# data[].attributes.headline
Etymologie de la langue anglaise - Etymonline

# data[].attributes.subject
Etymologie de la langue anglaise - Etymonline

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Etymonline - Online Etymology Dictionary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The online etymology dictionary (etymonline) is the internet’s go-to source for quick and reliable accounts of the origin and history of English words, phrases, and idioms. It is professional enough to satisfy academic standards, but accessible enough to be used by anyone.

# data[].attributes.headline
Etymologie de la langue anglaise - short linguisticae

# data[].attributes.subject
Etymologie de la langue anglaise - short linguisticae

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A quoi ressemblerait l'anglais sans ses emprunts ?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ecriture : Monté / Montage : Léa Machado

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Welcome to another week of Dear Duolingo, an advice column just for language learners. Catch up on past installments here.
Hello, learners! For all of you learning a new language that isn't English, you sure do have a lot of questions about... well, English! Which, of course, I love. So in honor of Shakespeare's birthday on April 26, let's take this week to learn a little bit more about English's fascinating evolution!

Today's question:

Dear Duolingo,

I'm studying French and noticed a lot of similar words to English. But, is English a Romance language? I thought it had German roots? Where did English come from?

Thanks!
English Speaker, History Seeker

The story of English involves conquests and defeats, bilingualism and language contact, and a language that hungrily incorporates new words from every community it touches.

It's almost never clear when a language "starts" or is "born," because people are always communicating - big language changes never happen from one day to the next! Instead, a new language is "born" more gradually, typically when some group's way of communicating grows more and more different from former group members. That might happen because the group moves and no longer has contact with their old neighbors, or because a new group of people comes into town with their own language, or because the group has a particular change in culture or experience that increases differences.

In the case of English, all of those things happened!

Where did English come from?

If you guessed that English came from England, you're right - sort of. And if you guessed that English did not come from England, you're also sort of right!

If we were to land in the southern part of what we now call England about 1,600 years ago, we'd be in a land of many small groups, kingdoms, and tribes and a complex linguistic landscape. There would be speakers of Celtic languages, like the one that eventually became Welsh and Roman soldiers speaking one or more dialects of Latin. (Not to mention many Celts would have been speaking Latin, too!)

So linguistically, there was a lot going on on that relatively small island!

Around the 5th century, several groups of people from northern Europe (modern-day Germany and Denmark especially) moved to the southern part of that island. They were called the Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes, and they were Germanic, so they were different culturally, ethnically, religiously, and linguistically from the Celts and Romans already settled there. It's not entirely clear what the dynamic was between the newcomers and the other groups, but in the end English (the language of the Angles and the Saxons) became the predominant language of Engla lond (the land of the Angles). Today we call that language variety Old English.

But that's only the beginning. A few centuries later, they'd be joined by people of Scandinavian descent (Vikings!) speaking languages that originated in the places we now call Sweden, Norway, and Denmark.

Isn't English a Romance language?

Some of that history may be surprising, given how much English has in common with other languages, like French. But English is not a Romance language like French; it's a Germanic language related to other Germanic languages from northern Europe including German, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, and Gothic (which is no longer spoken). But English vocabulary does have a lot of overlap with Romance languages, especially French!

That's because English continued to evolve after it made the move to southern England, and perhaps the biggest factor was French. Well, not the French we think of today - a thousand years ago, Latin dialects in modern-day France were doing their own mixing with local Celtic, Germanic, and Scandinavian languages, and one of these dialects was Norman French, spoken just across the English Channel in Normandy.

The big change came in 1066: William the Conqueror (aka William of Normandy) and the Normans invaded England and set up shop as the new ruling class. Over centuries, English speakers adopted a lot of vocabulary from Norman French, including words associated with prestige, education, government, and fancy things like food and art -- and slipped them right into its Germanic grammar. Many of those French words and Germanic grammar rules have survived through the centuries!

If we look at the percent of English words that were borrowed from other languages, especially Latin and French, the number is enormous: as much as 80%. But that estimate is really deceptive because English has a huge number of words in dictionaries, but that doesn't truly represent the words people actually use every day; for example, dictionaries naturally include specialized scientific and technical vocabulary (most of which comes from Latin and Greek). Here are some other stats about English vocabulary:

Of the 100 most common words in English, 96 come from Old English, and three more (they, them, their) are from Old Norse and were already in use in Old English. The other word in the top 100, the one that's neither Old English nor Old Norse? That's the word very, from Old French!

