On Dec 28, 8:00 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > On Dec 27, 8:20 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote: > > <snip> > > >> However, that is one of the reasons English was used to describe > >> science and technical specs instead of another Western Civ > >> language. There are no government rules that prevent creation > >> of new words in countries where some form of English is spoken. > > > Not in France, not in Israel, not anywhere else that there's an > > Academy of Language do "government rules prevent creation of new > > words." New words continue to come into languages as they are needed, > > whether or not they get into some official wordlist somewhere, and > > there's nothing a "government" can do about it. > > The purpose of the law which required JMF's presentation to > be translated was to keep the language pure. All it did was
"The purpose of the law" can be determined from what in the US is called the "legislative history" and its interpretation in the courts.
"The purpose of the law" is not invented by someone with paranoiac notions of "language purity."
> prevent training and, thus, production. If the government > wants to purge non-French words from the country, let them. > But insisting that those public meetings be conducted in > French is nonsense. The seminar should have been scheduled > for 6 hours instead of 1 so the time needed for translation > could be done. The content of the seminar was technical > and most of the words used would have been English anyway. > > /BAH > > /BAH
Or ... the speaker could actually have had the courtesy to have their speech translated into French (if they couldn't handle the language themself).
Is "CIV" going to turn up in your little narratives one of these days?