Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!


Bernard Thibault, the head of the CGT, complains that the government isn't listening to the unions and is misleading transport users about the proposed minimum service law. If the government doesn't start listening, Thibault warns, it will be a tense autumn.

As for the minimum service law, "nos mises en garde sur l'inutilité voire la dangerosité du texte n'ont pas été entendues," says Thibault. Dangérosité: quelle bravitude de le dire! Attention! Danger de surenchère! Or should I say dangérosité de surenchère?

Meanwhile, as for surenchère, Fillon says he's considering extending the minimum service law to the schools as well. Was that before or after Thibault spoke? Tit for tat, point-counterpoint, body blows from two heavyweights feeling each other out as the decisive rounds of the bout approach?

To be continued ...

6 comments:

kirkmc said...

It's fair to say that most French people are in favor of these laws that create minimum service. And that unions are abusing their (limited) power with wildcat strikes. They need to learn to be grown-ups (just look at how the Germans do it) and compromise for a change.

Quico said...

Monsieur Marteau d'Or,

I've been away on vacation, but I come back to see the blog's gotten even better. You seem to be having more fun with it - or, well, I am anyway, because your usage-cop shtick really is very funny. L'actualisation du logiciel gaullo-présidentialiste?! I'm still laughing...can't wait for an occasion to drop it casually into conversation.

As for minimum service - it never seemed credible to me that the unions would allow themselves to be declawed without a fight.

Anonymous said...

Are you suggesting that dangerosité is not a word? You'd better check your Robert...

Unknown said...

Dear Anonymous,

Plus qu'un néologisme, la dangerosité est un concept moderne, utilisé parfois à la place du mot Danger, à tort. L'idée est que même si quelque chose ou quelqu'un n'est pas réellement et objectivement dangereux, il pourrait l'être potentiellement. La situation dangereuse peut être définie comme une menace ressentie de façon réelle ou imaginaire provenant d'une agression interne ou externe contre l’intégrité de leur structure par un individu ou un groupe d’individus (Buffard).

L'état dangereux quant à lui est un complexe de conditions sous l’action desquelles il est probable qu’un individu commette un délit (Senninger).

L’acte dangereux est celui qui possède un certain nombre de caractéristiques, la gravité, la soudaineté, l'imprévisibilité, la menace pour l’environnement ainsi que l'éventualité d’une répétition et d’une sommation (Collin).

Le mot dangerosité est un néologisme qui sera avantageusement remplacé par danger ex: la dangerosité d'une route = le danger d'une route.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerosit%C3%A9

Anonymous said...

The Grand Robert has its first citation of the word in 1978; that's not much of a neologism any more, is it?

Unknown said...

Mon cher M. Anonyme,

What can I say? I, like the Wikipedia writer presumably, am an old codger and prefer la langue châtiée. De gustibus non est disputandum. But I wouldn't be so picky if there were not a point to be made. Thibault's invocation of the "dangerosité" of the law oriented his comment subtly toward the future. There is a potential danger, here, MM. les députés, that I want you to be fully aware of when you vote on this law. You're prodding the bull. He is going to get very angry. Watch out! Hence he shaded his remark from an observation of the law's emptiness (inutilité) to a hint of menace. It's that I was reacting to. If you read my subsequent comment on this dispute, you will have noticed that I think that this is a matter that could be negotiated and that evocations of danger, dangerousness, danger ou dangérosité, are not helpful. Revenons à nos moutons.