Talk:Canadian English

Spelling differences

I think a page should be created that notes the differences between Canadian spelling and American/British spelling, similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_spelling

There's no need for that. The article you mentioned--whose actual title is American and British English spelling differences--contains a lot of information on Canadian (and Australian) spelling. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 23:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be very useful, actually. The whole of Canadian spelling is unique from any one country, and the American/British article does a poor job if one is looking for correct Canadian spelling. --Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What seems to be missing? I have a database of spellings and all of them for Canada fit into one or the other of en-GB-oed and en-US. Peter Grey (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Peter, of course the spellings you have fit into en-UK and en-US lists. That isn’t the point. The task for the reader is not to locate a word on any ol’ list at all and call it a day. And our task as “editors” of this article is to explain that en-CA mixes and matches en-US and en-UK spellings. – joeclark (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously. That isn't saying the "whole of Canadian spelling is unique." What, if anything, is needed beyond our consensus that Canadian English spellings mix en-US and en-GB? (Though actually there are a small number of special cases where Canada uses en-GB hypenation rules with en-US word forms.) Peter Grey (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a table in a list article with three columns (GB, CA in the middle, US) to help demonstrate these differences without cluttering the article. - BalthCat (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a brilliant idea! It would make for easy comparison and summarization. Anyone know how to make this happen? — SpikeToronto (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

North-East US

The article only states similarities between Canadian English to Mid/Western US and Pacific Northwest English, but it does not say anything about the north-eastern US. I mean Canadian from southern Ontario has more similarities to Northeastern English. Norum (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that belongs in Northeastern US English. Peter Grey (talk) 05:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The States

It seems to me that Canadians are much more likely than Americans to refer to the United States of America as "the States." I haven't seen anything about that in this article. People in the British Isles seems to say "the States" much more often as well. Thegryseone (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The phrase the States actually transcends the boundaries of language, in that it is apparently used all over the world; based on my own experience (Continental Europe), it's "Los States" in Spain, "Les States" in France, "Gli States" in Italy. I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 01:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe what you're saying. It makes sense that "Los States" in Spain because in Spanish it's los Estados Unidos, i.e., the noun comes first anyway and what comes after it is apparently just seen as "extra stuff." I'm just saying that I don't ever hear Americans refer to their country as "the States"; according to what you're telling me it's just everyone else who does that. Thegryseone (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's more common among the US military and other Americans abroad. --JWB (talk) 09:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll hear it in areas along the Canada/US border. I live near the Canadian border and I hear both "the States" and "the US" from "Statesers" (which my Canadian cousins use). Oddly enough, I often hear Canadians use "America" instead of "the States," "the US/USA," etc. A little strange in light of the traditional Canadian preference that "America/American" refer to all North Americans. Britons and Australians I've encountered usually say "America." Not sure about New Zealanders.--Locutus1966 (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I live pretty close to the border with America and around here simply "America" is often used --Mike Oosting (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dropping one word out of a proper name is really not that remarkable. Peter Grey (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me guess, you're Canadian :) Thegryseone (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The states or the US is the norm for me (in BC) I find America obnoxious (as a term, not as a country, continent or geographical unit). I wouldn't say there's a Cdn preference for this to apply to all North Americans/ or North/South/Central Americans. That to me is a Latin American concept and preference. I find most people here don't contest the usage (in terms of who it applies to). I'm North American for sure, but not American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.218.83 (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Knapsack & kitbag

These terms are not so uncommon outside Canada. There even appear in songs known to many Americans: Happy Wanderer & Pack Up Your Troubles in Your Old Kit-Bag. They are perhaps not so much Canadian as a bit old-fashioned --JimWae (talk) 04:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don’t think knapsack is “old fashioned.” Where I live in Canada, most people use knapsack to differentiate it from backpack, where the latter is much larger, something one would use for camping, while the former is smaller, often worn over one shoulder only, and used to go off for the day, to school, to the library, to wherever. It’s a common distinction in the Greater Toronto Area. And, I don’t think it’s an old-fashioned distinction since I hear all of my nieces and nephews, ranging in age from eight to 25 (I’ll leave the two-year-old out!), still using it! — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

