Between Us French

In the midst of the seriousness of the results of the election, a drama comparable only in excitement to watching paint dry, I thought it might be fun to take a little detour into the world of Bush and language. But not just any language. Freedom, er, French!

There’s a quote that’s been floating around the Internet, a comment attributed to George W. Bush in a conversation with Tony Blair. According to Bush, the story goes, the problem with the French is they have no word for entrepreneurship. Any educated person with even the slightest knowledge of language immediately lapses into giggles over this story. “No French word for ‘entrepreneur’? It’s a French word, you dolt!” is the typical response.

Now, I’m a Canadian. I went to a private Catholic school in BC where, despite no native French-speaking population, we started learning French in kindergarten. It’s safe to say that I can speak a smidge of French. And when I started thinking about this quote, I got curious: does entrepreneur mean the same thing in French as I think it does? Part of this line of thinking was prompted by Ashley‘s comments on how one of the French guys at work insisted that he was an entrepreneur. According to him, in France, anyone who has been to university and works in a company qualifies to be called an entrepreneur.

Just what does “entrepreneur” mean in French?

In my mind, I rewound back to high school French class. “Entre”, I recalled, means “between”. But I was damned if “preneur” meant anything. A quick trip to my French-English dictionary revealed:

preneur: nm (acheteur) buyer; (locataire) lessee, taker, tenant.

Entrepreneur = “between buyer”? A go-between? I suppose that was an accurate description, at a rudimentary level, but it lacked the flair we associate with the word in English. Perhaps the combined word in French packed a little more punch. A quick flip through the dictionary revealed:

entrepreneur: nm contractor. ~ (en bâtiment) building contractor; ~ de transports haulage contractor (Brit) trucker (US); ~ de peinture painter (and decorator); ~ de pompes funèbres undertaker (Brit), funeral director (Brit), mortician (US).

That’s an entrepreneur? A contractor? A guy who hammers up drywall? It hardly conjures up the image of glamour that is associated with the word in English. On a whim, I checked the French-English translation of entrepreneur (i.e.: translating from the “English” version of “entrepreneur” to the “French” version). I know, it seems silly – after all, they should be the same, right?

entrepreneur: n entrepreneur m (chef d’enterprise).

Entrepreneur means…entrepreneur in French. Whoppee, no big surprise there. Except, the alternate meaning is “head of an enterprise”. So the translation from the “English” version of entrepreneur to “French” actually carried an additional meaning – someone in charge of a business, not merely a contractor.

I reeled at this revelation: could it be that in a moment of unrecognized lucidity, George W. Bush had uttered an insightful comment on the difference between the French and Americans? That the French, despite being the source of the original word, actually had no single word to convey the meaning that the word entrepreneur had gained in English? That entrepreneur in English no longer meant the same thing as it did in French?

My world views shaken, I numbly returned to watch the conclusion of the wall-to-wall election coverage, afraid for a future that could include a President George W. Bush who might not actually be a complete moron.

Apprenticeshi*

I’m watching the first episode of the new season of The Apprentice. The challenge is simple (and the cross-promotions are fast and furious): create a new toy for Mattel. Let me reiterate – create a new toy.

What follows in the show is the worst misinterpretation of the word “create” I have ever seen. Basically, a bunch of guys in suits and girls in nice outfits throw a few ideas up on the whiteboard describing what they think might be interesting for kids. Wow-ee – they came up with an idea and then dispatched the Mattel toy wizards to actually build the product! Whew! They must be exhausted!

And therein lies the problem. The contestants come up with a hazy idea for a toy, and then get some guys who actually know what they’re doing go off and do the actual creating. No wonder people have such a distorted view of businesspeople. If the show were an actual representation of the creative process, there would have been more than just some brainstorming. They’d have hit the streets, seen what kids wanted, checked out what competitors were doing, and so on. Nope, no time for research! We’ve got product to ship!

It reminds me of an episode of South Park in which the underwear-stealing gnomes explain their plan to achieve great wealth:

  • Step One: Collect underwear.
  • Step Three: Profit!

Honestly people. Do you think Trump got to be a bazillionaire by coming up with vague plans for buildings and hand-waving the rest?

Donald: Y’know, I was thinking we should create some kind of building with lots of lights where people just come in, drop off their money, and leave.
Foreman: Yessir Mr. Trump! We’ll start building a casino complex in Atlanta immediately, and be back with your bagloads of cash in the morning!
Donald: A ca-see-noh? Uh, yeah, that. Get on it. Pronto!

Not! How about the boys behind Google:

Larry Page: Hey, Sergey…Sergey! Put down the bong for a second…I was thinking – we should create a search engine! Whaddaya think?
Sergey Brin: Whoa. That’s a great idea!
Larry: Great! Now gimme a hit off that thing and then we’ll go hire some engineers, come back here, get high for six more years, IPO and then wait for our payday!

It’s called work for a reason guys. Last I checked, an apprentice is supposed to be someone who does all of the grunt work under the supervision of an expert in order to gain a deeper understanding of a particular domain – not the other way around. I don’t know what the hell they’re doing on this show.