1

Enough is enough! The Committee of Public Safety is in session. Bills of indictment have been drawn up. Swift and fair justice is to be meted out against the most egregious and repulsive anglicisms that are now proliferating. The first one in the dock is

échouer à

as in

L’UE échoue à adopter la neutralité carbone en 2050,

another one of those titles that the journos from Le Monde - but maybe they've already been replaced by automatic translation programmes - seem to be inflicting upon us on an almost daily basis. Stripped of its mask, échouer à reveals its true head, fail to, and seeks to replace the perfectly valid réussir à, parvenir à used in the negative, which would give us

L’UE ne parvient/réussit pas à adopter la neutralité carbone en 2050

Up goes échouer à into the tumbril! There is room for others, any suggestions before we set it rolling towards the sharpened blade of the Veuve?

closed as primarily opinion-based by Stéphane Gimenez Jun 21 at 17:57

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    Merci de votre commentaire, suiiuriesse, il me permet de mieux saisir certaines des règles de ce site que j'ai récemment découvert. Les Luxembourgeois parlent du Luxembourg et de Luxembourg-ville pour distinguer entre le pays et sa capitale. Est-ce le cas au Québec également? Ou bien l'emploi de l'article défini suffit pour savoir de quoi on parle, "au Québec" (pays) s'opposant à "à Québec" (ville)? – petitrien Jun 21 at 20:10

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.