Tag Archives: english-french translation

THE COLONIAL NAME OF MONTRÉAL IN ENGLISH: ACCENT OR NO?

So ai live in Montréal, Québec. That’s the colonial name of this place, of course, but also the name by which the vast majority of people who live around here know this place, and that’s almost certainly even more true for people who don’t live around here, who only know it from photos or maps or tourist guides. The indigenous name of this place, coming from Kanien’kéha, is «Tioh:tiàke» – and ai’m going to talk about that too, though not as much. Ai don’t think ai’d have that much to say about it, anyway, other than: if you live here and you didn’t know that name, you should LEARN IT. NOW!

But first, let’s discuss the colonial name a bit. For simplicity’s sake, ai am just going to talk about the name of the city specifically, but literally everything ai’m about to say applies to the name of the province as well. Basically, there is a widespread understanding that the proper way to write the name of Montréal in English is to do the opposite of what ai’ve been doing in the entirety of this post (and this blog) so far. Instead of including the accent aigu over the letter-ee [e, E], as ai do, you should drop it. Thus, according to the folks that have this understanding, the name of this city should be written “Montreal”.

How widespread is this understanding? It’s hard to say. Let’s imagine someone from Los Angeles goes on vacation to Montréal and writes a blog post about it. Or let’s imagine an English-language author from Mumbai writes an espionage novel that includes a short scene in Montréal for some reason. Or let’s imagine some teenager in Kamloops decides to text her best friend about how she wants to go university in Montréal after high school. Ai am going to guess that none of these people will use an accent aigu, but when it comes to these folks, ai don’t think any of them is likely to have a thought-out position on the proper orthography for this city’s English name. They either don’t care, or they’re using the style that they’re likely to see whenever they look at an atlas or read a tourist guide, or it’s a slight hassle to type that character and they figure the editor can catch it, or whatever. My point is this: while these people might not spell out Montréal’s name with the accent, they don’t necessarily think it absolutely should not be written out with the accent when writing in English.

But the understanding that, indeed, the name of Montréal simply cannot be written with an accent when writing in English is fairly widespread among Canadian anglophones that consider themselves literate and who pride themselves on the professionalism of their emails and the care they put into their spelling. In the areas of Ottawa and Montréal specifically, there are quite a few of these anglophones who, as a part of their job or perhaps as a part of other activities they are involved in, actually find themselves writing emails or other sorts of documents in French quite often; such folks may either use a French-language keyboard all the time, as ai do, or they may have a toggle on their desktop that allows them to switch between French mode and English mode at will.

This understanding is backed up by certain anglophone institutions, too, and the most conspicuous of these are those that have significant connections to Montréal, such as The Gazette (Montréal’s most widely circulated English-language newspaper) and McGill-Queen’s University Press. Both of these institutions produce a lot of material that is read by a lot of people, and the standards they set are bound to be seen as somewhat authoritative.

But me, personally? Ai just don’t get it. For me, at least on one level, this isn’t even really political; it’s simply a matter of what looks good. Let’s consider the first sentence of the Wikipedia article about Projet Montréal for a moment: “Projet Montréal is a municipal political party in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.” If you’re going to add an accent to the first word that needs an accent, why the fuck wouldn’t you add accents to the second and third words? Again, it would be one thing if you were simply lazy and didn’t feel like adding the accents at all, perhaps because your keyboard isn’t set up to make it easy, perhaps because just fuck it. Ai see this all the time in bombastic National Post editorials that talk about “Rene Levesque” or whatever. But if you’re going to take the time to put an accent in one part of the sentence, why not just be consistent?

“Because,” you might be saying, “the accent indicates whether you’re supposedly to pronounce it in an English way or in a French way.”

Okay, fair enough, at least if we’re talking about Montréal – because, of course, this doesn’t apply to the name of the province. Whereas the French pronunciation of Montréal’s name is markedly different from the English pronunciation (notwithstanding the way that the narrator pronounces the name of the city in Street Politics 101, lol), the standard English pronunciation of Québec’s name is identical to the French pronunciation – at least around these parts. Ai’ve heard some Americans say KWI-bek rather than the proper KAY-bek, but hey, they’re Americans!

