Monday, February 27, 2017

Best Oscar Speech in 2017

Viola Davis, best supporting actress, “Fences”
Thank you to the academy. You know, there’s one place that all the people with the greatest potential are gathered. One place, and that’s the graveyard. People ask me all the time: “What kind of stories do you want to tell, Viola?” And I say, exhume those bodies, exhume those stories. The stories of the people who dreamed big and never saw those dreams to fruition, people who fell in love and lost. I became an artist — and thank God I did — because we are the only profession that celebrates what it means to live a life.
So here’s to August Wilson, who exhumed and exalted the ordinary people. And to Paramount [and the producers] for being the cheerleaders for a movie that is about people, and words, and life, and forgiveness, and grace. And to [fellow cast members, including Mykelti Williamson and Stephen McKinley Henderson] for being the most wonderful artists I’ve ever worked with.
And oh captain, my captain, Denzel Washington. Thank you for putting two entities in the driving seat: August and God. And they served you well. And to [my parents] who were and are the center of my universe. The people who taught me good or bad, how to fail, how to love, how to hold an award, how to lose. My parents: I’m so thankful that God chose you to bring me into this world. To my sisters ... thank you for the imagination. And to my husband and my daughter. My heart. You ... teach me every day how to live, how to love. I’m so glad that you are the foundation of my life. Thank you to the academy. Thank you.

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Madonna in Fur Coat

ISTANBUL — A young Turkish man arrives in 1920s Berlin. Ignoring his business of soap manufacturing, he spends his days learning German and his nights reading books — especially the Russians, and especially Turgenev. He explores the city’s parks, its wide streets, its museums and art galleries. He is looking, as he put it, for something, “to sweep me off my feet.”
He finds it one evening at a gallery, where he stands transfixed in front of a painting of a young woman dressed in a fur coat. Day after day he returns to stare at the painting. One evening, drunk and out on the town, he sees the woman in the flesh. Her name is Maria, and the life of the young man, Raif, is transformed.
“All my life, I’d kept my heart closed,” Raif said. “I had never known love. But now, all at once, the doors had flown open.”
That is the basis of “Madonna in a Fur Coat,” a once-forgotten Turkish novel written nearly 75 years ago that has improbably become a best seller, outselling, these days, even Orhan Pamuk, Turkey’s Nobel laureate.
Published in 1943 and written by Sabahattin Ali, a leftist intellectual jailed for his political writings (much like his contemporaries under today’s government), the book’s newfound success has become a rare point of common cultural experience for a deeply polarized country.
“It is read, loved and wept over by men and women of all ages, but most of all by young adults,” Maureen Freely, who translated the book for the first time into English last year (with Alexander Dawe), wrote in The Guardian. “And no one seems able to explain quite why.”
If he were alive today, Mr. Ali would be shocked to see “Madonna” had become a best seller, his daughter, Filiz Ali, 79, said in a recent interview at her Istanbul apartment. (The book has sold nearly a million copies over the last three years, according to the publisher, YKY, and was recently published in English as a Penguin Classic.)
“My father didn’t really give so much importance to this book,” she said. “And his friends told him, ‘Sabahattin, you shouldn’t have written such a romantic book. It doesn’t look good on your reputation.’”
An erudite man of letters during the early years of the Turkish republic, and a devoted Communist, Mr. Ali wrote novels, stories, poems and articles that repeatedly got him thrown into jail. The parallels between what he endured as a dissident intellectual and the ordeals faced by modern Turkish writers arrested for speaking out against the current Islamist government help explain Mr. Ali’s newfound popularity among the Turkish public.