My main point is that it is not in any way a particularly Canadian term. I (& most of my classmates) wore a knapsack to school in NYC every day in the 1950s. We were very aware they were very much like what the soldiers wore during WW2--JimWae (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think families often hand-down distinctions that might not be generally observed. Nevertheless, in NYC we had the same distinction - knapsacks were usually not large. For me, I remember being struck with a new word after coming to BC, viz "backpack".--JimWae (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that an important point is being lost here: It is not relevant whether the term, knapsack, is old-fashioned in NYC because this is not an article about American English or English as spoken in NYC. It is an article about Canadian English. Thus, if the term has fallen out of favor in the United States (as you say), but still has currency in Canada (as any Torontonian and the Canadian Oxford Dictionary can attest to), then you have proven the point that it belongs in an article about current CanE practices. — SpikeToronto (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not proven your point, and you are reading far too much into a "perhaps" statement that was just a side issue. (The term has been replaced somewhat by backpack. The terms knapsack is virtually unheard anymore in BC, and kitbag refers more often to an large gym bag that holds one's hockey "kit") However, the point at issue is: "is it a Canadianism?" Appearing in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary does not make a word a Canadianism. Do you have a reliable source?--JimWae (talk) 07:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The claim made was that knapsack is old-fashioned and not used. That may be so in the U.S., but not here in Canada. My point is that, if indeed you are correct that the word has fallen into disuse in the U.S., and is still common in Canada, then you have proven the point: Its falling into disuse in the U.S. has had the effect of making it a Canadianism. And, if a precise source is going to be required for each and every term, you will end up excising a great deal of this article as well as the entirety of the following: List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom and List of British words not widely used in the United States. Why is it that no one ever gives an inch on these English language wikiarticles (he says with an exasperated sigh)? And, why is it that there’s always a wikieditor sitting in the U.S. who wants to use his/her American experience and/or American sources to expound on other forms of the language elsewhere in the world? (Insert another exasperated sigh.) If its BrE, we use British sources and/or experience, not U.S. ones. If its AusE, we use Australian sources and/or experience, not U.S. ones. If it’s CanE, we use Canadian sources and/or experience, not U.S. ones. So why do you think your U.S. sources and experience trumps my Canadian sources and/or experience? I cannot express it any more clearly: You say knapsack is rarely used in the U.S. (a fact that has no bearing on its use in Canada). I say it is used constantly here in Toronto. What does that tell you? It tells me that the word is used with greater frequency here, and that its relative lack of use in the U.S. suggests it has become a Canadianism. (P.S. And, I haven’t said a word about kitbag. That’s your “bag”. Some word from an old WWI song that doesn’t interest me.) — SpikeToronto (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You do know that BC is in Canada, no? I live in Canada, and have for longer than I did in the US. Do a search for the terms at sears.ca & at sears.com & tell me then that knapsack has not been significantly replaced by backpack, and "kit bag" still means a backpack. But you are geting me off-focus again. What other sources besides your family experiences make these terms (that have been used throughout the English-speaking world) "Canadianisms"?--JimWae (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Search walmart.com & walmart.ca & tell me knapsack is still a Canadianism. Find something in addition to your own family experience--JimWae (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Go to www.roots.ca - it originated in Canada - and search for knapsack, then for backpack. Do the same at www.canadiantire.ca That's 4 for me. Can you find a single store that would make your point?--JimWae (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside the whole "knapsack"/"backpack" issue, I have never heard anyone use "kit bag" in the US. Yes, people know the song, but it's a British song and I doubt Americans even have a clear idea what it means. I know I don't. If Canadians use it, that's a difference.(Oh, if you insist... I, an American made the backpack/knapsack distinction as a kid but I think only older people still say "knapsack" in the US.)Pdronsard (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Canadian students use the term marks (more common in England) or grades to refer to their results; usage is very mixed" Canadians say "marks" or "grades" as opposed to what? What do Americans say?

concering 'marks' or 'grades'

"Canadian students use the term marks (more common in England) or grades to refer to their results; usage is very mixed" Canadians say "marks" or "grades" as opposed to what? What do Americans say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.63.178 (talk) 06:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"Grades", usually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.109.160 (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a New Yorker, and we use both "Marks" and "Grades". For example, after taking a test, the teacher grades or marks the test. When she is done, you get your grade or mark. Same thing for report cards, where you get your grades or marks.69.122.122.147 (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)AR

I've taught in NYS and AZ and "grades" is much, much more common in the US. Have you ever heard anyone called a "mark grubber"?Pdronsard (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say marks is much more common here (BC), though I certainly know what grades/grading is, though grade drubber is something I've never heard before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.218.83 (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

wordiness

I noticed this on a traffic sign in Manitoba some years ago: "[The] wearing of seatbelts is compulsory in Manitoba" (can't remember if it said "the"). Meanwhile here in the States, signs would simply say: "Buckle up! State Law". It was before the clever "Click it or ticket" campaign. Any thoughts on this ?

