# Jew , Jewish



## bunnie

I can't find 2 different French translations for Jew and Jewish, in both cases it is "juif". So how can we translate the following:
"I was always taught never to say the word Jew; to say Jewish instead"?
If anyone has an idea...thanks a lot!


----------



## Outsider

Est-ce que vous voulez traduire cela de l'anglais au français ? C'est compliqué ! Une solution pourrait être de laisser le mot dans l'original, bien que ce ne soit past très élégant:

« On m'a toujours enseigné à ne jamais dire _Jew_, mais _Jewish_. »


----------



## Auryn

How about "On m'a toujours dit de ne pas dire 'un Juif' mais plutôt de dire que quelqu'un est juif"?


----------



## jann

... ne jamais dire "c'est un Juif", mais plutôt "il est juif" ???

en anglais, il s'agit d'éviter le substantif en préférant l'adjectif....

je ne sais pas trop...

Edit: Auryn, tu es plus rapide que moi!


----------



## Outsider

Ou peut-être utiliser un autre mot qui soit considéré plus poli que "juif"...


----------



## Auryn

jann said:


> ... ne jamais dire "c'est un Juif", mais plutôt "il est juif" ???
> 
> en anglais, il s'agit d'éviter le substantif en préférant l'adjectif....
> 
> je ne sais pas trop...
> 
> Edit: Auryn, tu es plus rapide que moi!



Mais je préfère ta traduction à la mienne


----------



## bunnie

Je pense que je ne peux pas laisser l'anglais, hélàs ce fut été plus simple!
Je pensais peut-être pouvoir dire quelque chose du genre "on m'a toujours dit de ne pas dire "un juif" mais de dire plutôt "un homme de religion juive"
Ce n'est qu'une proposition, pas vraiment convaincante je pense...


----------



## Auryn

Outsider said:


> Ou peut-être utiliser un autre mot qui soit considéré plus poli que "juif"...



Il y a des gens qui disent *Israélite*, mais je ne sais pas ce qu'en pensent les... euh... personnes de confession juive.

D'ailleurs, je ne vois pas pourquoi l'adjectif _juif_ serait impoli. Si l'on peut dire "il est catholique", "il est musulman", "il est zoroastrien", pourquoi pas "il est juif"? Il ne faut pas être trop politiquement correct.


----------



## Outsider

Une autre alternative est "hébreu"...


----------



## Cath.S.

Hébreu ne s'emploie plus guère que pour désigner la langue, pour se référer à l'histoire, ou alors, on l'emploie aussi en journalisme comme variante de l'État d'Israël, l'État hébreu.

"I was always taught never to say the word Jew; to say Jewish instead"?
=>
_On m'a toujours appris qu'il ne fallait pas dire_ un juif_, mais_ une personne de confession israélite 

C'est bien le genre de périphrase que les partisans du politiquement correct sont susceptibles d'employer.


----------



## bunnie

Excellent! You are great!


----------



## Texas Heat Wave

To say that someone is "a Jew" sounds pejorative, but what about "He's an Orthodox Jew" (or Conservative)?


----------



## mplsray

egueule said:


> Hébreu ne s'emploie plus guère que pour désigner la langue, pour se référer à l'histoire, ou alors, on l'emploie aussi en journalisme comme variante de l'État d'Israël, l'État hébreu.
> 
> "I was always taught never to say the word Jew; to say Jewish instead"?
> =>
> _On m'a toujours appris qu'il ne fallait pas dire_ un juif_, mais_ une personne de confession israélite
> 
> C'est bien le genre de périphrase que les partisans du politiquement correct sont susceptibles d'employer.


 

Ce n'est pas une question de politiquement correct, mais de simple politesse. Anciennement, ce n'était pas poli de dire _He's a Jew. _mais c'était poli de dire _He's Jewish. _De nos jours, je pense qu'il y a moins d'objection à la forme substantive.

Le problème avec "confession israélite", il me semble, est que cela fait référence seulement à la religion, pas à l'éthnicité. Mais et _Jew _et _Jewish _peut être employé pour une personne qui n'a aucune religion. Isaac Asimov, par exemple, se considérait _Jewish. _C'était son éthnicité, mais pas sa religion - il n'avait pas de religion.


----------



## Cath.S.

mplsray 
 said:
			
		

> ce n'était pas poli de dire _He's a Jew_


Pour quelle raison ?


----------



## AlejandroValencia

mplsray said:


> Ce n'est pas une question de politiquement correct, mais de simple politesse. Anciennement, ce n'était pas poli de dire _He's a Jew. _mais c'était poli de dire _He's Jewish. _De nos jours, je pense qu'il y a moins d'objection à la forme substantive.
> 
> Le problème avec "confession israélite", il me semble, est que cela fait référence seulement à la religion, pas à l'éthnicité. Mais et _Jew _et _Jewish _peut être employé pour une personne qui n'a aucune religion. Isaac Asimov, par exemple, se considérait _Jewish. _C'était son éthnicité, mais pas sa religion - il n'avait pas de religion.



Etant donne qu'il n'y a pas de distinction 'Jew' 'Jewish' en francais, je ne vois pas comment cette phrase peut avoir un sens traduite (directement) en francais...


----------



## mplsray

En répondant à mon message, dans lequel j'ai dit "ce n'était pas poli de dire _He's a Jew_"*egueule *m'a demandé :



egueule said:


> Pour quelle raison ?


 
Selon l'_American Heritage Book of English Usage_ […]

la prohibition contre le substantif _Jew_ était une réaction à l'emploi de _Jew_ comme adjectif au lieu de _Jewish_, comme dans l'exemple _Jew lawyer_, un emploi "both vulgar and highly offensive".


----------



## Nicomon

AlejandroValencia said:


> Etant donne qu'il n'y a pas de distinction 'Jew' 'Jewish' en francais, je ne vois pas comment cette phrase peut avoir un sens traduite en francais...


 
Je pense comme Alejandro.   Une adaptation serait peut-être possible?  
Quelque chose comme:  On m'a toujours appris qu'il ne fallait pas dire "un nègre", mais plutôt "un noir".

À condition bien sûr qu'il s'agisse d'une phrase par elle-même, et non d'un texte sur les personnes de nationalité/religion juive.


