Talk:Name of Canada

Archives

Archive 1 (Jan 2005 – 22 Sept 2005) Archive 2 (23 Sept 2005 – Oct 2005) Archive 3 (Nov 2005 – July 2008)

Page move

As part of a broader campaign of renaming, User:Neelix recently moved this article to Toponymy of Canada. His explanation for this move is on his talk page here. I have reverted this move to allow a broader discussion here. - Eron^Talk 21:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong but I believe an article on the Toponymy of Canada would be about placenames within Canada, while this article is specifically about the name of Canada itself. If I am correct, then I would obviously oppose the move. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There are currently 27 articles which deal with the history and development of the place name(s) which identify a particluar country. I feel that the titles of these articles should be standardized for better understandability and also so that templates such as Template:Europe topic might be introduced. Such templates would create a more integral connection between the articles and would also encourage the development of an article on this subject for all countries. It seems obvious now (based on the number of users who have made this point) that "Toponymy" is not the proper term for the standardization. "Etymology" may be more appropriate, as the term is appropriate to all 27 articles. My concern over the using "Name" is that several of the articles discuss more than one name. Would "Etymology of Canada" (and other analogous titles for the other 26 articles) be satisfactory? Neelix (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but this may be a case where there cannot be one hard and fast rule. I can't comment on the other articles, but in this article I see two major points covered: the origin of the word Canada, and the name of the country called Canada - specifically, the status of the term Dominion with respect to the name of the country. The first is clearly an etymological question. The second... well, I've waded hip deep through Dominion debates on both this page and the main Talk:Canada page, and it seems to be some combination of politics, sociology, psychology, and (in some cases) quasi-religious belief. I'm being a bit facetious, but my point is that this article is about less than the toponymy of Canada, but more than simply the etymology of the word.

I'd also like to add that I think a proper article on the Topynymy of Canada - linked to this article and others such as List of place names in Canada of Aboriginal origin and Canadian provincial name etymologies - would be a good addition to the encyclopedia. (I find it fascinating that the five coastal provinces all bear colonial names while four of the five (mostly) interior provinces have aboriginal names. And then there is Alberta... And the capitals! Four royals, three aboriginals, a noble, someone's home town, and a saint.) - Eron^Talk 00:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Eron makes a convincing point here. This article on the name of Canada actually encompasses two rather controversial elements: The origin and meaning of the name "Canada" and whether there was and/or is a full name with a title (i.e, Dominion). There have been (and will be) several battles over these points spanning several articles. This article is a good place to keep the sides of the debate more broadly discussed. Finally, I'm not sure "Etymology" is even the right word for these articles. What's precisely wrong with the good old English word "name"? DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My original concern with using the term "name" is that some of the 27 articles would have to use the term "names" instead. Upon second consideration, this is not as detrimental as I had thought. The templates I mentioned will not be affected if I create "Name of x" redirects to the "Names of x" articles. As the term "name" seems most accepted in both this discussion and the one on my talk page, I will switch the 27 article titles to the "Name(s) of x" format if there are no categorical objections in the next 24 hours. Considering that this specific article already conforms to this standard, it will not be affected. Neelix (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, these "27 articles" are all different. Just look at Names of India, Names of the Irish state and Albania (name). There may be an actual reason they aren't named uniformly, has that ever occurred to you? dab (𒁳) 18:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it didn't which is why this friendly, co-operative, constructive, AGF discussion is so helpful. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Dominion du Canada" referenced several times

The French-Canadian consolidated version,

M. Olliver, "Actes de L'Amerique du Nord Britannique et Statuts Connexes 1867-1962", Publie par Roger Duhamel, M.S.R.C., Imprimeur de la Reine et Controleur de la Paperie, Ottawa, Canada, pp. 675, (1962).

references the long-form name of the Dominion du Canada many times.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDon, Please discuss your proposed changes to this article here before placing them in the article. Thanks, DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello DoubleBlue. Thank you for your kind feed-back. I find the entire Dominion Status section a highly prejudiced piece of writing.