Of the 100 words on the Swadesh list (a list of core vocabulary most resistant to language change), 88 come from Old English, with four others from Old Norse and the rest from Latin and French. These include some numbers, close family terms, articles and question words (like the and what), the main body parts and needs (like eat and drink), and some basic nature and animal vocabulary.

Of the 100 most common nouns in English today, about half come from Old English. There are 44 right from Old English and another 4 from Old French, Old Norse, or Latin but that were in use during the Old English period. And I bet you already know where the rest come from: French and Latin.

What was Old English like?

Despite Old English being spoken more than a thousand years ago, we know tons about it because it's so well documented. You can easily find the epic poem Beowulf (alongside its Modern English translation 😅) in bookstores and online, not to mention Alfred, King of the West-Saxons, encouraged lots of writing of history and literature in the West-Saxon dialect of English. That dialect ended up becoming the Old English standard!

To a speaker of Modern English, Old English would look (and sound, and seem) like a totally different language. In order to understand it, you'd basically have to study it like you'd study any new language! And if you're an English speaker who's ever shaken your head about some frustrating feature in a European language you're studying, I have news for you: Old English probably had it, too. For example, have you ever wondered...

Wow, what is up with these grammatical genders? Old English had three grammatical gender categories.

Literally why are there so many verb conjugations?! Old English verbs changed a lot, depending on the subject and tense.

Do normal people actually remember all these noun endings?? What even is the "dative"? Old English nouns changed their endings for (at least) four different cases.

Old English had even more in common with other Germanic languages than Modern English does, in terms of pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, and word order in sentences. Here are some linguistic features you'd find in Old English:

Different letters: Old English had a lot of letter combinations and diacritics (short marks like accents) that we don't use today. It also had some actual letters that have fallen out of use, including two different letters for Modern English "th": one for the sound in think (þ, called the letter "thorn") and another for the sound in those (ð, today called "eth").

Masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns: All nouns in Old English had a (mostly arbitrary!) grammatical gender. How arbitrary was grammatical gender in Old English? The word wīf, which meant "wife" or "woman," was neuter, and another word for "woman," wīfmann was masculine!

Four noun cases: Old English nouns changed depending on their role in the sentence (is it a direct object? A subject? And so on.), and so each noun had different forms for nominative, accusative, genitive, and dative cases. And actually, there were different case endings for singular vs. plural nouns, and for the three different grammatical genders 🤯

Formal and informal pronouns: In Old English, there were different ways to say "you," depending on whether you wanted to be formal or informal with the person: þu (pronounced "thoo," with the "th" sound like in think) was for informal situations, and ge (pronounced "yay") was formal. (Can you guess which one ended up falling out of use and which became formal and informal?)

What's the difference between Old English, Middle English, and Modern English?

Very roughly speaking (heh heh 😏), Old English is the version of Anglo-Saxon spoken from the 5th century to the 11th century, Middle English is the stage of the language from the 11th to 15th centuries, and Modern English technically has its beginning around then, even before Shakespeare was born! And actually, all languages go through phases and big changes in their linguistic evolution - we could also talk about Old French, Classical Arabic, Modern Vietnamese, etc.

"Old," "Middle," and "Modern" are distinctions linguists make today to help refer to general properties and influences at different time points, but we know that changes and new stages of a language don't happen overnight. Many of these changes were really gradual and took centuries to complete! We've seen a bit of the history and linguistic properties of Old English, and here's the story behind Middle and Modern English:

Middle English

When: Roughly 11th century to 15th century. The traditional start of the Middle English period is the Norman Invasion of 1066.

What to look for: Loss of grammatical gender and most noun case endings - although the Germanic genitive case stuck around, so to say that something belonged to someone, you'd still add -es, like in a sowes erys (a sow's ears). Word order became less flexible. A lot of Anglo-Saxon vocabulary was replaced with words from Norman French and later stages of French words. The Great Vowel Shift began, and if you have never before thought of anything with "vowels" being "great," you are in for a treat: the pronunciation of Middle English vowels began shifting, with half of them acquiring an entirely new pronunciation within a couple of centuries. If you've ever cursed the inconsistency of English spelling and pronunciation, especially for vowels, you have cursed the Great Vowel Shift.

