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)

Ontario English and Northeastern US English are very unrelated. That is well established. Those dialects are quite different and are said to be diverging.

I'm from Toronto. And I happen to like Buffalo, New York a lot. It's friendly. They hear my accent; they are nice.

I once asked directions in downtown Buffalo to somewhere we wanted to go. The storeowner, in a concerned way, told us that we don't want to walk there, because it's "black stone".

We had no idea what that meant, but from the way he said it, it sounded really bad, like there was some gang turf war going on, maybe. (There are definitely bad areas downtown.)

Somehow, later, we determined what he actually said.

He didn't say "black stone". He was telling us this place was "blocks down" and therefore we shouldn't walk, we should take the streetcar.

Me and girlfriend, both of us were thrown by that strong accent, which kicks in the moment you cross anywhere along the Niagara River.

Varlaam (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2011 (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)

Americans abroad will say "back in the States", right? "Back in America" sounds confrontational, as though someone's getting into an argument over things here vs. things there.

Re: "traditional Canadian preference" above. I disagree with that statement above. The term "American" can never be applied to me, since I am a Canadian. Like the Robertson screwdriver, God bless it. (I am pausing here for a moment to salute our screwdriver ...) For me personally, "America" has two meanings, 1) the US, 2) the Mexican soccer team.

In Spanish, the term "American" proudly applies to anybody from the New World. That's not the English usage.

Hollywood movie Mexicans say "americanos" when describing the "good guys" in the movie. That is Hollywood movie "Spanish". Real Mexicans don't say "americanos" to refer to people from the US, since Mexicans too are "americanos". Mexicans normally say "estadounidenses" or "gringos". The term "gringo" was adopted into English and the meaning was changed. (Just like "macho" with its totally different Spanish meaning.) "Gringo" in Spanish does not mean white people generally (like white Canadians). And it is not a pejorative. "Gringo" means a guy from the USA. In Spanish, a white guy is a "güero".

Varlaam (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2011 (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)

I, for one, grew up in Toronto, and I never heard the term "kit bag" until I read this section. Typical ignorant Torontonian I guess. --Doradus (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I still think of "backpack" as a trendy, "new" word which came along "recently". Meaning in the 1970s. It was cooler to have a "backpack". (Maybe because it rhymes?) Before that, it was a plain old knapsack or rucksack.

Now, if you were planning on running away from home to live the romantic life of a hobo, then I think it was called a "bindle".

As for "kitbag", it's in a jaunty song where you're happy because you have "a lucifer to light your fag", which also does not have a lot to do with life in Toronto. "Honey, have you seen my fags? And my lucifer with Gretzky on it?"

Varlaam (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

It's marks and marking in Ontario. "What mark did you get?" "75." Varlaam (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2011 (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)

Wordiness is relative.

Mexican highways constantly exhort you to fasten your seatbelt, where "seatbelt" alone is "cinturón de seguridad" and the entire message is written out in full.

Varlaam (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2011 (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)

I have merged sounds in "cot" and "caught" although, as D P J points out, my "caught" has a slightly longer vowel.

For Feldercarb,

I once worked with a nice New Zealand girl and decided we should visit the Toronto pub called Pauper's. When we arrived, she was surprised, because she was expecting to see "Poppers".

So "pauper" and "popper" have merged here, but not in New Zealand.

But, as per D P J's observation, the vowel in my "pauper" is a little longer than the one in "popper".

And, to be perfectly clear, "longer" here means the vowel quality is the same, but you are saying it for a slightly longer interval. Many languages use vowel length in a regular fashion to distinguish words.

Varlaam (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2011 (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)

I lived in the States as a little boy before we moved back. That's how I got to see a Kennedy before he got murdered.

I still had a US accent to some extent in those happy Vietnam War days, when we had our toy machineguns which fired plastic bullets at your friend, before you finished him off with the plastic grenade from the grenade launcher attachment.