Interesting observation. Having resided in two American states and four provinces in Canada, I would agree that brevity and abbreviation (at times cryptic) characterise US traffic signs, whereas completeness verging on verbosity is the norm in Canada.

Consider the following actual street signs from Victoria, BC, along with my best guesses of equivalent examples from Arizona and Colorado:

Canada	USA
Please keep out of fenced area	Keep out
Sorry, camping and beach fires not allowed	Camping, beach fires prohibited
Please avoid use of engine brakes in urban areas	Engine brakes prohibited
Pedestrian crossing	Ped Xing

The Canadian versions are endearing but tough to read at highway speeds. A friend of mine (Canadian) hypothesized that this difference might be attributed to Canadian hostility to the perceived "dumbing down" of the English language by American commercial slang (e.g., "lite", "EZ", "kleen"). Hard to say, although the pattern itself might stand up to statistical scrutiny. Any publications on this topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.144.248 (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Tend to disagree with this -- Ontario road signs were simplified several years ago to eliminate extra words. For example the former "ramp speed" signs now have the wording eliminated. Many more road signs use icons in Ontario, as compared to the US, and it is amusing to see the "wordy" signs used in the US. Another example is the WALK / DON'T WALK sign in the US, whilst "walking man" icons are used in Ontatio.

Perhaps in Canada, excessive abbreviation XING, NITE, XMAS is seen as a form of americanism (a bit like saying zee for zed).

Feldercarb (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The seatbelt sign seems pretty typical to me (The wearing of seatbelts is compulsory in ----). We have signs that say "it is unlawful to tamper with the smoke alarm" (funny enough people keep crossing out unlawful and writing illegal) and "clothing is optional beyond this point" (for the nudist beach). I'm still surprised to see "thru" on a sign (which we do have in BC) because it seems like slang and not proper English for a road sign. I think we've just stuck generally to older signing conventions.

On another note - it took an American friend of mine to comment that our buses say sorry ("Sorry Bus Full") and our garbage cans say "thank-you" love it! There's no place like home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.91.224 (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Can't Catch Cot

I've seen reference to this several times, but for the life of me, I cannot distinguish COT and CAUGHT. Are there other example words which might illustrate the point better? Tot, sot, sought, bot, bought Feldercarb (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is TOT and TAUT helpful? (I think the difference is slight, although it might have jumped right out at Henry Higgins. ;-) Modal Jig (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

§

There are some definite problems with the article on the section on the low back merger, which is what is fuelling the confusion. First, let's get to a starting point, and that would be with the British English pronunciations of both words. 'Caught' is pronounced quite differently in British English to Canadian English. To replicate the British pronunciation, first say the words 'colt' and 'court', noting the sound of the vowel (written as 'o' and 'ou'). It's the same sound in both words (i.e. an 'o'/'ou' before an 'r' or 'l') in Canadian English, and that sound is found in virtually no other circumstances in CE. Now say the words again, but *remove* the 'l' and 'r' sounds *without* changing the sound of the 'o'/'ou'. The resulting sound is close to what caught sounds like in BE (you might find that the 'court' transformation resulted in a slightly "longer" version of essentially the same sound). This is what the /ɔ/ symbol represents. As for cot, you're just going to have to listen to a British person say it. I can't spell it out since different Canadians pronounce it differently. The British pronunciation is /ɒ/. Now listen to an American pronounce that sound... they pronounce it more like an 'a' of sorts, which is /ɑ/. President Obama pronounces it that way, so listen for words like "not" in a speech of his. Canadians pronounce that sound (i.e. cot, not, rot, etc.) either the British way or the American way or somewhere in between. The low back merger as it originally referred to American English was the idea that the distinct British sounds of /ɔ/ in caught and /ɒ/ in cot merged together as the intermediate /ɑ/ sound in American English.

