I consider myself articulate in French, but it does require somewhat more effort. Sometimes, it's a bit like swimming with your clothes on: progress is slow and inelegant, but you manage to get to your objective. Switching back to English becomes the linguistic equivalent of putting on a Speedo. I can then slip along nicely, unencumbered by French grammatical formalities, its tyranny of word agreement and arbitrariness of genders.
But, usually, I just take the plunge in French, unmindful of committing grammatical solecisms. And I'm getter better at the sex of words, even picking my way through those that swing both ways, such as m‚moire, poste, and poˆle - which has three meanings, depending on gender.
By the time the cameras were rolling last week for an interview on Radio Canada's Le Point, I had once again shucked off any linguistic diffidence, and I engaged Me Serge Ménard in his own element - or at least in his own language. As you probably know, Me Ménard is Minister of the Montreal Metropolis.
Poor Minister Ménard. After a successful stint as Minister of Public Security - where he exploited his background as a criminal lawyer - his new job is no piece of cake. As Le Devoir said editorially, in trying to deal with the mayors of the region, he won't have a marijuana field to cut down in front of the cameras. The grass must seem greener in his old stomping grounds. Now his job is to stop the whole region going to pot.
My French is not always up to word games and puns, so during the televised discussion, and while Me Menard was extolling the virtues of creating yet another commission for our region, I was wasting valuable mental time in deciding whether "my preference for sins of omission rather than sins of a commission" translated well into French.
It must be the Cartesian side of our francophone friends that puts them at risk to bouts of structuritis. We've got a problem? Let's create a government structure to deal with it. Maybe it comes with the language: a language as elegant, as structured, and as internally logical as a minuet.
One thing that M. Menard said that really got my goat: he referred the parochial rivalries in the region that supposedly prevent any kind of regional cooperation. The media, too, are always going on about "squabbling" among municipalities. Why is it that any difference of opinion in the Quebec legislature is referred to as "debate", yet when there is a genuine difference of opinion between, say, the Island cities and the off-Island towns, it's called "squabbling"?
Besides, when asked to give an example of such "squabbling", M. Ménard is hard-pressed to give examples. Certainly, as president of the Conference of Suburban Mayors, I've made it a point to forge a consensus. Believe it or not, we also get along with the city of Montreal.