----------



## Cath.S.

mplsray said:


> En répondant à mon message, dans lequel j'ai dit "ce n'était pas poli de dire _He's a Jew_"*egueule *m'a demandé :
> 
> 
> 
> Selon l'_American Heritage Book of English Usage_ à
> 
> http://www.bartleby.com/68/68/3468.html
> 
> la prohibition contre le substantif _Jew_ était une réaction à l'emploi de _Jew_ comme adjectif au lieu de _Jewish_, comme dans l'exemple _Jew lawyer_, un emploi "both vulgar and highly offensive".


D'accord, merci pour ces précisions. Dans ce cas je propose :
_ On m'a toujours appris qu'il ne fallait pas dire_ un youpin_, mais_ un juif.

Youpin is both vulgar and offensive.

We can't really keep juif in the French version, it makes no real sense as juif is not an insult per se.


----------



## Nicomon

egueule said:


> D'accord, merci pour ces précisions. Dans ce cas je propose :
> _ On m'a toujours appris qu'il ne fallait pas dire_ un youpin_, mais_ un juif.
> 
> Youpin is both vulgar and offensive.
> 
> We can't really keep juif in the French version, it makes no real sense as juif is not an insult per se.


 
Je crois qu'egueule vient de trouver la solution parfaite... et j'ai appris un nouveau mot.


----------



## patgaret

so jew means youpin?? i thought it was pejorative many years ago, but now is it still pejorative to say jew? because youpin is very pejorative even today


----------



## Cath.S.

patgaret said:


> so jew means youpin?? i thought it was pejorative many years ago, but now is it still pejorative to say jew? because youpin is very pejorative even today


Je me suis basée sur les critères requis, vulgar and offensive.

J'aurais dû lire tout l'article de l'Amerrican Heritage Dictionary, en particulier ce passage :

Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of _Jew_ as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as _There are now several Jews on the council,_ which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like _Jewish people_ or _persons of Jewish background_ may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that _Jew_ has a negative connotation when used as a noun. 

Nous sommes bien dans le domaine du politiquement correct et non dans celui de la politesse - àmha - je rétracte donc ma seconde traduction.

Compte tenu des objections tout à fait fondées de Mplsray relatives au sens trop restrictif de _religion / confession israélite_, que j'avais tout d'abord proposé, je pense que la solution dAuryn, _*israélite*_, est la meilleure jusqu'à présent.


----------



## mplsray

patgaret said:


> so jew means youpin?? i thought it was pejorative many years ago, but now is it still pejorative to say jew? because youpin is very pejorative even today


 

Permettez-moi de citer de l'entrée _Jew_ dans l'_American Heritage Book of English Usage_ à

http://www.bartleby.com/64/pages/page200.html

"In a sentence such as _There are now several Jews on the council, _which is unobjectionable_,_ the substitution of a circumlocution like _Jewish people_ or _persons of Jewish background_ may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that _Jew_ has a negative connotation when used as a noun."

C'est-à-dire, dans un tel cas, on peut offenser en _ne pas_ employant le substantif.

Il n'y a aucune question que _Jew _comme adjectif est péjoratif. Mais cela n'est pas nécessairement vrai du substantif _Jew._

De telles choses sont compliquées. Par exemple, il n'y a pas de problème avec _There are now several blacks on the council. _Mais _He's a black. _me semble bizarre, quelque chose qu'un Américain ne dirait même pas, quelque chose qui semble être les paroles d'un Blanc Sud-africain raciste. 

Une autre complication : Il faut mettre un majuscule sur _Jew _(même quand on cite un usage offensif, comme _Jew lawyer_). Mais la question de l'emploi d'un majuscule avec les substantifs _Black/black _et _White/white_ en anglais est compliquée. Moi, je préfère d'écrire _black_ et _white _(en anglais, bien sûr--en français j'écrirais _Noir, Black_ et _Blanc_ ainsi). Pour la langue anglaise, lisez la discussion à

http://www.bartleby.com/64/C006/012.html


----------



## patgaret

ok i understood! thanks egeule and mplsray


----------



## watergirl

As mplsray's dictionary citations justly point out: the noun form "Jew" is NOT pejorative in and of itself -- but it HAS been abused.  The text-to-be-translated refers to this type of abuse.  Moreover, since it is not pejorative per se, I think it would be wrong to look for a French word with a racist/negative connotation. In my opinion, the only solution is to keep the English word, as Outsider suggested below, but add in a parenthetical explanation, along the lines of what auryn and jann have suggested (Jew=un juif; Jewish=il est juif)



Outsider said:


> :
> 
> « On m'a toujours enseigné à ne jamais dire _Jew_, mais _Jewish_. »


----------



## RuK

To Texas Heat Wave - "To say that someone is "a Jew" sounds pejorative, but what about "He's an Orthodox Jew" (or Conservative)?" - To say that someone is a Jew isn't pejorative, in English or in French. I would go with egeule's first suggestion, on m'a appris à ne pas dire juif, mais israelite. This is exactly what an old woman who was a neighbor of mine in Paris once told me - her parents always insisted she say "de confession israelite", which isn't an ethnicity (de confession) but a reference to a religion. 

The phrase "on m'a appris à ne pas dire youpin" would translate the English phrase "I was taught never to say kike", which isn't precisely what the author intended.


----------



## Cath.S.

Je ne trouve pas que garder les termes en anglais soit une bonne solution, l'essentiel étant en fait l'intention que l'on prête à celui qui emploie les termes. L'idée de la phrase est la suivante :
« on m'a appris à faire très attention à ne pas offenser les juifs par des appellations que l'on peut considérer comme insultantes. » 

C'est cela qu'il faut traduire, les mots eux-mêmes importent très peu. Le lecteur veut du sens, pas des mots.

En effet celui qui dit en toutes connaissance de cause _he is a Jew lawyer_ non seulement *sait* qu'il insulte, mais *désire *insulter, donc en fait ma deuxième proposition, tout bien réfléchi, n'était pas si mauvaise. 

