Jump to content

Talk:Francization/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quebec

[edit]

I have commented out a section about anglicisms in Quebec French. It is clear that there are more anglicisms in informal Quebec French than in informal Continental French. In formal Quebec French, it is true that greater efforts are made to avoid anglicisms, although their pervasiveness in the everyday language makes this difficult, and many anglicisms find their way into writing, especially ones based on attributing an originally English meaning to a word that is French in form. Examples are éventuellement, présentement, graduellement, etc. The text I removed was an oversimplification of a complicated situation. If the exact quote from the reference supporting this is given, then I admit the burden will be on me to find a source contradicting it. Also, I would question whether this is the appropriate place to talk about French courses in the US. Joeldl 09:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there are no sources which state that colloquial French has more anglicisms than Metropolitan French. Maybe it used to. I could be wrong. If you go to some parts of Quebec, one even finds "hambourgeois" and "chiens-chaud," for instance. You're right, however, about the situation being rather complicated. The line about French courses in the US was added to illustrate how Quebec French is viewed abroad (and in the rest of Canada.) It is a fact that it is often denigrated and put down (which the article in question deals with) because of the perception that it is not "real" French, which was one of the founding purposes of the Quebec Office, to counter this discriminatory view. Laval 23:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an explicit response to Salien's article (which was the source for the statement about the rarity of anglicisms) by Auger and Valdman, who write the following in Julie Auger, Albert Valdman (1999), "Letting French Students Hear the Diverse Voices of Francophony", The Modern Language Journal 83 (3), 403–412.
  • "Salien also corrected the impression too often expressed in alarmist reports that the number of English borrowings in Québec French is enormous (but he went too far in our opinion, when he concluded that the number of anglicisms in québécois would be "extremely limited": anglicisms may not be the single most important ingredient of Québec French, but they are an ingredient nonetheless)."
My view, and I can't at this point single out a particular reference, is that anglicisms have been numerous in Quebec French since the Conquest, and they have been criticized at least since the 1840s (with Thomas Maguire's Manuel des difficultés les plus communes de la langue française (1841)). They have always been a major part of colloquial French in Quebec, and people have always sought to avoid them in writing because of their stigmatization. Anglicisms have become less common in writing in part because of the OLF's terminological work. In informal language, I doubt the OLF has ever had anything to say on whether people used words like canceller "cancel" or foqué "finished, done for, fucked". People have always been perfectly aware that these were anglicisms. Perhaps greater education has simply increased the stigmatization of nonstandard forms. Joeldl 06:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you watch Starbuck and say Intouchables you can see that English is used more in Quebec than France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.207.188.112 (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A problem I’m seeing with the Quebec section is that it’s too political and personally biased. In places, it looks like things have been thrown in by residents of Quebec as some kind of grassroots propaganda effort. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 18:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with you there, the tone of the article, the manner in which facts are presented, the poor use of figures. The whole thing needs to be re-written in a less biased manner than French good English bad laws working. LOLZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.207.188.112 (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United States section

[edit]

I have removed a section about the United States because it was about enrollment in French foreign language courses being on the rise. The French department promoting the usefulness of the French language[1] hardly falls under "a process of cultural assimilation that gives a French character to a word, an ethnicity or a person" to me. But I wanted to leave a note in case someone feels there needs to be a US section. Thanks. Gonfalone (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong characterization of an edit as minor

[edit]

In my edit dated 22:16, 1st June 2012‎ I ticked the "minor edit" box. After reading the Help page, I realized I shouldn't have. I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pan Brerus (talk • contribs) 22:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Francization in New Brunswick

[edit]

It's not clear to me how Quebec policy has been an even greater success in francizing New Brunswick. Has New Brunswick become a refuge for Quebec francophones also wishing to escape their socially engineered state?

I general, the francization stats are presented in a biased manner since they take no account for the migratory effects of state linguistic policy.Pzzp (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, some of the assertions in the Quebec section here are in contradiction to the (much better written) article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_demographics_of_Quebec#cite_note-4 Pzzp (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Francization"? Seriously?

[edit]

What a bizarre page. Is the subject so Canadian that we should use its term (francize) in place of British francise or American frankify/frenchify? (I've actually never heard either imperial version, since it's too close a sound to "franchise" to use meaningfully in conversation.)  — LlywelynII 18:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with gallicisation? We don't want this page too Canadified, Britishized or Americanated. 216.8.169.45 (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with it is that "Frenchification" outstrips it by an order of magnitude, including in British English. There's always a case for WP:ENGVAR to just let the first editors set the tone, but WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAME is eventually going to out. — LlywelynII 12:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frenchification

[edit]

As shown by the ngrams above, it is not only not "less common" but is vastly more common than the other names being listed. Kindly do not restore the erroneous version without some extensive evidence to the contrary. — LlywelynII 12:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Francization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Francization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war with User:78.55.50.76

[edit]

