French President Emmanuel Macron looked to cement his legacy, and take on political opponents, with the inauguration on Monday of a monument to the French language deep in far-right heartland.
Macron used the occasion to wade into a culture war debate, backing a right-wing bill to ban the use of "inclusive language" -- a popular trend for using both masculine and feminine versions of words when writing.
France must "not give in to fashionable trends," he said as he inaugurated the Cite Internationale de la Langue Francaise just hours before the Senate was due to debate the proposed law.
Modern French presidents love a cultural "grand projet" -- an imposing monument to "scratch" their name on history, as ex-leader Francois Mitterrand put it in the 1980s.
Mitterrand was an avid and controversial legacy-builder, transforming the Louvre museum with a glass pyramid, and erecting the vast Opera Bastille and National Library.
Georges Pompidou built a famous modern art museum in Paris, and Jacques Chirac created the Quai Branly global culture museum on the banks of the Seine.
The practice fell out of fashion this century, but has been revived by Macron, who was already eyeing up a crumbling chateau in the small town of Villers-Cotterets while still a presidential candidate in 2017.
He has overseen the renovation of the Renaissance castle, completed in 1539 under King Francois I, and its transformation into an international centre for the French language.
It hopes to attract 200,000 visitors a year to its large library (replete with AI-supported suggestion engine), interactive exhibits and cultural events.
Perhaps fittingly, the website seems determinedly uninterested in the quality of its English translations, describing the castle as a "high place of the French history and architecture".
That's still causing the issue of "man as the default," now it's just "we consider women men too." The more logical way would be to use language akin to "firefighter," "officer," or "pig," all naturally neutral words.
Yeah, well, “they” was exclusively a plural pronoun in English until some people started using it in the singular as a gender-neutral pronoun, and everyone eventually got over it. Well, most everyone.
Languages evolve. I realize this example isn’t as complicated as what is required for using gender-inclusive language in a romance language, but my point remains valid.
This is not true, as Latin itself carries a neuter form for nouns. Sure, you'd have to gender of the noun, but it has existed for literally 2000 years.
Well if one of the forms is going to become the neutral, how about making the feminine form the default neutral instead, eh?
Sure we can. I'd posit the people who aren't happy with the quite reasonable compromise that naturally occurs are the problematic ones. Fireman is a gender neutral.
Really?
Why is it man is the default and not human? 'Man' exists in both 'man, woman, and human.' Why even assume the default is male when talking about a fireman? (aside from the fact firemen have historically been male)