@ Dr Farmer: yes I visited www.lexfiles.com many times since you first mentioned it on this forum and I really enjoyed it. Concerning my previous post, I merely stated things as they have been tought in English lexicology for several decades. Not only in France, but anywhere else in Europe so far as I know. And to my knowledge US lexicology doesn't differ significantly. But I am well aware of the fact that lexicologists, philologists and grammarians see things very differently. And as a lexicologist, I'm afraid I tend to consider the other two categories as too prone to linguistic purism. Anyway, throwing a subject like this during a pannel-discussion where these conflicting positions are defended can prove exceedingly entertaining. Speaking of Latin, I remain rather skeptical about its actual propaedeutic values, especially when compared with those of Esperanto, for instance.

@ Absquatch: in spite of my indubitable Frenchiness, I don't think the Académie Française* does any good to the language. Well, it is helpful to record the state of the language at a given time (their famous neverending Dictionnaire), but as far as current usage is concerned, what they have to say about it often sounds rather disconnected with reality, and of little use from a linguistic viewpoint. Constructed languages like Esperanto definitely need an official standardizing organization. With so called natural languages the cure seems worse than the disease.
Yes, I cannot conceal it any longer, if I had to chose between prescriptive and descriptive linguistics, I would definitely choose descriptive. But, fortunately, linguistic reality being as it is, i.e., very complex, what actually works is a reasonable, middle position between these two extremes.
However, Absquatch , I if may indulge myself into some sheer prescriptivism today, just for the sake of it, please note that le trahison des clercs is improper. It should be la trahison, as trahison belongs to the feminine gender. :-)

* Note to the webmaster: congratulations Boyd, the diacritics made it!

Chipougne,

Our perspectives obviously differ, which is fine.

As for the French versus the American ways, no system is perfect, of course. If I had to choose, then I would prefer the French way, myself; there seem to be fewer pitfalls. Better a disconnection from reality (whatever that is), especially if that happens to be reality as defined by illiterates and vulgarians, than what we have in the U.S., today. (Yes, I recognize that the preceding statements are filled with personal value-judgments, for which I make no apologies).

For the rest, thank you for the correction. (Mon français est un peu "rouille´", malheureusement.) It merely confirms my view that everyone is a prescriptivist, when it suits his or her purpose. ;-)

By the way, you should have a look at the writings of Mark Halpern, sometime. He not only intellectually massacres every descriptivist who has the misfortune to cross his path, but he even questions whether linguistics deserves to be called a science. I think that his query has merit.

But then you went on to write, "hence the 12 years between my brother and I." Why should I bother with your cranky dismissal of a useful, long-current word whose rejection would leave an obvious gap, when you've screwed up a simple declension? Maybe matters of taste shouldn't be given as prescriptions.

calonlan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Small side note for all literary friends here -
> the word "homophobia" is a made-up word whose only
> function is pejorative, based on the common
> pejorative use of "homo" - however, it is of Greek
> prefix and root origin, and, after consulting with
> several of my brother Philologists and Logophiles,
> and students of Etymology, I must insist that this
> term, among the literate, be dropped - it's actual
> meaning is "fear of boredom" - ie - fear of things
> being the same all the time - a correct Greek
> term, if one really needs one, would have to be
> the awkward "arsenkoitsphobia" - the pathological
> fear of men emulating coitus - sorry guys - I just
> get almost as upset by this as the use of "impact"
> as verb - (shudder) - as to the behavior itself I
> am indifferent save in the ordination of
> practitioners to various positions in the Clergy -
> (double shudder)

Here is an interesting list of words ending in "philia", which would be analogous to what we are discussing, here. I've taken only a quick look at it, but, at a glance, most of the words appear to match Greek to Greek. If that consistency holds, then it would support Calonlan's point (though that won't matter a jot to the "mob rules" crowd).

By the way, here is a brief answer to Chipougne's query about CAS's feelings toward new coinages and such. CAS states in a letter to S. J. Sackett that "[A]s to coinages, I have really made few such, apart from proper names of personages, cities, countries, deities, etc., in realms lying 'east of the sun and west of the moon'." That statement gives us a tentative idea about CAS's attitude to indiscriminate neologisms, I think.

> Mon français est un peu "rouille´",
> malheureusement.)
I wouldn't worry about this too much if I were you: rusty or not, it is notoriously almost impossible for a non native to master correctly genders, if genders are not already present in your own native language. Back in the 1990's I knew an extremely skilled professor from New Zealand who had been living in France for almost 30 years. His French was better than mine under many respects, yet he admitted that he still wasn't at ease with this particularly arbitrary aspect of our language. As there is no logic behind it, there is no way you can really memorize it effectively or durably, unless by blindly parroting.

> By the way, you should have a look at the writings
> of Mark Halpern, sometime. He not only
> intellectually massacres every descriptivist who
> has the misfortune to cross his path, but he even
> questions whether linguistics deserves to be
> called a science. I think that his query has
> merit.
Hence the interesting distinction between hard and so called "soft" sciences. Thank your for the reference, I'll read it carefully. Even though "massacre" sounds like a poor approach to me. There is no way someone can be completely right of wrong in this field, especially if it is not science.

Absquatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By the way, here is a brief answer to Chipougne's
> query about CAS's feelings toward new coinages and
> such. CAS states in a letter to S. J. Sackett that
> "s to coinages, I have really made few such, apart
> from proper names of personages, cities,
> countries, deities, etc., in realms lying 'east of
> the sun and west of the moon'." That statement
> gives us a tentative idea about CAS's attitude to
> indiscriminate neologisms, I think.
Correct. Yet, ironically, what comes first to the mind of most readers, when invoking Smith, is onomastics. Notably his ability to coin evocative place names, etc.
I am, too, a strong opponent to "indiscriminate neologisms". However I should perhaps specify that, for me, this expression doesn't amount to mere redundancy. :-)

Chipougne,

Thanks for the encouragement, regarding genders. As you say, it's especially hard for one whose native language does not have gendered nouns. Of course, there are rules of thumb, such as that most French words ending in "-ion" are feminine, but it's still a hard slog--just as English spelling is very difficult for non-natives.

I was mostly joking about the "massacre" bit; I just want to indicate that Halpern has some strong rebuttals to aspects of prescriptivism. I think that you and I agree that a middle ground between descriptivism and prescriptivism is best; we likely just differ as to where we fall on the spectrum.

Correction, since I have missed the editing window: I was in a rush when posting the above. I meant to write, "strong rebuttals to aspects of descriptivism".