Talk:Canadian English

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Portal:language
 language Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Canadian English is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

/Archive 1: July 2003 through February 2006


Contents

[edit] Canadian words

We already had Lists of words mainly used in British, American, Australian English. Why not Canadian? I just created a most needed List of words mainly used in Canadian English as a spinoff containing "English" canadianisms and French loanwords. Canadian English definitely needs more attention and visibility. --JackLumber 15:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serviette

  • The bit about class associations linked with the use of the word "serviette" sounds rather subjective if not altogether suspect to me. Where is this documented? I would personally contend that while 'napkin' is growing in popularity, it is also seen as an American influence. The use of "Serviette" therefore carries a mildly nationalist tone (which is partly why Vancouver radio and television personality Nardwuar the Human Serviette chose it as a moniker. For the record, I still use 'serviette' (for either cloth or paper, but would be more inclined to use "napkin" for paper) , as it is the word my father (Quebec anglophone) and mother (from Saskatchewan) both used. They are both from middleclass families, and in neither case were they using it to denote a knowledge of French. Totally absurd. Leviathanbus 08:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It has absolutely nothing to do with being snobbish or showing of French knowledge. I also use serviette for paper and cloth, however I also know people who say 'napkin'. I think some people avoid saying it, to avoid being tagged as an american, just as pronouncing 'z', 'zee', as oppposed to 'zed' is often avoided. --Stephen 19:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Runners

I thought I should mention "Runners" sees pretty frequent use in Australia. Maybe it should be removed? --Carbon Copy Man 04:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The article does seem focused on Canadian English vs Other Englishes - mostly American (which its probly closest to) and British. My suspicion is that this article needs to address parts of Canadian English that are nonstandard vs overall English, even if they show up in Australian English, or one of the other smaller dialects (such as Jamaican English). Am I crazy to think this? I have no idea - but it certainly isn't clear to me that the article need only deal with features of the language unique to Canada. For the moment, let's just note that it's also found in Australian English in the entry on runners - until the bigger question can be addressed. WilyD 21:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serious Issues

I think there are many comments in this article that are perceptions/opinions rather than facts. For example, the merry/marry merger or distinction is not a province or city-based phenomenon...it's North American: Northeast vs. everywhere else and even then it's not always that clear due to millions of people moving/relocating over great distances thanks to air travel starting late 20th Century.

Also, I find it somewhat degrading to compare all of Canadian English to all of what is (thought of as) American English. Plus, I'm not even Canadian! Instead of saying Canadian XYZ is like A.E. why not just say the two share something? For example, in the CBC's documentary on Canadian English, the cot-caught merger is presented as being uniquely Canadian and completely unheard of in the US. This merger is a North American phenomenon heard mostly in the North and West of the continent. Why compare by using nationalistic terms, propaganda or outright falsehoods?

Lastly, I find it amazing how French/Quebec phenomena suddenly become Canadian when they are only found on Quebec territory. There should be a separate section on these phenomena in Québec instead of "Quebec only" in parenthesis following virtually every example. Or even better, we could make a greater heading "French in Canadian English" and then a subheading "Quebecisms". Any takers?

CJ Withers 06:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You're 100% right about the article needing substantial reorganisation and rewriting - mostly, it needs a clear vision it lacks. As for Quebec english, it easily falls into the "Western Canada" english group, as opposed to maratime dialect and newfoundland dialect, which are more distinct. Quebec english has more french influence, naturally, but we're still talking about anglos here - and for the most part, their speech is just as similar to the speech of Ontarians as the speech of Albertans is to the speech of Ontarians.
But the essential point about the need for a stronger, more unified vision for the article is valid. WilyD 22:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey! Thanks! I was hoping that I wasn't the only one who felt that this article has potential and can shine with a boost of organisation and direction. As for "Quebec French", it's not really a dialect or variety; it's actually a misnomer for language practices by anglophones and by francophones respectively. Check the article: I re-vamped the entire thing. It's unfortunate how identity politics make for some very disinformative linguistic engineering. CJ Withers 01:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling of "toonie"

While spelling does not appear to be formally standardized, "toonie" is the far more common spelling, and is the spelling used by the CBC, the Royal Bank of Canada, various departments of the Federal Gov't, and even the Royal Canadian Mint. Also: do a Google search: "toonie" gets you 129,000 hits, "twonie" gets you 529 and the question "Did you mean toonie?" SigPig 17:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vancouver Island (or Southwestern BC) variation

I wish the article could mention this, but I'm wondering if it is too anecdotal. First of all, the pronunciation of the dipthong "ou," as in "about," is frequently pronounced more like "abowt" (as in "ow, I stubbed my toe."). "O" (as in pronouncing the letter "o") is also common in such words as "holy," "goal," "load," "know," etc. There is definitely a British-style precision to the vocalisation. I've occasionally been asked (usually by Americans) if I'm English. Other friends of my generation born on the southern Island have had similar experiences. Fishhead64 03:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, but yes it's too anecdotal for Wiki rules. Just a month ago I was talking with a writer friend from Mayne Island and he commented on the same thing; the old British flavour of the BC dialects, especially in the Islands. Also the use of Britishisms like "bloody" and "the rub is..." occurs, I'll wager (using another one), a lot more freely and commonly in BC than in Central Canada. But Canadian academia has not deigned to acknowledge of study such things, and so therefore can pretend that they don't exist as no one can provide a cite for them. Ignore something and it will go away, especially if you inundate the place with broadcasters from Toronto and the Maritimes. The other side of this is that it's considered shameful/un-Canadian that BC had such a strong British flavour, and that it was possible to buy the Guardian and the Times more easily in Van and Vic thirty years ago than it was to find the Globe. So the attitude will just be, about your accent thing, "that's just a hangover from the British presence but it's not really Canadian". The same argument has been used re the Prairie twang and that particular cowboy drawl found in parts of the Interior. Academia is more interested in native languages, and in pretending that Canada has a single anglophone culture, all of it modelled on life/culture (so-called) from Toronto. I know this is a rant but it's a frustrating one; this kind of material such as your observations about Island English I think we should just put our own webpage about (we can do it on my own domain at www.cayoosh.net; or a blog I started and haven't used yet at blogspot.com, Splendor Occasu; and I'm sure my friend from Mayne would contribute and another friend is a dialect coach for the movies, originally from Saskatchewan, and she's of a mind to one day travel around the Great Flat Place collecting accent materials. Wish I could have taped some of the Auld Guard I knew in Victoria, and some of the old pioneers from the Fraser Canyon-Bridge River; i.e. before they passed on....Skookum1 16:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Couple

The Hiberno-English page notes that both British & American English use "a couple" to mean exactly two, whereas Hiberno-English means 2-5?. Given that "a couple" in Canadian English refers to "2 or 3" typically, this may be worth noting - but I'm still having trouble believing that an American who says "I had a couple beers" means "I had exactly two beer." WilyD 13:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about American usage, but I grew up in Manitoba and I've always used "a couple" as an approximate value that is probably somewhere between 2 or 3, but now I live in England and can confirm that "a couple" really does seem to mean precisely two. I sometimes use "a couple" when I want to be fuzzy about something and it always gets interpreted as meaning exactly 2.00. Brianlucas 22:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm from Manitoba as well and never heard of "a couple" as meaning 2 or more - it has always meant to anyone I know precisely two. A few could possibly mean 2 or more (I've heard it used that way), but never a couple meaning anything other than 2. Halogenated 19:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm in Ontario (though I doubt it really matters in this case). I really think this is one of those things where the 'meaning' depends on the situation. I'm sure that everyone here can think of at least a few cases where 'a couple' can, indeed, refer to more than strictly two.
For example, if I were to say, "I'm going to send a couple bucks to my brother", would you assume that I'm going to send him precisely two dollars? Or simply a subjectively-determined small amount of money?
If someone were to tell me, "hey, I saw your cousin a couple days ago!", then I wouldn't be shocked if I were to find out that it was actually 3 days prior.
On the other hand, if you ask anyone what "a couple" means, then I strongly suspect that they'd simply tell you "two". It's sort of a usage vs 'official' definition thing. Bladestorm 19:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slang in Toronto

