But Steve _you_ called it 'bastard French' ... if purity is moot,
what else did you mean?
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Steve Novak <Cinefrog@comcast.net> wrote:
> The notion of 'purity' when speaking about a language, any language (spoken,
> written...) is no only moot nowadays, but positively inscribed in a cultural
> and political context...
> We have had this discussion before on rara-avis and I would only refer
> anybody interested to the writings of Bill Labov, 'father' of
> sociolinguistics, U of Penn, or any other sociolinguist such as Penny Eckert
> Steve Novak
> On 11/2/08 12:43 PM, "Kevin Burton Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Actually, since Quebec was conquered by the British before the French
>> revolution (which allegedly "democratized" the language) there's an
>> argument that the French in Canada is actually "purer" than that
>> spoken in France.
-- Stewart Wilson Toronto, ON
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03 Nov 2008 EST