I do, however, like the idea of representing languages with images of famous contributors in that language; this could be used in lots of places writing about Wikipedia. I'd suggest Shakespeare, Hugo, Cervantes as the obvious English/French/Spanish ones. I don't know who would be appropriate for the others.
This is my favourite suggestion just for the flair it shows ;) It would probably work better in the French wikipedia, in which language expressions like "langue de Shakespeare" are more common. (The usual people, as far as I can tell, are Molière, Cervantes, Goethe, Cicéron, Homère, and Zamenhof - seriously, I read a Le Devoir article that called it "la langue de Zamenhof"... :)
Seriously, though, I think the plainest solution - simple text links - are best. Perhaps for completeness we could include both foreign and own-language forms in different contexts. I don't think there's anything wrong with just saying French - Spanish - German in an article head in the English wiki (and of course Anglais - Espagnol - Allemand on the French one, etc.), and then on the front page saying French - français, Spanish - español, German - Deutsch. IOW, exactly what we have now, as far as I can tell.
May I suggest Coluche or Desproges ? I supposed these are not known by canadians ? I don't see why french langage would be represented by a French man. By the way, we write "français" for the language and "Français" for the french man. These two words are absolutely not interchangeable. That's both grammar flaw and countrycentrism.
Ça me semble que dans une liste on devrait mettre une majuscule comme ça:
- Anglais - Français - Espagnol - Latin - Espéranto
n'est-ce pas? Mais de toute façon, in English we try not to say "the Frenchman" if referring to an indefinite person; that's sexist. We say "a French person." But I don't think you were trying to be sexist - all this to say that we should cut each other a little slack when dealing with languages not their own.
Matt (Montrealais) Montreal, Quebec
--- "Matt M." matt_mcl@sympatico.ca wrote:
way, we write "fran�ais" for the language and "Fran�ais" for the french man. These two words are absolutely not interchangeable. That's both
grammar
flaw and countrycentrism.
�a me semble que dans une liste on devrait mettre une majuscule comme �a:
- Anglais
- Fran�ais
- Espagnol
- Latin
- Esp�ranto
n'est-ce pas?
Et non !
Apr�s un "-" ou tiret, les r�gles typographiques de langue fran�aise indiquent que la minuscule est de r�gle ex Les articles seront en : - anglais; - fran�ais; - espagnol; - latin; - esp�ranto.
De m�me qu'� l'int�rieur d'un paragraphe de lignes pleines : ex "Les langues de la communaut� wikip�dienne sont : 1� l'anglais ; 2� le fran�ais; 3� le javanais"
Par contre, apr�s un num�ro ou une lettre de classification, majuscule: ex Les langues suivantes sont utilis�es 1. Anglais; 2. Polonais; 3. Allemand.
LOL. Sorry (muttering excuses, I'll try not to do it again)
Mais de toute fa�on, in English we try
not to say "the Frenchman" if referring to an indefinite person; that's sexist. We say "a French person." But I don't think you were trying to be sexist - all this to say that we should cut each other a little slack when dealing with languages not their own.
Matt (Montrealais) Montreal, Quebec
Yep. But we say canadien. pas personne canadienne.
I was not trying to be sexist *at all* (this time). Just maybe indicating it was very common that french langage was confused with french people, which would be further increased by using a french person to represent the langage.
NB : Suite � ton article sur non-sexist language, et � un commentaire de Francis, j'ai d�cid� de favoriser l'usage des tirets plut�t que des parenth�ses. D�sormais, je parle des wikip�dien-ne-s plut�t que des wikip�dien(ne)s. Francis pointed out putting females in () had a pretty heavy meaning; while joining males and females by a - had a whole different one. Makes sense. Though hardly giving us more in reality :-)
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com
Anthere wrote in part:
Aprés un "-" ou tiret, les régles typographiques de langue française indiquent que la minuscule est de régle
Par contre, aprés un numéro ou une lettre de classification, majuscule:
You have specific *rules* for this sort of thing? So precise that it goes one way in one place and another in the other? Your Academy is insane!!!
-- Toby Who vacillates between minuscule and majuscule according to taste, knowing that nobody can ever accuse me of being wrong about it.
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
Anthere wrote in part:
Apr�s un "-" ou tiret, les r�gles typographiques de langue fran�aise indiquent que la minuscule est de r�gle
Par contre, apr�s un num�ro ou une lettre de classification, majuscule:
You have specific *rules* for this sort of thing? So precise that it goes one way in one place and another in the other?
Yep! You can't even begin to imagine how precise it can get ! And rules are different on printed versus electronic material of course. French are very troubled by your near-lack of grammatical and typographic rules.
Your Academy is insane!!!
Yep! Mostly very old white males academics ! (Euh, Victor Hugo was elected in 1841 at the Acad�mie fran�aise (at an unusually young age!))