On pourrait aussi proposer une traduction du genre : 

_On m'a toujours appris à faire très attention aux nuances de vocabulaire en parlant des juifs._


----------



## AlejandroValencia

egueule said:


> Je ne trouve pas que garder les termes en anglais soit une bonne solution, l'essentiel étant en fait l'intention que l'on prête à celui qui emploie les termes. L'idée de la phrase est la suivante :
> « on m'a appris à faire très attention à ne pas offenser les juifs par des appellations que l'on peut considérer comme insultantes. »
> 
> C'est cela qu'il faut traduire, les mots eux-mêmes importent très peu. Le lecteur veut du sens, pas des mots.
> 
> En effet celui qui dit en toutes connaissance de cause _he is a Jew lawyer_ non seulement *sait* qu'il insulte, mais *désire *insulter, donc en fait ma deuxième proposition, tout bien réfléchi, n'était pas si mauvaise.
> 
> On pourrait aussi proposer une traduction du genre :
> 
> _On m'a toujours appris à faire très attention aux nuances de vocabulaire en parlant des juifs._



yep, voila la solution ! La seule qui me semble 'traduire' correctement le message.


----------



## bunnie

I had thought of uisng the word "youpin" but I was afraid of being too pejorative...


----------



## AlejandroValencia

Well 'Jew' is "ambiguous". 'youpin' is certainly not ambiguous.

That is the problem. There isn't in French, as far as I know, a term such as 'Jew', so the solution suggested above is IMO the best way to get around the problem.

PS: I hope this is clear, I'm finding it really hard to write today, need some sleep


----------



## mplsray

egueule said:


> Je me suis basée sur les critères requis, vulgar and offensive.
> 
> J'aurais dû lire tout l'article de l'Amerrican Heritage Dictionary, en particulier ce passage :
> 
> Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of _Jew_ as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as _There are now several Jews on the council,_ which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like _Jewish people_ or _persons of Jewish background_ may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that _Jew_ has a negative connotation when used as a noun.
> 
> Nous sommes bien dans le domaine du politiquement correct et non dans celui de la politesse - àmha - je rétracte donc ma seconde traduction.
> 
> Compte tenu des objections tout à fait fondées de Mplsray relatives au sens trop restrictif de _religion / confession israélite_, que j'avais tout d'abord proposé, je pense que la solution dAuryn, _*israélite*_, est la meilleure jusqu'à présent.


 

Je viens de réfléchir sur ce sujet. 

Je suis sceptique de l'idée qu'il s'agit de politiquement correct, mais je ne veux pas discuter cette question-là. Néanmoins, _si la traduction dépend d'une choix entre politesse ou politiquement correct, il faut dans ce cas supposer que c'est une question de politesse._ 

Je dis cela parce que la plupart des gens qui diraient "I was always taught never to say the word Jew; to say Jewish instead" le diraient parce que leurs parents leurs ont élevaient ainsi. "I was *always *taught...."

On ne m'a rien dit directement aux sujet du mot _Jew_ quand j'était petit - quand-même, à l'époque je suivais l'usage que l'on employait dans la télévision et à la radio où l'on avait tendence de ne pas employer _Jew_ - mais on m'a dit de dire _Negro_ au lieu de _colored person_ - _Negro _étant l'emploi poli à l'époque.

Il y a vingt ans je travaillais avec une jeune dame de New York qui disait _Hebrew_ au lieu de et _Jew_ et _Jewish._ Je dois supposer qu'elle faisait cela parce qu'on l'a élevé avec l'idée que ce n'était pas poli d'employer ces deux mots-là. Ce n'était pas une question de politiquement correct mais de politesse. (Mais je dois dire, nous ses collègues du Middle West trouvaient cet usage assez étrange.)

Bon, encore une fois, si la traduction dépend d'une question de politesse ou de politiquement correct, dans un cas tel que celui décrit dans se fil, ce n'est pas juste de supposer qu'il s'agit de politiquement correct sans des preuves additionnelles - et fortes.


----------



## Cath.S.

La pratique du politiquement correct existait avant la lettre me semble-t-il et peut tout à fait se transmettre dans les familles.

« _Ne dites pas la racaille, Louis-Georges, dites les pauvres._ »

Quelle est la différence entre politiquement correct et politesse ? J'avoue que la frontière est souvent floue. Le premier est probablement plus hypocrite que le second, plus « bien-pensant » »et craint moins le ridicule.
Le politiquement correct est suceptible de conduire à des excès, et manifestement, éviter Jew comme nom aussi bien que comme adjectif est un excès qui ramène, ainsi ue le souligne parfaitement la note de l'American Heritage, à une sorte de discrimination.

De toute manière, il me semble que la dernière traduction que j'ai proposée, _On m'a toujours appris à faire très attention aux nuances de vocabulaire en parlant des juifs,_ nous évite d'avoir à faire ce genre de choix basé sur une interprétation probablement, bien qu'involontairement, abusive.

Il me semble également que nous avons omis jusqu'à présent un point essentiel : le contexte plus vaste , c'est-à-dire en l'occurrence la personnalité du locuteur que nous ne connaissons, sur ce forum, que par cette unique citation, doit permettre au traducteur d'opérer un choix juste.


----------



## roland098

egueule said:


> D'accord, merci pour ces précisions. Dans ce cas je propose :
> _ On m'a toujours appris qu'il ne fallait pas dire_ un youpin_, mais_ un juif.
> 
> Youpin is both vulgar and offensive.
> 
> We can't really keep juif in the French version, it makes no real sense as juif is not an insult per se.


 
But 'Jew' is not an insult per se either! It doesn;t correspond to some highly offensive term such as other well known racial insults. If it has sometimes been used in an offensive way, that depends on context and the attitude of the speaker. If said by a person who despises Jewish people, especially combined with another adjective or noun in a way that indicates dislike, then it gets a perjorative meaning by association, but the word itself is pretty neutral, I'd say.

It could perhaps be compared to the use of gay -- just because some people use gay as an insult, it does not mean the word itself is insulting. 

I agree that : he is Jewish sounds, for some reason, a bit more polite and more modern than: he is a Jew. Perhaps this is because it seems to place emphasis on the religion he follows rather than labelling him as a member of a race (that has historically been persucuted). Perhaps he is Jewish also seems to give an impression that this Jewishness is one part of his identity, whereas he is a Jew suggests it is _the_ defining thing about him? It's a bit odd though - we say things like -- he is a Christian or he is a native American.

But I don't think it's too horrendous? Are there no Jewish people here who can comment?


----------



## roland098

RuK said:


> To Texas Heat Wave - "To say that someone is "a Jew" sounds pejorative, but what about "He's an Orthodox Jew" (or Conservative)?" - To say that someone is a Jew isn't pejorative, in English or in French. I would go with egeule's first suggestion, on m'a appris à ne pas dire juif, mais israelite. .


