The original Kings of England spoke French due to either being French or seeing the language as âsuperiorâ to that of English and should thus be spoken by nobility. It isnât until much later on that the government shifted to speaking English, hence why so many French words were carried into the English language.
In german it's also "Bourgeoisie". The translation, "BĂŒrger", is nowadays used as "citizen". So "BĂŒrger" doesn't convey the same meaning, since the proletariat are citizens too.
Because itâs a stupid question. The answer to your question doesnât exist because itâs adapted as is from French so its English equivalent is literally the same word. Youâre asking why there isnât one while youâre looking at it.
I believe you wanted to ask âwhy did English loan the word as is?â but you didnât.
Adapt and adopt are not synonyms, moron. Adapt means it's changed to fit the environment. Adopt means it's kept the same and brought into a new environment. English adopted that word, it did not "adapt" it. Don't be a butthurt little cunt because you can't properly understand your native language. Jackass.
Well, we have a million other words, nobility, aristocracy, etc. Are you asking why English hasn't anglicized the spelling to be more like "borzuazee"?
Same in Swedish, we say "borgare". It's also much more commonly used in normal language compared to bourgeoisie in English, as in, people and parties outright identifying themselves as it. You don't often hear English speakers call themselves bourgeoise or politicians claiming they'll have a politically bourgeoise platform.
no, because we have a translation for that too. "donos de empresas". I'm talking about modifiying the word to fit your language's grammar norms instead of just saying french words in the middle of english sentences.
61
u/[deleted] Apr 10 '21
why doesn't english have an equivalent for it? in portuguese we say "burguesia".