Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007

In the sense that "the X don't have a word for <word borrowed from X>"
has been a standing joke ever since the current president noted that
the French don't have a word for "entrepreneur".[1]

In other fora, I might have used punctuation to alert people who
didn't get the reference and  realize that I was joking.    

[1] Arguably, it appears, a true statement, though probably not all
   that meaningful.

} On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:12:05 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum
} <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> said:
}
}> mike.j.harvey@gmail.com writes:
}  
}> > There is no such rule governing the use of sans in French.
}  
}> That's because "sans" in French is French for "without".  
}
} But "sans" in English is English for "without".

Not so.  No sense misleading innocent learners of English with that sort
of talk.  "Sans" in English is English for "without the expected [or usual
or conventional]".  Using "sans" as a substitute for "without" without the
rest of it at best is highfalutin and at worst is ungrammatical.  "Sans"
as a preposition is more or less equivalent to "-less" as a suffix.  One
doesn't say "without the expected a belt" or "without the expected
pants-fastening C-clamp", but one could say "without the expected belt".

}> The French don't have a word for "sans".
}
} That to me is a puzzling statement.  At first reading it
} seems to be nonsense, but because Evan wrote it I know that
} there must be a way to show that it makes sense.

That's the spirit.  If only you applied that logic to other people, your
life could be more serene.  But French may have a word for "sans".  How do
they say "hairless" or "toothless" or "beltless" if they avoid the word
"sans"?

} Looking at a French-English dictionary, I see numerous
} examples of "sans" being used in the same way it would be
} used in English.  
}
} In what sense don't the French have a word for "sans"?

In the sense that "sans" in French isn't restricted the way "sans" in
English is.

Learners of English should generally avoid using "sans" in English, and
may well be adequately briefed for government work by reading in a
dictionary that "sans" in English can usually be replaced with "without"
without losing anything much at a gross level and only a little at a
subtle level.  Dumbed-down dictionaries might also report that *some*
people use "sans" merely to mean "without" (and thereby waste whatever
value it might have).

A different case of red-flag words is "rare", which is merely two
different words, both of which are in common use and neither generally
conflicts with the other.  "Sans" is only marginally useful, where "rare"
is quite useful indeed.  I'd guess without checking that "rare" occurs
orders of magnitude more than "sans" on the Web, in newsgroup postings,
and in English-language literature.  Use "rare" freely.  Don't use "sans".

Where did I learn the rules?  I'm a daddy.  I _make_ the rules.

You think that just because nobody ever noticed something that it doesn't
have rule to it?  What's it take, an apple falling on your head?  Eat not
of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and apple.