Sometimes, when I read a text, to better assess its interest, I imagine myself discussing with its author on a bench in the Luxembourg Gardens. This morning, I was sitting next to the author of the column in Le Monde entitled "Why it is urgent to update our spelling".[1] Here is an excerpt from our discussion.
— "We are forced to read and write in an 1878 spelling system" while other techniques have evolved. It's old-fashioned!
— Of course, we have to live with the times. And what do you make of the 1881 law on freedom of the press? Moreover, language is not a simple “technique” fully controlled by man. Language is the fruit of a faculty of man, language, which he uses to produce words. Thus, one can choose one’s words, one’s words… but one has little control over language.
And even on speech: the choice of words depends on your education, the vocabulary you know, your social level, or even your emotions. Let's say that sometimes, we get there: we prefer the use of one word rather than another, depending on whether we are facing a teacher, a friend, a recruiter, or an asshole.
Can we really choose the form of words? Who decided whether the plural of a word should be indicated by an "s", as in French, an "i" or an "e" as in Italian? Who decreed that in Polish the plural marker would depend on both the gender, but especially on the grammatical case: nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental, locative or vocative? No one in particular... No official authority. It is the community of speakers, all the people who speak a language, at a given time, who influence each other, adapt, sometimes invent... But no one with the authority of a judge imposes anything. It has been like this since man has had this faculty, that is, a few hundred millennia...
— Okay for the grammar, but the spelling of a word could perhaps be simplified?
— Yes, the famous water lily can become a water lily. It will always produce flowers… Besides, the 1990 law says nothing else: we can do it… But French speakers, as a whole, don’t want to…
Regularly, fundamentalist reformists want to impose changes on the language, and it always fails, and will always fail. The language belongs to no one: it is free as the air. It obeys no one: reformers, activists, politicians, extremists, let the language breathe by itself… even if we find people to write books like The Language is Ours.
— Maybe the teachers are responsible: they impose the old spelling of a word?
— Teachers have long spread the good word, but when it comes to spelling, their guard has been lowered for a long time, ever since they were told that poor writing is no longer due to ignorance, but to an illness, a language disorder. As you say: "you can be good at French (…) and bad at spelling. And that is increasingly the case today." Oral communication is the only thing that is true, why bother schoolchildren with writing?
— So, could we demand that the media, publishers, and digital companies provide us with texts in the new spelling?
— That's right! Whenever we talk about water lilies and onions in the news, we should choose the new spelling. We'll have to talk about it to Rustica, to Chasseur Français and to Cuisine Nouvelle. That's an essential and noble cause.
— You're joking, but there have already been plenty of spelling reforms in past centuries. Since the 19th century, nothing! We could change all that: the spelling of words, the agreement of the past participle, unnecessary accents, plural words ending in x...
— Yes, why not, but isn’t that already the case? Remember that the 1990 law leaves the speaker free to decide for himself? And when it’s not in the law, children choose for themselves, under the watchful eye of teachers. Over time, words are born and die. Each generation contributes to the evolution of words, their use and their meaning. You have no control over language, you can only observe uses. Didn’t the greatest linguists tell you? Why do you want to impose anything?
— Because it’s urgent! Because it’s insecure!
— Where does the urgency come from to impose what a law already allows? People who do not master spelling would live in insecurity. It is true that these days, between the terrorist alert raised to its highest level, and the fact of hesitating to write choux or chous, life is unbearable. Not to mention bedbugs, more on the agenda than lice.
— But it costs a lot socially and economically! It's easy to make fun of it. There are people who feel stigmatized because they don't master spelling, it's a social hindrance.
— That's right! And what would be the level below which a victim of spelling rules would no longer feel stigmatized? It's hard to say... The seven major rules revised by the 1990 law already provide a lot of flexibility to those who want it... If the victim in question asks for more, let them do so explicitly... I'm listening.
— Personally, we discussed it with my group. I think that inclusive writing would be a plus. As long as spelling is complex, as long as we have not simplified the spelling, liberalized the grammar, I know that we cannot apply inclusive writing easily, you see…
— Okay… I was also thinking, why did your friends who are so appalled sign such a column… You are quite right. Since we cannot impose a new writing, let’s start by enforcing the 1990 law which is in line with simplification, then let’s demand fewer rules to impose the Great Rule of Inclusive Writing. This will also save you from the parentheses in “atterré(e)s”, which are not pretty but reassure your naive academic allies. By the way, how do you pronounce “atterré.es”? Atterréheuesse?
— No, horrified.
— So, as the spelling must be simplified, I agree with you, I suggest writing atterrés.
— But then what happens to inclusivity? Don't you know that the defender (or defender, I don't remember) of rights published recommendations this year? For example, we must write spouse, because if the person is trans or simply non-binary, we must not discriminate against them. Isn't the bride/groom beautiful?
— Yes, yes, certainly. But since you propose to remove these x's, wife should suffice. Let's update Gainsbourg's song together: "Élisa, Élisa, cherche-moi des pous!"
— Yes, it is to remain inclusive that I speak of urgency and insecurity. I had to start introducing the victim theme, but slowly…
—And our great linguists said nothing? They didn't see that Le Monde also included a hyperlink to another article on inclusive writing?
— They didn't see a thing, they are a million miles away from these strategies... As soon as we have set up an international committee, preferably approved and financed by the European community and the international organization of the Francophonie, the question will be decided beyond the national: this will help to force conservative France and its retrograde, borderline fascist Academy to give in.
— Okay, I understand better when I say it like that…
— Yes, but I couldn't say it like that right away. I understood that you have to be progressive and patient, bet on several generations...
— You scare me: it reminds me of the strategy of certain extremist groups.
— Yes, you know, at the extreme of left-wing progress, we are at the forefront, and we draw inspiration from communities.
— One last question: do you know that your 1990 law, which simplifies the spelling of compound nouns, is not perfect? It states that "prie-Dieu" is invariable in the plural. We still can't write "prie-Dieux", even if we are polytheists, isn't that crazy?
— No, precisely, it avoids offending fundamentalist communities… and we will ensure that this does not change.