 
I'm not sure about this, as that would translate back to English, literally, as : I was taught to say not Jew, but Israelite. Whereas Isrealite is strictly only used in English in the Biblical narratives.

I think keeping the English words is the best solution, or, in French one of the suggestions people have made that distinguish between Juif used as a noun and juif used as an adjective: e.g: on m'a appris à dire, non pas un Juif, mais une personne juive. 
Ou bien, on m'a appris qu'il fallait utiliser juif, l'adjectif, et ne pas dire un Juif?


----------



## marie-francoise

I am quite offended by use of racial slurs in this thread as I think they are unnecessary in trying to translate the word Jew!  The degree of offensiveness of the suggested translation far surpasses the scope of the original query, and as such, I find it insulting.


roland098 said:


> distinguish between Juif used as a noun and juif used as an adjective: e.g: on m'a appris à dire, non pas un Juif, mais une personne juive.
> Ou bien, on m'a appris qu'il fallait utiliser juif, l'adjectif, et ne pas dire un Juif?


Out of all the postings, this is the only one I can see that deals with the languge rather than the politics.  I can't see how there are any connotations, prejorative or other wise, to the original sentence "I was always...,to say Jewish instead." nor any need to go in search of other words to replace Jew to give it a more, or less, racist meaning.

It simply says what it says.  Jew or "Juif" is the noun and Jewish or "juif" is the adjective.  Since Judaism can refer to both a race AND a religion, both terms have their place (non-offensive) depending on the context.  Whether Jewish persons prefer to be called Jews (identifying their physical features of origin, such as Arabs, eastern Europeans, Indians, etc...) or whether they prefer Jewish as an adjective to their person (identifying their religion, such as Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc...) is a purely political question and should probably be left to the Jewish people, individually or as a whole.  In any case, in French the question is moot since the noun and the adjective are almost the same (apart from the use of capitalization).  I wholeheartedly agree with this translation by Roland098.


----------



## roland098

marie-francoise said:


> I wholeheartedly agree with this translation by Roland098.


 
Thank you.


----------



## AlejandroValencia

marie-francoise said:


> I am quite offended to find this thread full of extremely, and _*completely unnecessary*_, insults toward many groups of people!!!  As though it helps ANYBODY to put such words back into circulation!
> 
> Out of all the postings, this is the only one I can see that deals with the languge rather than the politics.  I can't see how there are any connotations, prejorative or other wise, to the original sentence "I was always...,to say Jewish instead." nor any need to go in search of other words to replace Jew to give it a more, or less, racist meaning.
> 
> It simply says what it says.  Jew or "Juif" is the noun and Jewish or "juif" is the adjective.  Since Judaism can refer to both a race AND a religion, both terms have their place (non-offensive) depending on the context.  Whether Jewish persons prefer to be called Jews (identifying their physical features of origin, such as Arabs, eastern Europeans, Indians, etc...) or whether they prefer Jewish as an adjective to their person (identifying their religion, such as Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc...) is a purely political question and should probably be left to the Jewish people, individually or as a whole.  In any case, in French the question is moot since the noun and the adjective are almost the same (apart from the use of capitalization).  I wholeheartedly agree with this translation by Roland098.


 

I'm sorry, I really don't know what you are talking about. I don't see any insults here. Any examples?


----------



## roland098

To clarify about usage again, IMO, a Jew always refers to race (technically that they have a mother who is a Jew, I believe) and Jewish can refer either to race or religion, although most people who follow the Jewish religion are also of Jewish race..


----------



## Outsider

marie-francoise said:


> I am quite offended to find this thread full of extremely, and _*completely unnecessary*_, insults toward many groups of people!!!  As though it helps ANYBODY to put such words back into circulation!
> 
> Out of all the postings, this is the only one I can see that deals with the languge rather than the politics.  I can't see how there are any connotations, prejorative or other wise, to the original sentence "I was always...,to say Jewish instead." nor any need to go in search of other words to replace Jew to give it a more, or less, racist meaning.
> 
> It simply says what it says.  Jew or "Juif" is the noun and Jewish or "juif" is the adjective.  Since Judaism can refer to both a race AND a religion, both terms have their place (non-offensive) depending on the context.  Whether Jewish persons prefer to be called Jews (identifying their physical features of origin, such as Arabs, eastern Europeans, Indians, etc...) or whether they prefer Jewish as an adjective to their person (identifying their religion, such as Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc...) is a purely political question and should probably be left to the Jewish people, individually or as a whole.  In any case, in French the question is moot since the noun and the adjective are almost the same (apart from the use of capitalization).  I wholeheartedly agree with this translation by Roland098.


I thought the problem with using "Jew" instead of "Jewish" in English was precisely that it sounded _offensive_...


----------



## bunnie

Well, it is what is written in my book.
I give you the whole sentence 
" I was always taught never to say a Jew; to say Jewish instead, to avoid the inflections of anti-Semitism"

Because I'm not an English native speaker, I can't say if it is pejorative to say a Jew.

From all the translations proposed I think the best one is "on m'a toujours appris à faire attention aux nuances de vocabulaire en parlant des juifs" 
Don't you think so?


----------



## roland098

Outsider said:


> I thought the problem with using "Jew" instead of "Jewish" in English was precisely that it sounded _offensive_...


 
Depends on the context and even so it would be rather mild. It seems a bit of a politically-correct thing to me. So it is not appropriate to translate Jew using a hihgly offensive term IMO. I expect the full context of the phrase, in the book it comes from, would be enough to clarify _why_ this person was taught to use the adjective, not the noun.


----------



## roland098

bunnie said:


> Well, it is what is written in my book.
> I give you the whole sentence
> " I was always taught never to say a Jew; to say Jewish instead, to avoid the inflections of anti-Semitism"
> 
> Because I'm not an English native speaker, I can't say if it is pejorative to say a Jew.
> 
> From all the translations proposed I think the best one is "on m'a toujours appris à faire attention aux nuances de vocabulaire en parlant des juifs"
> Don't you think so?


 
It gets the broad sense across fine, but doesn't explain exactly what she was taught. But I doubt it makes an enormous difference to the story/article or whatever it comes from.


----------



## roland098

bunnie said:


> Well, it is what is written in my book.
> I give you the whole sentence
> " I was always taught never to say a Jew; to say Jewish instead, to avoid the inflections of anti-Semitism"
> 
> Because I'm not an English native speaker, I can't say if it is pejorative to say a Jew.
> 
> From all the translations proposed I think the best one is "on m'a toujours appris à faire attention aux nuances de vocabulaire en parlant des juifs"
> Don't you think so?


