“a priori” or “a priori”, what should be written?

2023-06-01 07:02:37

Here is a funny term, which we see written all over the place: “apriori”, “aprioris”, ” first “, “a priori”, “a priori”… Do these terms have the same meaning? And above all, how to choose between these different versions? A priori, it’s a bit complicated… but not that much, you’ll see.

The word and the phrase

Let’s forget spelling and typography for the moment to clarify one thing: there is a word and a phrase. Both are derived from the Latin ” prior which evokes what comes first. The word “priority” also shares this origin.

• The word “a priori” designates a prejudice (often, but not necessarily negative):
• I had a priori against him, but ultimately, he is charming.
• Cats are full of assumptions about dogs.

The term “a priori” designates an initial bias, based on data already known, but likely to change:

• A priori, your proposal suits me, but we must discuss the details.
• The public will be there a priori, but the rain could discourage some.

OK, but how do you spell it?

Once is not custom : like you want… or almost.

• As it is an unmodified Latin term, therefore a word in a foreign language, purists recommend the use of italics, without accent: first.
• As the term is present in the dictionaries, therefore passed to the Frenchit can however be written in roman, always without accent: a priori.

In both cases above, the word is invariable: a first/ a priori, des first/first.

Things got tough in 1990, with the spelling reform of theFrench Academy, which broadens the uses. We read everywhere that it adds the following spellings:

• Apriori, in one word (and with an “s” in the plural).
• A priori, in two words, but with an accent on the “a” (and always invariable).

What is quite surprising is that if we refer to the text of the said reform, only “a priori(s)” is proposed. Where, then, does “a priori” come from? Probably from such frequent misuse that it ended up being admitted. Neither the Academy Dictionary is hard Robert make no mention of it, but the Larousse attests to this (and, oddly, attributes it to the reform).

So what to do?

Moral of the story: a priori, you can write it however you want, provided that you only apply the plural mark to “a priori(s)” and, of course, that you stick to the same form in the within the same text.