Welcome to the language section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/L

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

April 16

Jules Verne's French

I've always wanted to learn French (and Italian, and Latin, and Czech, and maybe Russian). I've recently started a somewhat more concerted effort than previously. Some of the authors I'm interested in are Jules Verne (for his early science fiction precursors) and Alexandre Dumas (for the Three Musketeers). I can get many of these books via Project Gutenberg. But I wonder: these books are about one and a half centuries old. How much does the language differ from current French? I don't mind some anachronisms (I enjoy them in German and English, but then I'm reasonably comfortable with these languages), but I don't want to appear like a person from another century when I pick up too much outdated language... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably as much as current English does from English novels of the 1870s (which, of course, are extensively studied by native English speakers, to their undoubted linguistic improvement). IMHO (pending disagreement from experts) they would make acceptable foundations for someone to learn the written language, but one would obviously seem dated, though understandable, if one's spoken language was based on them. Would this necessarily be a bad thing?

A word of caution if you plan to use English translations as parallel texts to aid your learning. Many of Verne's works were extensively pirated and first appeared in English badly translated with extensive cuts and alterations. Try to use good editions, such as those translated and/or edited by I. O. Evans. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.219.35.136 (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I was aware of that. I do have German translations of most of Verne's books, and they are usually ok (unless you get one that was specifically neutered for a very young audience). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are considerable differences between "standard French" as it is spoken and the literary register of French. While there would be the occasional anachronism (mostly idioms but also words that have fallen in disuse), I think that the main risk is more one of sounding bookish than dated. For example, the passé simple is almost absent from spoken French but common in written French, even in contemporary children's books. For another example, in speech the part ne in such forms as ne ... pas, obligatory in writing, is often omitted, as heard in Céline Dion's song "Je sais pas", not only in its chorus but also in ça m'effraie pas and j'suis pas victime – in which the contraction j'suis < je suis is also virtually absent from written text. But unless you're seeking street cred – in which case you have to learn yet another, rather different register – you might actually be complimented for speaking "proper" French. --Lambiam 09:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the role of the Académie Française to bear in mind. This lot try and preserve the integrity of the French language, and have been at it since 1635. As a result French has changed less over time than other languages have, so the differences between 19th century writing and current French will be less marked than in the case of English writing. --Viennese Waltz 10:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find that very doubtful. Such Academies are mainly useful for coining new words for new technologies etc. and/or restricting the flow of words borrowed from other languages for the same purpose. I doubt that they would generally have much stabilizing effect except on the formal literary written language. One of the most striking examples of relative language stabilization of a living language, Icelandic (EXCEPT Icelandic pronunciation, which was hardly stabilized at all), was achieved without an Academy... AnonMoos (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the comments - that is helpful. My main goals are a) getting by when travelling, b) being able to read French texts in the original, and c) understand French movies in the original. Three or four years ago I was invited to an interdisciplinary event, and my ego was badly bruised when I noticed that one of the philosophers there at least spoke Finnish, Swedish, Englisch, German, French and Italian fluently (ok, I deduced the Finnish - he was a Finnish citizen from the Swedish minority). I suspect he also could read Latin and ancient Greek, because why not? ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely a difference between speaking and writing English. I had some German colleagues who had clearly learned written English by training but spoken English by ear. Their spoken English was excellent, but their written English I considered to be often kind of stilted. If someone spoke English the way my colleagues wrote it, it would come across poorly. I expect that situation could be true for any second language. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tip for improving French as she is spoke is to watch French films with the French subtitles turned on. You can pick up all kinds of phrases and idioms and (hopefully) when to use them. Alansplodge (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that, but I've had a very hard time finding French movies with French subtitles. They usually come with subtitles in any other language, but not French... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's curious - do they have no deaf people? I used to have a subscription to TV5Monde which showed a lot of classic French films and had French subtitles available. Alansplodge (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that's not the market for movies I like. But you gave me an idea - there are plenty of movies in the Arte mediathek, and some of them have French subtitles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have closed captioning? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reminiscent of George Borrow, the 19th century linguist, who taught himself literary Welsh (analogous to the English used in the King James Bible) before embarking on a walking tour of rural Wales, much to the astonishment of the locals. Alansplodge (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idries Shah had a story about an Arabic scholar berating some poor railway official at great length over some inefficiency or other, calling down a variety of curses and comparing the official to any number of unclean beasts, only to get the reply in admiring tones "Such beautiful Arabic Effendi, I didn't understand a word of it". DuncanHill (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see the official wasn't effended. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

April 21

"In the United States shunning high culture and studying popular culture is not a politically radical or resistant gesture so much as a rendering academic of mass culture." Jonathan Culler, Literary theory, A very short introduction. What does "a rendering academic of mass culture" mean? Ridding academic of mass culture? --2405:201:F00A:2070:E9D6:C5BE:6475:E3B5 (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means making mass culture academic. Not a very well written sentence, in my opinion. --Viennese Waltz 06:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the phrase "rendering academic", the sense of "academic" is normally sense 3 or 4 here. But Wikipedia thinks that "mass culture" is another name for popular culture. Consequently the sentence makes no sense to me. Studying popular culture makes it impractical or irrelevant? If it had said "a rendering academic of high culture", that would make sense. --184.147.181.129 (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]