 
Well then, this shows the reason for the character being taught to do that:  the 'on', whoever it refers to, for whatever reasons of their class, historical period etc, were worried that saying Jew had anti-semitic connotations, so they said you should use Jewish instead.

Perhaps -- On m'a toujours appris à ne jamais dire un Juif, mais à utiliser l'adjectif juif, pour éviter des connotations anti-sémitiques.


----------



## marie-francoise

mplsray said:


> Par exemple, il n'y a pas de problème avec _There are now several blacks on the council. _Mais _He's a black. _me semble bizarre, quelque chose qu'un Américain ne dirait même pas, quelque chose qui semble être les paroles d'un Blanc Sud-africain raciste.


 
Si, il y a un très grand problème avec _There are now several blacks on the council _(un Américain poli ne dirait pas ça non plus)_, _ce qui est exactement la même utilisation que_ He's a black._  Cet affreux, même si c'est toujours commun dans certains cercles.  Je connais beaucoup de personnes noires (l'adjectif, pas le nom) et ils m'ont toujours expliqués qu'ils préfèrent être identifiés par leurs lieux d'origine.  Par example: an Africain-Americain (utilisé partout en Amerique du Nord depuis au moin 15 ans).  Aussi: a Jamaican, a Haïtian, a North African, etc.  L'idée étant que si on n'est vraiment pas raciste, il n'y a plus besoin de différencier les gens par la couleur de leurs peaux.  J'admets que le débat est peut-être différent en Europe (je connais plûtot l'Amérque), mais si vous utilisé toujours "un Blanc" et "un Noir", c'est peut-être en raison de l'histoire de la colonisation.


----------



## marie-francoise

AlejandroValencia said:


> I'm sorry, I really don't know what you are talking about. I don't see any insults here. Any examples?


Perhaps FULL is an exageration (I was angry).


----------



## roland098

marie-francoise said:


> Si, il y a un très grand problème avec _There are now several blacks on the council _(un Américain poli ne dirait pas ça non plus)_,_.


 
It would sound odd, and a bit old-fashioned and out of touch with modern decorum, in England too. You would, in this case, definitely say 'there are several black people on the council', not several blacks. Perhaps it's because of the focus on colour. It is more polite and subtle to say 'a black person'than  'a black'. I don't think it compares precisely to Jew/Jewish. 
A black person is definitely the usual neutral term in England. I find the American usage of 'persons of colour' a bit PC.


----------



## Outsider

marie-francoise said:


> Start with posts #19, 20 & 21.


Please be more specific. There's a quote function in the forum -- use it.


----------



## roland098

I think Marie-Françoise just thought it was unnecessary, in view of the simple nature of the original phrase, to refer to various offensive racial insults in trying to translate it. I don't think anyone actually meant to cause offence.


----------



## marie-francoise

Outsider said:


> I thought the problem with using "Jew" instead of "Jewish" in English was precisely that it sounded _offensive_...


(So than why go out of the way to find EVEN MORE offensive terms?)

And no, the word _Jew_ is not offensive.  It is using the word _Jew_ AS AN ADJECTIVE that can be considered offensive.  For those people who cannot easily distinguish between nouns and adjectives, as they relate to people, it is in fact better not to use _Jew_ at all, but rather _Jewish_, to avoid making the mistake.


----------



## marie-francoise

roland098 said:


> I think Marie-Françoise just thought it was unnecessary, in view of the simple nature of the original phrase, to refer to various offensive racial insults in trying to translate it. I don't think anyone actually meant to cause offence.


Thank You.  We obviously understand each other quite well.


----------



## marie-francoise

Outsider said:


> Please be more specific. There's a quote function in the forum -- use it.


I am purposely NOT quoting in order to avoid repeating the offense, which is the unnecessary use of racial slurs.  (All the postings are numbered in the top right corner.)


----------



## Outsider

marie-francoise said:


> And no, the word _Jew_ is not offensive.  It is using the word _Jew_ AS AN ADJECTIVE that can be considered offensive.


In other words, it *is* offensive -- even *anti-semitic*, according to the text we're discussing --, in certain contexts.
Then what's wrong with looking for equivalently offensive translations in French?


----------



## roland098

Outsider said:


> In other words, it *is* offensive -- even *anti-semitic*, according to the text we're discussing --, in certain contexts.
> Then what's wrong with looking for equivalently offensive translations in French?


 
The meaning is ambiguous in the original phrase. It's not necessarily offensive to say : he is a Jew, as an equivalent of he is Jewish (although the people referred to in the phrase might think so if they are highly sensitive to causing any (imagined) racial offense). But if Jew is used, colloquially, as an adjective, as Marie-Françoise said, this would be in phrases that are deliberately offensive.


----------



## papillon

marie-francoise said:


> I can't see how there are any connotations, prejorative or other wise, to the original sentence "I was always...,to say Jewish instead." nor any need to go in search of other words to replace Jew to give it a more, or less, racist meaning.
> It simply says what it says.  Jew or "Juif" is the noun and Jewish or "juif" is the adjective.  Since Judaism can refer to both a race AND a religion, both terms have their place (non-offensive) depending on the context.


As Maries-Francoise pointed out, perhaps this discussion has indeed taken a few _unnecessary_ turns into the realm of racial slurs.
However, I would disagree with your assessment that the phrase in the original title doesn't require us to at least "try to find other words".
Why? I think the original phrase doesn't "simply say what is says". Although it's hard to say without more context, when someone told the child _not to say Jew_, they weren't just teaching this child proper grammar. Regardless of what _we_ think of the word Jew (I personally think it's fine), I feel that _in the mind of that speaker_, the word was carrying a negative pejorative connotation. Many in this forum expressed a similar perception. We needn't turn this into a referendum on what we personally think of the word Jew, but rather what did the speakers _intend to say? _Most likeley, they were trying to teach this child not to offend anyone. And we should keep this in mind when trying to translate this phrase. To do otherwise, would miss the whole point, since we ought to do our best to help find a translation which conveys _all the nuances_ of the original.

As it turned out in this case, the racial slur found in French did not fit the bill since it was _really_ overly offensive. However, this doesn't invalidate the effort, because this effort was made in good faith. This is a language forum, and we must be able to  discuss words without condoning the ideas behind them.