So yes, in the aforementioned sentence from Wikipedia, the “Montréal” in “Projet Montréal” is supposed to be pronounced mon-RAY-al (in rough phonetic English) and the “Montreal” in “Montreal, Quebec, Canada” is supposed to be pronounced MUN-tree-all (in precise phonetic English). One could definitely argue that the orthographic difference helps to make the difference in pronunciation more clear. But personally, ai feel like it isn’t really necessary, and it leads to some unnecessary ugliness. Maybe this is just me, but when ai read “Montréal” (accented) in an article, ai still pronounce it in my mind like MUN-tree-all. If ai see it next to a word like «projet», ai probably pronounce it differently. This is almost certainly because ai am a pretty word-based person, and because ai know more than a rudimentary bit of French, but ai also don’t think this would be hard to learn for most people. Ai certainly don’t think it would be hard for those pedantic Canadian anglophones who are actually very bilingual but nevertheless insist on an accentless orthography in English.

Now ai’m obviously coming from a place of simply thinking it looks nicer with an accent; in fact, ai like accents in general. Ai think they spice up a sentence, visually speaking. There are some who may say that this aesthetic predilection of mine is not shared by all, and shouldn’t be taken into consideration for design choices, especially when it makes the language somewhat more complicated to read aloud. Such folks are generally in favour of a more phonetic language. But ai don’t buy that shit. If we’re going to try to make written English and spoken English less divergent, there are much more important places to start than the name of this city. Hell, ai would even argue that it’s not such a bad thing for us to be constantly reminded that things don’t necessarily correspond perfectly between text and speech, and that it’s actually fine to be familiar with words in writing without being familiar with how they are actually pronounced. If you know where Shenzhen is on a map, you know that – and can even talk about it – whether you know how to pronounce the name of that city or not.

Ai used the example of a Chinese city in the last paragraph because the rules of Hanyu pinyin, which are actually very consistent and exist in order to make it very easy to pronounce Chinese words, are nevertheless quite non-intuitive for English-speakers who don’t know yet know those rules. Ai happen to be familiar with the rules of this pinyin, so ai can be all smug if ai want to be, but ai don’t consider myself familiar with how Kanien’kéha orthography relates to Kanien’kéha pronunciation. Like, in the word «Kanien’kéha» itself, ai have no idea what the apostrophe is supposed to represent. Ai am sure that it wouldn’t be too hard to learn, but at the moment, ai’m clueless. Nor do ai have any sense of what the colon in «Tioh:tiàke» is supposed to represent pronunciation-wise. For all ai know, these characters could have no impact on pronunciation whatsoever, and are instead there much like the accent aigu in the way ai spell the name of Montréal in English – in other words, there for decoration only. (Ai suspect that this is not the case, but again, ai’m clueless.)

Besides, toponyms seem to be an area of language where there is particular divergence between pronunciation and orthography. Did you know that the name of Kiribati, a country in the Pacific Ocean, is pronounced kee-REE-bus? Assuming you were somewhere in Beaver Empire last October and you were having any decent political conversations at all, did you have any idea about how to properly pronounce the name of Elsipogtog until you heard someone say it out loud to you?

But of course, Montréal is not like these places. It is different. There is, in fact, a narrative that it is a bilingual city, a city that is equally “English” and “French”. Thus, it should have a bilingual name. But again, ai don’t buy this shit. The original colonial settlement was entirely French, and while it later came under British sovereignty, it would have originally been referred to exclusively as “Montréal” – except perhaps by Americans, Englishpeople, and Scots who simply didn’t care to add the accent aigu. After conquest, buildings were built in Montréal that had an accentless MONTREAL engraved on them somewhere, along with other words in English – and ai can only interpret this as a sort of dickishness on the part of anglophones against francophones. Things are very different now from what it was like here in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, obviously, and the local power dynamic between francophone and anglophone has changed enormously. And yet this small, subtle dickishness is now seen as “only natural” by people who will add purely aesthetic accents elsewhere in sentences, as in: “Hey, can the two of us meet up at that cute little Parisian-style café in Old Montreal?”

Language is never natural. Language emerges from decisions that people make.

If we are to use a colonial name for this city at all – and, for the record, ai am open to the idea that we shouldn’t – then ai think it makes sense to just use a single name, to give up on this bilingual shit. The whole “two official languages” thing that the Liberals of the 1960s and ’70s implemented federation-wide is a vapid farce that, despite its total artificiality, has helped to keep the Canadian state together. We should therefore take objection to it.

