But of course that is what the real Frenchı (whoever tthey are???) would
say...I was using irony and some wit of course but I guess it didnıt
catch...I guess Iıve been watching too many reruns of Black Adder...
Montois...drinking more red wine to acquire more wit...
On 11/3/08 8:12 PM, "Stewart Wilson" <stewart@stewartwilson.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto:Cinefrog%40comcast.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
>> > (Stanford)...etc...etc...
>> >
>> > Steve Novak
>> > Cinefrog@comcast.net <mailto:Cinefrog%40comcast.net>
>> >
>> >
>> > On 11/2/08 12:43 PM, "Kevin Burton Smith" <kvnsmith@sbcglobal.net
>> <mailto:kvnsmith%40sbcglobal.net> > 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
Steve Novak
Cinefrog@comcast.net
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03 Nov 2008 EST