We had a similar issue in the Slavic forum recently, where the etymology of the Slavic word "zid" was discussed. The meaning ranges from the neutral _Jew_ in Polish to a highly offensive racial slur in Russian. These nuances had to be discussed, for how else would we learn?


----------



## roland098

> However, I would disagree with your assessment that the phrase in the original title doesn't require us to at least "try to find other words".
> Why? I think the original phrase doesn't "simply says what is says".


 
That's true, but in context, the underlying reasons for the words in the basic phrase are no doubt clear. They are, for example, already spelled out in the following words, which say that the reason the person was taught this was to avoid any anti-semitic connotations. So translating the words just as they are, seems reasonable IMO. But I agree there is no harm in exploring different possibilities, and certainly none intended.


----------



## Outsider

I'm not sure the English speakers here have realised yet that "Jew" and "Jewish" have one and the same translation into French, _juif_. This is why translating the words "as they are" does not work in this case.


----------



## marie-francoise

Outsider said:


> In other words, it *is* offensive -- even *anti-semitic*, according to the text we're discussing --, in certain contexts.
> Then what's wrong with looking for equivalently offensive translations in French?


Because that's not what was happening.

Firstly, the racial slurs being suggested were not *equally* offensive, they were considerably MORE offensive.  (They were not words that could be interpreted as offensive when used incorrectly.  They were offensive, period. Under any context.)

Secondly, they were not limited to translations of anti-semitic terms. (Unnamed) extrapolated and presented racial slurs for Arabs  and Africans as well.  (By the way: those have been removed now [Thanx.] So you might not have seen it, in which case this might not make sense to you.)

Thirdly, and most importantly, it was unnecessarily putting those racial slurs back into circulation.
The fact is that the French translation of the words _Jew_ and _Jewish_ is self-evident and not anti-semitic.  More than that, the phrase for which a translation was sought (the text we're discussing) was not IN ANY WAY offensive, or anti-semitic, under it's context.  It simply said that the two words Jew/Jewish are not interchangeable, and that the use of one is preferable over the other.
As has been repeated many, many times in this thread:  the word "Jew" is NOT offensive (and certainly not anti-semitic) in and of itself (as opposed to racial slurs), unless it is misused (as an adjective).


----------



## Nicomon

Outsider said:


> In other words, it *is* offensive -- even *anti-semitic*, according to the text we're discussing --, in certain contexts.
> Then what's wrong with looking for equivalently offensive translations in French?


 
This is how I understood it. And I certainly didn't mean to infuriate anyone by giving other examples. I only meant it in a translator's point of view, as I often do "adaptations", when an original sentence is hard to render in French... as clearly was the case here. I'm very sorry that people were offended by this (now eliminated) paragraph. It definitely wasn't the intention.


----------



## Outsider

marie-francoise said:


> Because that's not what was happening.
> 
> Firstly, the racial slurs being suggested were not *equally* offensive, they were considerably MORE offensive.  (They were not words that could be interpreted as offensive when used incorrectly.  They were offensive, period. Under any context.)


You have to remember that you have here native English speakers and native French speakers talking to each other. They speak different languages, and they may not be well acquainted with the connotations that words have in the other language.



marie-francoise said:


> Secondly, they were not limited to translations of anti-semitic terms. (Unnamed) extrapolated and presented racial slurs for Arabs  and Africans as well.  (By the way: those have been removed now [Thanx.] So you might not have seen it, in which case this might not make sense to you.)


I think I did see them, and I did not find them offensive, because they had been obviously presented to give examples and make comparisons.



marie-francoise said:


> Thirdly, and most importantly, it was unnecessarily putting those racial slurs back into circulation.
> (One person even says, with a smile, that he learned a new word - Bravo!).
> The fact is that the French translation of the words _Jew_ and _Jewish_ is self-evident and not anti-semitic.


Sorry, but if it were "self-evident" this thread would not be three pages long, and counting.  



marie-francoise said:


> More than that, the phrase for which a translation was sought (the text we're discussing) was not IN ANY WAY offensive, or anti-semitic, under it's context.


Neither was anything else written in this thread so far. You are overreacting.


----------



## marie-francoise

Outsider said:


> I'm not sure the English speakers here have realised yet that "Jew" and "Jewish" have one and the same translation into French, _juif_. This is why translating the words "as they are" does not work in this case.


Actually _juif_ and _Juif_ are two different words with two different meanings, and it does translate.  Although if it is spoken, you would have to explain "l'adjectif: juif" and "un Juif" because the words sound the same.


----------



## Nicomon

marie-francoise said:


> (One person even says, with a smile, that he learned a new word - Bravo!).
> .


 
I meant it in a vocabulary sense, as I love words. Meaning that if I ever came across it, I would know what it meant. Not that I would ever use it! Montreal is a very cosmopolitan city, and several of my work collegues (including the PDG) are from other nationalities. I'd like to make it clear to everyone that a racist, I'm not. Quite the contrary. So again Marie-Françoise, I'm really and truly sorry that you were so offended... and by the way in my case, it's she.


----------



## OlivierG

Marie-Françoise, 

Please let me invite you to consider it is a forum about _language_. We are here to learn new words. Offensive, racist, derogatory words are still _words_, and even if we won't use them in any of our everyday conversations, it's always good to know about them. Hiding them to a language learner, if he can read or hear them, doesn't make any sense.

I'm sure nobody here is neither doing any proselytism, nor trying to expose any racist thesis. 

Offensive words are among the most difficult to translate, because the translator has to know the degree of offensiveness for each word in both languages (which also depends on who say them, and in which context)

So, yes, maybe this discussion diverged from the original query. Yes, maybe some proposed words were more offensive than the original one.

But in such case, you just have to express your disagreement about the translation, and tell us that you consider that the offensiveness has been overtranslated, and propose a solution that fits best, in your opinion. 

Nobody has to justify himself, nor to explain he doesn't share the ideas of the sentence he's just _translating_. This thread is not intended to let people explain their personal feelings, but just to help everyone to understand the meaning that is conveyed by some terms.

But, as this thread seems to sharpen some rebuttal reactions, I'd ask everyone to stick carefully to the original topic from now.

Thanks !


----------



## Cath.S.

*Let me remind oversensitive people that I used the appropriate warrning icon in my post #19*. I certainly don't feel sorry for writing it, as I thought,as a translator*,* that is was a possibility that had to be explored. We are discussing language in these forums, not ideology.

