“Mr Prime Minister, please allow me an introductory remark. When a Prime Minister looks at the state of the French language, which does not happen every day, he follows in his footsteps, volens nolens, in those of Richelieu.”
Thus begins the speech of the flamboyant Maurice Druon, secretary general of the Académie Française.
On June 19, 1990, he presented to the Superior Council of the French Language the fruit of long-term reflection, of
“diligent and truly intense work”
.
To discover
Crosswords, Sudoku, 7 Letters... Keep your mind alert with Le Figaro Games
“They are not aimed at disrupting the language, which would be unfortunate and completely counterproductive
,” he reassures.
This involves removing anomalies that previous reforms have not erased and rectifying persistent inconsistencies.
In 1740, he recalls, the spelling of one word in four had been changed.
No offense to purists, this is about eliminating difficulties without justification, explains the report.
Among them, the redoubling of the consonants of certain words like “lacemaker” or “interpeller”.
Redoubling of consonants
“A simple or extremely simplified language is a poor language. Ours, thank God, is rich, and constantly enriched; and its richness is reflected in its spelling
,” continues the academician.
However, there are complexities that can be done without.
But the pen quickly gets used to writing "water lily" or "onion", even though it would be more logical to prefer
"water lily"
or
"onion"
, and the automatisms are difficult to break... Thus, recalls Maurice Druon, he returns to government to take the necessary measures to bring these modifications into practice.
“After which, Mr Prime Minister, language being a living thing, we will have to start the work again, in thirty years, if not even before.
»
There is no point in correcting in theory, practice must follow… And
“lacemaker”
continues to be written with two
“l”
, even though the French Academy now recommends a more logical writing, without redoubling consonants.
Along with
“lacemaker”
, it is also the words
“interpeller”
,
“lunettetier”
and
“blackthorn”
whose spelling is called into question.
The inconsistency is easy to grasp.
When an
“e”
appears before a double consonant, it is pronounced
“é”
.
Let's take the pronunciation of
"lunette"
, or
"hazelnut"
.
In front of a simple consonant, we will say on the contrary
“lunette”
or
“hazel”
.
The examples are numerous:
“sloe”
and
“prunelier”
,
“camelle”
and
“camelier”
… There are a few exceptions to this rule.
How can we explain that
“lace maker”
keeps a double consonant even though the
“e”
is silent?
The 1990 reform takes into account the actual pronunciation of words.
And the Prime Minister at the time, Michel Rocard, was pleased that the report presents
“precise, limited, and respectful corrections to the history and nature of our language, in its past as in its future.
»
On December 6, they were registered in the Official Journal of the Republic.
But once again, it is usage that decides... Or the automatic corrector, which often does not take into account the Academy's recommendations.
And the French continue to write
“lace maker”
with two
“l”
, even though this redoubling would be illogical.