“The same things are repeating, much worse,” said Ms. Ali, referring to the current arrests of journalists speaking out against the current Islamist government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Mr. Ali was murdered under suspicious circumstances in 1948, at age 41, at a lonely outpost near the Bulgarian border as he tried to flee to Europe.
The death of Mr. Ali remains, almost 70 years later, as mysterious as his newfound popularity. A smuggler who was “helping” Mr. Ali cross the border admitted to his murder and did a short stint in prison. But it is widely suspected, his daughter said, that he was actually killed by state security agents after he was interrogated. She believes that somewhere deep in government archives the truth could be found.
With the success of “Madonna,” Mr. Ali is now the rare literary figure who is embraced with equal ardor by teenage girls and intellectuals.
Sabri Gurses, a Turkish poet and novelist, said he was moved when he learned that Mr. Ali was carrying a German translation of Alexander Pushkin’s novel in verse, “Eugene Onegin,” when he was killed. Nowadays, he said, when he sees young people carrying “Madonna” on the streets of Istanbul he imagines many of them feel for Mr. Ali what the Russian poet, Mikhail Lermontov, famously wrote about Pushkin: “He rose against the world’s opinion, and as a hero, lone he fell.”
The sudden success of “Madonna” — attributed to word of mouth, an interest by some Turkish teachers and social media — has become an opportunity for Ms. Ali, late in her life, to help reacquaint Turkish readers with her father. She has spoken at schools and conferences to promote the book, and says she often meets young readers, including boys, who come to her with tears in her eyes.
“They want a love like this,” she said.
“Madonna,” she said, is part autobiographical, as Mr. Ali spent time as a young man in Berlin in the 1920s. A letter to a friend that surfaced later revealed he had a friendship there with a woman, Maria Pruder, which inspired the novel. In the book, Maria was half Jewish, a revelation that foreshadows what was to come in Germany. Ms. Ali said her family has never tried to track down the real Maria or her family.
“Maybe she died in one of the death camps,” she said.
In a country so deeply polarized between secularists and Islamists, between urban elites and the rural poor, “Madonna” and the legacy of Mr. Ali have become something to unite over, at least for those who love books.
Sevengul Sonmez, an editor and literary historian, said that Turkish readers who love “Romeo and Juliet” are “now reading Maria and Raif, as the modern impossible love story.”
“We needed a classic as well,” she said. “I think that readers have needed, for a long time, a book they could love unanimously. ‘Madonna in a Fur Coat’ finally emerged as the common ground.”
If one can glean insights into a society from the books its citizens read, then one thing the popularity of “Madonna” may underscore about Turkey is the eagerness, among the country’s youth, to break free of the traditional gender roles and machismo pushed by Turkey’s leader, Mr. Erdogan.
In the book, gender stereotypes are upended: Raif comes off as vulnerable and emotional, while Maria exudes independence and a lack of sentimentality for matters of the heart.
Kaya Genc, a young Turkish novelist and writer, quoted Susan Sontag, the critic, when asked about “Madonna’s” resonance: “What is most beautiful in virile men is something feminine; what is most beautiful in feminine women is something masculine.”
“This applies perfectly to Sabahattin Ali’s ‘Madonna in a Fur Coat,’” he said.
Back in her apartment, Ms. Ali recalled memories of her father, calling him a man with a quick wit who loved music and was devoted to his family, who did everything with her and her mother, and who in his younger years was a hopeless romantic.
“He fell in love all the time when he was young,” she said.