Major influences: French, French, and more French. Lots of Latin-origin vocabulary got to English through French during this stage, so you can find good Ol' English words ( ghost, house, cow) alongside fancier French-origin words ( spirit, domicile, beef). Sometimes English acquired French words twice, centuries apart or from different French dialects, leaving English with pairs of borrowed French words! For example, cattle comes from Norman French, and chattel from Central French centuries later.

Where to find it: Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, the original Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (not to be confused with the very Modern English The Green Knight).

Modern English

When: Roughly 15th century to today. Chaucer's death is a sort of an informal end to the Middle English stage and the start of Modern English - which means I'm writing the same basic kind of English that Shakespeare wrote four hundred years ago. Clearly there have still been lots of changes to English! But remember that language change is most often a gradual process.

What to look for: The continued evolution of that -es ending for the old Germanic genitive case to express possession, which exists today as the 's in the child's toy* and the team's win. Eventually more standardized spelling conventions in the last 200-ish years. Verb conjugations significantly reduced so that most verbs have just two present tense forms ( talk, talks; see, sees) and one or two past tenses ( talked; saw, seen). Many new English dialects take root around the world.

Major influences: Colonization, slavery, and globalization. As English colonizers spread and settled around the world, they brought English to all corners of the globe, often to the great destruction of the people, languages, and cultures already in those places. As the language of the ruling class and sometimes a lingua franca, English developed new varieties that incorporated words and grammar from the colonized communities (like Indian English), influenced other languages (English words are frequently adopted in languages as geographically distant as French and Thai), sparked new pidgins and creoles (like Jamaican Creole and Cameroonian Pidgin English), and became the go-to language in some multilingual situations (like in every hostel I've ever stayed in).

Where to find it: William Shakespeare's plays and sonnets, Billie Holiday's music (and Billie Eilish's, too!), Trevor Noah on The Daily Show, our Dear Duolingo column.

Englishes over time

It's not hard to see the differences in English when you look at written examples! Here is a sample of the different stages using a text that was translated and updated at each stage - the Christian Lord's Prayer.

The Lord's Prayer

Did you notice?

Old English
Úre Fæder, þú þe eart on heofonum
sí þín nama gehálgod.
Tócume þín ríce.

Written accents and two unfamiliar letters (þ and æ) are in use. "Ríce" (pronounced like "reech-ay"), for "kingdom," isn't so far from Germain Reich. If you know that ge- and tó are sort of prefixes, it's not too hard to see "hallowed" in gehálgod and "come" in tócume.

Middle English
Oure fadir that art in heuenes,
halewid be thi name.
thi kyngdoom come to.

It's starting to look more familiar! Spelling conventions have changed, and many prefixes and suffixes have been lost or reduced. Old English ríce by now replaced with another Old English word, kyngdoom.

(Early) Modern English
Our father which art in heauen,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdome come.

Easily understood, even with some spelling oddities. The informal pronoun thy and the verb conjugation "art" had mostly fallen out of use in regular speech, but were still in use in some religious contexts.

English, a language as diverse as its users

Like most languages, the story of English involves lots of change and adaptation, as the people who used English to communicate evolved culturally and politically - and conquered others who were forced to change linguistically as well. As a result, the English varieties that we use today reflect influences from around the world. So of course I choose to believe that the British band Modern English was talking about English's attitude toward linguistic borrowings when they wrote "I'll stop the world and melt with you."

To learn more about the inner workings of language and what that means for you as a learner, send your questions to dearduolingo@duolingo.com!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ever wonder why English shares a few words with the language you're learning? Find out why in this week's Dear Duolingo!

# data[].attributes.headline
Etymologie de la langue anglaise - Article

# data[].attributes.subject
Etymologie de la langue anglaise - Article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Temps de lecture: 6 min

Il existe plusieurs manières d'aborder une langue: l'approche descriptive (on observe et on relate) se distingue de l'approche normative (on fixe des règles et on corrige les écarts). L'Académie française penche invariablement vers le normatif, tandis que les linguistes tendent au descriptif, plus neutre d'un point de vue scientifique.