In Grade 2, Miss H asked someone to recite the alphabet. I proudly rattled it off, getting to "zee". (I have no idea how I got through Grade 1 with scary Mrs. C with the "zee" thing. But I was in Mrs. C's "bad book".) Pretty Miss H chose someone else, and I remember listening intently for my mistake. It was "zed". But I can't remember now what my exact reaction to that was. But my father, even now, says "zee" due to frequent professional contacts with the States, and I'm tired of correcting him.

I always say Zed-Zed-Top, Dragonball Zed, LaZedBoy recliner. And that rap guy, Jay Zed.

I'm not going to change my nationality to humour ZZ Top even if the "Legs" video did have cute girls in it.

Zed is how my country says it. And that's it.

00:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

"Why is French use relevant, or European, for that matter?"

It is not especially relevant, but it is further indication that "zed" comes from zeta, and it does that universally.

We also use zed because us Romans borrowed zeta from them Greeks.

The Americans changed zed to zee to make their dumb nursery rhyme work, and so what?

Are Americans now stunningly literate because of their streamlining of the alphabet?

Americans are always dead last in test scores. "Zee" didn't help, did it?

Americans should get with the programme and abandon "zee" since it's dumb.

They're the only people in Western civilization who seem to have severed this connection to Greece. The French and Spanish still mark this link back to Greece in their names for the letter 'y'. The Romans borrowed both those letters.

Varlaam (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No one has mentioned the Zellers mascot, who is named Zeddy, not ZeeBear.

I live in close proximity to a variety of immigrant communities here in Toronto. It's American spellings all over the signage.

Now, are they deliberately trying to annoy? No.

They have learned a certain standard of English in their homeland and brought it here. In ignorance that our standard differs. (Were we taught that France French and Canadian French are different? I wasn't.) And their kids are getting US English from their Old Country parents and US English on TV, and the other kids in their local enclave are the same.

Varlaam (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2011 (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)

I grew up in Toronto and I have definitely heard the remote called a "converter" but have always considered that a misnomer. --Doradus (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm from Toronto. I think converter is correct, while remote is an acceptable alternative and clicker is slang, which I use on occasion facetiously. This is literally the first time I have ever heard that this was an issue of any kind. Doesn't the entire Free World, as we used to say without irony, call it a converter?

As an aside, I personally never write ON when I mean Ont. As far as I'm concerned that is some stupid American thing, where we got stuck with their bloody leftovers, instead of telling them where to get off. Does the University of Toronto campus have a monument to the U of T students who fought off the last US invasion, or doesn't it? To abbreviate Quebec, you write P.Q. to distinguish it from Quebec City. AB? That is retarded. It's Alta. as it's always been. I don't know anyone in Peace River, Alabama, so I want to write Peace River, AL to send a Christmas card to my RCMP friend. Not AB.

Granted, Ontario is the most anti-US province. No apologies for that.

Varlaam (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Converters were set-top devices that enabled tuning in more than channels 2 to 13. They came with remote controllers. TVs now have "built-in converters". Anyone in any English-speaking country who needed a converter might have gotten into the bad habit of misnaming the remote. To call the remote controller a converter is simply a misnomer & has nothing to do with Canadianisms. --JimWae (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

In Alberta it is common to be called just the "remote" or a "clicker".

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)

"vowel length is usually not phonemic"

I'm just wondering where, when, for whom.

In non-rhotic accents, vowel length distinguishes words like "father" and "farther", and there are non-rhotic accents on both sides of the Pond.

Varlaam (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2011 (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)

I read something the other day claiming that B.C. and Alberta were part of some continuum with Washington and Oregon. I'm from Ontario. When I hear people on TV from out west, they sound like me, not like Americans. Varlaam (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. Whoever wrote the passages about the Great Lakes and Pacific Northwest ought to have consulted a sociolinguist or sociolinguistic sources. As it is, these statements are incorrect and ought to be amended carefully. Canadian English from Victoria to the Ottawa Valley is always more similar to itself than to neighbouring U.S. dialects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.11.153 (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. I'm from the Toronto area, which in my opinion have the most "Americanized" accents in Canada, and yet I can hear a distinction from Americans. I guess that's the rest of the world being ignorant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.202.35 (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2012 (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)

A comment on the above citation:

1) "foreign born". I have no idea what "foreign" means in this context.

