Depuis quelques jours, il fait parler de lui. Pas encore en ouverture du JT, non, mais la récente interview de l'une des responsables de BibliObs, coauteur de «l'Art de la ponctuation», par le
site Rue89, semble avoir (enfin) réveillé les consciences: sur France Inter, jeudi 26 au micro de Caroline Cartier, Sylvie Prioul a désespérément cherché des points-virgules dans les pages du «Nouvel Observateur», pour en trouver finalement dans la lettre adressée aux lecteurs par Denis Olivennes - qui prendra début mai ses fonctions de président du directoire de l'Obs.
Tout n'est donc pas perdu, l'honneur est sauf, mais la situation demeure préoccupante; c'est ce qu'ont pu constater les auditeurs de TSF en écoutant, le 25 mars, Laurent Sapir s'entretenir avec Olivier Houdart, l'autre auteur de «l'Art de la ponctuation», tandis que le sujet était au menu des infos de 18h sur cette antenne.
Reste une énigme, posée par le titre de l'article publié sur Rue89: «Un appel du mouvement contre la disparition du point-virgule». Titre étrange en effet, qui semble émaner d'un «comité de défense» jadis en activité, mais aujourd'hui disparu de la Toile. Ce «mouvement» existerait-il encore quelque part? Un mouvement clandestin alors, que les RG feraient bien de surveiller un peu, avant que les activistes du point-virgule ne se décident à envahir l'Académie, ou à saccager les imprimeries qui éditent les ouvrages dépourvus de ce signe... Jean d'Ormesson pris en otage, à cause d'une virgule surmontée d'un point, voilà qui ferait désordre dans le pays.
Mieux vaut donc œuvrer rapidement à la réintroduction de cette espèce menacé. Et pour ne pas voir, un beau matin, journaux et livres sans le moindre point-virgule, BibliObs verse cette nouvelle pièce au dossier: des extraits du chapitre qui lui est consacré dans «l'Art de la ponctuation», d'Olivier Houdart et Sylvie Prioul (que, décidément, on soupçonne fort d'être sympathisants du mystérieux «mouvement»).
Le point-virgule : La lanterne rouge
S'il existait un Top 10 de la ponctuation selon la fréquence de chaque signe dans les imprimés, le point-virgule arriverait, et de loin, en queue du peloton. La presse le délaisse : dans le numéro du 22 décembre 2005 de L'Humanité par exemple, nous n'en avons, à notre grande surprise, trouvé qu'un seul (réfugié dans l'éditorial), alors que tous les autres signes y sont largement représentés. Force est de constater qu'il n'a pas le vent en poupe et fait partie, comme l'imparfait du subjonctif ou le passé simple, des finesses menacées par l'appauvrissement de l'expression écrite.
Claude Duneton écrivait dans Le Figaro en septembre 2003 un plaidoyer en sa faveur : « Le point-virgule mal aimé des écrivants, abandonné par les écrivains, est en voie de disparition : protégeons-le... » Et il citait les attaques de Cavanna contre ce « signe infortuné » : l'auteur des Ritals le traitant de « parasite timoré » qui traduit « le flou de la pensée, et colle aux dents du lecteur comme un caramel trop mou » ( message transmis à Hugo, à Maupassant ou à Flaubert, grands utilisateurs de ce signe et donc penseurs un peu « flous »). Pour être moins virulent, l'adjectif « vieillot » qu'on lui accole facilement, le range dans les signes du passé... et dépassés.
Chronique d'une mort annoncée ? Le point-virgule va-t-il, sous les coups de ses détracteurs et, surtout, faute d'utilisateurs, passer le seuil critique en deçà duquel il sera condamné ?
Il n'est pourtant réservé ni aux « intellos » ni aux passéistes ; c'est même l'inverse d'un signe élitiste puisqu'il clarifie l'organisation de la phrase. Aucune raison donc de le délaisser : notre mission (nous l'avons acceptée) se veut « désinhibitrice », car la sous-utilisation du point-virgule semble en partie due à l'appréhension qu'il suscite.
Il faut sauver le soldat Point-Virgule
Signe hybride — ni tout à fait point ni tout à fait virgule —, cette « virgule ponctuée », comme l'appelle au XVIIIe siècle le grammairien Girard, est un signe de l'entre-deux. Autrefois ponctuation forte (puisqu'il a été l'équivalent de notre actuel point final jusqu'à la fin du Moyen Age), il a été rétrogradé (pour filer la métaphore militaire).
Le point-virgule assume deux grandes fonctions : tout d'abord, sorte de point atténué, il s'interpose entre des propositions bien distinctes que l'auteur maintient ainsi liées au sein d'un même phrase. Ensuite, il joue le rôle d'une « super-virgule », aidant le lecteur à repérer les grandes articulations d'une phrase longue où abondent déjà les virgules.
Plus point que virgule
Séparation et mise en relation caractérisent le point-virgule dans sa première définition. Par sa présence, l'auteur manifeste sa volonté de cimenter entre elles les différentes propositions (qu'elles se complètent, s'opposent, soient mises en parallèle...).
[...]