NietzscheMorality

Nietzsche and Morality

Roger Caldwell responds to an analysis of Nietzsche’s morality.

For many, Nietzsche and morality make an unlikely conjunction. Certainly, for all his challenging views – or perhaps because they proved all too challenging – he was until recently absent from traditional philosophy courses on ethics. To those who ask ‘what is the nature of good?’ he has little to say, except that they’re asking the wrong question. He’s an anti-realist about values: that is, for Nietzsche there are no moral facts, and there is nothing in nature that has value in itself. Rather, to speak of good or evil is to speak of human illusions, of lies according to which we find it necessary to live. He tells us that “man needs to supplement reality by an ideal world of his own creation.” That is, we are compelled by our biological natures to see the world through moral lenses, judging it in terms of good and bad, although the world is neither in itself.

The essays in this book look at a broad range of Nietzschean themes, including the will to power and the genealogy of Christian ethics as a slave morality. But there’s nothing on eternal recurrence (so dear to a former generation of Nietzsche exegetes), and the Übermensch (‘superman’) scarcely gets a mention. However, none of these themes is central to why Nietzsche often strikes us as uncannily prescient, and why he is so relevant to con temporary debates driven by evolutionary biology about human nature and morality.

First and foremost, like Spinoza before him, Nietzsche is a naturalist and a determinist. Human beings are not privileged over other animals – rather, like them, we are part of “a causal web that comprises the whole universe.” Where other writers speak of the freedom of the human will, Nietzsche tells us that the will is neither free nor unfree, but rather strong or weak. For Simon Blackburn he was the first philosopher to try to assimilate Darwinism. Nietzsche’s The Genealogy of Morals is an exercise in ‘animal psychology’, studying (in Nietzsche’s own words) “the physiology and evolutionary history of organisms and concepts.” In a number of other central works Nietzsche embraces science as providing access to what he sees as ‘the real world of nature’ – whereas our religious, moral and aesthetic sentiments belong only to the surface of things. Through our need to see the universe as existing for the sake of human beings, in effect we create a merely apparent world, which for Nietzsche is “the value-laden world as error.” (Human, All Too Human, §29.) To what degree we can live in truth not error is another matter, of course: in some moods Nietzsche praises the value of art precisely as that it protects us from reality. He dares us to be superficial. But it is nonetheless a central intention in his writings precisely to strip us of our illusions – not least the fundamental illusion that we are rational creatures.

For instance, Nietzsche denies that we can be rational deliberators in the way demanded by such philosophers as Kant. Kant sees us as choosing to act on the basis of reasons. Being the determinist he is, and taking the viewpoint on human nature he does, Nietzsche can have no truck with this. We are not for the most part conscious deliberators: rather, he tells us, “by far the greatest part of our spirit’s activity remains unconscious and unfelt.” (The Gay Science, p333.) Knobe and Leiter take the unusual step of seeing to what degree recent experimental findings in psychology support either Nietzsche or Kant. They have little difficulty in showing that Nietzsche is largely vindicated. For the most part we are not rational doers: the view that we choose our actions from a standpoint of deliberative detachment seems to be a Kantian myth. There appears to be no general accordance between our attitudes and beliefs, and our actions – in effect, we say one thing, but do another. Rather than acting for reasons, we tend to act, and invent reasons afterwards. In Nietzschean terms, the body acts, and, f illed as it is with “phantoms and will-o’-the-wisps,” the mind then falsely appropriates that action for its own justificatory purposes. Generally speaking, Nietzsche takes delight in showing us how we deceive ourselves.

For Nietzsche we act like other animals, primarily by our instincts. By contrast, the gift of reason is a late addition to those instincts, and by comparison only weakly efficacious. Nietzsche presents us with a fractured self: each of us is a site of competing biological drives without a controller in overall charge. Freud – a reader and admirer of Nietzsche – similarly presents the human being as a sort of battlefield between the ego, the superego and the id. More radically, Daniel Dennett [see p24], drawing on the findings of neuroscience, presents us with a ‘pandemonium’ view of the human psyche, where the self emerges from what he sees as so many ‘multiple drafts’ of reality as a sort of ‘fiction’. Dennett’s ‘fictional self’ is very much in accordance with Nietzsche’s views, as Dennett acknowledges. But even a ‘fictional’ self is still a choosing self, and not a merely passive receptor of experience. Here Nietzsche’s admonitions to “live dangerously” or to “multiply perspectives” seem adventitious. There is a tension in his work between his deconstruction of morality and his readiness to prescribe for us how we are to live.

Nietzsche has a tendency to throw out themes and leave us the task of seeing how they cohere. Many of the essays in this book try to tie up apparent loose ends, and make him say what he should have said if he had followed his insights through. We are entering a new era of Nietzsche studies. While the French-interpreted Nietzsche of recent years emerged as an out-and-out relativist and precursor of postmodernism, a number of the essay writers here see his views on morality from the perspective of his ‘biologism’. This is the very trait for which Heidegger once berated him, although there seems little reason why a philosopher should not draw on well-founded science.

If these essays open up a number of new perspectives, there are nonetheless opportunities missed. We have little sense of Nietzsche’s relation to his contemporaries or forebears. In particular, the perfunctory treatment in Risse’s essay of his relation to Spinoza, one of Nietzsche’s small ‘pantheon of the elect,’ is disappointing in view of the remarkable congruences between the two. Both replaced God by the laws of nature; saw human beings as an incidental part of nature in a deterministic universe; reduced good and bad to human (biological) needs; and denied the freedom of the will. For all their differences of style and temperament, there is surely much to be said for reading the immoralist Nietzsche with – and against – the arch-heretic Spinoza.

© Roger Caldwell 2008

Roger Caldwell is a writer living in Essex. His book of philosophical poetry, This Being Eden (2001), is published by Peterloo Poets.

