We are often asked for our opinion on the expression good morning. We don’t give it away (we use here the we of modesty, which designates only the author of this post).
We just see that the Big Robert and Collins translated good morning by hello and not by good morning. That the Office québécois de la langue française writes: “This expression, recently used, is modeled on the English expression good morning. In French, when we want to greet a person, we use the word helloand in the evening, the word good evening. » That the linguist and lexicographer Marie-Éva de Villers, author of Multidictionary of the French languagequestioned on this subject by the columnist of The Press Patrick Lagacé, replied that the problem of good morning was double, because it is a “layer of English which unnecessarily competes” with hello and because it would be rather, at the limit, a starting formula, as are good evening Where good afternoon.
This does not convince those who adopted good morning to give it up. They see things differently. And it is not our role to forbid them to use this expression.
We are also often asked to comment on false links as “it looks” or “it will be”.
Bad links have different names — leather, pataques, velvet — according to the consonant introduced erroneously between two words. These errors are frequent: it is not so easy to navigate between obligatory, optional and prohibited links.
It is in particular by wanting to avoid a hiatus, that is to say the meeting of two vowels, that one makes these errors of connection. After all, we sometimes have to insert so-called euphonic letters, which serve to facilitate pronunciation, between two vowels, such as the you of can we.
Linking words incorrectly is considered a language error. In a professional context, out of consideration for those who listen to us, we should try to avoid mistakes in speaking orally, just as we should try to avoid spelling mistakes in writing, out of consideration for those who read us.
However, correcting people when they’re wrong is surely not always appropriate—do you think you express yourself flawlessly at all times?
Decarbonize or decarbonize ?
What verb should we use? decarbonize Where decarbonize ?
Answer
The question is not settled. But the verb decarbonize, which means “reduce the carbon emission relating to (an activity)” is the one that is favored in the newspaper. It is in dictionaries Robert and Larousse.
In a 2021 sheet from the Large terminology dictionary (GDT), the Quebec Office of the French language specifies, about the verb decarbonizethat “even if properly trained, [il] has not established itself in use”. Decarbonize energy production. Sustainable and carbon-free solutions.
The two adjectives of carbon and decarbonized, appeared in a 2015 file (which is still on the GDT website). They are used to “characterize anything that results from human activity and whose greenhouse gas emissions have been eliminated, in whole or in part, whether in terms of production (e.g. . carbon-free hydrogen and carbon-free electricity) or, in the case of a product, to the functioning (eg carbon-free vehicle)”.
In France, the French Language Enrichment Commission has officially recommended the term decarbonization. The decarbonization of industry. However, we find both decarbonization and decarbonization in the Larousse and in the Large terminology dictionary of the Quebec Office of the French language.
So you have a choice.