First up, I'm going to say that I'm a Native Mississaugian (which is the city right next to Toronto for those of you who don't know), but I went to University, lived and worked in Toronto for a number of years now, so I think I can be justified with this beef. I was looking at the list of about 30 slang terms used in Toronto, and I've only heard one of them used (the term 'Hard' to mean tough), and that was always used in a context where it was implied to be British slang (i.e. the ads for mod club {a club that tries to be über-British}) and hearing it used that way always makes me giggle, as I'm used to hearing it as Hard = Erect (as in penis), so the term «Have a go if you think you're hard enough» takes on a whole new meaning. I've never heard any of the other terms used before; the bulk of my friends are native Torontonians from all parts of the city, and they've never used any of those terms (at least I've never heard them use them). I especially thought it was odd to see a number of the slang words are supposed to be Jamacian in origin, and my best friend is a Jamacian-born Torontonian, and none of the Jamacian slang he's used around me includes the terms here--Gibbay 01:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The article does specify it as specifically localised - I'm a Scarberian, and familiar with very little of it (though Hard, and Soft seem like universal english to me). If your point is that it overrepresents what is likely exceedingly limited slang, you're right - I'm not sure exactly what should be done, but it certainly seems to misrepresent the speech of Torontonians. WilyD 19:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I live in Etobicoke, for those of you who don't know, it's a part of Toronto, and was it's own city up until the amalgamation. I have heard few of these words ever used in normal conversation, really only fete, and even then only a couple of times. However, it is very common for people to drop the second 't', however I think it is more of a to-ronno...but the 'o' vowel sound is a short sound. --Stephen 19:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I moved from Winnipeg to Toronto, and after two years in Toronto I never once heard anyone say "buddy" in the way it was referenced here. But shortly after moving to the Durham region I've now heard several people use this term, including individuals from Orillia, Oshawa, and even from Georgian bay area. I can't speak for Toronto as a whole, but my guess is that most people using the term buddy, as in "look at buddy", are probably originally from outside of Toronto.
I think you're right. "Buddy" sounds very Canadian, but I hear it from people who are from smaller towns. Avt tor 21:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I've heard it in Winnipeg. However, we should stick to adding material that is supported by reliable published sources rather than personal anecdotes. —Michael Z. 2006-11-15 22:30 Z

[edit] Archived

I archived the discussion through Feb. I've never done this before, so I hope I did it correctly and appropriately. I archived through Feb, but there are scattered comments from March embedded in older discussions. Fishhead64 16:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Errors?

I spotted a couple of things that look like mistakes to me, but not being Canadian, I didn't like to change them.

  • "Several political terms are uniquely Canadian, including riding" - see riding for proof that ridings were/are also used outside Canada.
  • "An exception is missile, where the American and British versions are almost equal" - should that be "Canadian and British"? American and British pronunciations are certainly quite different.

--Stemonitis 06:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right on both scores. HistoryBA 13:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. As for "riding", you seem to have overlooked the fact that this means riding in the sense of an electoral district. As for the second part, you misunderstood the sentence. It means that both pronunciations are heard in Canada. I shall reinstate the deletions. Kelisi 15:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
If you intended to indicate that both pronounciations are used equally in Canada, then edit it to that, don't simply try to revert to your previous edit, because as you are obviously aware, that edit was unclear in the first place, as it implies that the American and British pronounciations are the same. I do agree that I hear "missill" and "missaisle" pronounciations more or less equally, and have myself even used both of them, depending on the setting and who I am speaking with, so I don't believe it is a stretch to say that both are used in Canada. So say that if you wish, but do not say that "The American and British pronounciations are equal" because to the vast majority of people, that would heavily imply something completely different from what you mean. Uniqueuponhim 22:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Premiere in the rest of the world

See Canadian English#Other variations: can someone render premiere in IPA for comparison? Is the difference merely the stress on the last syllable? Thanks. —Michael Z. 2006-05-15 05:30 Z

It's not a matter of première but of premier being pronounced in a variety of ways. The word's premier use (that one is uncommon) is as the leader of a provincial or state government in Canada or Australia (but not Pakistan or India where the corresponding officer is a chief minister, as formerly in Canadian territories and still in Australian territories, since Pakistan and India are not federations). The leader of a provincial government in Canada is a PREEM-yer [rhotic terminal r]; the leader of a state government in Australia is a PREMM-yya (often with an extremely emphatic consonant Y and broad A in the second syllable). The term was formerly used as an occasional variant for prime minister in Britain and there the current Australian pronunciation was also used. The Canadian pronunciation appears to be rather unusual. As for première, as with many words recently and directly borrowed from French, anglophone Canadians s more thoroughgoing attempt than British, American and, certainly, Australian English-speakers to reproduce French pronuncation: première is prem-YAIR (albeit with terminal rhotic r); in Australia a thoroughly assimilated pra-MEE-yya would be usual. Masalai 17:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Variations between Canadian and American lexicons

That subsection is a tad confused.

  • There has been kind of an edit war about this one: When absolutely necessary, Canadians go to "hospital"; Americans go to "the hospital". What does "when absolutely necessary" exactly mean? Well, if it's absolutely necessary you don't bother adding the definite article... Can we possibly check out authoritative references? The hospital article suggests that both usages are found in Canada.
  • Canadian students also do not receive grades in school, but "marks." I don't buy it. OK, just because Canadian students receive marks doesn't mean that grade---a pretty much universal term---is unknown. site:ca "grade point average gets 170,000+ Google hits.
  • As well (In addition in US English),... This phrasing is not just unencyclopedic, it's laughable. --JackLumber 12:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The point of the first two examples is that these usages exist in Canadian but do not exist in American. The third is, for instance, from CBC Radio: "As well we were able through better real estate management to finance moves...", in American English, "as well" would never be used but "in addition" would. I will say the usage sounds odd (to an AmE speaker) but I can't confirm that it is truly a distinctive usage. Rmhermen 14:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, "as well" as a clause-initial adverbial sounds really strange to American ears. We should try to find out whether this usage is confined to Canada or not and, if it is, we should emphasize the fact.--JackLumber 20:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In addition (which is not U.S. English, but just standard English anywhere in the world including Canada ;-), this subsection should be merged with "Briticisms"---where there is a difference between Canadian and American lexicons (not, in this context, a U.S. word that is not used in Canada as, I guess, shade "window blind"), it often (if not usually) consists in Canadian English using British terminology (table, invigilator); and it should be noted that in some cases the British & the American term coexist. ---JackLumber 12:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It has been noted several times above that this page would benefit from some major reorganization. Those two sections for instance: "Briticisms" seems to presume that Canadian is a version of American English with a few British terms retained while the "difference between Canadian and American lexicons" section seems to presume Canadian is a dialect and American is another dialect. Rmhermen 14:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, not only the two sections mostly overlap in scope, but the very word "Briticism" is out of place in this context. Furthermore, a Can/Br/Am comparison would help figure out differences and similarities between the *3* dialects, as in the 2 cases above (hospital & grade), and not just Can vs. Am or Can vs. Br. --JackLumber 20:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phonetic Transcriptions