The implication, for the name of Montréal, is that it doesn’t need two colonial names, one for each official language. It only has one colonial name. Whether you actually care to write that name out or not, ai don’t know. Again, if you’re lazy or you don’t have the right keyboard or you simply give no fucks, that’s all legit. Even if you buy my arguments but would like to keep writing out this city’s name without the accent because you think it’s funny to annoy people who give as much of a fuck about orthography as ai do, well, that’s legit too (though obviously you’re a brat). But if you DO care about writing it out properly, and you’re adding accents to things anyway, then you MAY AS FUCKING WELL add an accent to the name of the city. Ai kind of apply this logic to the Kanieh’kéha name as well. Both on my computer and on my phone, it’s pretty easy for me to add the accented letter (whether the ‘é’ or the ‘à’ in the words ai’ve used in this post), so ai’m gonna do it, cuz that’s how ai roll. Ai am less likely to go to the trouble, though, of using the right characters to spell a Polish or Vietnamese place name that has some intense diacritics going on, and that’s especially true if it’s for, like, a text message to a friend. Like, if ai want to speak about places like Łódź or Hải Phòng City and use the correct characters while doing so, ai pretty much need to copy and paste from Wikipedia.

In conclusion, please do you want, and please don’t feel like ai’m bossing you around. But if you’re making the decision to care about orthography, don’t be selective about it?

TOWARDS A BETTER VOCABULARY OF QUEERNESS IN FRENCH

So in my recent post about my fancy ideas for a gender-neutral pronoun in French, ai mentioned the word «allosexuelle» and made reference to the fact that it never really caught on in French, losing out majorly in competition with the anglicism “queer”.

By itself, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Ai don’t mind if the French language gets “polluted” with anglicisms, although ai’m definitely a bit pedantic about orthography. Let me spell it all out for you: ai would much prefer it if the French version of “queer” became «kuire» instead of «queer», since the French «queer» (you know it’s French because of the guillemets) looks and sounds fucking weird from the perspective of how words are supposed to get together in that language and how they are supposed to be pronounced. The qu– phoneme should be pronounced like a hard letter-kay [k, K] in English, but it isn’t, and ai just plain don’t like that.

Let’s move on, though, to a problem that goes beyond my personal tastes.

To a very large degree, it seems to be more difficult to discuss queerness – which should be understood as something separate from mere homosexuality, something that encompasses a much larger array of subject matter – in French than it is in English, especially if the aim is to discuss it using precise language. Much of that precise language in English is a bit jargonny, to be sure, and that is because it is largely produced by academics and used by university-educated queers. But this language is definitely more jargonny, more impenetrable to the layperson, in French, and that is because so many of the words are anglicisms. A really comprehensive familiarity with the vocabulary basically needs to coincide with a degree of English fluency. And while ai don’t want to generalize too much as an anglo (cuz what do ai know), ai feel like some terms, like “genderfuck”, would pretty much need an entire footnote to explain properly to someone if you only wanted to use French words.

The vocabulary is also more vague in French than it is in English. Among anglophones, it is still common for people to conflate sex and gender with one another. Some people, like webcomic person A. Stiffler, actually say that “in the English language, [‘sex’ and ‘gender’] are essentially similes to each other.” Ai sort of disagree. Although you can definitely make the argument that the larger part of the English-speaking masses haven’t quite internalized the distinction yet, ai’m going to assert that, today, when people conflate sex and gender in English, they are actually making a mistake – just as much as if they had conflated ethics with morality, racism with white supremacy, or queerness with homosexuality. Yet this isn’t the case in French! Even in French academia, the word «sexe» can still refer to both biological sex and gender identity, and this conflation is why «allosexuelle» was, starting in the 1990s, used as a French-language translation of “queer”. There have been efforts to get the word «genre» to refer exclusively to what we call “gender” in English, and «sexe» to refer exclusively to what we call “sex”, but they simply haven’t been very successful so far.

To an anglophone like me, of course, the word «allosexuelle» seems to imply a concern with matters of sexuality in particular, and thus it seems like a poor translation of “queer”, since the things that can be discussed as being queer go far beyond the matter of simple sexual behaviour. A better word might be «allogenric» (grammatically masculine) or «allogenrique» (grammatically feminine), with «genric» and «genrique» being the words ai just made up for the adjectival form of «genre». Still, these two new words I’ve coined aren’t good enough either. They seem to address gender in particular, to the exclusion of sexuality!

It is clear to me that, when it comes down to the wire, neither «allosexuelle» nor the words ai just came up with, «allogenric» and «allogenrique», can replace the anglicism «queer» (which definitely should be changed to «kuire», just sayin’).