Firstly, the very first sentence,

"Neither Confederation nor the title of Dominion granted Canada any new autonomy."'

...how does this stand?

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk)134.117.137.141 (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly it's inadequate since we have no citation for the statement and I believe you are aware of the contentious debate behind its inclusion here. On the other hand, what new powers were granted with the title "dominion"? What if we made the statement less clear-cut and instead just introduce the facts and quotes that follow. Something like:

Confederation formalised and transferred the responsible government system that was already working in central and eastern British North America.

Thanks for contributing to a discussion to improving this article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Points-of-Duscussion

Quebec Resolutions 1864

http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/rapids/3330/constitution/1864qr.htm

Resolution 71. That Her Majesty the Queen be solicited to determine the rank and name of the Federated Provinces.

London Resolutions 1866

Resoultion 68. That Her Majesty the Queen be solicited to determine the rank and name of the Confederation.

For the duration of the Confederation Conferences of 1864 and 1866, the new independent country to be born was refered to as the

Union of British North America

Autonomous

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/autonomous

1. Government. a. self-governing; independent; subject to its own laws only. b. pertaining to an autonomy.

2. having autonomy; not subject to control from outside; independent: a subsidiary that functioned as an autonomous unit.

Dominion

Autonomous Communities within the British Empire-Commonwealth.

Conclusion drawn:

Therefore Firstly, the very first sentence,

"Neither Confederation nor the title of Dominion granted Canada any new autonomy."'

... does not stand. I shall delete it now.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

AVD, I do not see how any of those references make your point. You do not have a reference that says what new powers were granted with the title "dominion". Of course a new country was created from the several; not at issue. Was it newly independent though? How so? What changed? A dictionary may say that dominion means an autonomous community but is that what was meant in 1867 by the BNA Act and, again, if so what changed in Canada's powers? DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello DoubleBlue. Prior to July 1, 1867, there was the United Province of Canada, the Province of Nova Scotia, and the Province of New Brunswick. All three had feudal ranks of a Province within the British Empire. After July 1 1867, the Dominion of Canada a had feudal rank of a Dominion within the British Empire, and each of its provinces were ranked as a Province of the Dominion of Canada.

The creation of the Dominion elevated their feudal ranks to a sub-division of a Kingdom (i.e., the Dominion of Canada). This new kingdom had its own independent Parliament, and a Governor-General. This did not exist before, and thus consistuted the independence of the new country.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 134.117.137.189 (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, AVD, from my personal perspective, I agree that the intention of entitling Canada with Dominion was intended to convey the level of independence and autonomy that the new country had but we do not have any sources that show that or that the level actually changed upon its conferral. Rather, I suspect, the level had already been gradually reached over time in the former colonies. The former provinces also did have governors (and Canada had a governor-general) and parliaments. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello DoubleBlue.

I have read the two "sources",

(1). "End of Dominion Status", (1944)

(2). "Strange Death of Dominion Status", (1989)

and they do NOT say that Dominion Status was ever abolished. I own copies of both sources. I have read them again, and again. This wikipedia article which quotes them ... does so out-of-context.

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the final paragraph of the Dominion status section is not written from a NPOV, does not follow directly from the given sources, and should be re-written. If you have a suggested re-write, I will not have time to consider it for several days but will endeavour to return sometime mid-next week. I can also have an attempt at one next week, if that's needed. Best wishes for your weekend, DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello DoubleBlue.

The issue of the long-form name of the country being the Dominion of Canada is only the "tip-of-the-iceberg" . The Provinces and Territories of Canada are also having their long-form names suppressed as well.

For example,

The Province of Quebec vs. the Dominion of Canada: In RE Indian Claims http://library2.usask.ca/native/cnlc/vol03/498.html

All long-form names regarding Canada are being systematically suppressed here at Wikipedia.

I do not understand why people here want to suppress the long-form names of Canadian Institutions ... why?

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

How is "Dominion" an English loan-word?

It isn't. Neither was it loaned to English from French. "Dominion" is from the Latin verb "dominare", literally "to dominate" (in either or both good & bad senses).