I don't know about the rest of you experts, but I am a simple man simply curious to learn the difference between various forms of english. From many portions of the article, I see that we pronounce words differently than or British and American counterparts. Well duh. But anyways, what my complaint is about is the use of Phonetic Transcriptions to display the alternate pronunciations. For example: You state that in Canada that writer and rider are pronounced [ɹʌjɾəɹ] and [ɹajɾəɹ]. Now I don't know what your opinion is, but I feel these articles should be readable and very clearly understandable by any average person. I have no idea what the pronunciation of [ɹʌjɾəɹ] is. I can assume from another example posted in the article describing the different pronunciations of anti, semi etc. that the two different forms are "Antee" and "Ant-eye". Well, for us ignorant folk lets change it to some form like this, so we can all understand. Thank you.--207.210.17.225 22:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right in a sense. Even in this very article there's a sharp divide between the section on Pronunciation (which is mostly technical gobbledygook) and that on Vocabulary (which is not even encyclopedic in many respects, see my post at the bottom of this page). The meat & potatoes is that the first element of the diphthong in "writer" sounds somewhat like the vowel of hum, while in "rider" the i is homophonous with eye. --JackLumber 12:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The difficulty with phonetic transcriptions is that how one pronounces a given word depends on one's accent. The phonetic alphabet injects greater precision into the enterprise. If you check out the IPA chart for English, that should help. Fishhead64 14:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a good reason for including sound files. Rmhermen 15:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK/US centric notation

I have had to revert some UK/US centric refernces in the article as they are never going to make everyone happy, in Canada and Australia, they will please, well, no one at all, eh? Myrtone@Canadian English.com.au:-(

I have just made a reference more NPOV, please do not revert it without a very good reason (not just becuase you favour NOR over NPOV, the two sometime contradict and only a concensus can sort out such arguments). Myrtone@Canadian English.com.au:-|

[edit] Montreal "-arr-"

The article states: "Among Montréal-native anglophones, there is a distinction between /æ/ and /a/, unique in Canada, so that Mary and merry are not homophones." Isn't this actually referring to marry (æ) and merry (ε) not being homophones? I inherited this distinction from having an anglo-MTL parent, which my BC classmates would joke about, but the name Mary was indistinguishable from merry for me, and I assume for Montrealers too? J21 20:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian shift and cot-caught merger

As far as I can tell, everyone in Canada (at least outside the Maritimes, and I'm pretty sure of it there too) merges cot and caught to the rounded [ɒ] position of "cot" ("caught" being the one that merged), regardless of whether they have this 'Shift' or not (this is the first I've ever heard of this shift - it must be in Southwestern Ontario because it is not present in Ottawa or in Calgary). I have never ever heard any Canadian pronounce either cot or caught as un-rounded [ɑ] (this would be approximately the sound of the British broad A - I suppose we could spell it "caat" (in Britain, "caught" is still pronounced as /kɔ:t/)). Not only that, from what I can tell, most people in the western US pronounce both words exactly as we do in Canada (as opposed to the eastern US where both words take on a number of pronunciations). Frankly, if there are Canadians pronouncing cot and caught as "caat" (un-rounded [ɑ]) they are probably the ones WITH the shift, not the ones without. This section needs some serious cleaning up because it is factually incorrect. --D P J 22:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I made what I think is a relevant comment (with a further comment by CJWithers) on this question in the Talk page for Quebec English.Albertde 18:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The standard Canadian English pronunciation is in fact with the [ɑ] vowel, as in General American. The [ɒ] is only preserved in North America by New Englanders, particularly in Boston. Read the section on father-bother merger in Phonological history of English low back vowels. The sound examples on the page Vowel should make it clear that the rounded form is not the Canadian English one. The difference mentioned above between Canada and the Western US on one hand and the Eastern US on the other (particularly Northeast) is explained in Northern cities vowel shift. Essentially, the first two have the back vowel [ɑ] in words like 'top' or 'dock' while northern cities (eg. Syracuse, Rochester) have a fronted variant [a]. Makerowner 22:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Short A in Canadian English

Surprisingly, I have not seen any mention in this article of Canadian English's predilection for substituting a short A [æ] (as in "cat") for words of foreign origin that more properly use the broad A [ɑ] in other variants of English. For instance, "drama", "Iran/Iraq", "Pakistan", "pasta", even "Mazda" are generally pronounced by English Canadians with the short A of "cat" rather than the broad A of "father" in most other variants. I used to think this was because of spreading Americanisms but in fact the Americans get these right more than we do. At any rate, this aspect of Canadian English should be put in somewhere. --D P J 22:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's find a respectable source, first. I hear drama, pasta, Mazda, and often Iran pronounced with an /a/ by Canadians, not /æ/. —Michael Z. 2006-05-21 14:43 Z
I live in BC and use a short A [æ] for these words, and I've heard lots of other Canadians doing this as well. It's so normal to me that I really notice when someone uses a broad a on these words.154.20.240.242 11:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
According to the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (I have transcribed Oxford's "a cat" to æ):
drama /ˈdræmə, ˈdrɒmə/
Iran /ɪˈræn, -ˈrɒn/
Iraq /ɪˈræk, -ˈrɒk/
pasta /ˈpæstə, ˈpɒstə/
So the /æ/ is used most, but the other pronunciation is also prominent. And note, they indicate /ɒ/ rather than /ɑ/. —Michael Z. 2006-05-22 14:23 Z
Well I'll be damned - the COD does indicate a /ɒ/ rather than a /ɑ/ for those words. I certainly do not pronounce them with a /ɒ/. I do not know how much faith we can put in the COD though because even for "father" it indicates /fɒðɜr/ without giving /fɑðɜr/ as an alternate. I routinely hear Canadians using both. The COD also lists the 'ol' in words like "old", "cold" etc. as being pronounced with [o/o:] (as in "road", "cope", etc.) rather than with [ɔ] (the 'AU/AL' sound of British English in words like "caught", "all", "water") that we use for those words in Canada (depending on their specific accent, the British use either). Anyway, I suspect that /drɒmə/ rather than /drɑmə/ etc. is almost a kind of overcorrection. I'll have to listen more carefully for which is being used by people who don't pronounce it as /dræmə/. --D P J 00:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
As an American living in Western Canada for the past three years, I agree that this is a noteable difference between common pronounciations in Canada and the U.S. Television ads for Mazda in the two countries reflect this difference quite clearly, as ads that are otherwise identical in the two countries use a broad 'a' in the States and the short 'a' in Canada. And even though I've made a strong effort to adopt elements of Canadian English in my speech and writing, I still shudder when I hear the word "pasta" spoken up here. To my ear, this difference is still much more foreign than "zed" or "eh?"! SvenC 19:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I suspect it's a regional difference that does not hold consistent across Canada. Watch some Canadian television that has folks who aren't from Ontario in it and you might hear the variation. Thor Rudebeck 15:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on taking Hansard for a standard

Nope. Why? Because Hansard follows its own style-guide, how things are to be put (and what's not to be put); same as CBC has a certain way things are preferred to be pronounced (the famous "shedyule"), the newspapers have their guides; the institution of Parliament is no different. It's futile to search for a "standard Canadian English", given the wide variation left today even after decades of intentional homogenization; there never was a "standard Canadian English". There's been efforts to create/enforce/mythologize one, but there never has been one. Hansard may be a standard for official English, perhaps - certainly legislation is - but it's not a standard for the national tongue, the Volksprache. There is no common vernacular; no more than there is the mythic Canadian identity, which our lit-media establishment are always looking for (while stifling it whenever possible).Skookum1 04:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sleep in vs Sleep late

"Canadians say that they sleep in, not sleep late." Looks like half the sentence is missing. "Sleep in" is General American; I've never heard "sleep late" before. Jon 21:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Seconded. I'd have thought that is someone slept late, that it meant they didn't go to bed that early. Nfitz 19:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broadcast English in Canada