This becomes even more true when we consider that «allosexuelle» actually had a prior meaning to its meaning as a French translation for “queer”. Ai didn’t know this until ai was researching this post, but the term was apparently coined in the ’70s by French academics and used as an antonym to «autosexuelle», a word that referred to people who satisfy their sexual needs by themselves. «Allosexuelle» meant the opposite, referring to anyone who satisfies their sexual needs by seeking out others. Interestingly enough, in parts of the anglophone asexual community (something ai have determined from reading this blog post), “allosexual” is now being liberated from its origins in university research and being used once again as an alternative to the term “non-asexual” to refer to people who are, well, not asexual.

Ai will admit that ai had some grand plan of “fixing” the word «allosexuelle» before ai came across the aforementioned blog post; the title of this post was even going to be FIXING ALLOSEXUEL(LE). Essentially, my idea was to separate the concept of allosexuality from queerness, and to try to imbue it with some kind of new meaning that wouldn’t leave it completely redundant among all the other words that have -sexual as a suffix. But ai think my efforts to that end were banal at best, and ai actually think “allosexual”/«allosexuelle» as synonymous with “non-asexual” is pretty good. So can we all collectively agree to start using and understanding that word as such from now on?

Ai mentioned two other words earlier, «allogenric» and «allogenrique»; these were also part of my plan. Essentially, ai thought – in fact, ai think – that these words should be used as French translations for the word “genderqueer”, along with «allogenre», which might be necessary in some contexts as well. Like “genderqueer”, these words refer to a more specific manifestation of queerness. Like, you can have queer sex and yet you might not be genderqueer; that’s a pretty good description of my cis boy self. So yeah. For the record, in English, the word “allogender” looks horrible and so ai don’t think it should be used for any reason ever, especially since “genderqueer” looks great and already exists.

Ai am going to conclude this post with possible French translations for a few more terms that derive from “queer”. First, let’s all translate “queerness” to «kuiritude» (a feminine noun). There’s a good chance that you’re not sold on this new orthography just yet, but come on, «queeritude» is just dumb. If «kuiritude» rubs you the wrong way, you’re probably just better off rocking another anglicism and spelling it out «queerness» in French, i.e. «J’ai écrit un papier sur le concept de queerness quand j’étais un étudiant à l’Université Concordia.»

Next, the verb form of “queer”, as in the passage “[it] queers violence”, something that ai actually had to translate recently in CrimethInc. Ex-Workers’ Collective’s “Say You Want an Insurrection”. Ai translated that passage to «[il] rend kuire la violence». So there you have it again: “to queer” is the same as “to render queer”, thus «rendre kuire» if you share my vision or «rendre queer» if you’re boring.

Next, ai mentioned “genderfuck” at one point in this post already, and ai think this is a hard one. On January 12 of this year, there was at an event at La Belle Époque that was entitled, in the January 2014 poster as Genderfuck Art Making in English and Atelier d’art fuck les genres in French. (Ai would have added some dashes, but that’s just me.) Now, while genderfuck can mean “fuck genders”, it also means fucking with genders, which is a subtlety that the translation «fuck-les-genres» (see, it looks better with dashes) serves to erase. Ai feel like this is one of those situations where you might just need to leave it as “genderfuck” if you want it to mean exactly the same thing, since the word just can’t be translated in such a way that it carries all of the same intertwined meanings into the other language. This feeling was pretty much confirmed the other day in a conversation ai had over tea with a francophone friend when we were discussing this language blog ai was intending to launch, who said that the only way to translate this word clearly would be to say «fucker-avec-les-genres» or something equally long, i.e. quelque chose qui ne craque pas, y’know? However, that is boring and/or surrender, and so while ai want to leave it for now, ai would be open to suggestions about how to translate this word.

All of this comes down to an effort to create a French vocabulary of queerness («une vocabulaire pour la kuiritude») as rich as the vocabulary that exists in English, and to make it possible to discuss, in French, a great deal of the “queer theory” that has been produced in English without use of jargon anglicisms (as opposed to common anglicisms, which are widely understood by Québecers and can practically be considered French words by now).

As something of a believer in the validity of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (though that’s a whole other topic), and as a person who thinks the conceptions of sexuality and gender in “queer discourse” in comparison are generally superior to those in to “gay discourse” (i.e. a conception of great fluidity, rather than a conception that is less rigid than the one that exists in heteronormative assumption, but which is still pretty fucking positivist and tends to limit the free expression of the individual quite badly), ai sometimes wonder about stuff. Like, imagining someone very much like myself, but who grows up with queer desires in a small town in Beauce speaking barely any English rather than a small town in south-central New Brunswick speaking barely any French, how is that person going to come to understand sexuality and gender?