Fortunately most people tend to "forget" the rules...and very few really care...EXCEPT...when writing an encyclopedia...as it becomes a sign of how serious the project is...:-)))
-- Toby Who vacillates between minuscule and majuscule according to taste, knowing that nobody can ever accuse me of being wrong about it.
-- Anthere Who vacillates between miniscule and majuscule on purpose, knowing that some accuse her of being wrong about it.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com
Anthere wrote:
French are very troubled by your near-lack of grammatical and typographic rules.
They exist in English: Fowler. (qv in wikipedia). That will tell you, for example, that it's the 1980s not the 1980's.
They're not as "top-down" as the Academie though, they're a mix of what is being used with a healthy dose of pedantry.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 10:33:12PM +0100, tarquin wrote:
They exist in English: Fowler. (qv in wikipedia). That will tell you, for example, that it's the 1980s not the 1980's.
As, of course, would any sane and literate person ;-)
Toby Bartels wrote:
Anthere wrote in part:
Aprés un "-" ou tiret, les régles typographiques de langue française indiquent que la minuscule est de régle
Par contre, aprés un numéro ou une lettre de classification, majuscule:
You have specific *rules* for this sort of thing? So precise that it goes one way in one place and another in the other? Your Academy is insane!!!
*Some* French have a passion for language stylistics that is incomprehensible to the anglophone community. It is a far stronger influence in French poetry than in English where we tend to become obsessed with the requirement that poetry should mean something. French school teachers also have a passion for the "dictée" long after the need for spelling tests has run its course.
Eclecticology
At 2002-10-16 18:28 -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Anthere wrote in part:
Aprés un "-" ou tiret, les régles typographiques de langue française indiquent que la minuscule est de régle
Par contre, aprés un numéro ou une lettre de classification, majuscule:
You have specific *rules* for this sort of thing? So precise that it goes one way in one place and another in the other? Your Academy is insane!!!
*Some* French have a passion for language stylistics that is incomprehensible to the anglophone community. It is a far stronger influence in French poetry than in English where we tend to become obsessed with the requirement that poetry should mean something. French school teachers also have a passion for the "dictée" long after the need for spelling tests has run its course.
It's very interestingly to see how different cultures treat their languages. The French issued a law some 10 years ago that English words were forbidden and had to be translated.
Here in the Netherlands we have a new spelling rule every 30 years or so. Normally this makes the spelling rules more modern and efficient and more adapted to how people speak, but the last ruling was going back to the past. We tended to write c's that were spoken as a k to be written as a k and c's that were spoken as an s to be written as an s. I applauded that change. It would make it easier for children and the lower classes to spell. But our minister of education and his colleague in Belgium decided otherwise.
The English-speaking countries never change their official spelling. That also has it's charmes, because you can still (almost) read Shakespeare as if it were in a modern language.
Ah, and again about us Dutch: We care so little about our own culture and language that modern media of expression like commercials are full of English words and even sentences. My mother (of age 73) doesn't understand commercials anymore and therefore doesn't watch them anymore. It's not only a matter of language buit also of culture. Most commercials try to appeal to young people that know a lot about the present (last decades) culture.
Greetings, Jaap
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
The English-speaking countries never change their official spelling. That also has it's charmes, because you can still (almost) read Shakespeare as if it were in a modern language.
Stated a bit more accurately, at least as pertains to the United States (I don't know about others), there is no such thing as "official" spelling. Anyone can spell anything any way that they like. Multiple reference dictionaries are published, with varying opinions.
British spelling and American spelling differ to a degree, but there's nothing other than convention stopping Americans from spelling words in the British way.
To Americans, the French way is a mystery.
Ah, and again about us Dutch: We care so little about our own culture and language that modern media of expression like commercials are full of English words and even sentences. My mother (of age 73) doesn't understand commercials anymore and therefore doesn't watch them anymore. It's not only a matter of language buit also of culture. Most commercials try to appeal to young people that know a lot about the present (last decades) culture.
English is rapidly assimilating many Japanese words, and vice-versa.
--Jimbo
British spelling and American spelling differ to a degree, but there's nothing other than convention stopping Americans from spelling words in the British way.
uh, are they some australians around ?
To Americans, the French way is a mystery.
The reverse is just as true. This is just perfect, for it would not be fun otherwise. As long as one recognise differences exist... and have to be someow taken into account within the encyclopedia frameset... ;-)
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote in part:
It's very interestingly to see how different cultures treat their languages. The French issued a law some 10 years ago that English words were forbidden and had to be translated.
And in the US at least, the idea that this is a matter for the *law* just seems patently ludicrous.
I applauded that change. It would make it easier for children and the lower classes to spell. But our minister of education and his colleague in Belgium decided otherwise.
Perhaps they didn't share your prejudice that the lower classes are composed of stupid people. IME, members of the lower classes are capable of learning how to spell in school.