So now to Canadian English. Virtually no Canadians pronounce caught with a /ɔ/ sound; they pronounce it with either of /ɑ/ or /ɒ/. Similarly, cot is pronounced with /ɑ/ or /ɒ/. If a Canadian pronounces 'cot' with the American /ɑ/ sound, chances are that person is pronouncing 'caught' the same way, or nearly the same way, perhaps just lengthening the sound in 'caught'. Such a person would have the "standard" American version of the cot-caught merger. I notice this amongst Maritimers and rural Eastern Ontarians especially. However, there are other possibilities. If a Canadian is pronouncing 'caught' with a /ɒ/ sound (i.e. the British cot sound), then chances are that person is also pronouncing 'cot' with its original British sound; in other words the pronunciation of 'caught' was pushed right through the intermediate American /ɑ/ sound to the British /ɒ/. A lot of Canadians, especially urban Canadians outside Toronto, have this pronunciation combination. It's a merged sound, but it is *not* the merger which is usually referred to by the "low-back merger". The article makes a dog's breakfast of this point. The following sentence:

Speakers do not distinguish /ɔ/ (as in caught) and /ɑ/ (as in cot), which merge as [ɒ], a low back rounded vowel really ought to be rewritten as:

Speakers do not distinguish /ɔ/ (as in caught) and /ɒ/ (as in cot). These sounds are merged as either [ɒ], a low back rounded vowel, or as [ɒ]. because it gets the starting point for 'cot' wrong as well as the end point, which is not universal. Most Canadians are merging the two sounds, but they are not all merging them to the same sound.

Finally, some Canadians don't have the merger and do distinguish between 'caught' and 'cot'. They continue to pronounce 'cot' the British way /ɒ/ but 'caught' has moved to the American /ɑ/, often with a longer held sound. This happens to be how I pronounce the two words. D P J (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"As for cot, you're just going to have to listen to a British person say" - not helping much, sorry Feldercarb (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

zed / zee

To say that "zee is not normally used in Canada" is to suggest that it is rare. The reference cited to support this claim says clearly that in 1991 39% of 20-25 year-olds in the Golden Horseshoe said "zee". Four in ten Canadians in the most populous English-speaking region of the country don't constitute a rarity. My goodness, by this standard one could say that "French is not normally used in Canada"! The fact of the matter is that a good number of Canadians do say "zee", and the current wording ("not normally used") is extremely misleading. I tried (twice) to correct it by saying simply: "The name of the letter Z is usually zed, but zee, though often stigmatized, is also used." (The comment about the stigma was in the original, and I just left it in.) I fail to see how my change is not a better reflection not only of the referenced article, but also of a lifetime of experience living in the Golden Horseshoe. Wyandzed (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Wyandzed. I read the reference citation, and it does indeed say that 39% of 20-25 year-olds said "zee". It also reflects that this number would dwindle since the number of over-30 year-olds was only 12.5%. I fail to see how you can take just one segment of a population and apply the statistics for that segment to the entire population? The "uncommon" descriptor does apply in this case.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  20:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Paine. While the article does suggest that people tend to switch from "zee" to "zed" as they get older, that's not at all the same as saying that "zee" is uncommon. Actually, the article also seems to be saying that the use of "zee" among adults is actually increasing: the 1979 study found it in "8% of the adults" while the results of the 1991 study were 39% among 20-25 year olds and 12.5% among those over 30. Exact numbers aside, it seems obvious that "zee" is used by more Canadians than is suggested by "not common". (Even 10% would be more than two million people.) My edit simply stated that zee "is also used". And I've now found that the primary reference on Canadian English, The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, not at all surprisingly lists two pronunciations for the letter: /zed/ and /zi:/. I stand by my "zee is also used", and will reinstate it with this new reference unless I can be convinced that "zee" is "not common". (And references and authorities aside, it'll be tough to convince me that all the "zee"'s I've heard in Toronto over the years have been "uncommon".) — Wyandzed (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wyandzed, one note on your post above. Given that your text is contested, I would encourage you to wait until some solution is resolved here on the talk page rather than repeatedly restoring your preferred version in the absence of consensus. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I'm just getting acquainted with the protocols of editing the Wikipedia. Apologies. — Wyandzed (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think that even if the usage were only 10%, it could be misleading to say that it is "not common". I think we need another wording here. If only 15% of Canadians had red hair, would we say red-haired Canadians are uncommon? We could say less common. --JimWae (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. — Wyandzed (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Wyandzed, the reference material describes how some younger Southern Ontario residents use "zee" because of American influences, of the stigma against such use, and of how the use drops off radically as the speakers age. Your text ("The name of the letter Z is usually zed, but zee, though often stigmatized, is also used.") doesn't properly reflect that reference, and in fact suggests that "zee" is Canadian, as opposed to actually being an American pronunciation that is used in Canada. (The article actually makes the point that the patterns of use in Ontario actually suggest that there is not a transfer under way from the international "zed" to the American "zee", and also identifies "zee" as a uniquely American pronunciation.) Furthermore, it is not "4 in 10 Canadians" in Ontario, but instead approximately 40% of one age group. Doing the math to work out exactly what proportion of the overall population that is would produce a significantly smaler result. Look, if we want to find some data to illustrate how the proximity to the US, and the prevalence of American media, has influenced the use of "zee", that is one thing. However, and especially when one observes the use of "zed" in Canadian-sourced media (Canadian Sesame Street, radio stations such as "Zed 95" as opposed to "Zee 95" in the States) we cannot put forth that "zee" is Canadian when it clearly is not. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz, I think we have a fundamentally different idea of what makes something Canadian. I think "Canadian is as Canadian does": if Canadians are doing it, or using it, or thinking it, it's Canadian. Your objection to my edit is that it "suggests that "zee" is Canadian, as opposed to actually being an American pronunciation that is used in Canada". I believe you're making a false distinction. Refusing to acknowledge a widespread usage on this basis is like having an article on Canadian music and leaving out a segment on rock and roll on the grounds that it's just "American music that is used in Canada". No pronunciation is inherently American or Canadian, it's either used in those places or it's not, and to the extent that it is used in the US or Canada it can be called American or Canadian.