OK, here's a subtopic that's almost a whole article if fleshed out as it could be, what with what I think is there: CBC English, with its various affectations and particular intonation, private-networks English (CTV/Global/Znaimer) in all its flavours (news vs show host; contrast a GlobalNational reporter with a show host or an insta-celeb like Ben Mulroney - who if I'm not mistaken has studied what actors in Canada (or in BC anyway) know as Standard American, a neutralized American meant to strip you of Canadianisms that's supposedly best to learn before undertaking regional dialects - unless perhaps you've lived somewhere or have had friends from there, as I have from places in the US I've never been if I "lay it on". Standard American I've studied, and once you have you can kind of tell on Vancouver-made shows who is and isn't Canadian, or recognize at least when a Canadian is shifting towards theAmerican way of saying something - bigger vowels, avoiding [Ew] and instead [au] for "out" and "about" (that's an adapted IPA for non-special character script; I don't know proper IPA for it), not spitting your t's, not talking too fast, and a list of key words to either avoid or prononce another way. Americans don't actually talk like that, but it's an artificial form of English ... phonology (?)... with widespread usage; and you hear it a lot among reporters, too, if by other certifications/names, and of course their upward mobility (like everyone in show business) is southwards, so it helps to get good at sound "like them" to the point the American directors don't ask you at callbacks "could you say 'xxx' again, please" to check your ease with the accent; with not sounding Canadian. Lessons are geared at breaking your Canadian accent so you might come from Anywhere, USA; I cheated by laying on Dixie, as I've had friends from down there over the years, and know the sensibility that goes with the lilt/twang. There's a huge irony in all this, partly because we've been a main source of talent (and not just in front of the camera) down there for years, in news as well as media and print, and in a big way; but of all the accents you'll hear in movies and on non-Canadian-market TV - Australian, Scots, Irish, English, ethnic accents - you won't hear Canadian....

...except in Canadian media of course - our networks and "national" film (stuff that's too bland to interest American markets, unless it's over the top like Kids In The Hall; but there the stylebooks come into play, which was to be my point about Broadcast English (instead of my digression about Standard English); it is a formalized prononciation system, slightly different within the CBC as a subdialect; shedyule vs skedyule and so on. There's also the impact of the popularity of the Maritime/Newfoundlander comedians as hosts and personalities on TV, as well as in general news media (Rex Murphy, Rick Mercer, Mary Walsh et al) on general Canadian usage - in the same way that Bob and Doug spread the "hoser dialect" across the country among Canada's youth; and traces of it remain. So that's the point I guess: Broadcast English in Canada as distinct from how people normally talk (as with all broadcast language - contrast Mexican radio announcers to how it's spoken on the street, for instance, and in Britain there's now Thames English, the new formal BBC English; and of course the ORTF stylebook is very strict in France). Only CBC announcers and reporters talk like CBC announcers and reporters (that's how you get the job), and there's certain style and polished tone expected on CTV or Global, and I'm losing track of who own's what - is it Znaimer with CHUM/Much still? I don't have cable and only get broadcast CBC and Global (erg).

Not sure what else to say, just that there are probably, in somebody's hands, some study guides for broadcast English practice (it's studied just like Standard American as part of the training to be a broadcaster, as delivery is everything in the message) that will have phonological notes maybe; I know I still have mine for Standard American - in IPA - so if I find them I'll try to remember to come back and post them here for anyone who's interested....Skookum1 23:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an awful lot to respond to, but as an example, I remember a couple of years ago reading considerable controversy around the CBC's use of "fisher" to mean a person employed in the fishing industry, rather than the more common "fisherman". I'll see if I can dig up a link. (Oh, and for what it's worth, to answer your Moses Znaimer question, he hasn't been an owner of Citytv since 1981; he was an executive within CHUM Limited, not the owner of it. And even before 1981, he wasn't the station's sole owner; he was part of an ownership consortium that also included Phyllis Switzer and Jerry Grafstein.) Bearcat 05:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Men, women and fishers. Bearcat 22:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I really believe that what might be more productive, rather than an examination of the difference between Broadcast Canadian English (which is basically CBC English) and the language as it is spoken, would be a split view of the dialect from descriptivist and prescriptivist points of view — that is, the "Canadian English Dialect" as it is conceived compared with as it is spoken. There are several websites with ample source material, including UofT Canadian Dialect survey.
This would incorporate the problems with anecdotal versus published knowledge. CBC English would suggest that Shedyule is preferred Canadian English, even though most (younger) Canadians pronounce it Skedyule. And the word Chesterfield is (from my subjective experience) used far less than "Sofa," yet there is no doubt as to which is "more Canadian." I suspect most of this prescriptionist Canadian Vocabulary is a reaction against perceived Americanisation --- given the choice between two terms, the "Canadian" term may be whichever word is felt to be "less American." I don't know what the research says, however.
Another section that might be of value (And I suspect this isn't the place to mention it, but I'm on a tight shedule) would be the pronunciation of city names. It seems people who've never been to Toronto, Halafax, Calgary or Montreal call them by those names as tey read, rather than "Trawnna", "Hullafacks," "Calgry," and "Munntreal." I cringe when I hear "MONNtreal." —Muckapædia 3e déc. 2006, 20h50 (UTC+0900) 머크백과 tǂc

[edit] Education

the newer system has "10th grade" is now in "Senior 2" where as a student in "9th grade" would be in "Senior 1" and so on,even though "Senior 1" is still considered Junior high

Whose newer system is this? Education is provincial jurisdiction (and moreover localized by schoolboard), so whatever this is, it certainly isn't Canada-wide. Where I grew up, there was no junior high and Grade 8 was high school, for instance. J21 15:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Whereas where I grew up (Newfoundland) highschool was only grades 10-12. --203.148.251.155 05:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exam supervisors

Who exactly claimed that school exam supervisors in Canada are always called invigilators and not proctors? I'm more than willing to accept that invigilator may be the preferred term in some areas, but at the university I attended (which was most certainly in Canada) they were called proctors. Bearcat 05:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitely proctors at the 2 schools I attended (University of Ottawa, University of Toronto) -- Samir धर्म 18:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, I did say that invigilator is a term that is used in Canada. I did not say that proctor was never used, just that invigilator is the preferred term. In any case, only proctor is used in the States.Albertde 00:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard invigilator used before. Proctor was what I always heard at University of Waterloo, particularly as a grad student when we would talk of proctoring exams - never invigilating. Where is invigilate used rather than proxy? Nfitz 22:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the two English universities in Montreal (McGill and Concordia), the term is used by:

  • University of Windsor
  • NDAEB (National Dental Assisting Examining Board)
  • Transport Canada cerification exams
  • Columbia College; Vancouver, BC
  • McMaster University
  • Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada
  • University of Toronto
  • University of Manitoba
  • York University

for starters.Albertde 23:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, using Google, I get more hits for "proctoring" than "invigilating" when combined with the university name for each of U Toronto, U Windsor, McGill, Concordia, McMaster ... can't say I've heard of the others. Looks to me that proctoring is the more commonly used term (difficult to search for the word "proctor" as it gets a lot of hits as a surname). Nfitz 17:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, I'm beginning to think there may also be a difference at some schools between what the institution calls them in official usage, and what the students call them in everyday conversation. Considering, for example, that in this conversation alone we've had conflicting claims for usage at the U of T, I wonder if at some universities they're called invigilators by the university but proctors by the student body. Bearcat 21:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of the word invigilator. With a little research I've found it to exist, but I really think this is a poor example for an encyclopedic entry. 9:56, 26 September 2006

You'll want to add the University of New Brunswick. - BalthCat 06:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

McGill uses "invigilator." I had never heard of "proctoring" until very recently when preparing for a U.S. professional exam. --Lance6968 00:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I go to McMaster University and we use invigilator... i have never heard of "proctor" until I read this article. Tauntobr 07:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I never heard the term "proctor" at either Lakehead U. or UNB. They were invigilators in the 1980's.

