Reflections on the French Language, pt. I

it has been far too long since I have posted, and i have been musing on some of the things i have been discovering about the french language. Many of these things i thought might be of interest to you too, Mark; as well as for the people who might once have gandered into 213 (which seems like oh so long ago now!) so, here is pt 1 of what might be several posts. consider it a 'report from the field' for the national geographic society in our hearts. :)

Oh, the presuppostion to these reflections is the idea that language shapes thought. that we cannot think far outside of the language we have been given, and that the way we call things shapes the way we see them / the way they are.

so, some early observations:

1) The french have no word for 'home'! no joke! you just say "chez moi" which means 'by me' or "maison" which is 'house'. No home! it also places it on the spectrum. in english we have 'home' and all the denotations therein ('no place like home', 'home is where the heart is', etc), but apparantly in german and dutch they have this word Gemutlichkeit (sp?) which means something even more than the english 'hominess'. anyway.

2) there is no verb in parlance for 'to need'. rather, one "has a need" ('as bousoin'). Interesting, the idea of the temporariness of need, rather than it being a state of existence.

3) the possesive changes based on the gender of the object. if the object is masc. it is 'Mon X', if it is fem, 'Ma X', or plural, 'Mes X'. whereas in english, without genders, but with plurals, we always just say "my". So in french, the object apprehended augments the way the subject is said. I wonder if this might lead to a greater understanding of the inter-relation between subject and object. then again, Descartes was a frenchmen, so maybe not.

that's it for now.

a bientot, mon ami!