Moving to the facts of the matter, I think it's clear that a not insignificant number of Canadians do say "zee". Looking at the math in Chambers' article, in 1991 12.5% of those 30 and up used zee, and the percentages for the younger generations (who do count, don't they?) were significantly higher. And that was almost twenty years ago, with the trend increasing, if the 1979 figures in the same article are any indication (despite the point of Chambers' was making about age-grading). Bill Cassleman, a well-known Canadian commentator on the language, says that "In Canada, zed is losing ground to zee" and that "many, many teenagers and twenty-somethings use zee" (http://www.billcasselman.com/cwod_archive/zed.htm). And then there's the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, which lists both "zed" and "zee" as Canadian pronunciations of the letter. To claim, as the current article does, that "zee is not normally used in Canada" flies in the face of all this.

If our purpose is to inform those who come to the Wikipedia wondering, "In Canada do they say zed or zee?" then we're not being honest or helpful if we ignore what Canadians actually say in favour of what we think is "Canadian". The fact of the matter is that many people do say "zee": even if we find that unsettling, or erroneous, or misguided, or un-Canadian, or just not right, many people do. And they've been doing so for generations.

Now I think you make an excellent point about the practically exclusive use of "zed" in the media, and I think an informative article should say that. As I see it, these are the points that would be most helpful in presenting a comprehensive view of the matter: 1) Most Canadians say "zed". 2) A good (and possibly increasing) number of Canadians, mainly in younger generations, say "zee". 3) In the media one hears "zed" exclusively. 4) Many consider "zee" to be American, and there is thus a stigma attached to it. And for references I'd site the Chambers article, The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, and the Cassleman article (and for point 4, can I cite this discussion? [grin] ) — Wyandzed (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Several points are important here:

• The articles you've listed clearly describe the use of "zee" as an age-related phenomenon, and one that is strongly influenced by proximity to the border and exposure to US media.
• The writers also indicate that the usage is not indicative of a gradual switch to "zee", but instead a habit that children grow out of.
• I did see Cassleman's comment, but it is important to note that it is really more of an aside thrown in without any real supporting explanation or statistics at the end of a column talking about how Canadians feel "zee" is American.
• You would need to source reliable information to support any claim that large numbers of young people are using "zee" today; so far, we do not have material to do so.

Is it used in Canada? Yes, of course. Is it Canadian English? Apparently not. If we rework the text, we need to be sure that it is positioned as such. (Explaining the media exposure, the inherent push-back, the "kids use it because they here it form the 'States but grow out of it" phenomenon and so on would be great, as long as we can source strong information to back it up.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Taking your bulleted points, one by one:

• To say that the use of "zee" is age-related is completely different from saying that it's "not normally used". Why should we discount younger Canadians?? And we're not talking infants: the 1991 study found "zee" used by a full 39% of 20-25 year olds. And to try to dismiss the findings by saying that these are people "strongly influenced by proximity to the border" is a red herring: the vast majority of English-speaking Canadians live in broadcast range of US media. You want to dismiss them all?