Mais ces approches complémentaires peuvent devenir des oppositions franches à la vue d'un point médian ou d'un SMS -pardon, d'un texto-, bourré d' emojis et d'abréviations. Est-ce Molière qu'on assassine?

Molière, français langue étrangère

Pas vraiment, rappellent des linguistes dans Le français va très bien, merci, car la langue de Molière - "expression commode"- n'est pas la nôtre. En effet, nous ne la lisons pas "dans la graphie d'origine". "Si on le faisait, on découvrirait des signes étranges pour nous, comme le tilde au-dessus de la voyelle pour indiquer qu'elle est nasale: "nous voyõs". "Moi" s'écrivait "moy" et "français","françois", prononcé "fransoué". Eh oui, la prononciation aussi a changé. Il suffit pour s'en convaincre d'écouter les lectures reconstituées par Benjamin Lazar sur YouTube. La fameuse "langue de Molière" y apparaît presque comme une langue étrangère."

Cette mise en garde est salutaire: essayez donc de lire Rabelais ou Montaigne en VO... Idéaliser une langue prétendument figée est illusoire. Et l'imposer, plus encore. Molière lui-même en riait dans Les Femmes savantes. Et c'est pourtant ainsi qu'une langue s'enseigne.

Qui plus est, le français se parle bien au-delà de nos frontières. Or, en dépit de cette "hétérogénéité", l'enseignement de notre langue repose sur des choix, qui conduisent à "UN français artificiellement épuré" dans lequel on privilégie ""j'appris", le passé simple, mais pas "j'ai eu appris", le passé surcomposé; "quatre-vingt-dix", mais pas "nonante"".

Dans leur tract, les linguistes déplorent ces choix normatifs qui président à l'enseignement des langues en plaidant pour une "éducation plurilingue". L'on s'affranchirait ainsi de "la culture de la norme unique forgée par Paris" pour donner davantage de place à la francophonie et aux langues régionales.

Et voici un premier paradoxe.

Comment ne pas approuver telle proposition, synonyme d'enrichissement de l'apprentissage? Mais comment conjuguer cette difficulté supplémentaire au moment où, déjà, l'enseignement du français pose de nombreux problèmes? Les linguistes atterrées suggèrent une forme de complexité tout en en récusant d'autres: ainsi de l'orthographe, dont il faudrait cesser de faire un "outil de sélection" en autorisant "les correcteurs automatiques aux examens comme les calculatrices en maths ou en physique".

L'orthographe, stigmatisante et ludique

L'orthographe justement. Objet de fascination ou de répulsion. Au moment où "la plus grande dictée du monde a rassemblé 1.397 participants sur les Champs-Élysées" dimanche 4 juin, les linguistes balaient cet engouement d'un expéditif: "Des "fautes" d'aujourd'hui deviendront sans doute la norme en 2050." Écrit au format "réforme de 1990", à la fois "mise à jour" et "rationalisation" qui ne "mettent pas la langue en danger", le tract ignore les accents circonflexes mais autorise une "gageüre", préfère "weekend" à "week-end".

Citant Paul Valéry, selon qui l'orthographe française va du "cocasse" à l'"absurde", il pointe avec gourmandise l'évolution de la langue, "une succession d'ajustements" et beaucoup d'incongruités:

""Dompter" vient du latin domitare, qui ne contient pas de p."

""Posthume" n'a rien à voir avec humus (sinon que son orthographe fait penser à enterrer), il dérive du latin postumus, superlatif de posterus. Le "h" n'a donc pas de raison d'être."

""Aspect", "respect", "suspect"ont gardé de leur origine un "c" muet. Mais pas "objet", "préfet", "projet", "sujet", "rejet"."

Rien de cohérent, donc. Estimant qu'il "est devenu pratiquement impossible d'écrire sans faire aucune faute", les linguistes préconisent d'autres mesures de simplification ( adieu "oignon", bienvenue "ognon"). Assurément populaire depuis que Bernard Pivot l'a mise en scène à la télé, la dictée reste source d'angoisses pour nombre d'élèves.

