Some time ago I sang the praises of the French language (and France generally) and indulged in the compilation of a list of my favourite words in that iridescent chandelier of languages. Veiller, lugubre, orgueilleux … linguistic confectionery which can be rolled around on the tongue at leisure (though perhaps not on the bus).
Yet even as I compiled that list other words occurred to me, words that seemed to me not nearly so delicious as they ought to be, given their meaning or their English translation. With the resources of the language to which they belong they should have been able to do justice to the former and outgun the latter. Here are some examples of words that, I submit, fail to fulfil their promise:
- puddle: flaque (f)
- to sneeze: éternuer
- to nod: acquiescer
- rambunctious: turbulent
Now it seems to me that it is precisely in cases of damp squibs such as these that the immortels of the Académie française should be called upon for their services. (It is in the immortels, of which there are only forty at a time and who hold their office for life, that there lies the ultimate authority on the French language). Could they not come up with something better to describe a puddle? How about mouillon de pluie or plouffelette or pluviule? Or se hatchouir or pousser une éplixission for the verb to sneeze? ‘Je me suis HATCHOUI en pleine bibliothèque’. If I, a mere Anglo-Saxon upstart, can come up with these, surely the chosen forty can do likewise?
Anyway, perhaps I am being fussy. English can’t really outdo French all that often: witness for example the sumptuous phrase il avait de quoi sourire — ‘he had something to smile about’ — reported by my uncle in one of Paul Berna’s excellent novels. Il avait de quoi sourire! A savourer…