There’s a good chance that such a person will do just fine, or suffer a lot of bullshit, or both, but ai think that things improved a lot for me when ai came into contact with the aforementioned “queer discourse” a little bit later in my teenage years and after ai’d moved out of that small town. The words that were suddenly available seemed more useful than the words ai had had before. Ai just wasn’t looking in the right place on the internet, it seems – but how much more difficult would it have been for me to find that shit if it was all written in a language that ai didn’t understand?

Final dictionary entries:

Allosexuality is a noun referring to those who seek and/or desire sexual gratification. It can be contrasted to asexuality. Both allosexual and asexual are both adjective and noun, referring to those who are characterized by allosexuality or asexuality.

French asexualité (f.) for English asexuality.

French allosexualité (f.) for English allosexuality.

French asexuel (or asexuelle, f.) for English asexual.

French allosexuel (or allosexuelle, f.) for English allosexual.

French genric (or genrique, f.) for English adjective gender. (Example: «l’identité genrique» for “gender identity”.)

French allogenre (probably, and problematically from a grammar perspective, neutral) for English countable noun genderqueer.

French allogenric (or allogenrique, f.; allogenre, n.) for English adjective genderqueer.

French kuir (or kuire, f.) for English queer (both noun and adjective).

French rendre kuir (or rendre kuire when applied to feminine object) for English verb to queer.

French kuiritude (f.) for English queerness.

TRANSLATING “SETTLER COLONIALISM” INTO FRENCH

Settler colonialism (or settler-colonialism with a dash) is an English-language term that refers to a specific kind of colonialism without necessarily making any comment on the other kinds of colonialism that exist or what they might look like. By itself, colonialism is a very vague concept, like many other terms that are used frequently in anarchist, radical left, and onkwehón:we sovereigntist circles in the part of Turtle Island occupied and claimed by the Canadian state – and ai will address this vagueness in short order. Settler colonialism, on the other hand, is a concept imbued with much more substance and consistency (which ai will also elaborate upon!), and it is therefore an important part of the anarchist lexicon.

Unfortunately, for anarchists who speak French (on the regular or just once in a while), there isn’t any obvious way to translate it into their language, and that’s because the common French word for “settler” is «colonne». So the straightforward translation is «colonialisme-colon», which both sounds stupid and doesn’t convey anything different about this colonialism versus other colonialisms.

The thing that makes settler colonialism different, of course, is settlement. There is no precise French equivalent for this word, but there is «peuplement», which literally refers to “peopling” an area. Settler colonialism is the culture, the ideology, and the political structure that is produced by, and then serves to reproduce, any society that emerged from the population infusion of settlers – people who are not indigenous to the land, and who are also indoctrinated in the culture, or at least the routines, of a state and a civilization – into territory that, up until that point, was either outside of the state’s control completely or in which the state was only present in a military sense, not a civilian one. The first wave of settlement often served as the society’s great act of foundational violence, as it did in Canada, the United States, and plenty of other places.

Neither the English word “peopling” nor its French correlate are appropriate to describe this particular sort of population infusion from one place to another place. First, this word can just as easily refer to a process of human population growth that did not have a colonial character to it (for example, “the peopling of Thailand“, or even the peopling of Hiroshima and Nagasaki over the years since 1945) as it can to an influx of European or other settlers into an area. This is definitely a bit confusing, and there is also a fatal flaw: the words “peopling” and «peuplement» imply that there were no people in the area before this “peopling” or «peuplement» began. In a very small number of cases, like some islands in the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans (such as Tristan de Cunha, Mauritius, and the Falklands), the islands were uninhabited when they were first sighted by Europeans, but in most other cases, this was not true – yet the historiography and mythology of Western civilization is rife with lies to the contrary, most infamously with reference to the continent of Australia. It seems to me that the use of “peopling” or its French correlate would be a perpetuation, if a very small one, of the pernicious narrative of terra nullius, and that doing so should therefore be avoided. Besides, how the hell would you make «peuplement» into an adjective that could sit alongside «colonialisme» and not have the resulting term look completely ridiculous?