As part of Canada's official name from 1867 to 1982, the immediate source was Psalm 72:8 - "And he shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth." This is also the source of Canada's formal motto, "A Mari Usque ad Mare". It's the "from sea to sea" part of the Psalm, which in Latin reads, "Et dominabitur a mari usque ad mare, et a flumine usque ad terminos terrae."

The term "Dominion of Canada" was chosen as an alternate to "Kingdom of Canada", because the British government believed the latter title would cause too much offence in Washington, DC - where Canadian confederation in 1867 was met with a resolution in the US Senate expressing, "Grave misgivings on the establishment of a monarchial state to the north." It was because of Confederation that the United States made haste to purchase Alaska from the Russian Empire, and then attempted to persuade the Crown Colony of British Columbia (1858 - 1871) to join the United States - so that Canada would be cut off from the Pacific. But the decision was made, in 1871, for BC to join Canada instead. So, that was that. Similar noises were made in 1949 over the "Responsible Government" option on the ballot in the former Dominion of Newfoundland.

71.198.146.98 (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

How is "Dominion" an English loan-word?

The statement,

...The French translation of the 1867 British North America Act translated "One Dominion under the Name of Canada" as "une seule et même Puissance sous le nom de Canada" using Puissance (power) as a translation for dominion. Later the English loan-word dominion was also used in French. ...

this is an unsupported statment. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It's also completely wrong; dominion is a French word loaned to English, not vice versa. See etymonline. --87.112.126.74 (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

According to my Petit Robert, which despite its name is over 2,000 pages long, it is an English loan word. They give the etymology as,

1872, mot angl. « domination, puissance », appliqué au Canada en 1867

And the only use of the word in French is chacun des États, aujourd'hui indépendants, qui composent l'Union britannique.

The OED says the English word comes from obsolete French. So it would appear to be a back-loan, much like all the Japanese loans into Chinese of what had originally been Chinese words.

— kwami (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The Latin word Dominus means Lord. The word Dominion originates from the Latin word Dominium. The word Dominate can be used as a verb (i.e., "to dominate"), or as a noun (i.e., "the dominate"). As a noun, "the Dominate" means "the Lordate" (i.e., "the State of the Lord"). Hence the Dominion of Canada means the Lordship of Canada.

Additional Note: In the French Language "Puissance du Canada", means "Potentate of Canada", which in turn means "Dominion of Canada". Your French Dictionary is confusing a verb "domination" with a noun "le Dominate" ... "the Dominate" i.e., "the Lordate" ... "the Dominion" ... a noun not a verb!

Additional Additional Note:

http://www.les-dictionnaires.com/robert.html

Paul Robert born in French Algeria, A.D. 1910. The author of this dictionary is unlikely to care about the finer details of "Royalist" English terminology in the British Commonwealth of Nations. He is most likely simply reciting some biased "Quebec-ism" of the day. A Dictionary is a huge thing you know. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Improving the text

Old version: While no legal document ever says that the name of the country is anything other than Canada, Dominion and Dominion of Canada remain official titles of the country.

New version:

No legal document says that the name of the country is anything other than Canada. Constitutional expert Eugene Forsey and Alan Rayburn, former Executive Secretary of the Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographical Names, state that Dominion and Dominion of Canada remain official titles of the country.

The old version appears to be trying to build an argument for "Dominion of Canada" - note the use of "While" to position the 'legal document' point as being less important than the 'official title' point. The new version breaks this into two separate sentences to give each equal weight. As WP:YESPOV says: "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." The new version also clarifies who is saying that 'Dominion' remains an official title, and provides their credentials (to make it clear that Gene and Al aren't just a couple of guys down at the local Tim Horton's). Ground Zero | t 01:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

An unregistered user has reverted my edits with the edit summary: "Undid revision by Ground Zero: rv - this makes it sound like they're the only 1s that contend this, when others (scholars) do too (qv Dominion); long-standing content requires more groundswell for change than this".