• Nietzsche and Morality, edited by Brian Leiter and Neil Sinhababu, Clarendon Press, 2007, 320pps, £35, ISBN 0199285934

close

Marxist Conception of History

Karl Marx
materialist conception of history

Marx's theory, which he called "historical materialism" or the "materialist conception of history" is based on Hegel's claim that history occurs through a dialectic, or clash, of opposing forces. Hegel was a philosophical idealist who believed that we live in a world of appearances, and true reality is an ideal. Marx accepted this notion of the dialectic, but rejected Hegel's idealism because he did not accept that the material world hides from us the "real" world of the ideal; on the contrary, he thought that historically and socially specific ideologies prevented people from seeing the material conditions of their lives clearly. 

Marx's analysis of history is based on his distinction between the means of production, literally those things, like land and natural resources, and technology, that are necessary for the production of material goods, and the social relations of production, in other words, the social relationships people enter into as they acquire and use the means of production. Together these comprise the mode of production; Marx observed that within any given society the mode of production changes, and that European societies had progressed from a feudal mode of production to a capitalist mode of production. 

The capitalist mode of production is capable of tremendous growth because the capitalist can, and has an incentive to, reinvest profits in new technologies. Marx considered the capitalist class to be the most revolutionary in history, because it constantly revolutionized the means of production. In general, Marx believed that the means of production change more rapidly than the relations of production. For Marx this mismatch between base and superstructure is a major source of social disruption and conflict. The history of the means of production, then, is the substructure of history, and everything else, including ideological arguments about that history, constitutes a superstructure. 

Under capitalism people sell their labor-power when they accept compensation in return for whatever work they do in a given period of time (in other words, they are not selling the product of their labor, but their capacity to work). In return for selling their labor power they receive money, which allows them to survive. Those who must sell their labor power to live are "proletarians." The person who buys the labor power, generally someone who does own the land and technology to produce, is a "capitalist" or "bourgeois." 

Marx, however, believed that capitalism was prone to periodic crises. He suggested that over time, capitalists would invest more and more in new technologies, and less and less in labor. Since Marx believed that surplus value appropriated from labor is the source of profits, he concluded that the rate of profit would fall even as the economy grew. When the rate of profit falls below a certain point, the result would be a recession or depression in which certain sectors of the economy would collapse. Marx understood that during such a crisis the price of labor would also fall, and eventually make possible the investment in new technologies and the growth of new sectors of the economy. 

Marx believed that this cycle of growth, collapse, and growth would be punctuated by increasingly severe crises. Moreover, he believed that the long-term consequence of this process was necessarily the empowerment of the capitalist class and the impoverishment of the proletariat. He believed that were the proletariat to seize the means of production, they would encourage social relations that would benefit everyone equally, and a system of production less vulnerable to periodic crises. In general, Marx thought that peaceful negotiation of this problem was impracticable, and that a massive, well-organized and violent revolution was required. Finally, he theorized that to maintain the socialist system, a proletarian dictatorship must be established and maintained. 

Marx held that Socialism itself was an "historical inevitability" that would come about due to the more numerous "Proletarians" having an interest in "expropriating" the "bourgeois exploiters" who had themselves profited by expropriating the surplus value that had been attributable to the proletarians labor in order to establish a "more just" system where there would be greatly improved social relations. 

Saturday, February 25, 2017

Trump voters, your savior is betraying you by Nicholas Kristof

Nicholas Kristof
Nicholas Kristof

Dear Trump Voters,

You’ve been had. President Trump sold you a clunker. Now that he’s in the White House, he’s betraying you — and I’m writing in hopes that you’ll recognize that betrayal and hold him accountable.

Trump spoke to your genuine pain, to the fading of the American dream, and he won your votes. But will he deliver? Please watch his speeches carefully. You’ll notice that he promises outcomes, without explaining how they’ll be achieved. He’s a carnival huckster promising that America will thrive with his snake oil.

“We’re going to win, we’re going to win big, folks,” Trump declared Friday at the CPAC meeting, speaking of his foreign policy.

Great! Problem solved. Next? He then outlined his take on drug trafficking and what will surely be his outcome:

“No good. No good. Going to stop.” Wow! Why didn’t anyone else think of that?

Similarly, all looks rosy for tax outcomes: “We’re going to massively lower taxes on the middle class,” Trump said.

