• StJohnMcCrae@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        No I understand what en masse means. I just don’t subscribe to your inflexible interpretation.

        Language is a tool for communication. It’s for the masses, not something to be gate kept or preserved by the priests lingual orthodoxy. If the words you use convey the intended meaning to the listener, then the wording is adequate.

        If everyone’s use of language was as rigid as the people insisting we can only use the phrases as they existed when they were imported to an English court by a Norman conqueror a thousand years ago, then we’d all still be communicating by banging rocks together and grunting. The English language evolves every day. It’s alive.

        • meowMix2525@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          Ok but the argument is that it might not “convey the intended meaning to the listener” because ‘in mass’ can mean multiple things in English, whereas in French ‘en masse’ specifically means ‘as a group’. It’s not a linguistic purity thing it’s literally just to prevent misinterpretation.

          edit: You can’t say “English is an evolving language” and then ignore the evolution in the phrase being carried over in the first place. If there was no reason for it then we’d just be using the English term.