2) "strongest in the far southern colonies". Yes. There is a big battle there between Rebel Americans and Loyalist Americans, without British involvement.

3) "Loyalists settled". What about the significant numbers who settled in Ontario? The "1st American Regiment" is a militia unit in Toronto, not Fredericton or Halifax.

Varlaam (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The citation does not discuss motive particularly.

There is that traditional notion that the Loyalists wanted to avoid "mob rule", which is why we have "peace, order and good government" while the US got "liberty", meaning civil war. The French subsequently got "liberté", meaning chaos.

Varlaam (talk)

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)

I'm from Toronto. It is always "lef" here. But many people don't know that, since they get this word off US TV shows and movies. I hear young people who don't pronounce "out" the Canadian way every single day.

At school, in the seventies, we discussed how to pronounce the word "khaki". I remember that. I pronounce it to rhyme with "hockey". I was told it's really pronounced with an 'r', like "carkey". That sounded weird to me, but that, in fact, is the World War I and II soldier usage, and you can hear Farley Mowat say "carkey" in audio recordings.

If you check old Canadian dictionaries, those are the only listed ways of saying the word.

But, nowadays, people hear this word in ads from The Gap, so they pronounce it like Americans. Like hackysack. Gross. So when I pronounce it the Canadian way kids don't know what I'm saying. There was a kid working in a department store several years back who didn't know what a "tuque" was, when I couldn't find them.

As kids, we always wanted to know the Canadian way, and we would scrupulously avoid the US way. I have never uttered the word "sneakers" in my entire life. I'll say "trainers" if I'm in Britain. But here it's running shoes, or runners, and nothing else.

It's like "herb" which we pronounce with an 'h'. But Kentucky Fried Chicken ads in the seventies used that ridiculous "erb" pronunciation.11 Different Erbs. Or Erbal Essence shampoo. I pronounce it properly, with an 'h'.

It's like getting into an argument at the grocery store when some kid doesn't know what the word "turnip" means. He insists that the big yellow soccer ball is called a "rutabaga" even though he's never eaten one, and he's young enough to be your son.

Apparently the CanCon rules have not been entirely effective.

Varlaam (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The Canadian Dictionary, McClelland and Stewart, 1962, approved for secondary schools by the Province of Quebec

leftenant, only listed pronunciation. loo does not appear.

herb, with h. erb does not appear. I remember being shown the h-h-h-herb garden at Pioneer Village in the 1960s.

carkey. Only listing. It doesn't list my "hockey", or the tacky-sounding US "wacky".

Varlaam (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The 1960s herb garden sticks in my mind because that is when I heard that there was a herb called "time" (thyme). Funny! My parents were not excited by this fascinating discovery. Varlaam (talk)

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)

I personally use /ˈbæzəl/ for both cases. I regard /ˈbeɪzəl/ as a US affectation, akin to their saying "aunt" with a long 'a' as though they've just stepped off the Concorde from London. I think the pronunciation /ˈbeɪzəl/ has appeared in my lifetime (half a century), at least on this continent. Varlaam (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2011 (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)

That's true, I've asked quite a few of my yank friends about that. Americans call it a "shit stirrer." Celynn (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2012 (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)

"Gaol" is traditional in Britain, from Old French or something. But I believe it's on the decline there, since it's unique. It belongs to no class; it is simply odd. It doesn't represent anything of value like the 'k' in "knight", for example.

Here I know it appears on an Old Gaol, somewhere in southern Ontario. I forget which town. The old jail in Ottawa is or was the youth hostel, and you slept in a cell with bars. That building had to be 19th c. so I'm wondering if there is a spelling there.