But that seems like a classic shell game. The Tax Policy Center estimated that Trump’s tax plan (to the extent that there is one) would hugely increase the federal debt and give middle-income households an average tax cut of $1,010, or 1.8 percent of after-tax income — while the top 1 percent would save $214,690, or 13.5 percent of after-tax income.

Trump made more than 280 campaign promises as a candidate, and a few — such as infrastructure spending to create jobs — would be sensible if done right. But there still is no infrastructure plan, and The Washington Post Fact Checker is tracking 60 specific campaign promises and found only six cases so far of promises kept.

It’s still early, and Trump has nominated a smart conservative to the Supreme Court and followed his campaign line on issues like barring refugees.

But while you voted for Trump because you put faith in his gauzy pledges, I bet he will do no better with campaign promises than with marriage vows.

Health care will be one of the greatest betrayals. On Friday, he described his plan: “We’re going to make it much better, we’re going to make it less expensive.”

Yet the steps that Republicans seem likely to take on health care will hurt ordinary Americans.

For example, Trump seems poised to weaken the contraception mandate for insurance coverage and curb funding for women’s health clinics. The upshot will likely be more unintended pregnancies, more abortions, more unplanned births — and more women dying of cervical cancer.

The biggest Trump bait-and-switch was visible Friday when he talked about giving Americans “access” to health care. That’s a scam his administration is moving toward, with millions of Americans likely to lose health insurance: Instead of promising insurance coverage, Trump now promises “access” — and if you can’t afford it, tough luck.

This promise of “access” is an echo of Marie Antoinette. In Trump’s worldview, starving French peasants wouldn’t have needed bread because they had “access” to cake.

Many of you voted for Trump because he campaigned as a populist. But instead of draining the swamp, he’s wallowing in it and monetizing the presidency. He retains his financial interests, refuses to release his taxes or explain what financial leverage Russia may have over him, and doubled the fee to join Mar-a-Lago to $200,000.

The greatest betrayal of all will come if, as some of his advisers recommend, he “reforms” and tears holes in some of the big safety net programs like Medicaid, Social Security or Medicare. Medicaid is particularly vulnerable.

Trump howls at the news media, not just because it embarrasses him, but because it provides an institutional check on his lies, incompetence and conflicts of interest. But we can take his vitriol: When the time comes, we will write Trump’s obituary, not the other way around.

Let’s not get distracted by his howls or tweets. What’s most important at this moment is not Trump’s theatrics, but the policies he is putting in place in areas like health care and immigration that will devastate the lives of ordinary Americans.

Trump’s career has often been built on scamming people who put their faith in him, as Trump University shows. Now he’s moved the scam to a much bigger stage, and he boasts of targeting Muslims, refugees and unauthorized immigrants.

Please don’t cheer, or acquiesce in these initial targets. The truth is that among the biggest losers from Trump policies will be you Trump voters, especially those of you from the working and middle class. You were hoping you’d elected a savior, and instead Donald Trump is doing to you what he did to just about everyone who ever trusted him: He’s betraying you.

The sooner you recognize that, the sooner you can fight back and push for policies that will protect your health care and Social Security, defend the integrity of our election system and protect your own interests. You have a false savior, and you will have to turn on him to save yourselves and our nation.