• In fact the Chambers essay does suggest a gradual switch if you look at the numbers closely (as I've pointed out above). But even if it didn't, I don't see why we should dismiss the usage of younger people just because many or most of them will probably change that usage when they get to age...what? 25? (No, still at 39%) 30? 40? You want to use as evidence of Canadian usage only those whose usage meets your standards of what constitutes "Canadian".

• Ok, so Cassleman doesn't count because he doesn't back up his claim with stats. But surely, if we're evaluating the merits of my edit (from "zee is not normally used in Canada" to "zee is also used") it's not insignificant that a seasoned professional commentator on Canadian English should write, "many, many teenagers and twenty-somethings use zee".

• You're asking for proof that large numbers of Canadian young people are using "zee" today. Where's your proof that they're not? The only numbers we have are in the Chambers article: 67% of twelve-year-olds in 1979, and 39% of twenty-somethings in 1991. That's all we have to go on. Neither stat says anything definitive about today, granted. But I should think the onus is on you to prove that such stats don't reflect a similar situation today.

Your view, as I understand it, is best encapulated when you write: "Is it used in Canada? Yes, of course. Is it Canadian English? Apparently not." For goodness sake, why not? You're trying to prove something isn't Canadian by dismissing all the evidence that you claim is not Canadian. What is your definition of "Canadian"? In the context of language, how can it be other than what Canadians use?

Is Oxford University Press enough of an authority for you? The entry for "Z" in the Student's Oxford Canadian Dictionary (2004) couldn't be clearer: "Say ZED or ZEE". And there's even a box discussing this very issue. Under the heading "Say it right" it says in even more direct terms than I've been using:

"Both "zed" and "zee" are acceptable pronunciations for the letter Z in Canada, though "zed" is much more common. Be warned, however, that some people feel very strongly that it is a betrayal of Canadian nationality to say "zee" and you may incur their wrath if you do so."

How applicable is that? How many more references do I need before I can make the simple statement that while "zed" is most common in Canada, "zee" is also used? — Wyandzed (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• It still seems to me that all this can be settled simply by saying "zee" is "less common"--JimWae (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Better yet, why not stick with text that is supported by the primary reference we've been debating; that is to say, the original "The name of the letter Z is normally the Anglo-European (and French) zed; the American zee is not commonly used in Canada, and it is often stigmatized." Chambers clearly identifies "zee" as a unique Americanism, attributing Canadian use of it to influence from that country. He also clealry states it is stigmatized. If it helps, we could always tweak the text slightly to say "The name of the letter Z is normally the Anglo-European (and French) zed; the American zee is less commonly used in Canada, and it is often stigmatized." --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we're getting somewhere now: "less commonly used" is more accurate than "not normally used". I'd still prefer not to clutter things up with references to "Anglo-European (and French)" zed and "American" zee. (Why is French use relevant, or European, for that matter? This isn't an article on the letter Z.) So my first choice would be something like "The name of the letter Z is normally zed; zee is less commonly used in Canada, and it is often stigmatized." If it's deemed necessary to refer to usage outside Canada, I'd rather see a phrasing like: "Most Canadians (like all of the English-speaking world outside the US) use "zed" for the name of Z, but a minority of Canadians say "zee" (like Americans), a usage that is often stigmatized." Is this fair enough? — Wyandzed (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"Anglo-European" (or something similar) and "American" are important points to include, simply because that is how the respective pronunciations are described by linguists. ("Zee" is generally described as an aspect of American English. I could see dropping "French", simply because we're discussing variants of the English language.) The existing phrasing still reads more accurately than what you've proposed, and based on what we've been discussing, there doesn't seem to be any benefit to changing the existing language, other than perhaps the "less commonly" tweak. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I don't think there's any point in prolonging this: If you really think people have to be told what "zed" and "zee" are, the term "American zee" is fine, though I don't think we interpret the phrase the same way. (You can think of it as meaning "not Canadian, just used in Canada" if you like; I'll treat it as equivalent to "American spellings" like "tire" and "curb", which we all know are Canadian too.) But couldn't we just use "British" for zed? Yes, we all know it's more than just British, but can't we just consider "British" as shorthand for "British/Commonwealth/(former)Colonial/International" English? Can we both live with "The name of the letter Z is normally the British zed; the American zee is less commonly used in Canada, and it is often stigmatized." ? (I'd also include the reference to the Student's Oxford Canadian Dictionary.)