Varlaam (talk) 21:05, 15 July 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)

Here's a page that describes a Canadian university's calendar: Mount Allison Calendar Modal Jig (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes - this is a bit outdated now as it's all online, but when we had a paper version of all the course descriptions and what was offered in a given year it was called the calendar (UBC). Catalogue to me sounds like shopping! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.57.148 (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

About aboot

Being from Toronto, and having lived for a while in North Carolina, my experience with "about" was that I would pronounce it [ʌbɛuːt] (see WP:IPAE) while they would pronounce it [ʌbaɒt]. To my ear, those are practically identical, but to my classmates the difference was enough to make them snicker. I imagine they drop the [ɛ] to emphasize the [uː] when describing my accent, and that might be the origin of the stereotypical [ʌbuːt] pronunciation, which to my ear sounds completely different from [ʌbɛuːt]. Just an observation from one non-linguist. --Doradus (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting.

For sure, [ʌbuːt] to us sounds like an American doing Canadian speech, like in that hilarious episode of 30 Rock when they hire the Canadian guy.

When discussing this sound with Americans, I think a useful contrasting pair is "house" and "houses", since the move from singular to plural changes the consonant from voiceless to voiced, removing the Canadian vowel.

Varlaam (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC) (Toronto)

Interestingly, from the perspective of someone from Vancouver, what people in Toronto say does sound quite a bit like [ʌbuːt]. 64.180.40.100 (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In the west part of Canada you can really hear the differences when it comes to the "oot" sound in "about". Ontario and other Eastern provinces seems to be where they say "about" as "Aboot". Seems that being the largest populated province that is the sound that sticks with most Americans. South Park has also made jokes about this. Here in Alberta and in also in BC the "oot" is not used.

The point I was trying to make is that we do not say "aboot" in Ontario, or at least in Toronto, and I've been struggling for 20 years to understand why everyone thinks we do. When others say "aboot" it doesn't sound (to me) anything like how I pronounce "about", but given that everyone seems to hear my "about" that way, my best theory so far is the one I described at the start of this section. --Doradus (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You'd be right. Not a single Canadian has ever said "aboot" or "oot". I guarantee that. Canadians are more likely to pronounce them "aboat" or "oat". The issue is that someone unfamiliar with our particular accent (in my case Southern Ontario) is more apt to stretch the sounds out when trying to imitate it. Oat becomes oot and aboat becomes aboot. Perhaps this sounds tangent-ey but consider an American trying to do a British accent. They over-exaggerate and it sounds ridiculous. Similarly, when imitating the "oa" sound, Americans mis-hear and therefore mispronounce "oa" as "oo". Celynn (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is the "EH?"=

I didn't see a mention of the word "Eh", which is commonly attributed to Canadians, thanks to Bob and Doug Mckenzie. I think it would be good to note it, and to also note that it is rarely used. It had it's day many years ago but has died out for the most part. The same goes for "hoser". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamaray123 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "eh" has died out. I'm not sure, but I think I probably use it a couple of times a day. In contrast, don't recall ever saying "hoser" when I wasn't intentionally alluding to Bob & Doug. --Doradus (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"eh" is still quite popular in the maritime provinces. east and west. As a S.Ontarian I find myself using it quite often after somebody from another culture points it out. Until then I never use it. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"Eh" most certainly has not died out. Many people I know still use it frequently, as do I. "Hoser" on the other hand is pretty dead. "Beauty" is another particularly Canadian expression and I've found it on the rise with younger people in Southern Ontario. Not that we could include that without some actual evidence. Anecdotal notwithstanding. Celynn (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Phonetic Symbols

I know nothing about linguistics, but wanted to know some of the stuff that make Canadian and American accents different, but I can't understand this page at all because stuff like this ʌʊ mean nothing to me. I suggest that whenever one of those types of symbols is used there should be an explanation saying that it is "like the a sound in cat" or whatever because without those explanations this page is meaningless to most people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.255.226 (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

