most of the war playing defensive, mainly defending their borders while building up their forces. The Allies, including America, had entered the war half-prepared. When the Russians entered offensive action in 1944, they were fully prepared while the rest of the Allies, America included, were running out of steam. (The USSR lost more people than any other nation on either side, the US included, and lost them in the shortest period of time. That says it all.) In the final days of the war, all America and Britain really did was play clean up. Russia ended the war by capturing Berlin. Too bad that led to the Iron Curtain and all.

    As to the issue of France's surrender, it was a smart move. When Hitler invaded, France was just crawling out a depression. They had neither the manpower nor the money to mount a fight, If they'd attempted to fight back with an army, they would have been crushed, and France would have been destroyed beyond recovery. Launching a guerrilla resistance against the Nazi's was a brilliant idea. Without the French Resistance, the Allies may not have won either. They delivered invaluable intelligence, and kept a good portion of the Nazi forces occupied, and therefore kept them out of the larger fight, troops which otherwise may very well have turned the tide of the war. If the Nazi's would've had just a few more troops, they may have been able to win. If France had fought it out and been destroyed, Germany wouldn't have had to commit as many forces to an occupation, and would have more to fight the larger battles, which meant they may have been able to win.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.