One last question: Why is this characteristic of Canadian English listed under "Phonemic Incidence"? The difference between "zed" and "zee" is not phonemic at all. They're just two different words. — Wyandzed (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I love this discussion. Often young Canadians say "zee" because they hear it on American T.V. and radio, e.g., WBZ Boston, ZZ Top, EZ Cleaner, etc. As Canadians get older, they learn to use the Canadian pronunciation of "zed." Everyone should watch the hilarious Molson beer commercial that includes this topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRI-A3vakVg . After this commercial aired, a lot more Canadians became more careful about how to say "zed."Que-Can (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Converter

Dare I ask who added the unsourced claim that "converter" is a CanE synonym for a television remote control? Just to clarify: a converter is a box which is commonly hooked up to TVs to expand the number of cable channels available to a subscriber past the capacity of the television's tuner — the term has somewhat fallen into disuse, as most modern converters are more commonly called "digital boxes" or "set-top boxes" instead, but they're really just an upgraded version of the same thing. The box generally has a remote to control it with, but the box, not the remote itself, is the converter — the remote is just a remote. And this isn't a Canadianism, either; "converter" is pretty much the universal standard English word for this device. Bearcat (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I was born and raised in Southern Ontario and always called a TV remote control a converter, as did most of the people I knew. It's not rare. Recently, I heard an ad on the radio in Barrie, ON encouraging people to "put down the converter." Maybe it's an Ontario thing. But it is a thing. Truthiness Jones (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it a sourceable thing that can be genuinely demonstrated to be a distinct Canadianism? That's the germane question here, not whether there's any anecdotal evidence whatsoever of anybody ever having used the term that way. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I used to make fun of my buddy for calling a remote a converter. He was from rural Simcoe. (99.236.161.15 (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC))

I can say for sure that very few people in Nova Scotia call it a "converter". It is definitely not generally a Canadianism. Has anyone looked into the prevalence of the term "clicker"? It has been used a few times on 22 Minutes (not recently though) and I think I may have heard it on Air Farce.142.68.144.235 (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Raising

I think the claim made in this section about American English is not true. Americans without raising do indeed distinguish between "writer" and "rider"-- they do it by vowel length rather than quality. This is often hard for non-Americans to pick up, as vowel length is usually not phonemic.Pdronsard (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about this...

This article claims this...

"...while the phonological system of western Canadian English is virtually identical to that of the Pacific Northwest of the United States, and the phonetics are similar."

I am from BC (Vancouver Island to be exact) and when I go to the States (Washington State to be exact), the difference is night and day. As soon as i cross the border into Blaine, "Canada" becomes Kyanada, get becomes gyet, y'all replaces everyone, Washington and wash become warshington and warsh, and words like "hot" sound like "hat" (the "o" sounds more like an "a"). The are many other examples of differences, so many in fact that there is no way western canada and the pacific northwest are "virtually identical". I wouldn't even say they are similar. I would like to know more about the source for this. Masterhatch (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

totally agreed, especially since - also - Alberta's quite different from BC (or used to be). See next section, also.Skookum1 (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Americanized IPA on Victoria, British Columbia??

Please see Talk:Victoria,_British_Columbia#American_dialect_IPA.3F.Skookum1 (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Tory" vs "Loyalist"

Here's a citation: http://www.saintjohn.nbcc.nb.ca/host/loyalisthouse/history.htm Que-Can (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Template usage and {{WikiProject Canada|music=yes|}}

I have posted a question regarding the usage of {{Canadian English}} at:

• Template talk:WikiProject Canada#Specifying Canadian English in the project template.3F.

Your guidance is extremely appreciated. Argolin (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Please answer at Template talk:WikiProject Canada#Specifying Canadian English in the project template.3F Argolin (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Phonemic incidence

"Words such as fragile, fertile, and mobile are pronounced /ˈfrædʒaɪl/, /ˈfɜrtaɪl/, and /ˈmoʊbaɪl/." I'm sorry but is this supposed to be helpful to anyone? Who can read that gibberish? If you're trying to help someone to understand the differences in pronunciation wouldn't something like "ah-bout/ah-boot" (for instance) be a tad more helpful than... what is that, Klingon? I know, dictionaries use these maddening pronunciation hieroglyphics too. But if you're well versed enough in linguistics to be able to decipher this crazy moon language, chances are, you need no help in learning to pronounce the word(s) in question in the first place. Can wikipedia be a bit more, I dunno, "lay-person friendly"? Just a bit? We'll buy you a monkey. 76.181.253.67 (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't find IPA particularly useful and would like to see respelling in addition to IPA. Modal Jig (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of us find IPA spelling far more useful than "lay-person" spelling---especially when that lay-person speaks a different dialect than I do. Do you enjoy filtering lay-person spelling through the pronunciation of an unfamiliar dialect in order to get a kinda-sorta idea as to how to pronounce something? Just wiki up the article on IPA spelling and ejumacate yourself. You'll be able to use that knowledge for the rest of your life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acidtoyman (talk • contribs) 08:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Lieutenant