IPA for English Peter Grey (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The original suggestion doesn't work, of course, because different people say "cat" differently. --Doradus (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Although everyone knows what an American accent sounds like. Perhaps if it was written from a US English standpoint these sections of the article would be better understood. If you notice, looking up those phonetic symbols on wiki directs you to a page where they are translated using the American pronunciation of words. Celynn (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Most of the equivalent sounds, spelled out, do work. I have never found a phonetic symbol legend that explains all this and it becomes a bunch of nonsense without a legend. The legend would have to be in terms of some inflection of English so why not use that in the first place. Most of these Canadianisms are expressed in terms of differnce from Americanisms, anyway, and since wikipedia is dominated by 'mericunisms anyway. Have a look at the "zed" arguments above. Why would "zed" even be mentioned since it the way English people, except US citizens, say it. It is all POV and dependant where you are from 99.251.114.120 (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Most everything is described in terms of "difference from American" because America's population is 310 million people. They're the most logical (being the biggest and most widely known) thing to do comparisons with. Anytime someone discusses British English it is also compared to with American English. However, in Canada's case Canadian English is very similar (in terms of most pronunciations) to American English and therefore it makes perfect sense to compare the two. For instance, it's generally considered American to say the word "process" as prah-cess but Canadian to say it PRO-cess. But there are many instances of Canadians switching between the two. Similarly, it's frowned upon to say Zee instead of Zed. However, some Canadians do say it this way. In this respect it's worthy of mention.

If a Canadian is reading this article they're probably curious as to how Canadian English differs from American or British English. Those two being the most commonly heard and seen. If an American is reading this article they're probably curious as to why "Canadians talk weirdly" or if "Canadians really talk the way we see on TV". In my case, I did a lot of research on the Canadian Accent after being repeatedly told by Americans I had a flaming accent. Not just through conversations on Vent but also by Americans I met while I was in Buffalo. They can pretty quickly tell where you're from down there. I honestly thought I sounded like a standard American. After a while I realised that I really did say certain words differently I just never really noticed before. I don't know if I'd agree that this is necessarily POV but it discussing the differences of the language between other, similar, varieties. It is often most helpful to compare it with well known varieties and so that's what you find here.

I think spelling out words works just fine. Seeing as the phonetic charts just do the exact same thing on wikiepdia anyway (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English) all including phonetics does is make the article more confusing. It simply takes a lot more effort to understand what is being written in those parts and the phonetic charts don't help the translation at all. If I read your original comment correctly, I think we agree with each other on that. Celynn (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Percentage of English speakers outside Quebec

"82% of Canadians outside Quebec speak English natively, but within Quebec the figure drops to just 11% as most are native speakers of Canadian French."

I am doubtful of this claim. I would think the percentage is much higher than 82% (on par with Australia, the US, UK, etc, in the 90s). 173.180.193.139 (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it's counting anglophones out of the total population including allophones. That makes the number a little skewed relative to intuition since almost all allophones are part of the anglophone or francophone communities (or both). (For the 1991 census, the figure would be 80% of the total non-Quebec population but 94% if allophones are excluded.) Peter Grey (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected the figures in the lede, based on the StatsCan charts. Either some bad math was performed, the chart stats have changed (I doubt that much), or the charts were not interpolated correctly. The figures, as stated in the article needed to include the multi-language English also mother tongue count totals and didn't appear to. Also, a dead link was replaced as SatsCan have changed their website pages.

Also to note is the mixing of the terms "mother tongue", "native language", and "language spoken ". They are not interchangeable in some contexts. 99.251.169.186 (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Striking comments by block evading IP sock. Their edits have been reverted and others can then make the edits if they are deemed worthy, but be careful not to act as meatpuppets. This editor should not be supported. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Mostly Foolishness

most of this article is a very long list of foolish nit picking that is presented as uniform whole accent. Just the fact that the one tern Canadian English is a oxymoron.