I've never heard "proctor" before either, they used invigilate/or at my high school P.A.C.I Thunder Bay, On; Lakehead University; and University of Calgary. As an aside, what would constitute good citations? I have various University Calendars on hand from when I was applying, and they do make mention of Invigilator: i.e. "Invigilators of any tests may, when they have reason to believe there is cause to do so, challenge any candidate to produce proof of identity either in the form of the University I.D. card or some acceptable equivalent (i.e., one bearing a photograph) such as a Provincial Driver's License, Canadian Citizenship Card, Passport, etc." -- University Of Calgary 2006/2007 Calendar. Should we just start listing all the calendars that use one, and then those that use the other? Ice-Wolf 07:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard the word, "invigilator" before. However, I've actually been a proctor at a canadian university (Brock), and will be so again in a few weeks. But proctoring and supervising are the only terms they ever use here. (As a side note, americans really don't say "writing exams"? That seems so hard to believe!) Bladestorm 13:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long vowels for two-syllable verbs

I don't quite feel comfortable editing such a large article, but as an immigrant from the northeast US, one distinct experience I have had with the pronunciation of Canadian English that doesn't seem to be listed here, but was quite jarring, is the use of long vowels (/ej/, /ou/) in verbs like "status" and "process", not short vowels /æ/ or /ɑ/, as I learned when I was young. I didn't expect that, and it was kind of odd

[Oh, and my other favo(u)rite is probably that the past tense of "shine" rhymes with "gone" and not "phone".]--Snowdan 01:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

These are probably worthy of note, but keep in mind they are definitely minority pronunciations in most of Canada. I heard them from time to time growing up in British Columbia, but they were indelibly associated with "CBC sellouts" (tongue in cheek) who want the country to be more British than it is. J21 15:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The "shedyule" crowd, right?Skookum1 05:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
That's mostly how we say it in Manitoba too, except I only hear /'steitəs/ very rarely. I don't think I've ever heard /shoʊn/ for shone (only for shown). FYI, the Canadian Oxford Dictionary says (/a/ represents /æ/ in that dictionary):
  • stat·us /'statəs, 'steit-/
  • pro·cess¹ /'proːses, 'prɒ-/ noun
  • pro·cess² /'proːses/ intransitive verb
  • shine ... (past and past participle shone /ʃɒn/)
—Michael Z. 2006-06-28 15:41 Z

[edit] NPOV

I am still in a revert war with JackLumber (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), becuase I want to remove some bias in the article, because many similarites with Britsh English are actually similarites with many Englishes outside North America. Myrtone:-(

[edit] Boughten and bread

Prairie housewives formerly used the somewhat disparaging adjective "boughten" in reference to bread purchased commercially rather than home-baked.

Found that kind of interesting; and I've heard that word. Never picked up on it being disparaging, other than purchased bread isn't better than homemade. My impression is that it's an adaptation of Dutch, Mennonite or Scandinavian scansion rendered into what turns out to be folksy old-country English; it's equally a Scots word, though; or something from the Isles. But I've never considered it disparaging....thoughts?Skookum1 05:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly among the folk I've heard it from, in Sk, there was only a Scottish antecedent. And certainly it was disparaging. Masalai 08:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And it's definitely found in the States too. JackLumber. 20:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
My grandmother was from northern Indiana and was a Mennonite (though my great-grandmother, her mother-in-law, was from Wellesley Township, Ontario) and she used "boughten" or "store-boughten" (when she spoke English and not her German dialect) to refer to any kind of vegetable purchased at a supermarket (she grew almost all her own food) and it was almost always disparaging - "oh, that boughten stuff just isn't any good".--MarshallStack 02:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian English usage

[moved from user talk:Mzajac#Canadian English usage —MZ]

Hey Michael, got a couple questions for ya.

  • which construction prevails, in/to hospital or in/to the hospital? What does Canadian Oxford have to say about it?
  • which is more common, power plant or power station?

Best, JackLumber. 12:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I'm thinking that people are adding their favourite regional idioms to the article, without any justification that they really represent Canadianisms.
Where I come from, we would always say "to the hospital" in colloquial speech. The CBC citation in the article doesn't seem like a good counter-example, because it would always be stated that way in formal speech or writing (wouldn't it?). The Canadian Oxford doesn't have any hints in the entry for hospital.
Power plant and power station both have entries in the dictionary. The former has two meanings: the first, exclusive one is more general, the second simply refers to the definition of power station. As a main headword, the latter is presumably the more commonly-used term for that meaning, but I doubt that it is so prominent as to be considered characteristic of Canadian English. Hydro (as in hydroelectric power plant, hydro dam, hydro bill, or "cut off the hydro for non-payment") would fit that bill as a synonym for electricity, and is conspicuously missing from the article. —Michael Z. 2006-07-05 14:48 Z
No prob, Hydro is featured on spinoff Canadian words, since it's... a Canadian word. As for plant vs. station, I was wondering about the terminology difference between "Category:Power stations in Canada" and "Category:Hydroelectric power plants in Canada" here on WP. But the hospital paragraph needs to be rewritten, if anything, to point out that formal usage differs from American English. Thanks, JackLumber. 15:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How many people speak Canadian English? Certainly less than 25 million

The second sentence of the article currently reads: "It [Canadian English] is spoken as a first or second language by over 25 million—or 75 percent of—Canadians (2001 census)." Problem is, the census merely asks about the individual's knowledge of "English", not Canadian English per se. A significant number of those 25 million learned English outside of Canada. For example, immigrants from the United States or other English-speaking countries, as well as immigrants from non-English-speaking countries who learned English before arriving in Canada (since the Canadian variety of English is rarely taught internationally as a second language). Another problem with that sentence of the article is it says Canadian English is spoken by 25 million, whereas the census data tabulates not the ability to speak the language, but merely "knowledge" of the language (which might be comprehension only, not expression). --Speak Canadian 20:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I edited the sentence in question to make it consistent with the census data. However, I wonder if we should delete that sentence entirely, because it is still a bit misleading given its prominent location at the start of the article. --Mathew5000 11:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I say the whole thing should be deleted altogether since Canada is increasingly a country made up of people who were raised in other countries, speak passable English learned from outside of Canada, and don't understand the nuances of Canadian English. For example, I know Canadians originating from mainland China who spell their English words in the American style. Then there are those Canadians originating from Hong Kong who spell in the British style. Neither immigrant groups understand that Canadian spelling is itself a unique spelling system that fuses American and British spelling. Further, many bookstores in Canada sell Websters' Dictionary (both the real thing and the imitations), the Oxford Dictionary and the few Canadian English dictionaries published by Canadian publishers. To make any claim regarding the exact number of Canadians well-versed in Canadian English is therefore ridiculous. --Alf74 16:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "ou"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see little if any discussion of what is to me the most obvious difference between Canadian and Midwestern-American pronunciation, namely "ou." I realize from experience that this is less pronounced in places like Vancouver, but while travelling in Ontario I was struck by the very sharp sound for these vowels, somewhere between ABOOT and ABOUT or SOOTH and SOUTH (from an American perspective.) Sorry to the linguists, but time is too short to master the symbolic notation for this entry. Cheers, --Illusio80 00:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

See spinoffs West/Central Canadian English and Canadian raising. But yes, you're right, articles on phonetics tend to be way too technical here on WP. And the article on Canadian raising should be explicitly referenced in the text. Thanks for your note, JackLumber. 19:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed the pronunciation of "ou" not as "oo", but "oa", i.e. "about" pronounced "a-BOAT", especially in the Toronto area. Anyone else notice this?
As in "oat and a boat"... Well, actually the exact pronunciation you find in Ontario is neither "oo" nor "oa"---it depends on how the *listener* perceives it! See Canadian raising. JackLumber. 13:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To my U.S. ears, "ou" comes out as an umlaut sound, being formed somewhere between "oo" and "oa". The late Peter Jennings preserved this pronunciation even as anchor for the ABC Evening News. The Canadian "ou", by the way, also occurs in Tidewater Virginia.