For the record, the word “settlement” itself is rather politically neutral as well, and there’s a reason that we, as anarchists, speak of the colonization of the Americas rather than, as Wikipedia does, the settlement of the Americas. If ai told you ai was gonna settle somewhere else, you might just think ai’m moving to Toronto. If ai told you to settle down, you would take that to mean ai want you to act calmer. A settlement is simply a place where people live, and hell, even onkwehón:we people have their own settlements, like the Unist’ot’en Camp out West, the Zapatista communities in the Selva Lacandona, and the sites of “productive recovery” on the frontlines of Wallmapu and Chile. To properly speak of this process of five hundred years of extermination and assimilation of onkwehón:we peoples (read: genocide), the only term we can really use is “colonization”/«colonisation». These words have been imbued with violence, even if they can still also refer to politically neutral situations (like the colonization of newly exposed volcanic rock by lichen spores). To speak of colonization in a political conversation is to evoke the clash between the colonizer (the invader) and the colonized or would-be colonized (the indigenous).

So, while “settlement” is an inappropriate word for this population infusion process and the corollary war, genocide, enslavement, hierarchization, and displacement, its adjectival form is a necessary prefix to “colonialism” for the purposes of describing the political situation where ai live as well as many other places, from Kurdistan to the Russian Far East, from Tibet to Cascadia, from the Holy Land to Tierra del Fuego.

Personally, ai’d go even further and say that the concept of colonialism is, by itself, actually too vague to say very much about any situation that currently exists on Earth. The situations that have been named as examples of colonialism are incredibly diverse. They range from situations where colonization was led by an imperial state to situations where settlers initially acted in defiance of their own sovereign’s laws, but also to situations where indigenous authorities were vassalized by the more powerful state, or became willing partners in a world economy that generally benefited the people of the imperial centres more than the peripheries, or whatever else – in these latter cases, situations that generally didn’t involve significant population infusions or large-scale displacements of indigenous people with settlers (as opposed to displacements in general, which are probably happening pretty much anywhere that capitalism is happening). In many parts of Africa and Asia, the sovereign state headquartered in Europe was only present in a military sense (and even then, many of the coercive functions of the state would often be devolved to local monarchs and their employees) and wealth extraction activities conducted by state-owned or private firms did not require permanent settlement by Europeans.

This isn’t to say that the word “colonialism” is meaningless – it obviously isn’t – but by itself, it isn’t very descriptive. The word “settler” adds substance to the word “colonialism” by implying a population infusion. Settler colonialism, while looking different in different contexts, is something that seems to have some consistent qualities no matter where you look, although the purpose of this post isn’t to detail these. Instead, the question ai want to ask is what word formation can allow us to speak about settler colonialism in the French language more effectively?

My proposal is «le colonialisme-habitant». This suffix implies continuing to live in a place, as opposed to making reference to the original act of arrival like “settlement” does – but that’s fine, since it is still a colonialism that has successfully infused an area with a population of state subjects that can sustain and perpetuate itself.

The English adjectival form is settler-colonial, which, unlike the noun form, should always use a dash. In French, to take a somewhat more cyberpunk aesthetic approach, ai would propose the adjectival forms of «habcolonial» (for masculine nouns) and «habcoloniale» (for feminine) rather than the somewhat unwieldy «colonial-habitant» and its feminine counterpart. Of course, in many instances, context is going to allow for the shorthand use of “colonial”/«coloniale», or possibly «colonialiste» in French. (The English word “colonialist” is terribly ugly, and ai am pretty firmly against it. Ai’m honestly not a huge fan of «colonialiste» either, but you need it for the rhyme scheme in the chant A – ANTI – ANTI-COLONIALISTE! SOLIDARITÉ AVEC LES INNUES QUI RÉSISTENT!, so it gets a grudging pass in my book.)

A settler, of course, cannot simply be a «habitant» (if male) or a «habitante» (if female) in French; this is, once again, an inappropriately neutral word, for ai am a «habitant» of my apartment, and so are many onkwehón:we people in their own respective apartments. The words that are already being used, «colon» and «colonne», are absolutely fine. Of course, if it was ever necessary to make things more precise for some reason, one could easily write out «colonne-habitante».

Final dictionary entries:

Settler colonialism (alternative form: settler-colonialism) is a noun, usually uncountable but to be counted with the plural form settler colonialisms (or settler-colonialisms) when necessary. The adjectival form is settler-colonial. These words refer to the culture, ideology, and political order produced by, or serving to reproduce, a society whose foundational act of violence was the colonization of an area heretofore outside of a given state’s control by that state’s subjects.

Settler is a noun, countable with the plural form settlers. It refers to any participant, willing or unwilling, in a settler-colonial society, starting with the first settlers and continuing through successive generations.

French colonialisme-habitant (m.) for English settler colonialism.

French habcolonial (or habcoloniale, f.) for English settler-colonial.

French colon (or colonne, f.) for English settler.

French colons (or colonnes, f.) for English settlers.