To find Canadian english, or a accent 1. Pick a big town and city 2. draw a line directly south across the border to the U.S and shake up the 2 ...and the 2 will amount to pretty much the same thing. This is the same for across Canada except for the north

Canada fits together regionally north/south with the United States, rather that east to west within an imaginary border — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbwoy (talk • contribs) 07:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but don't tell that to anyone here in Canada. We have "absolutely nothing in common with Americans." 64.180.40.75 (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not true even as a crude generalization. The accent closest to Southern Ontario is Michigan to the west, not New York to the south, and there is no US territory south of Atlantic Canada. Peter Grey (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It really isn't. That 'imaginary border' actually used to be a lot thicker years ago. It's because of that border that Canadian English uses British spellings and because of that border that the accent is a bit different. I do agree, though, that the accents aren't wildly different. Especially among young people who watch a lot of American media. However, these regions have, in fact, created different accents. They may not be as different as a British accent is to an American accent but the differences are there. Celynn (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought Mexico was south of Canada...eh?99.251.112.162 (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur. This entry is non-encyclopedic and has a point of view that aint neutral and the sources are dodgy. Please, people, nominate this crap for double deletion.

Lunenburg English

The Lunenburg English article is interesting but it is without sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunenburg_English). I have been asking a couple friends of mine who are from Nova Scotia about it and they seem to all tell me the same thing. That these people speak with a non-rhotic accent. I actually remember reading it somewhere but now, I have yet to find any concrete sources as there is no information online. I had once emailed Labov on non-rhotic accents and his assistant sent me an email regarding the Eastern Townships and how one can here non-rhotic accents among the English speakers of that region due to proximity to the East Coast of the United States/New England.

Nonetheless, I would like to know if anyone had info regarding Lunenburg English.24.36.227.5 (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Galati

"Judges of Canada's superior courts ... are traditionally addressed as "My Lord" or "My Lady", like much of the Commonwealth

Quite untrue. Only the UK and Canada. In Australia, New Zealand, India and elsewhere it is not ""My Lord" or "My Lady" but "Your Honour." I must remind myself in practice in NSW and Queensland as well as PNG. Masalai (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

British bum

I disagree that 'bum' in BrE has "indecent character". It's a mild word, referring either to the skin itself (his bum was showing) or the part of the body generally (get off your bum). Neither is especially indecent. 112.119.75.34 (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It is indecent when compared to the more euphemistic bottom or behind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.131.94 (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Indians vs. Native Americans.

Is this article supposed to cover what is considered politically correct or what is in common usage? While the term "Indian" can be frowned upon I have found that many people use it interchangeably with "Natives" or "Aboriginals". Indian is still a very common term in day-to-day speech. Celynn (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The Constitution Act, 1867 was formerly the British North America Act, 1867. Just because "Indian" was once in reference to aboriginal inhabitants of all but far-northern Canada ("East Indian" in those days being necessary in Canada to clarify that one was referring to those from India) does not mean it is replaced by a preferred "Native American," which nowadays would refer to indigenous residents of the USA. Enough cause for confusion these days among assorted preferred terms without using one which is surely not used at all. Masalai (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Terminology of First Nations, Native, Aboriginal and Metis - BC Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres.Moxy (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Which backs up my point nicely. I don't really know what Masalai was trying to say. The writing was a bit confusing. I think the gist was that "don't use Indian because it causes confusion" or something. Indian, however, is still quite clearly in use among the general populace of Canada. It depends what groups you talk to. If you were conversing with a university student they'd probably be more likely to use the term First Nation, Native, or Aboriginal.

