English language defies institution

John Watson Photo/File

It was certainly awkward. There I was in France and I had no idea how to address a young Frenchwoman. Was it "Mademoiselle" as I had learned at school or did one always use "Madame" following the lead of the French Government, which, in February 2012, condemned the use of "Mademoiselle" as archaic and sexist. Ma foi! It could be embarrassing to get that one wrong. After a dismal morning when I didn't dare to go into a shop unless I was sure that all the female serving assistants were worthy matrons who fell into the "madame" class by any criterion, the matter clearly had to be resolved. How to do it?

Fortunately, the tourist information office was just across the road and I could see that it was manned by two attractive young ladies, who in times past would have been clear "mademoiselles". After a quick restorative and muttering under my breath, "courage, mon brave", I stepped into the office to put my question to them; alas they looked baffled at my garbled attempt to translate the words "good manners" into French. Perhaps there was a better approach. "Qu'est que un Francais, he say", I asked in an appalling amalgam of the two languages. They got the point and smiled. "Oh a Frenchman would say 'Mademoiselle'," one replied in impeccable English.

So that is that the difference in a nutshell. In France they make an official pronouncement and then ignore it. In England and America the term "Ms" has simply slipped into the language and the ladies may use it or not as they wish. We just don't dictate on that sort of thing.

That makes it all the more surprising that an Englishman, Professor Sir Michael Edwards, has been elected to the Academie Francais for the first time since 1635, when it was founded to protect the French language; in latter days to prevent its corruption by Anglo-Saxon words. There is little doubt Sir Michael is worthy of the honour, but his comment that the "the British would like to have an institution that defends the English language, notably against Americanisms" raises some interesting possibilities as to the approach such an institution might take:

"Right, let's begin by banning that awful 'how are you today'. What should replace it? Well, 'how do you do', of course. Oh, not much different there you say. Well, let's try another.

"OK, what about 'have a nice day'? We have all had enough of that one. Surely the good old-fashioned 'good day' or 'good morning' should be enough? What, you say there isn't much difference there either? Perhaps we should try spelling.

"What about those words they can't spell properly. You know, the ones where they put a 'z' rather than an 's' like 'realize' or 'organize'. What did you say? That the Oxford English Dictionary prefers the 'z' while the Cambridge University Press likes the 's'; I see, so it's not a Transatlantic thing but more like the boat race. Oh dear, this is much harder than I thought. We'd better try to think of something else."

No, I don't think we would like that at all. English is a living language and continues to evolve as it always has, the best people to decide how it develops being the people who use it, from whichever side of whichever ocean they may come.

I am told that a member of the Acadamie is known as an "immortal" and wears a cocked hat and a black jacket with dark green silk representing an olive branch. That sounds about right, doesn't it?

Before retiring, John Watson was a partner in an international law firm. He now writes from Islington, London.