If there are other scholars that make the same argument, then please provide evidence from reliable sources (not quizzes for kids, for example). I have been bold in making this change for clarity and neutrality, which are both important goals of Wikipedia, and explained my change above. Reverting needs more justification than that the poor text is long-standing content. feel free to discuss here why you think the non-neutral, less clear text is better, and if you get a consensus for restoring the old version, I will of course accept that. Ground Zero | t 10:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The Government of Canada (or at least many therein) seems to think that Dominion of Canada is still the most formal usage, judging from the Tartan reference, the GC Flag publication and the Prince of Wales visit site (albeit in the the form of answer's to quizzes for the latter two. Although to be fair, if they are in these quizzes, then I would assume that this is information that PCH has deemed that everyone should know as part of their heritage IOT be included as part of such an educational campaign). But your point is well taken. Whether two of the three GC refs should be disparaged or not because they are in the form of a quiz may be valid, but taken all together, I think this is adequate proof of a GC stance. According to the the Translation Bureau, the Prime Minister announced in the House of Commons in 1951 that Dominion should no longer be used as it doesn't have a French equivalent. As a result, it is clear it is no longer in common usage and the reasoning behind it, but there is more than just two academics who say it is still a valid form. For example, in Kabul there are official plaques put up for each participating country, with a full name in their respective language and the common name in English. Canada's reads "Dominion of Canada" and underneath "Canada". While obviously not referenceable here, it does point to a wider and continued belief on the part of government officials that this is the full legal title. In this case I think that reducing this point of view to only two people is doing a disservice, as to me it is clear that this belief extends much further than just two individuals, especially within the GC. trackratte (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe the last sentence here encapsulates my sentiments regarding recent 'improvements to text'. Shall we also attribute the other various references where simply 'Canada' is indicated as the name, for example, to just the original authors of those works? Conversely, recent edits aim to highlight that Forsey and Rayburn are opining that 'dominion' is the country's title, whereas the various references clearly indicate that it is. After all, the Forsey document is a basic primer on government in Canada that is produced by the federal government (all other things considered). Per the edit comments this reference (also here) makes it rather plain about the status of the title. Lastly, this content has been stable for years, particularly after contentious editing that GZ seemed to be a party to, with similar (unsuccessful) argument). There is little reason to alter the text now based on what seems to be a well-reasoned whim. Thus, it is you that needs to build a consensus to keep bold edits (bold, revert, discuss). 70.54.134.84 (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

A few quick points:

• We're talking about the "title' of the country. Surely we can do better than quizzes and plaques in Afghanistan. (I work for government, and know that government documents are not always correct. There is no way that people writing a quiz for kids are held to any great quality standards - there have been numerous examples of errors in government publications in reccnt years.) I think you should consider why we can't come up quickly and easily with a ton of better references for something as important as this. I acknowledge that Forsey is an excellent reference, and have cited him as such in my edit. Rayburn is less so, but still not a bad reference. The Oxford Companion to history is another excellent
• I reject the claim that my edit suggested that these two were "opining". The word I used was "state", and I indicated their credentials.
• I am very amused that you raise an old dispute with User:ArmchairVexillologistDon as an example of contentious editing. AVD was an extremely contentious and quarrelsome editor who engaged in repeated personal attacks, and showed complete disrespect for other editors while trying to impose his creative and unusual theories on Wikipedia. He was asserting without basis "Dominion of Canada" to be the "long-form name" of the country.
• Finally, I wish to point out that this round of editing started because the unregistered editor was trying to argue the point about the title in the "Adoption of Dominion" section of the article, when it was already addressed under "Use of Canada and Dominion of Canada" using only a children's quiz in a government pamphlet about the Canadian flag as a reference. I find it rich to be accused of contentious editing. Ground Zero | t 01:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

In response:

• A number of reputable sources are provided to support 'dominion' as the country's title (and this is the article for that) -- while better referencing is always the goal, your assessments about the quality of the referees seems a little misplaced. Do you contend 'dominion' as the country's title is an error? Source it. As to why 'a ton' of references may not be available otherwise, perhaps that is a byproduct of haphazard constitutionalism or editing.
• While I am not challenging the wackiness of AVD, the old dispute was also about something broader - your and others apparent disbelief regarding the title, despite references. My link to that particular section is rather clear, and the anon then seemed to argue persuasively. I see the same arguments and position then and now, and stand by all claims made here. Aside from possibly splitting the 'While' sentence up, and more simply doing so, there is no real reason to alter said content. (I have no debate regarding the other text edit in 'Adoption...'.) 70.54.134.84 (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

“your assessments about the quality of the referees seems a little misplaced” – I don’t know what you mean by this. I don't think there is any merit to using quiz answers, even from government brochures. However, you’ve reminded me about the Oxford Companion reference. I had thought there were only two good references, so I thought that specifying them was an improvement. With that third good reference I will withdraw my suggestion of adding reference to Forsey and Rayburn. I’m okay with leaving it as it was, although I do think that splitting the sentence in two makes it both simpler, and removes the appearance of an argument implied by “while”.

“Do you contend 'dominion' as the country's title is an error?” No.

“As to why 'a ton' of references may not be available otherwise, perhaps that is a byproduct of haphazard constitutionalism or editing.” Or perhaps because the disuse of the title has made it quite irrelevant. It seems to me that the desire to make repeated reference to the title stems from lingering monarchism or traditionalism, neither of which I have a problem with, but I think we are dealing with a case of over-emphasis. Ground Zero | t 21:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Re: assessments, I challenge personal appraisals of reputable contributors or works where they are not necessarily called for (i.e., Forsey, Rayburn, Oxford) by those who may not be qualified to do so, though the quizzes are rather lame. All other things considered, with no substantial argument, it seems to me that the desire to deprecate (reference to) the title, broadly and here specifically despite clear referencing, is partly a simmering attempt by some to over-emphasise our ... post-modernism while casting off (perhaps ignorantly) the historical/monarchical underpinnings upon which Canada is based. So, who has the agenda? 70.54.134.84 (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You are challenging my view that Forsey, Rayburn and Oxford are valid references? I mention that they are valid references only to contrast the other invalid references that have been used to support arguments here. Wikipedia has a policy on WP:reliable sources, so editors are entitled to have opinions on whether references meet that policy or not.

An encyclopedia should reflect facts. The fact is that, for the past forty years or so, the title is no longer used except in unusual circumstances. It can be as official as anyone wants while being mostly irrelevant. Ground Zero | t 02:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course I am not challenging the authority of these references. I challenge(d) the propriety of you (or others, frankly) marginalizingostensibly attributing reputable references that have been in place for sometime regarding facts surrounding the name and title, regardless of how irrelevant some may believe them to be, with the effect of promulgating one view over another -- e.g., oh Forsey is good, but Rayburn not so much... That may not have been the intent, but that is how it appears to me. Your assessment of their authority, given the passage of time and prior discussion, seems misplaced. There really is, was, no reason to dredge the topic up again, because of singular issues with grammar and you overlooking another reference. Anyhow, I consider this matter resolved for now. 70.54.134.84 (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll readily admit that it is not precisely clear what constitutes an official title, besides the simple usage of the government of the day. That being said, the desires and style preferences of the press offices, and informal editor requirements of government officials and politicians, should not be mistaken as constituting statutory title. Nowhere in the written constitution does it state something to the effect of 'Canada's legal title is', or 'Canada shall henceforth be titled', etc. Right now, the common official usage of the Government of Canada is simply, "Canada", where the uncommon official usage is "Dominion of Canada". Before the mid-fifties, "Dominion of Canada" was the commonly used official term by all of Canada's governments. There has not since been any statutory declarations of a change of title, nor even of an instatement of official title, since none exists. However, both usages are still used, and are still used in an official sense, both domestically and internationally. To limit the use of either title down to the statements of just two individuals does not improve the article. In fact, it does the opposite. While I do not doubt the intentions of both sides, it is clear that both titles deserve to be mentioned as being broadly used and official (albeit the fact that one is rarely used today in comparison to the other is a required mention). To summarise, both usages are official and correct, but today one is used much more often than the other for reasons of both simplicity and practicality. trackratte (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here: (1) the name and (2) the title. The answer to question 1 is set out in the Constitution, the name is “Canada”. Question 2 is less clear: “Dominion” has been used widely in the past, and as no longer used widely. (Witness the fact that the only federal title still using "dominion" is that of the carillonneur, which is hardly a position of consequence. I doubt that the Dominion Carillonneur's name would ring a bell with anyone who doesn't work on Parliament Hill.) The constitution identifies the country as a dominion, so that can be said to be its title, but the fact that it is a term that is only used very rarely now makes the whole discussion pretty academic. I do not propose to eliminate reference to “dominion” –to do so would be incorrect. I think we have to avoid over-emphasis or repetition which, as I noted above, seems to be for the purpose of promoting an agenda. I also really really object to the use of lame-o references like quizzes and plaques to promote this agenda. Ground Zero | t 21:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I also really really object to the use of lame-o references like quizzes and plaques... Rightfully so. These are not reliable sources and should be stricken from any article that uses them as such. Mindmatrix 23:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Alan Rayburn (2001). Naming Canada: Stories About Canadian Place Names. University of Toronto Press. pp. 17–21. ISBN 978-0-8020-8293-0. -- Moxy (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The name Canada came from Portuguese fishermen / explorers from the 15 century, more precisely from the Azores.

