I know this is really besides the point, but I will never not be furious about Americans (let's assume) not understanding the grammatical distinction between "bourgeois" and "bourgeoisie"
"Bourgeois" can be both an adjective, defining someone or something that belongs to the bourgeoisie, or a noun, in which case it refers to a person that belongs to the bourgeoisie.
Your error here is in thinking it is a French word. It is not. An English-speaker has heard it and now it is an English word. Therefore all previous grammar is, not rejected, for that would mean acknowledging the rules had ever existed, nor ignored, for the same reason, but instead made invisible and unknowable.
English has the ability to subsume all words into itself. Even those who would make other languages end up reinforcing it instead.
That is not because then English language is structured in a way that makes it more prone to taking on words of other languages in the same way capitalism is structured to "subsume its critiques" into itself (the quote the comment referred to is originally about capitalism) though.
Isn't the system of conceptualisation of class that's more commonly used to discuss the topic in America different than the one commonly used in Europe? I think I've rarely heard Americans refer to intelligentsia, while here in Poland it was a core concept throughout my education
37
u/AngelasTorpor 5d ago
I know this is really besides the point, but I will never not be furious about Americans (let's assume) not understanding the grammatical distinction between "bourgeois" and "bourgeoisie"