Well, actually since it's phonetically pronounced [Vu], the Canadian "ou" before voiceless consonants is actually pronounced as "uh-oo" (uh as in "hum"; "oo" as in "boot"), if you say "uh-oo" fast enough. Most Americans say it "ah-oo" (like ow!). Some say it as "a-oo" ("a" as in "cat"), and Southerns sometimes say "ay-oo" ("ay" as in play). And no, it's not at all the same thing in certain areas in Virginia. There, they pronounce all their "ow" sounds as "ah": so "out" is "aht"; "downtown" is "dahntahn". It's a different vowel, true, but it's not the same as used in Canadian raising.

Tony Sauter 05:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gas mileage

In my experience, gas mileage is almost always measured in miles per Imperial gallon (vs L/100km) in conversation. I have rephrased the Metrification-related section to reflect this. If other Canadians (Ontarians, perhaps) disagree with this observations, or if other users believe that this constitutes too much original research, feel free to revert. --OsmosisChesterfieldFoodstuff 06:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

In my own experience we've used km/L, at least in my area of Nova Scotia. How could you measure it in miles per gallon anyway? The odometers are in km and the pumps are in L. -Gaelis

Out west (Vancouver), my experience is that I haven't discussed "miles per gallon" for many, many years, instead using "litres per 100km". --Ckatzchatspy 07:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've rarely ever heard anyone refer to mileage in l/100km, and almost always as miles per imperial gallon. I am 30 and from Manitoba, and growing up my parents (and other adults) always spoke of distance in miles and volume in gallons, for my generation it probably partially stuck. Perhaps younger people might use l/100 km. Halogenated 19:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ‘A business history explanation for some Canadian spelling rules is possible’

This was always a clunky phrase and a jarring way to begin a paragraph. If that graf even has to be there, which is dubious, the whole thing should be rewritten so it flows better. I'm not doing it myself immediately because my preference would be just to nuke it. – joeclark 14:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Whack of" is hardly a Westernism

I've never lived outside of Ontario in my life, and I've heard "whack of..." as a pretty regular figure of speech. Admittedly not as much in Toronto as in say, Sudbury, but I still hear it here. Can anybody provide significant evidence that it's a Westernism and not just a general Canadianism? Bearcat 22:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree. I live in Ontario, yet I hear 'whack of' and use it as well, quite often. --Stephen 19:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

In the back of my memories somewhere there's a European-language origin for this, from Scandinavian I think, maybe from a derivate of vaxa/vaksen, "to grow", "to become full"; so even if it's current in Eastern Canada now I suspect it may have derived from Anglo-Scandic slang on the Prairies.Skookum1 21:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boughten, ICK!!!!

Boughten, ICK!!!! What lousy English... And to think that I used that, myself, once... Michael 23:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I really go for the assumption that non-standard/dialectical English inherently equals lousy English, but maybe that's just me. Bearcat 18:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not just you!!! Boughten ain't no lousy English any! Michael is definitely indefensible. JackLumber. 14:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copy book or Excersise book?

Just a thought that flew over my head. (Reffering to the books, school students use to write their notes in) Sum1else 22:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm....I live in Toronto. If you're talking about the kind that is just lined paper in a cover, most people I know call them 'notebooks'. If you mean the kind with questions printed in and spaces to answer in, most people call them workbooks. Stephen 19:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)--

We used to call bound cardboard covered books with lined paper scribblers out in Manitoba. The kind with the metal tabs that you could add lined paper were duotangs.Halogenated 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian spelling -ise -ize

Below is a list of Canadian style guides. In situations in which there is a difference between US & British spelling, none recommend -ise, several recommend -ize, some that do not specifically recommend -ize, use -ize (as in capitalize, authorize, organize) --JimWae 20:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Law

Someone placed a notice indicating that this section regarding Canadian legal terminology is getting off topic. I agree to the extent that there was a bit of digression towards explaining the various roles of Canadian lawyers. I have taken the liberty of shortening this section, making it more "to the point" and avoiding digression where possible.

I like to say that I AM A CANADIAN LAWYER and not some freelance writer or journalist who happened to be interested in law. It seems like Wikipedia material regarding Canadian law and legal terminology are written by both jurists and laymen.

I personally dislike the words attorney and counsellor, and I, as a Canadian lawyer, have almost never seen these words used by lawyers and judges in Canada to refer to a Canadian lawyer. However, I have seen many times the word attorney being used to mean any person who has been granted power of attorney, which in my humble opinion is the best way to use the word "attorney", another word for "agent".

Meanwhile, the word solicitor is encountered by lawyers themselves almost everyday to mean any type of Canadian lawyer, whether he/she practices strictly as an office lawyer specializing in non-litigation matters or as a courtroom lawyer with numerous ligitation files to handle. Of course, the general public tend to understand the word "solicitor" to mean some annoying person who knocks door-to-door trying to sell a product or promote a cause. I have encountered clients who think that lawyers in Canada are called "attorneys" because such clients tend to watch too much American TV and think that Canada is the same as the United States on legal and political matters.

I hope that any Wikipedian who makes serious changes to this section is NOT some average Canadian who learns his/her Canadian law by watching American legal drama shows on television. I wish more ordinary Canadians would take the effort to learn law by visiting their local court house and observing court hearings which are normally open to the public. You just have to stand up and tell the presiding judge that you are simply "observing" if the judge notices your presence and happens to ask who you are.

Alf74 16:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too many fact templates

I can appreciate if an entire section of an article is marked for a dispute of neutrality, or for a dispute of factual accuracy, or both. But I don't understand the {{fact}} template used after almost every sentence. Using section tags allows a reader to think "Okay, I'll take this with a grain of salt," and continue reading an otherwise well-formatted section. But putting tags after every sentence appears as a visual assault on proposed fact after proposed fact as they are mentioned, and disturbs the flow of text with the grace of a car horn. If no one minds, I'll replace these individual tags with a single tag that disputes the factual accuracy of the article. This way, the accuracy of the facts can still be questioned and discussed without hijacking the smooth layout of the article. - Gilgamesh 14:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, too many {{fact}} templates bug me when I see them. Avt tor 19:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hang on, I was probably the user that added the fact templates, which might have been excessive but were all legitimate. At the time I inlcuded the templates there was hardly one substantiated claim in the article. It was an embarrassment and flags like {{fact}} do a lot to draw attention to a problem that might otherwise be overlooked.
In most of the cases, the fact flags were attached to claims that, while in all likelihood were true, were completely unverifiable. Even if everyone who contributes to this page feels that "zed" is more Canadian than "zee", without a text to substantiate the claim it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I am surprised that I need to write this frankly, it's pretty basic stuff. If there are too many fact flags, it has nothing to do with my editorial zeal, it has to do with the low standards of the article.
I am sorry that you are bugged when you see the fact tags, but what should be of more concern is the erroneous statement that warranted the flag in the first place! That's the part that should bug you.—Muckapædia 3e déc. 2006, 21h03 (UTC+0900) 머크백과 tǂc
I don't agree. It is clear that someone knowledgeable put a lot of effort into clarifying the linguistic issues. A fact tag is appropriate for an individual item. A disputed tag is appropriate for a section or page that has been heavily modified by a single editor. But if I saw a page that someone had injected a lot of material in that I did not agree with, I would simply revert the page to the earlier, more verifiable version. Strewing a zillion fact tags for a single class of edits simply looks argumentative.Avt tor 15:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major rewrite for style, 2006.11.01

I did a paper-edit of the article. I concentrated on punctuation, capitalization, and italicization (now as close to consistent as I could make it).

