User:Île flottante/Français Simple

Why to include simple wikipedia versions of other languages
Wikipedia is a medium through which information is intended to be transmitted to a wider audience as possible. The first step in achieving this was the creation of the first wikipedia, this was followed by the inclusion of other major languages, then minor languages, such as Scots, and then dead languages, such as Latin. Then came the idea of Simple English. Simple English is a tool that is usable by an even greater number of people than standard English. This was a major step forward, contributions from non native speakers were even more readily available. As it would be more likely that if they could understand that wikipedia; they could add information, as they saw it missing. It was then decided however, that every proposed language must comply with the Language proposal policy. Point 2 of the Requisites for eligibility states that The language must have a valid ISO-639 1–3 code. It then justifies it with "The Wikimedia Foundation does not seek to develop new linguistic entities; there must be an extensive body of works in that language". Which is fair, and makes sense. I'm sure that no one would appreciate a wikipedia in Pig Latin, for example. However, simple wikipedias are still written in the original,  non simple  version of the language. One would not argue that Simple English is not English. And thus, by the massive proportion of the world that speaks French (approx. 467 million people), Simple French would meet the requirement that "there must be an extensive body of works in that language". It would not be a new language, rather a form of original French wikipedia, rewritten in a manner comprehensible to learners/children/non native speakers.

Simple versions are not new languages!
I argue the point that a simple wikipedia is not in a different language its non simple cousin. Returning to my point before where I stated that no one would argue that the English wikipedia and the simple English wikipedia are written in different languages, rather different   styles  !

The difference between the proposal of Simple English and Simple French
Whereas Simple English is a contructed language, simple French would be French written to a style that is as simple as possible. That is to say, that one is still able to comprehend what is said, but that one would not, for example, need to understand the word ouïr, as entendre would be used instead. The main point is that, Français simple is a style, and has no strict word lists, but would aim to use fewer of the words that are not used in everyday speech. In the following paragraphs, I shall elaborate.

Vocabulary
I would propose that if a Français: simple were established, it would utilise the words in the Robert Junior dictionary. And would replace and words not existing therein, or no synonym contained therein by their definition in the Robert Micro dictionary. Also, that the editor should do his or her best to use the more frequently used word as possible. For example, one would write contre la constitution (une constituion est blah blah blah....) as opposed to anticonstitutionallement. I propose the utilisation of Robert as they are well trusted among francophones, and many schools French speaking schools give them to their students.

Grammar
I suggest that the wikipedia would follow the grammatical rules set out in Toute la grammaire by Bénédicte Gaillard and Jean-Pierre Colignon (ISBN: 978-2-226-14392-1). However, should a dispute arise, I would recommend that any decision by the Academie Française be inferior to Toute la grammaire, simply due to the fact that amoungst francophones, L'academie française is well known for liking complicated language.

Verb Tenses
One of the great difficulties with the French language is that of the verb system. With 17 tenses and 2 participles per verb, this leaves a lot of room for confusion. I would therefore propose the utilisation of only the Perfect tense (passé composé), the Present tense (Présent), the Imperfect tense (Imparfait), the Pluperfect tense (Plus que parfait), the Near future (Futur proche) i.e. Je vais manger une pomme, the Future tense (Le futur), the Future anterior (Futur anterieur), the Conditional tense (Conditionel), the Conditional past (Conditionel passé) and the Subjunctive Present (Le subjonctif présent).

Orthography
Orthography is something that almost every French speaker; native or not, is not very good at. The principal culprit for the is what is known as the Past participle agreement (Accord du participle passé). It is loosely based on the principle that depending on the order of the sentence, the auxiliary used, and the meaning of the sentence; either an -s, an -e or -es must be added to the end of the past participle. I would propose that the past participle agreement not be used.

Numbers
I would propose that the numbers follow the French example of Soixante-dix, Quatre-vingt and Quatre-Vingt-Dix; rather than the Belgium or Swiss systems; as so not to cause confusion. Also, that centuries be written using numbers, rather than Roman numerals, 12e siècle, rather than XIIe siècle.