"Si notre orthographe ne parvient pas à faire peau neuve, c'est parce qu'elle est devenue un marqueur social extrêmement puissant." Marqueur générationnel et marqueur culturel plutôt que social, car la dysorthographie touche toutes les catégories sociales.

Par-delà les querelles qu'elle génère, la simplification, voire la démocratisation de l'orthographe ou de la grammaire nous fait passer du descriptif au normatif. Il s'agit de décisions tout aussi arbitraires que celles qui ont prévalu aux siècles passés. Favoriser l'apprentissage et éviter les discriminations: la position se défend aisément. Elle est pourtant peu cohérente au regard d'autres propositions contenues dans le tract: donner davantage de place aux variantes francophones, intégrer l'écriture inclusive. Car, là, il n'est plus du tout question de simplifier.

Inclusive Cerfa ou oulipienne?
"Si l'on réenseignait l'accord de proximité en français à côté de l'accord au masculin pluriel? Si l'on continuait à tester des techniques pour exprimer le genre, puisque seules les plus plébiscitées resteront en usage?" "Né au début du XXIe siècle, le néopronom iel, comme d'autres innovations récentes (ellui, celleux, toustes) permet de garder l'indétermination; créé au départ pour désigner une personne non-binaire, iel évolue vers un emploi générique (surtout au pluriel)."
De telles propositions ont l'avantage de faire sortir du bois les réacs de toutes obédiences et les "amoureux de la langue" que récuse la linguiste Julie Neveux, s'exprimant au micro de France Inter. Est-ce assez pour les légitimer? Et, surtout, faire fi de la complexité nouvelle qu'elles entraînent? Pourquoi simplifier ici pour complexifier ailleurs? Le descriptif laisse place à un normatif revendiqué, celui d'une langue qui porte un combat politique, avec son cortège de "néographies".

"Si l'on continuait à tester des techniques pour exprimer le genre, puisque seules les plus plébiscitées resteront en usage?"

Dans un média -surtout quand il en a préconisé l'usage -, l'écriture inclusive est forcément désirable. Or, le tract, qui y consacre un chapitre, se borne à en faire une technique.
"Pour favoriser le sens générique, les doublets de type "Françaises, Français" ou la parenthèse utilisée sur les documents officiels à la fin du XXe siècle ("né(e)", "domicilié(e)") ne semblaient pas gêner grand monde. Le terme "écriture inclusive" désigne parfois toutes ces techniques ou bien, par restriction, un seul procédé d'abréviation, permettant d'éviter les doublets et de gagner de la place: les étudiant.e.s, étudiant-e-s ou étudiant·es abrégeant les étudiants et étudiantes. "
C'est bien là le problème. Si l'écriture inclusive a la beauté d'un formulaire Cerfa, elle ne servira qu'à complexifier la langue, j'allais écrire: l'enlaidir -mais c'est là un jugement subjectif. À cet égard, et c'est bien démontré, l'accord dit de voisinage ou de proximité est nettement plus séduisant -et probablement plus facile à apprendre car "on ne dit pas "certains régions et départements"". L'évidence.

Pour ma part, l'écriture inclusive est séduisante lorsqu'elle devient un exercice de style, une contrainte oulipienne. Mieux encore: qu'elle soit indiscernable à première vue, pour mieux duper le lectorat rétif (comme cet article par exemple). Car la langue est aussi un jeu, un plaisir, une joie et tout cela semble ici oublié.

Choisis ton camp, camarade linguiste!

C'est là l'ultime paradoxe de ce tract, pourtant stimulant. Le plaisir de la langue y est étonnamment absent, alors qu'il a été rédigé par des personnes qui ont choisi de lui consacrer leur vie professionnelle. Comme le sujet est politique, ces textes écartent tout ce qui fait la saveur de la langue: ses difficultés, ses surprises, ses exceptions.

La notion de jeu (et l'apprentissage peut être ludique) est absente. L'exception est stigmatisée, la difficulté repoussée. La littérature? Disparue. Absents, le rire ou l'émerveillement que procurent une blague, un jeu de mots, une tournure maladroite ou subtile. Comme si la langue, ce bien commun utilisé et malmené par n'importe qui, ne devait être "envisagée (que) de façon scientifique". En nous déniant le plaisir de regarder des étoiles filantes sans rien comprendre à la physique.