Plus virgule que point
« Doublure » de la virgule forte, celle qui sépare des propositions, le point-virgule est destiné à éviter au lecteur de s'égarer dans la phrase labyrinthique, où abondent déjà les virgules faibles.
[...]
Il existe sur le Net* un Comité de défense et d'illustration du point-virgule, dont les membres s'engagent à « chanter ses louanges en toute occasion » et à l'utiliser « chaque fois que ce sera approprié ». Serment digne de celui des Horaces ! Sans faire partie de la confrérie, nous agissons dans l'ombre, rajoutant ces points-virgules décriés avec le sentiment d'accomplir un — petit — acte de résistance. Auquel s'ajoute, si le point-virgule se substitue à un point, le plaisir de rallonger la phrase, qui a ces temps-ci tendance à rétrécir.
[*Ce Comité a aujourd'hui disparu de la Toile.]
En bref
LE POINT-VIRGULE
• Sépare des phrases complètes liées logiquement.
• Joue le rôle d'une « super-virgule » dans la phrase longue, séparant des propositions déjà subdivisées par des virgules.
• Sépare les termes d'une énumération scientifique ou technique.
• Est précédée d'une espace fine et suivi d'une espace forte.
© Seuil. Olivier Houdart et Sylvie Prioul
mardi 15 avril 2008
Our Tibet Protests Won't Work
Public humiliation does not work nearly as well on the regime in Beijing as private pressure.At first glance, China's recent crackdown in Tibet looks like a familiar storyline: a dictatorship represses its people. And of course that's part of the reality -- as it often is in China. But on this issue, the communist regime is not in opposition to its people. The vast majority of Chinese have little sympathy for the Tibetan cause. To the extent that we can gauge public opinion in China and among its diaspora, ordinary Chinese are, if anything, critical of the Beijing government for being too easy on the Tibetans. The real struggle here is between a nationalist majority and an ethnic and religious minority looking to secure its rights.
In these circumstances, a boycott of the Olympics would have precisely the opposite effect that is intended. The regime in Beijing would become only more defensive and stubborn. The Chinese people would rally around the flag and see the West as trying to humiliate China in its first international moment of glory. (There are many suspicions that the United States cannot abide the prospect of a rising China.) For most Chinese, the Games are about the world's giving China respect, rather than bolstering the Communist Party's legitimacy.
For leaders to boycott the Games' opening ceremonies alone is an odd idea. Is the president of the United States supposed to travel to Beijing to attend the women's water-polo finals instead? (Britain's Gordon Brown, for instance, has said he'll attend the closing, but not the opening ceremonies.) Picking who will go to which event is trying to have it both ways, voting for the boycott before you vote against it. Some want to punish China for its association with the Sudanese government, which is perpetrating atrocities in Darfur. But to boycott Beijing's Games because it buys oil from Sudan carries the notion of responsibility too far. After all, the United States has much closer ties to Saudi Arabia, a medieval monarchy that has funded Islamic terror. Should the world boycott America for this relationship?
China's attitude toward Tibet is wrong and cruel, but, alas, not that unusual. Other nations, especially developing countries, have taken tough stands against what they perceive as separatist forces. A flourishing democracy like India has often responded to such movements by imposing martial law and suspending political and civil rights. The Turks for many decades crushed all Kurdish pleas for linguistic and ethnic autonomy. The democratically elected Russian government of Boris Yeltsin responded brutally to Chechen demands. Under Yeltsin and his successor, Vladimir Putin, also elected, the Russian Army killed about 75,000 civilians in Chechnya, and leveled its capital. These actions were enthusiastically supported within Russia. It is particularly strange to see countries that launched no boycotts while Chechnya was being destroyed -- and indeed welcomed Russia into the G8 -- now so outraged about the persecution of minorities. (In comparison, estimates are that over the past 20 years, China has jailed several hundred people in Tibet.)
On this issue, the Bush administration has so far followed a wiser course, forgoing the grandstanding taking place in Europe and on the campaign trail. It has been urging the Chinese government quietly but firmly to engage in serious discussions with the Dalai Lama. Diplomacy can be scoffed at, but every multinational business that has had success in persuading the Chinese government to change course will testify that public humiliation does not work nearly as well on the regime as private pressure.
Negotiating with the Dalai Lama is in Beijing's interest as well. It faces a restive population that lives in about 13 percent of the land area of China. Many Tibetans want independence. But the Dalai Lama has repeatedly said that he does not seek independence, only cultural autonomy. Even last week he rejected any boycott of the Olympics and urged his followers to engage in no violent protests whatsoever. If there were ever a leader of a separatist group whom one could negotiate with, he's it. And once the 72-year-old Dalai Lama passes from the scene, Beijing might have to deal with a far more unpredictable and radical Tibetan movement.
So why doesn't the Chinese regime see this? Beijing has a particular problem. Now that communism is dead, the Communist Party sees its legitimacy as linked to its role in promoting and defending Chinese nationalism. It is especially clumsy when it comes to such issues. Clever technocrats though they are, China's communist leaders -- mostly engineers -- have not had to refine their political skills as they have their economic touch. In the past they have stoked anti-Japanese and anti-American outbursts, only to panic that things were getting out of control and then reverse course. They fear that compromising over Tibet would set a precedent for the unraveling of the Chinese nation. China has grown and shrunk in size over the centuries, and its dynasties have often been judged by their success in preserving the country's geography.