The English-speaking countries never change their official spelling. That also has it's charmes, because you can still (almost) read Shakespeare as if it were in a modern language.
That's because the English speaking countries have no *official* spelling. There is no Ministry of Orthography in their governments, and thus no government ability to mandate spelling reform. When language changes, it does so because of popular consensus, often with the pressure of various dictionary publishers (such as Noah Webster, responsible for most of the variation between US English spelling and the spelling of the rest of the world). That said, spelling *does* change with time, which is why modern editions of Shakespeare modernise the spelling. He did not spell things the same as today, nor even self consistently.
-- Toby
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
It's very interestingly to see how different cultures treat their languages. The French issued a law some 10 years ago that English words were forbidden and had to be translated.
Even with such a law France is more tolerant of anglicisms than Québec. This is to Québec's credit.
My mother (of age 73) doesn't understand commercials anymore and therefore doesn't watch them anymore. It's not only a matter of language buit also of culture. Most commercials try to appeal to young people that know a lot about the present (last decades) culture.
The people who write commercials aren't concerned about 73 year old women in any country. Many of them have experienced hard times and that has taught them to control their own spending.
Young people often have more money than brains, and advertisers want to make sure things stay that way.
Ec.
Matt M. wrote:
May I suggest Coluche or Desproges ? I supposed these are not known by canadians ? I don't see why french langage would be represented by a French man. By the way, we write "français" for the language and "Français" for the french man. These two words are absolutely not interchangeable. That's both grammar flaw and countrycentrism.
Ça me semble que dans une liste on devrait mettre une majuscule comme ça:
- Anglais
- Français
- Espagnol
- Latin
- Espéranto
n'est-ce pas? Mais de toute façon, in English we try not to say "the Frenchman" if referring to an indefinite person; that's sexist. We say "a French person." But I don't think you were trying to be sexist - all this to say that we should cut each other a little slack when dealing with languages not their own.
Canadian or even more generally English usage on capitalization is often a matter of individual choice, and I can remember when, at least for adjectives, a distinction like the one Anthère makes was taught in schools. But the situation is so muddled that writing guides simply ask writers to be consistent within their own works.. Translating "Français" as "french man" is acceptable, but I would prefer "French man" with a capital letter.
Sexism doesn't enter into this at all. "Frenchman" in one word that does have associated difficulties, but attitudes are by no means unanimous on this. The movement for non-sexist language does see it as sexist, but others of us would see the "a French person" as bringing unnecessary awkwardness to the language. Those afflicted with political correctness often draw the false conclusion that those who do not follow their solutions for non-sexist must be speaking in a sexist way. I certainly do not consider the word "frenchman" to be sexist.
The "-man" suffix used in conjunction with a nationality is often seen as somehow a racial slur. In Canada their has been a movement in the Chinese ethnic community to rename all geographical places with "Chinaman" in their names.
Eclecticology
Canadian or even more generally English usage on capitalization is often a matter of individual choice, and I can remember when, at least for adjectives, a distinction like the one Anthère makes was taught in schools. But the situation is so muddled that writing guides simply ask writers to be consistent within their own works.. Translating "Français" as "french man" is acceptable, but I would prefer "French man" with a capital letter.
I have never before seen "french" regarded as correct when it actually refers to France as in "french man" (as opposed to in "french fry" or "french kiss"). IME, this could only be "French man" (or "Frenchman").
Sexism doesn't enter into this at all. "Frenchman" in one word that does have associated difficulties, but attitudes are by no means unanimous on this. The movement for non-sexist language does see it as sexist, but others of us would see the "a French person" as bringing unnecessary awkwardness to the language. Those afflicted with political correctness often draw the false conclusion that those who do not follow their solutions for non-sexist must be speaking in a sexist way. I certainly do not consider the word "frenchman" to be sexist.
While I agree with most of this paragraph as far as it goes, I don't see how you can conclude the first sentence from the rest of it. Clearly sexism *does* enter into the issue; the question is whether possibly unfounded worries about it outweigh other relevant matters.
But if you just mean <Sexism does not enter into my decision to use the word "Frenchman" to refer to a generic French person.>, then that's fine, I take your word for it. But sexism (to be precise, opposition to it) enters into *my* decision to use the phrase "French person" in preference. Heck, I even say "French person" when I know the person to be male, unless I wish to point out the person's maleness, which IMO is usually irrelevant to anything that I want to talk about.
The "-man" suffix used in conjunction with a nationality is often seen as somehow a racial slur. In Canada their has been a movement in the Chinese ethnic community to rename all geographical places with "Chinaman" in their names.
"Chinaman" *has* been used as a racial slur, at least here in California, although I don't know how it managed to evolve into one. But I don't recally ever seeing any *other* "-man" term used as a racial slur.
-- Toby
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org