The user keep changing the sentence that was the fruit of a consensus. It is not accurate to state that the region was historically German speaking, since, many Germanic/alemanic languages were initially spoken and are still spoken in the area. I tried to change it in many way (Germanic/alemanic) in order to reach a consensus, but he keeps reverting it to his initial edit. And finally attack me on my talk page saying that I'm an anti German person. I want to be clear by saying that the statement that he wants to change was here long before his intervention. And I just tried to keep it this way, I'm not the initiator of this war edit. I invited him many times to settle this issue on the talk page and he refused, preferring personal attacks on my talk page. I insist here by saying that the statement "historically German speaking" is not accurate since the standard German came in the region late and that most of the natives still now are speaking a Germanic dialect at home wich is different from the standard German. It is not correct to reduce the importance, the varieties and the cultural wealth of the different local dialects to the standard German. This German based IP contributor is new to wiki, and he is focused to add the word German, or a German translation of Alsatian names even in articles where a German translation is not relevant. This is not in the charter of Wikipedia to make personal attacks when we have a different on an article. He keeps saying that I should bring sources, eventhough and doesn't have any to sustain his affirmations --Gabriel HM (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that Alsace-Lorraine was Alemannic speaking is simply short-sighted as a look on a map of German dialects reveals, as there were also other varieties. Germanic is also not right, as there is no language like this but only a language family. That Alsatian is not considered to be German anymore is a post-war development but to deny this in a historic context is simply wrong. Even during French rule, German was taught (yes, standard German as Alsatian is not a written language) --78.55.50.76 (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please your are manipulating the facts by taking a specific time of history to make your point. "Historically" does not just comprises the recent history (18-19 century) the region was speaking a variety of languages for more than a millennium and it is wrong to reduce it to standard German. And still nowadays people are speaking local Germanic dialect and not German. My grand mother would have been offended if I would have told her that her Alsatian was in fact German. And it is not what it is stated in the charter of European regionals languages... This article is about francization and not an issue about the standard German vs Germanic dialects. If your motivations are as wrong as your sources about the history of the town of Saint Louis, where you are making a confusion between Saint Louis the French King and some German princes [2] there is a big issue. But at last your point confirms mine...And I don't see your motivation in your quote about "That Alsatian is not considered to be German anymore is a post-war development" are we discussing about francization or your focus is somewhere else this can be disturbing ....--Gabriel HM (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What German princes are you speaking about? Please can you be article-specific. You are always switching between topics. Well, we have to talk about a specific historic timeframe when adressing the issue of Francization - about the time since the French conquest (1648-1871 and again 1918 till today). The opinion of your grandmother was exactly what I meant when I wrote "post war development". Before WW2 this would never have been an issue. But we are speaking about the time before it. I do not understand why you are always mentioning "standard" German. German and also most other European languages have many local varieties, the Alsatian dialects are also among them. --78.55.50.76 (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please, take the time to read the articles and sources that I gave you. For the last time, read the article about Saint Louis. He was a French King. You are misleading yourself. And I remind you that this article is about francization, not about German nor German names. And the time frame used in your comment with the word French conquest (1648-1871 and again 1918 till today) is very disturbing. Are you considering that all this time from now is a French conquest??? Are we still under French conquest in Alsace, do we need to be "liberated" ??? And yes Alsatian is language, if you went there you would have saw road signs in French and Alsatian. So your assertion saying that it is not a written language is false and very negative. Now please let others users express their point of view. On the Strasbourg page, some already do not agree with you.--Gabriel HM (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should ask a dictionary what "conquest" means. Yes, Alsace was conquered. It is a fact. So what? Why should this be disturbing? - Again, I think you do not want to understand: When speaking about the past, you have to adress it different. And you are leading this into a completely different direction as my initial point was that Alemannic is not the only dialect spoken there. --78.55.50.76 (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with issues related to language minorities in Europe from my Basque perspective, and I may not have all the details of this discussion, but as far as I see it, "German" is accurate enough if accompanied by "regional variety" or "dialect". Just with regards to content, the IP may be right in that it is no different to any other German dialect in relation to standard German, but for its status out of the political boundaries of Germany. Hope this helps clarify something. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He refused all others changes, and kept reverting the edits to keep German. I tried Germanic languages which is a wide array, but he cancelled it too. I will add Iñaki, that all dialects are good, and can't be just put aside. The distinction is fragile, and each dialect is different. If catala was not as spoken as it is today, would you say that is is not a language on its own but just a variety of Spanish? For me there is a difference between Mülhausen in German and Mílhusa in Alsatian, Strasburg in German and Strossbüri in Alsatian. For local they don't say that they speak German but Alsatian. Anyway nowadays very few people speak Alsatian or German in Alsace, as far as I remember it is something like less than 5% of the population between 1 to 20 years old. If this person was fair, he would not have revert my edit with Germanic languages.--Gabriel HM (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To quote myself "Germanic is not a language but a language family". It is like saying in France they speak Romance. A bit vague, isn't it? Munich/München is called Minga in Bavarian. Cologne/Köln is called Kölle in Kölsch. The current situation of German in Alsace, Lorraine or where ever is completely irrelevant as it is about a historic context. The establishment of Alsatian as a language on its own is a post 1945 thing to push Francization. I personally would suggest to use the term "germanophone".--Hombart (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about the usage of "germanophone", too weird a word? I think there is a point to your comment, Gabriel, but I would say it is all related to how nation states have built during the late 19th and 20th century. I do believe that in Germany they speak different varieties with strong idiosyncrasies. There is always that scholar saying that goes, "what is a language? A dialect with an army" up for grabs.
In Italy, its vernaculars have been traditionally called "dialects", but some of them are full-blown languages. In Spain, when the state of autonomous communities was established ("coffee for everyone"), Valencian (basically Catalan with a stronger Castilian/Spanish influence) started to be fostered by Spanish-leaning parties as full-blown language, the same goes for Galician, linguistically a variety of Portuguese (or the other way round?), but thereafter developing into a detached institutional language (media, administration, education...) with a distinctive Spanish flavour... Sorry I elaborated so long. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice discussion, but what Gabriel HM tells us is partially wrong (if not nonsense). The people in Lorraine/Lothringen never spoke Alemanic idioms but mostly Lorraine Franconian. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... and about end of the week, I'll change it. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Francization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Francization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Francization/Archive_1&oldid=1093343306"