  • I removed a very few unattributed facts and reordered a couple of sections (including the paragraph on dictionaries, which I expanded).
  • I removed a redundant paragraph on Newfoundland English
  • At long last, I rewrote the dreadful sentence about business-English explanations of Canadian English.
  • I used lower case on chartered accountant according to the Canadian Oxford entry
  • Corrected Maritimer to Maritime. Some Maritime sections are still incorrect (e.g., Newfoundland isn’t one of the “other” Maritime provinces)
  • Mentioned that Dipper for NDP is more disparaging than Grits for Liberals; there is still the issue of singular vs. plural
  • Cleaned up first graf of Law section
  • Fixed capitalization of lists
  • Fixed the mention of Canadian postal codes (could be simplified or removed)

Major items deleted, which can always be restored, preferably with better attribution:

  • Toronto-specific terms
  • Jamaican-Canadian terms
  • Claim that Newfoundland English is “often referred to as Newfie”
  • Redundant sentences about marks vs. grades

There’s a single TK remaining for someone to fill in: “The second wave from Britain and Ireland was encouraged to settle in Canada after the War of 1812 by a Template:TKneeds reference government worried about anti-English sentiment among its citizens.” Which government?

I offer the standard advice relevant whenever one seriously rewrites a Wikipedia article:

  • We’re allowed and encouraged to do that
  • You can revert it if you really think it’s necessary, though I am confident it isn’t
  • You can put back what was taken out, preferably with better attribution
  • You can take the whole thing and re-rewrite it yourself

– joeclark 19:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This article has been begging for it. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2006-11-01 19:59 Z

[edit] Please cite new additions

Since this article recently underwent a major cleanup, let's please start to cite new additions from verifiable sources, so it doesn't devolve to a mess of hearsay again. —Michael Z. 2006-11-10 19:19 Z

This is very tempting. I almost want to audit the page all the way to November 1 and remove any unsourced changes. Avt tor 20:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, recent edits bug me enough to start putting down the fact tag. Avt tor 20:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pissed

We're having revert wars about the passage about pissed (off),[1][2] but there's no reference cited. The CaOD's primary meaning is drunk, and the second is angry (N. Am.). Although there are nuanced differences in how it is used in the UK, Canada and USA, there is nothing particularly Canadian about pissed, piss-up, or pissy, nor about piss off or pissed off, mentioned under the headword piss. I'll remove it, unless someone finds a better reference. —Michael Z. 2006-11-23 21:07 Z

[edit] Rewrite of historical and multicultural influences

I'm going to get rid of the part that says Canadian English is influenced by countries around the world, that is definately not true, and I'm going to get rid of the part that says Canada is a multicultural country because of recent immigrations, that is not true, we just protect the ideas of multiculturalism in our constitution, but there's nothing official about any of that. And believe me, Canadian English is not going through any changes from countries around the world, it's jsut changing a small amount towards Americinazation. The part mentioning Canada as "Multicultural" (which I find not true) is very irrelevant to the Canadian English Language. RyanRP 08:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't want to seem like some sort of deleting maniac, but I also got rid of the part that said European Languages in Canada were influenced by Native Languages, that is not true, and I don't know where that person would have gotten the facts for that from, the only Native inspired English words in Canada are names for provinces or cities like "Manitoba" or "Ontario" due to mis-heard words that the British and French heard the natives speaking. and "European Languages" in Canada does not relate directly to Canadian English. I also changed the period of influence to "around one hundred years" rather than "almost two centuries", because that would mean it is continuing to change every year up to this day, which is not true. Canadian English has not changed in a long while. Also, it failed to mention the reason people speak English, which is because of the English settlers that originally came here. RyanRP 08:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

And again, as at Canada, your edits have been reverted. I'm sorry to do this, but you have been radically rewriting both this article and Canada to incorporate text about Canada being only a British and French nation. Here, you're suggesting that Canadian English has been a static language for almost one hundred years, and that it was influenced only by the British and the French. If you're going to make such radical changes, you need to discuss them first, and provide some pretty solid references to back them up. Don't be afraid to discuss things first - there are a lot of good editors with solid backgrounds in this field who contribute to this and other Canadian articles. --Ckatzchatspy 08:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'd just like to know why my contributions which I think are totally relevant, are being deleted without notice. The Canadian English Language is not influenced by "countries around the world" and anything to do with "multiculturalism" has nothing to do with the Canadian English languages! Also, there's no links showing how a Native pronounciation has affected the language. Whoever is deleting my editing, please tell me why and talk to me about it because I think I am doing something right here. Also it fails to mention why English is spoken in Canada, which I am adding. RyanRP 08:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

RyanRP, you may or may not be aware of this, but you can check an article's edit history by clicking on the "History" tab. The ensuing list will provide you with details as to what changes have been made to an article, as well as who made them. In this case, it was me, and I made sure to leave detailed explanations in my summaries and on this page. As to your assertion that Canadian English is not influenced by sources other than British English and French, here is a reference from AskOxford.com, a web site from the publishers of the Oxford English Dictionary:

"The indigenous languages encountered in each new colony by English-speaking colonists invariably had an impact upon the English developing there. In some colonies (for example the American states, Australia, and New Zealand), there were initially no powerful competing languages; in others (for instance the eastern provinces of Canada and the Cape Colony of South Africa) numerically strong languages such as French and Dutch vied for supremacy with English. In almost all areas, early colonists borrowed names for unfamiliar flora, fauna, topography, and culture from the languages they encountered in their new homes. Thus new words entered English—words such as Inuit, mesa, moccasin, racoon, pueblo, and wigwam (North America); cheetah, gymkhana, juggernaut, mogul (South East Asia); aardvark, apartheid, commando, impala, spoor (southern Africa); boomerang, kangaroo, kiwi, kookaburra, wombat (Australasia); and gumbo, mumbo-jumbo, voodoo, yam (West Africa, often via the English of the Caribbean).[3]

--Ckatzchatspy 08:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


I am not trying to say that Canada is ALL English and French, this is about the CANADIAN ENGLISH LANGUAGE. Alright, I'd just like to say I think I am making legitamit changes here, because it fails to mention why we speak English in the first place, which is because of the original English settlers, as is mentioned in the South African english article for example. Also, Canadian English is not currently going through any changes, and has remained the same for quite some time. The point of "countries around the world currently changing Canadian English" makes no sense at all, because Canadian English hasnt changed for quite some time. Also I am adding more reasons how Canadian English was influenced by Scottish and Irish English in the maritimes, and getting rid of the part that claims Canada to be a "multicultural" community, because that is not OFFICIALLY true, and even if it were, that is completely irrelevent to the Canadian English language. Also, about the Native Part, ok you've proved me wrong, but that is not influencing the pronounciation or spelling of English words as it claims, it is adding to the vocabulary. Therefor, I am going to make another change, and if you choose to revert it again, please explain to me why, because I think I am making legitimat and fair changes here, and I am not trying to make any statement about race in Canada, I am just trying to benefit this article on the Canadian English Language. Thanks, I'm not trying to cause any trouble here, just trying to help the pedia! :( The reason I added "anti French" was because the only groups of people during the late 1800s were English and French people! And for the next 100 years, the anglo centric attitude was there in part, because of anti French setiment. Also, call me Ryan, lol RyanRP 08:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