In fact, in almost all cases -- Turkey, India -- granting autonomy to groups that press for it has in the end produced a more stable and peaceful national climate. But that is a lesson the Chinese government will have to learn for itself; it is unlikely to take instruction from outsiders. Its handling of the protests in Tibet is disgraceful. But humiliating the entire country over it would make matters worse.
Posted by Fareed Zakaria on April 14, 2008 9:07 AM
Fareed Zakaria
Editor of Newsweek International, columnist
PostGlobal co-moderator Fareed Zakaria is editor of Newsweek International, overseeing all Newsweek's editions abroad. He writes a regular column for Newsweek, which also appears in Newsweek International and often The Washington Post. more »
In these circumstances, a boycott of the Olympics would have precisely the opposite effect that is intended. The regime in Beijing would become only more defensive and stubborn. The Chinese people would rally around the flag and see the West as trying to humiliate China in its first international moment of glory. (There are many suspicions that the United States cannot abide the prospect of a rising China.) For most Chinese, the Games are about the world's giving China respect, rather than bolstering the Communist Party's legitimacy.
For leaders to boycott the Games' opening ceremonies alone is an odd idea. Is the president of the United States supposed to travel to Beijing to attend the women's water-polo finals instead? (Britain's Gordon Brown, for instance, has said he'll attend the closing, but not the opening ceremonies.) Picking who will go to which event is trying to have it both ways, voting for the boycott before you vote against it. Some want to punish China for its association with the Sudanese government, which is perpetrating atrocities in Darfur. But to boycott Beijing's Games because it buys oil from Sudan carries the notion of responsibility too far. After all, the United States has much closer ties to Saudi Arabia, a medieval monarchy that has funded Islamic terror. Should the world boycott America for this relationship?
China's attitude toward Tibet is wrong and cruel, but, alas, not that unusual. Other nations, especially developing countries, have taken tough stands against what they perceive as separatist forces. A flourishing democracy like India has often responded to such movements by imposing martial law and suspending political and civil rights. The Turks for many decades crushed all Kurdish pleas for linguistic and ethnic autonomy. The democratically elected Russian government of Boris Yeltsin responded brutally to Chechen demands. Under Yeltsin and his successor, Vladimir Putin, also elected, the Russian Army killed about 75,000 civilians in Chechnya, and leveled its capital. These actions were enthusiastically supported within Russia. It is particularly strange to see countries that launched no boycotts while Chechnya was being destroyed -- and indeed welcomed Russia into the G8 -- now so outraged about the persecution of minorities. (In comparison, estimates are that over the past 20 years, China has jailed several hundred people in Tibet.)
On this issue, the Bush administration has so far followed a wiser course, forgoing the grandstanding taking place in Europe and on the campaign trail. It has been urging the Chinese government quietly but firmly to engage in serious discussions with the Dalai Lama. Diplomacy can be scoffed at, but every multinational business that has had success in persuading the Chinese government to change course will testify that public humiliation does not work nearly as well on the regime as private pressure.
Negotiating with the Dalai Lama is in Beijing's interest as well. It faces a restive population that lives in about 13 percent of the land area of China. Many Tibetans want independence. But the Dalai Lama has repeatedly said that he does not seek independence, only cultural autonomy. Even last week he rejected any boycott of the Olympics and urged his followers to engage in no violent protests whatsoever. If there were ever a leader of a separatist group whom one could negotiate with, he's it. And once the 72-year-old Dalai Lama passes from the scene, Beijing might have to deal with a far more unpredictable and radical Tibetan movement.
So why doesn't the Chinese regime see this? Beijing has a particular problem. Now that communism is dead, the Communist Party sees its legitimacy as linked to its role in promoting and defending Chinese nationalism. It is especially clumsy when it comes to such issues. Clever technocrats though they are, China's communist leaders -- mostly engineers -- have not had to refine their political skills as they have their economic touch. In the past they have stoked anti-Japanese and anti-American outbursts, only to panic that things were getting out of control and then reverse course. They fear that compromising over Tibet would set a precedent for the unraveling of the Chinese nation. China has grown and shrunk in size over the centuries, and its dynasties have often been judged by their success in preserving the country's geography.
In fact, in almost all cases -- Turkey, India -- granting autonomy to groups that press for it has in the end produced a more stable and peaceful national climate. But that is a lesson the Chinese government will have to learn for itself; it is unlikely to take instruction from outsiders. Its handling of the protests in Tibet is disgraceful. But humiliating the entire country over it would make matters worse.
Posted by Fareed Zakaria on April 14, 2008 9:07 AM
Fareed Zakaria
Editor of Newsweek International, columnist
PostGlobal co-moderator Fareed Zakaria is editor of Newsweek International, overseeing all Newsweek's editions abroad. He writes a regular column for Newsweek, which also appears in Newsweek International and often The Washington Post. more »
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)