Ummm...lieutenant pronounced as leftenant in Canada? I have yet to come across that, and the article on lieutenant seems to take a different position on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acidtoyman (talk • contribs) 08:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Strange. I've been criticized a lot for saying "lieutenant" instead of "leftenant". Even the Lieutenant Governor is referred to as "Leftenant Governor". Maybe it's an NS thing.142.68.144.235 (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I was absolutely taught it was inappropriate to say "lootenant" particularly with reference to the LG (I think for say police rankings we'd say "loo" but "left" in the military. I'm in BC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.218.83 (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm from Toronto, and I say "leftenant governor" but lieutenant in all other cases. TorontoLRT (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Basil vs. Basil

"The herb and given masculine name basil is usually pronounced /ˈbæzəl/ rather than /ˈbeɪzəl/." I've always been told that /ˈbeɪzəl/ is the spice and /ˈbæzəl/ is the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.144.235 (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Addition?

Not confident to add things myself, but I've heard that the term "Shit Disturber" is not used in the states, but I know it is very common in BC. It means someone who stirs up trouble (often for the fun of it). -- 206.108.31.34 (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Forty

When the main article refers to forty as a Canadianism there is no reference to support the origin of this term as particularly Canadian. I'm not saying that it did not originate in Canada, but living in Southern California we always use the term forty to refer to a 40 oz. beverage, and I find it hard to believe that this term traveled all the way down from Canada and became the most pervasive nomenclature in a population in the tens of millions. I think this should be removed as Canadianism until it can be cited. BJ Crowning (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done I will remove it as i cant find a ref.Moxy (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Spelling: Jail/Gaol

As far as I can tell the British spelling of jail is jail and their spelling of gaol is gaol. Which version they choose to use is a different kettle. This search gives 41 results for jail at HM Prison Service. A search for gaol gives 10. Modal Jig (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It was I who made that change. I do not really know how prevalent the usages are in the UK. My reason for the correction was that the caparison made no sense. It was contrasting jail with jail. If you feel it should be deleted, then I do not object. Geometricks (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

To University

I think that the following sentence is a bit misleading:

"Canadian and British English share idioms like in hospital and to university, while in American English the definite article is mandatory."

I have no objection to the inclusion of "in hospital", which would clearly require the definite article in GenAm. However, as discussed under the Education heading in this article, "college" is the US term for post-secondary education in general, and the construction "to college" (no definite article) is standard in the US. So while it is true that a GenAm speaker would not likely use the term "to university", it has nothing to do with the definite article, but rather with the meaning of the term "university" in CanE (i.e., an American would also be unlikely to say "to the university" with the same meaning as the CanE "to university", which would be "to college"). Further, in my experience, a Canadian who was en route to a particular university would indeed use the definite article (e.g., "I am driving to the university right now"), just as an American would.

As such, I think that either the reference to mandatory inclusion of the definite article in GenAm should be removed, or the example "to university" should be removed (leaving only "in hospital", or the section should be expanded to explain the specific context in which the direct article would be removed in CanE, or the definite article reference should be included after "to hospital" and "to university" should be left with the GenAm equivalent "to college" mentioned in the section. I think any of these suggestions would make the section more clear. Any thoughts? — DIEGO ^talk 01:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. That needs fixing. Funnyhat (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Calendars/Schedules/Catalogs

Canadian universities publish calendars or schedules, not catalogs as in the U.S.

I'm not sure these denote the same concept. In the U.S., a course catalog is the list of available courses each semester. Do Canadians really call that list a "calendar" or "schedule"? Funnyhat (talk) 01:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, depending on the institution. What is called a "course catalog" in the US, is indeed referred to as a "course schedule" (e.g., University of British Columbia) or a "course calendar" or a "course calendar and listing" (e.g., University of Toronto). Interestingly, the Toronto School of Theology (U of T) does publish a "Course Catalogue". Go Figure. — DIEGO ^talk 02:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)