It has been common for Historians, for want of better research sources, to attribute the names given by early Europeans to places they discovered to early indigenous dialects. However, European names are much more common. (London, Paris, New Berlin (later named Kitchener by the politically correct) - all in Ontario. Melbourne in Australia, Nova Lisboa in Angola, New Amsterdam / New York ---- or from proper names; of Monarchs usually.

For instance the Island of Cuba has its name attributed to several extinct aboriginal sources. However, the home town of the captain who discovered it for Europe (Christopher Columbus) (= grew up in) was a European town called Cuba! Coincidence? Not likely - just ignorance on the part of historians.

So where does the name Canada come from? The official view is convoluted and has survived because it is de facto incontestable. In the Wikipedia text there is a vague reference to Spanish or Portuguese explorers. Spanish?

Consider two facts: firstly, Christopher Columbus married into the Perestrelo family, Madeirenses. Perestrelo is rumored to have shown Columbus a crude map drawn by Alonso Sanchez the last survivor of an expedition, purporting to have discovered land to the West of those islands. Highly probable: the Portuguese were searching the World by sea and also fishing in the waters west of the Azores long before Columbus set out and before Jacques Cartier was born . They were also in India already in the 15 th. century. So did the Europeans who lived closest to the Americas, explorers and fishermen, arrive in Canada before Champlain? - probably.

Nowadays we think of countries in their entirety, fully mapped and fully explored. But the Canada that the first Europeans found was a coastline with a passage or route into the fabulous wilderness whence riches could be obtained (furs). The first French colonizers were not "settlers" like the New Englanders but "voyageurs". Canada was essentially the Saint-Laurent, a route or path to a mysterious interior.

So here's another coincidence: in the Azorean form of Portuguese, not extinct like Arawak or Mohawk but used on place names today, a route or road in called CANADA! Usually "Canada to ...somewhere".

So its not "Cá ...nada!" Nothing here. That's used as a joke by Portuguese Canadians but Canada, a place or road. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterxpto (talk • contribs) 14:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Another coincidence. I don't think so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterxpto (talk • contribs) 14:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

There were no english placenames in Canada proper before the 18th century, and the french did retain a lot of native names because the french government cared less about settling land (France covers the best land in western europe aside from maybe the Low Countries and Northern italy) than about trading and proselytizing. Thus, books translated in the local languages dating back to the first missions. We also still have enough on Cartier's travels to say that, no, the portuguese "theory" is nationalistic bullshit. On that note, the "first nations" in the first paragraph annoys me, it's a Laurentian iroquoian word and this imo perpetuates the nonsense of first nations peoples as this great monolithic mass. 199.180.97.156 (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)