By the way, I don't think I would have suggested that translation if we had known the end of the sentence from the start - Bunnie, I'm not telling you off here, just stating a fact.


----------



## marie-francoise

OlivierG said:


> I'm sure nobody here is neither doing any proselytism, nor trying to expose any racist thesis.


I apologize to anyone who felt labelled a racist:  I  did NOT think that people discussing racist words are racist themselves, and I certainly never intended to imply it.



OlivierG said:


> Offensive words are among the most difficult to translate, because the translator has to know the degree of offensiveness for each word in both languages (which also depends on who say them, and in which context)
> 
> So, yes, maybe this discussion diverged from the original query. Yes, maybe some proposed words were more offensive than the original one.
> 
> But in such case, you just have to express your disagreement about the translation, and tell us that you consider that the offensiveness has been overtranslated, and propose a solution that fits best, in your opinion.


I agree.  That's precisely what I thought I was doing.  (But I obviously offended others in the process. I also diverged from the original query.) Again, I apologize.



OlivierG said:


> Nobody has to justify himself, nor to explain he doesn't share the ideas of the sentence he's just _translating_. This thread is not intended to let people explain their personal feelings, but just to help everyone to understand the meaning that is conveyed by some terms.


Again, I agree.  I am not seeking any justification from anyone.   

I believe that if we are to use highly offensive words, I could "_help everyone to understand the meaning that is conveyed by some terms"_, as you say, by stating to what degree I find those terms offensive.  Is it not just as valid for one to express his/her opinion that certain words could be used,  as for one to express his/her opinion that certain terms should not be used?


----------



## JamesM

> Is it not just as valid for one to express his/her opinion that certain words could be used, as for one to express his/her opinion that certain terms should not be used?


 
I've read through this entire thread, curious as to why it kept popping up in the recent posts list. 

It makes perfect sense to express an opinion that certain terms should not be used. I also note that all the people expressing the particular word you found so offensive (youpin) made it very clear that the word was, and still is, very perjorative and considered it a poor match for the sentence.

Expressing an opinion about a word is very different than implying that people have some political or racist agenda for discussing the connotations of a word. You said:

""I am quite offended to find this thread full of extremely, and completely unnecessary, insults toward many groups of people!!! As though it helps ANYBODY to put such words back into circulation!... Out of all the postings, this is the only one I can see that deals with the languge rather than the politics. "

The last sentence states that all the other posts were not legitimate discussions of words or language but politically motivated in some way.

Since you are still asking whether or not it's appropriate to express an opinion about which words should not be used, it seems to me that you have not yet made the distinction between the word itself and the writers of the word. You did not attack the word. You attacked the writers of the word, as if it were a shameful act for them to have even mentioned the word.

Personally, I really value the strong reaction to a word on this forum from a native speaker. It lets me know that the word is emotionally charged and to be used with caution. When someone says, "I would not use this word around my mother, my wife, or my best friends" I get a clear picture of the impact the word has. So I fully support that kind of feedback.

On the other hand, I don't expect myself or anyone else here to be attacked personally for discussing the meaning and impact of a word. That is an entirely different thing.

I hope I've clearly expressed what I see as the difference between the two.


----------



## marie-francoise

JamesM said:


> I've read through this entire thread


 some changes have been made...



JamesM said:


> I am quite offended to find this thread full of extremely, and completely unnecessary, insults toward many groups of people!!! As though it helps ANYBODY to put such words back into circulation!...


I have had some private discussions during which this was brought to my attention.  I agree that I got carried away (in reaction to something that has since been removed.)  In any case, I do not wish to be censorious:  I have edited my posting to better reflect my opinion of the use of certain words, and to remove any implication of an attack on the writer. I hope that my previous reply to Oliver's post clarifies that, but once again, if anyone felt personnally attacked or censored by  my words, I sincerely apologize for such remarks.(I have removed them)



JamesM said:


> Out of all the postings, this is the only one I can see that deals with the languge rather than the politics. "



That's the way I saw things.  It's my opinion and I stand by it.
I should specify, though, that in this case I am referring to the _politics of the word_ "Jew", as opposed to political motivation, which is quite a different thing.  And it's also entirely possible that we have different definitions of the word politics, which I tend to use in a very broad form.



JamesM said:


> The last sentence states that all the other posts were not legitimate discussions of words or language but politically motivated in some way.


Asolutely not!   I state no such thing.  I don't see how it can even be inferred.  As a matter of fact, who is to say that a discussion of the politics of a word is in any way not legitimate?   Not me.  
(How can a politically-charged word like "Jew" be discussed/defined at all, if there is no discussion of the politics of the word?  I would not dream of such a thing!)
I was merely pointing out that it was the first post I had seen (in this thread) which was purely linguistic, and as such, did not deal with the politics of the word.  (Just because I can appreciate a purely linguistic translation doesn't mean I reject everything else.)


----------



## marie-francoise

Nicomon said:


> I meant it in a vocabulary sense, as I love words.  Meaning that if I ever came across it, I would know what it meant. Not that I would ever use it!  Montreal is a very cosmopolitan city, and several of my work collegues (including the PDG) are from other nationalities.  I'd like to make it clear to everyone that a racist, I'm not.  Quite the contrary.  So again Marie-Françoise, I'm really and truly sorry that you were so offended.



There is no need for you to be sorry.  I am the one who owes you an apology.
That remark was uncalled for and I truly regret having written it.  
(I don't, and didn't, think your comment was racist.  I just thought those words should be forgotten, not learned, but I can see now that my opinion in this regard had no place in this forum.)
 I have removed it from my post.  
Please accept my sincere apology: you did not deserve to be singled out like that.


----------



## JamesM

> Asolutely not! I state no such thing. I don't see how it can even be inferred.


 
Then I am content that you are unable to see it, and will be happy to leave it at that.


----------



## AGATHA2

Texas Heat Wave said:


> To say that someone is "a Jew" sounds pejorative, but what about "He's an Orthodox Jew" (or Conservative)?


 
But if he is not orthodoxe he would´nt be very pleased


----------



## Outsider

J'ai eu une autre idée:

« On m'a toujours appris de ne jamais dire "Il est un juif", mais plutôt "Il est une personne juive". »


----------



## mplsray

marie-francoise said:


> Si, il y a un très grand problème avec _There are now several blacks on the council _(un Américain poli ne dirait pas ça non plus)_, _ce qui est exactement la même utilisation que_ He's a black._


 

Ce n'est pas vrai qu'un Amêricain poli ne dirait pas _There are now several blacks on the council. _Je suis un Américain poli, et moi, je le dirais.