En revanche, des évolutions sont proposées qui ne vont pas toutes dans le sens d'une facilité accrue. Sous couvert de neutralité scientifique, c'est une vision de la langue qui est proposée et qui mérite d'être discutée. Il suscitera des colères conservatrices et ravira les apôtres d'une écriture débarrassée de sa pesanteur patriarcale. Il nourrira un débat sans cesse recommencé et toujours passionné. Il permettra d'illustrer le slogan (pardon) de Roland Barthes: la langue est "fasciste, car le fascisme, ce n'est pas d'empêcher de dire, c'est d'obliger à dire".

En attendant que ces linguistes atterré es parviennent à s'installer sous la coupole du Quai Conti. Car, oui, évidemment, ce tract n'oublie pas de cocher quelques cases corporatistes: "Et si l'Académie française élisait pour moitié des linguistes, en s'inspirant de l'Académie royale de langue et de littérature françaises de Belgique?" Chiche?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Le français va bien, merci (mais c'est un point de vue)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Des linguistes s'attaquent à l'Académie française et aux discours affirmant que notre langue va mal, saluent les écritures inclusives et prônent l'équivalence de l'oral et de l'écrit. Une mise au point salutaire mais paradoxale.

# data[].attributes.headline
Etymologie de la langue anglaise - podcast

# data[].attributes.subject
Etymologie de la langue anglaise - podcast

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Deux linguistes membres du collectif des linguistes atterré(e)s publient chez Gallimard un texte court, nerveux, polémique intitulé "Le français va très bien, merci". Anne Abeillé et Julie Neveux estiment que la simplification de l'orthographe va dans le sens de l'évolution de la langue. Elles écrivent aussi dans leur tract qu'il est rare que les médias donnent la parole à des linguistes et quand c'est le cas "c'est souvent avec méfiance, au mieux on les considère comme bienveillant, tolérant, bref un peu naïf face aux déclins de notre belle langue, au pire, comme de dangereux gauchistes pour qui tous les usages se valent et des complices de ce déclin".

Pour afficher ce contenu Twitter, vous devez accepter les cookies Réseaux Sociaux.

Ces cookies permettent de partager ou réagir directement sur les réseaux sociaux auxquels vous êtes connectés ou d'intégrer du contenu initialement posté sur ces réseaux sociaux. Ils permettent aussi aux réseaux sociaux d'utiliser vos visites sur nos sites et applications à des fins de personnalisation et de ciblage publicitaire.

Gérer mes choix J'autorise

Mais pourquoi ces linguistes sont-elles atterrées ? Par la petite musique qui dit que la langue française en déclin, qu'elle est attaquée par l'anglais, par les textos, par les réseaux sociaux, qu'elle est mal parlée, mal écrite, menacée par l'écriture inclusive ?

"On peut mesurer la bonne santé du français. Il n'y a jamais eu autant de francophone dans le monde. Ce n'est plus le privilège de la France de parler français", affirme Anne Abeillé. "Il n'y a jamais eu autant d'écrits en français, de messages, de textes, de pages internet. On a des instruments pour s'approprier cette langue. Il y a le dictionnaire francophone collaboratif en ligne, avec 400.000 mots, qui témoigne de la vitalité du vocabulaire."

Pour afficher ce contenu Twitter, vous devez accepter les cookies Réseaux Sociaux.

Ces cookies permettent de partager ou réagir directement sur les réseaux sociaux auxquels vous êtes connectés ou d'intégrer du contenu initialement posté sur ces réseaux sociaux. Ils permettent aussi aux réseaux sociaux d'utiliser vos visites sur nos sites et applications à des fins de personnalisation et de ciblage publicitaire.

Gérer mes choix J'autorise

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"Le seul moyen d'abîmer une langue, c'est de ne pas la parler", affirment deux linguistes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Deux linguistes membres du collectif des linguistes atterré(e)s publient chez Gallimard un texte court, nerveux, polémique intitulé "Le français va très bien, merci". Anne Abeillé et Julie Neveux estiment que la simplification de l'orthographe va dans le sens de l'évolution de la langue.