RyanRP, again, if you're trying to make assertions about the origins and influences of the language, get citations. It's a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, and so far, you're not doing that. I highly doubt that I'm the only one who will have something to say about the changes you're making, and you could save yourself a lot of trouble by providing the sources upon which you are basing your claims. --Ckatzchatspy 09:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well to be fair, there were no citations in the original form of the text either. But I am going to read into it and try to get some. And what do you mean "claims", do you actually think some of the information I am posting is incorrect? If so, please tell me which. And I know I know, even if it is the most correct information in the world, I would need quotes to be proffesional. Sorry, im new heheh, i'll try to get some on the Internet. And by the way, Call me Ryan, not RyanRP :P RyanRP 09:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I added something about modern americanization about some words, and I added some citations. That should make it official. Also, I am not saying its only British, and French influenced, I'm saying its only British, American, French, and Native influenced, and not influenced by "countries around the world". That is a well known fact, and please give me an example of any country besides those four groups that has influenced our language. And again, please tell me what parts I am adding that are incorrect?? I'm not being a smart @$$ here, or trying to be rude, but I really don't see what is incorrect. Thanks , and I hope you don't hate me or anything :( RyanRP 09:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

RyanRP, you are deleting material based directly on the Chambers essay in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, based solely on your own opinion. I've reverted, and added citation references.
"We just protect the ideas of multiculturalism in our constitution, but there's nothing official about any of that." Please see Multiculturalism#Origins in Canada: multiculturalism is official federal policy since 1971.
"...not influenced by 'countries around the world'. That is a well known fact." That Canada's multiethnic immigrations, peaking in 1910 and 1960, have had a significant influence on the language is testified in the Chambers essay. It also says that the language is changing now and will continute to change, influenced by "technology, medicine, international politics, and other sources." It goes on to mention "people of diverse creeds and colours", and that their integration "into the social fabric is having subtle effects just as the integration of the Scots and English did in the 1850s."
Regarding "Americanization", Chambers writes that since the first two immigrations to Canada (Loyalists from the thirteen colonies, and immigrants recruited from Britain and Ireland after the war of 1812), both British and North American spellings and pronunciations are tolerated in Canada. This is not a new phenomenon.
Adding "well-known facts" based on your own opinion but contrary to others' is not so different from original research, which is not allowed. Please try to add material you read about in reliable, verifiable sources, and cite them if you are making a significant change to the consensus text of an article. —Michael Z. 2006-11-27 17:33 Z

[edit] General Comment

I just wanted to say that I, being from Canada, believe that this article is pretty accurate... After reading it over a couple of times, I haven't caught much at all that sticks out as being factually inaccurate. The only thing that really stuck out to me was the Toronto "dialect" (if you will allow me to use the term)... I have been living in the area for a while now while I attend university, and I haven't picked up on any of this stuff here... the english spoken in Toronto seems quite similar or identical to the english I have heard everywhere else I have been. Tauntobr 07:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As a little side note (don't take this too seriously, I'm just pointing this out) I was kind of disappointed that 'poutine' wasn't mentioned in the article. I'm pretty sure that poutine is a Canadian word, and most people anywhere else in the world (who haven't visited Canada) would have no idea what it meant. Tauntobr 07:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Poutine is listed in Canadian English words. —Michael Z. 2007-02-14 21:36 Z

[edit] "Grocery store"

I live in Nova Scotia, and here, no one that I know refers to a place where you buy food as a "supermarket", as seems to be commonly found in the US. It is always refered to as a "grocery store". Is this just a Maritimes thing, or is this used across the country as well? Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article? Green451 15:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Add whatever you like, as long as you have a quotable reference for it. (Maybe you just don't have the giant Loblaws out in Nova Scotia? :) ) Avt tor 00:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
We have them here in Ottawa. And I still call them grocery stores. (But I am from NS, sooo...) - Eron Talk 00:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, we do have Loblaws here, only they're called Atlantic Superstore...but seriously, it was just something I thought of, and it might not necessarily merit a mention in the article. Whatever you think... Green451 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I googled "grocery store" and checked a couple of dictionaries; I don't see anything to indicate that it is an exclusively Canadian usage. - Eron Talk 00:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Nah, a common U.S. usage too. JackLumber. 19:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh, I believe my point earlier is that the distinction is perhaps one of scale rather than geography. The term "supermarket" refers to the subset of "grocery stores" which are really big. If you don't live near a community with a really big grocery store, there may not be anything that fits the term "supermarket". Avt tor 20:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
If your definition of "supermarket" is about 60,000 square feet with a clothes and general merchandise department as well, we have lots of them here, that's for sure. The whole reason I thought about this was because every time I hear someone (usually in an American movie) say "supermarket", I think to myself, "how strange", similar to what I think every time someone says "ro-of" instead of "roo-f". Green451 18:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Although it may be the more common usage in some or all of Canada (it is in my Winnipeg experience), neither grocery store nor supermarket is a distinctively Canadian or U.S. word. We should resist the urge to compare usages like this without an academic source to back them up. For all we know, people say supermarket more in BC or Nunavut, or somewhere, while they say grocery store more often in the U.S. north, or midwest, or Florida, or somewhere. —Michael Z. 2007-02-14 21:41 Z

[edit] Canadian English for storey.

What is the Canadian English for storey/ story? This will help any confusion on Canadian building articles. Thanks - Erebus555 20:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Usually storey as in the U.K. As an aside, the British preference for storey is less than a century old---the 1st edition of the OED had story. JackLumber. 21:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Canadian Oxford (2nd) says story, with this meaning, is a variant of storey. —Michael Z. 2007-02-14 21:44 Z

[edit] Spelling of "offence"

"The spelling defensive is universal, as is true for offence and offensive."

I don't know how to edit this to fix it, but something's clearly wrong. US English is "offense" so the spelling of "offence" is NOT universal. But it could be universal throughout Canada. So how is the word "universal" intended in connection with "defensive"? Somebody please help or I'll delete the sentence. Cbdorsett 10:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Online sources I can find (my cursory search came up with things that aren't really authoritative) suggest that the British spelling "defence" is acceptable and the American spelling "defense" is a permissible alternative in Canada. A Saskatchewan (government) education site on this topic says, "If you make a mistake in this area, it will not be in choosing the wrong form but in mixing the right forms. You need to be consistent. For example, do not use colour and color in the same piece of writing." My opinion would be that suggesting that "defence" and "offence" were preferred spellings in Canada would be correct, but that saying that "defense" and "offense" were completely incorrect would be somewhat POV. Avt tor 16:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Bacon

Hello. Just a quick explanation on why I've been reverting the edit that changes it to say that "Canadian bacon" is just called "bacon" here in Canada: It's true, you almost never hear the term "back bacon" here, in spite of what the article says. But, the reason for that is that "back bacon", at least as near as I can tell, is incredibly uncommon here.
You know peameal bacon? Thick discs of practically-ham, covered in granulated stuff? Well, take off the granulated stuff, and that is what americans mean by "canadian bacon". That is, what we simply call bacon, they also simply call bacon.
I'm sure wikipedia has several other articles on bacon, back bacon, etc. (or possibly one big one) if you want more information on the subject. :) Bladestorm 03:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I see what you mean. We'll leave it then.

Where's "here"? The States? For me, back bacon is a normal word describing something quite distinct from regular bacon. Something that gets called Canadian bacon in the States. CJGB (Chris) 04:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Heh... "Here" is Canada. (Ontario, if it matters). Let me just put it this way... 'strips' of bacon? Those aren't canadian bacon. If it's almost like ham, that is back bacon/canadian bacon. But I don't know a single canadian who says only 'bacon' when they're talking about anything but bacon strips (or "streaky bacon"). Bladestorm 05:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
That's my understanding as well. What Americans call "Canadian bacon", Canadians call "back bacon", which is not the same as the strips of "bacon" you can buy at Loblaws. Avt tor

[edit] Words used mainly in Canadian English - (Canadian Slang)

I added "(Canadian slang)" at the end of "Words used mainly in Canadian English" to help people locate the correct section of the article when they are being redirected from Canadian slang article. --Mike Sorensen 19:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/n/Talk%7ECanadian_English_4b23.html"