Ce n'est pas vrai que les deux emplois du sustantif que j'ai cités sont "exactement la même utilisation". _He's a black. _n'est pas idiomatique dans l'anglais des États-Unis. En effet, quand j'ai discuté cette phrase avec une amie, elle a cru que la phrase n'était pas grammatical. C'est bien grammatical, mais un Américain ne le dirait jamais.


----------



## Aoyama

Je découvre ce fil _via_ un autre fil portant sur le mot *Kike* .
 Précision ici, juif ne dois pas prendre de majuscule, à la différence de Français. Il est Français (Anglais etc) prend une majuscule en tant que nom représentant une nationalité, juif n'est qu'un adjectif. Il est juif. 
 C'est un problème car beaucoup sont tentés de mettre une majuscule (de façon erronée). Juif, jusqu'à preuve du contraire (en Russie peut-être ?) n'est PAS une nationalité.


----------



## konungursvia

In French, adjectives are much more commonly used as nouns, and can become nouns in their own right, whereas in English this hardly ever happens. Also, you can't translate a cultural taboo or sensibility from one language to another. Just because "Jew" sounds pretty sensitive in English does not mean "juif" does in French.


----------



## papillon

Aoyama said:


> C'est un problème car beaucoup sont tentés de mettre une majuscule (de façon erronée). Juif, jusqu'à preuve du contraire (en Russie peut-être ?) n'est PAS une nationalité.


Aoyama, what kind of logical argument is this? You are presenting your personal opinion as a fact (!), which you assert remains a fact _jusqu'à preuve du contraire_!

The word Jewish/ *J*uif represents a convolution of several things, both religious and purely ethnic. You can be _juif_ if you go to synagogue every sabbath. Or you can be one simply because your ancestors left Israel 2000 years ago. In the last case, it may just a nationality/ethnicity.


----------



## Aoyama

No argument of any kind here (especially being jewish myself), just _plain fact_ . Just take a look at french newspapers or books .
   I did try to "fight" this, years ago, while writing a few articles (always corrected). France has a new word now "communautarisme". Willing to put a capital letter to the word _jew _(which _to me_ would be a good idea), would be just that (being a "communautarist", which is not the right thing to be at the moment).
  This being said, the thorny and endless argument about Jewish Identity is another, very long, story.


----------



## Aoyama

Suite à mon post, plus haut, sur le problème de la majuscule à *juif*, le commentaire d'un de mes collègues, docte professeur : 

*Juif* peut être soit adjectif, soit nom commun, soit nom propre . Quand le mot désigne une personne appartenant à (avec toutes les
réserves qu'on voudra) ou relevant d'une confession, il faut proscrire 
 la capitale. Un juif, un catholique, une protestante, un quaker, et ainsi
de suite. Mettre une capitale au mot c'est signifier par l'écriture que
 l'on regarde les *juifs *comme une nationalité ou un peuple. On ne conteste pas ici  l'existence d'un peuple juif, historique, réelle ou rêvée,elle est bien réelle et  d'ailleurs l'Etat d'Israël repose entièrement sur la notion de peuple. 
La question qui nous occupe n'est pas là. 
Mettre une capitale, c'est signifier que l'on privilégie l'appartenance de la
 personne dont on parle à cette communauté. Il faut simplement prendre
 conscience que l'orthographe, que cette question de majuscule ou de minuscule n'est pas indifférente, que ce n'est pas non plus (comme les gens se l'imaginent) une question de dignité,mais que la graphie est porteuse de sens. Il y eut historiquement une nationalité juive en Union soviétique, du temps de Staline. Je ne sais pas
ce qu'est devenu ce système aujourd'hui. Dans ce cas il était logique de
dire les Juifs, comme on disait les Tatars ou les Ouigours. Mais il ne
faut pas de capitale quand on dit les juifs de France, parce que la
nationalité juive ça n'existe pas en France, il n'y a que des Français.


----------



## Aladdin

Il me semble que *jew* (nom) a pour équivalent *un juif* :
X is a *jew* = X est *un juif*.

et *jewish* (adjectif) a pour équivalent *juif*:

X is *jewish* = X est *juif*.

On dit: the jewish people = le peuple juif
the Jews = les Juifs 

Salut à tous.


----------



## Fred_C

Aoyama said:


> Suite à mon post, plus haut, sur le problème de la majuscule à *juif*, le commentaire d'un de mes collègues, docte professeur :


Bonjour.
Je comprends parfaitement le sens de votre texte, et pourquoi il proscrit l'usage de la majuscule au mot juif : C'est parce qu'en France actuelle, le concept de nation juive est proscrit. 
Mais le fait qu'une chose n'existe pas n'est pas une raison pour interdire l'emploi des mots qui la désignent. (On parle bien de fantômes ou de soucoupes volantes  ).
La Gaule n'est plus une nation depuis très longtemps, et on ne trouve pas de nos jours de Gaulois avec une majuscule.
Pourtant, la grammaire n'interdit pas d'utiliser le mot "Gaulois" dans un livre d'histoire, par exemple.
Votre texte parle de grammaire avec des arguments d'ordre politique. Je trouve cela dommage. Il aurait dû se contenter d'expliquer sémantiquement la différence qu'il y a entre un Juif et un juif.


----------



## Aoyama

Il convient en effet de mettre une capitale à _Gaulois_ quand on dit par exemple que César les a vaincus et une à _Juifs_ lorsqu'il est question des campagnes victorieuses de Titus, en Palestine, ou quand Flavius Josèphe parle de _la guerre des Juifs_. Ils étaient alors regardés comme un peuple.
On ne proscrit pas absolument ici l'emploi de la capitale,on dit simplement qu'elle porte un sens... lourd de sens.
Ceci dit, étant juif (Juif ?) moi-même, j'ai été confronté maintes fois à ce problème, lors de la rédaction d'articles où le correcteur (qui ?) corrigeait systématiquement mes majuscules . Ce n'est pas faute d'avoir essayé ...
On peut prendre ça comme un exercice en futilité (le français en est friand, nous le savons), mais c'est vrai, la _graphie_ (la grammaire aussi ?) peut être lourde de sens.


----------

