French isn't just any language. And a language isn't just any old thing. And yet, if the linguists themselves are to be believed, it is. I've just come from an academic conference entitled \u00abLes Rectifications orthographiques du fran\u00e7ais\u00bb. Before we can talk about rectifications, shouldn't the reforms in question at least be right, and therefore justified?<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
And therein lies the problem: the new spelling initiated by a few individuals in the 1990s and recognized in 2016 by the French Ministry of Education is presented to us as a normal and useful evolution. Abandoning structures deemed \u00abarchaic\u00bb and simplifying \u00abetymological\u00bb rules would be part of the idea that \u00abevery language evolves\u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Of course it's normal and good for every language to evolve, but not every evolution of language is normal and good. In every field, every change needs to be weighed up, thought through and, above all, motivated. If every change is good as long as it transgresses the past, then fine, in that case let's write anything. Let's do away with the good old letter \u00abb\u00bb, for example.<\/p>\n\n\n\n