Friday, February 24, 2017

Death and Tax Cuts by Paul Krugman

Across the country, Republicans have been facing crowds demanding to know how they will protect the 20 million Americans who gained health insurance thanks to the Affordable Care Act, and will lose it if the act is repealed. And after all that inveighing against the evils of Obamacare, it turns out that they’ve got nothing.
Instead, they’re talking about freedom — which these days is the real refuge of scoundrels.
Actually, many prominent Republicans haven’t even gotten to the point of trying to respond to criticism; they’re just whining about how mean their constituents are being, and invoking conspiracy theories. Talk about snowflakes who can dish it out but can’t take it!
Thus, Representative Jason Chaffetz insisted that the public outcry is just “a paid attempt to bully and intimidate”; Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, calls all anti-Trump demonstrations a “very paid, AstroTurf-type movement.” And the tweeter in chief angrily declared that protests have been “planned out by liberal activists” — because what could be worse than political action by the politically active?
SPICER: Protesting has become a profession now. This has become a very paid AstroTurf-type movement pic.twitter.com/Spa2qh3FFe
— FOX & friends (@foxandfriends) February 6, 2017
The so-called angry crowds in home districts of some Republicans are actually, in numerous cases, planned out by liberal activists. Sad!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 21, 2017
But perhaps the saddest spectacle is that of Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House, whom the media have for years portrayed as a serious, honest conservative, a deep thinker about how to reform America’s safety net. That reputation was never justified; still, even those of us who long ago recognized him as a flimflammer have been struck by his utter failure to rise to this occasion.
After years to prepare, Mr. Ryan finally unveiled what was supposedly the outline of a health care plan. It was basically a sick joke: flat tax credits, unrelated to income, that could be applied to the purchase of insurance.
These credits would be obviously inadequate for the lower- and even middle-income families that gained coverage under Obamacare, so it would cause a huge surge in the number of uninsured. Meanwhile, the affluent would receive a nice windfall. Funny how that seems to happen in every plan Mr. Ryan proposes.
That was last week. This week, perhaps realizing how flat his effort fell, he began tweeting about freedom, which he defined as “the ability to buy what you want to fit what you need.” Give me consumer sovereignty or give me death! And Obamacare, he declared, is bad because it deprives Americans of that freedom by doing things like establishing minimum standards for insurance policies.
Freedom is the ability to buy what you want to fit what you need. Obamacare is Washington telling you what to buy regardless of your needs.
— Paul Ryan (@PRyan) February 21, 2017
I very much doubt that this is going to fly, now that ordinary Americans are starting to realize just how devastating loss of coverage would be. But for the record, let me remind everyone what we’ve been saying for years: Any plan that makes essential care available to everyone has to involve some restriction of choice.
Suppose you want to make insurance available to people with pre-existing conditions. You can’t just forbid insurance companies to discriminate based on medical history; if you do that, healthy people won’t sign up until they get sick. So you have to mandate the purchase of insurance; and you have to provide subsidies to lower-income families so that they can afford the policies. The end result of this logic is … Obamacare.
And one more thing: Insurance policies must meet a minimum standard. Otherwise, healthy people will buy cheap policies with paper-thin coverage and huge deductibles, which is basically the same as not buying insurance at all.
So yes, Obamacare somewhat restricts choice — not because meddling bureaucrats want to run your life, but because some restrictions are necessary as part of a package that in many ways sets Americans free.
For health reform has been a hugely liberating experience for millions. It means that workers don’t have to fear that quitting a job with a large company will mean loss of health coverage, and that entrepreneurs don’t have to fear striking out on their own. It means that those 20 million people who gained coverage don’t have to fear financial ruin if they get sick — or unnecessary death if they can’t afford treatment. For there is no real question that Obamacare is saving tens of thousands of lives every year.
So why do Republicans hate Obamacare so much? It’s not because they have better ideas; as we’ve seen over the past few weeks, they’re coming up empty-handed on the “replace” part of “repeal and replace.” It’s not, I’m sorry to say, because they are deeply committed to Americans’ right to buy the insurance policy of their choice.
No, mainly they hate Obamacare for two reasons: It demonstrates that the government can make people’s lives better, and it’s paid for in large part with taxes on the wealthy. Their overriding goal is to make those taxes go away. And if getting those taxes cut means that quite a few people end up dying, remember: freedom!
Read my blog, The Conscience of a Liberal, and follow me on Twitter, @PaulKrugman. 

ClosestToFrench

What is the closest language to French?
2 ANSWERS
Uri Granta
  • The closest overall is one of the other oïl languages such as Picard (spoken in Picardy) or Jèrriais (spoken in Jersey). 
  • The closest national language is probably Catalan (official in Andorra as well as in some regions of Spain). I'd previously suggested Romansh (spoken in parts of Switzerland), though I think Catalan is actually closer. 
  • The closest widely spoken language is definitely Catalan (spoken mainly in Spain by around 5 million speakers). 
  • The closest major international language is probably Italian. I'd previously suggested Spanish, which is more closely related genealogically, but Italian has a higher lexical similarity, making the written forms at least more mutually intelligible. I couldn't find details for spoken mutual intelligibility or phonetic similarity, so it's possible that Spanish still wins out there. (Thanks Davide Sestili for suggesting I look at this.)
Update: Brais Martinez comments that the normative reform of contemporary Catalan at the beginning of the 20th century (spearheaded by Pompeu Fabra) actually drove Catalan closer to French than it had previously been.

Lucy Alexanyan
See :))