So-called "Indians" are offended by this term so the more politically correct "Native American" or "Aboriginal" is preferred when talking directly to them or about them in the news. However, political correctness or not, the term Indian is still in use. It's misleading to say that it isn't. Celynn (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding to the confusion, "Indian" is the legal term under the Indian Act, and it is is commonly used, but at times people will deliberately avoid the term because of the ambiguity. "Native Canadian" is sometimes used. "Native American" is simply wrong. Peter Grey (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It is certain that First Nations - and Aboriginal are the terms used most often now a days. I have not seen a political figure use the term Indian in a long time. A great example of the governments position (thus what Canadian culture is leaning towards) is shown during the opening of the last winter games.... politicians went out of there way not to use the term Indian at all. On CPAC they only say Indian when referring to the "Indian Act" or status, meaning if they are "Status Indian", "non-Status Indian" and/or "Treaty Indian". The Canadian government has made note that Indian is not a preferred term See Canada Revenue Agency.Moxy (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's correct, it's not a preferred term when being politically correct. As we all know governments tend to strive their hardest to be as PC as possible so as to not alienate their voters. But it's inaccurate to claim that "Canadians refer to them as 'Natives'" just because the governments are pushing that term. In normal discourse this is not necessarily the case. Certainly many of the people I've talked to in Southern Ontario (ages ranging from 20 to 50's) switch between "Natives" and "Indians". A trend may be heading towards phasing out the term "Indians" but it is still a term that is used frequently enough, by non-racists, as a descriptor (there is no intent to be offensive).

As for your note, it mentions that the term Indian is not acceptable for many, but not all, Native Americans. As you'll recall, changing the name from Indian Affairs to "Aboriginal Affairs" by the government annoyed quite a few Natives. Some because it was done without consultation, some because they feared it could dilute what it means to be an Indian, and some because they just don't identify with that name. Celynn (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Indian" is commonly used in Canada despite being told it is politically incorrect and inaccurate. "American Indian" is never used unless referring to "Native U.S. Indians". "Indian" should be included as a Canadian dialect quirk. It may not be different than American English but the minority English usage sector should not be a deciding factor, here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.125.65 (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Additions to Maritime English Accents

According to this article: [1], there are still isolate pockets in Canada such as south-western New Brunswick, the Eastern Townships in Quebec, Bay Roberts (and surrounding area), and Grand Manaan Island where non-rhoticity is still found. I think its worth a mention in this article.Galati (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Galati

Pub?

What makes pub/public house a "distinctive Canadianism?" It's certainly not unique to this country. I think of it as a Britishism more than anything. 12.239.145.114 (User ) 02:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent point. Pub's are not uniquely Canadian, they can be found commonly in the U.K., New Zealand, Australia, etc. I was trying to figure out if there was some sort of Canadian specific context for it, as in we distinguish between pubs and bars; however, this does not seem to be the case. I don't see any reason for it to be listed as a "Canadianism." I think I'm going to go ahead and remove it. If anyone disagrees then feel free to reverse my edit. Celynn (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep going! "Smarties" isn't a Canadianism either. Modal Jig (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we need to be careful about things borrowed from the Brits. Sure, I may go and have fish and chips and a pint down at the pub, but that's not "uniquely Canadian". We need to remember that simply because something does not exist in the US, it's not necessarily an exclusively Canadian thing. Many things on this list appear to be more of a reaction to them not appearing in the US. "Pub" from "Public House" is British in origins and Canadians use it interchangeably with "bar" and lesser so with "tavern". freshacconci talktalk 14:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well no, actually Canadians don't use it interchangeably with bars. There is a difference between bars and pubs; (1) Pubs have better food, (2) bars served mixed and specialty drinks whereas pubs are more likely to serve non-mixed drinks (whisky, beer, etc.), (3) Pubs have a very different atmosphere. Those two words shouldn't be used interchangeably. Celynn (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Where I've been, they tend to be used interchangeably for the most part (i.e. "pub crawl" would mean any drinking establishment; same thing for "pub night"). It is true that pub will usually mean a British or Irish style place but bar tends to be the catch-all term. I'm sure there's regional variations as well. The point is, though, that calling a place a pub is not a Canadianism: it's taken from the British usage. freshacconci talktalk 21:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well that's certainly true, I can't argue with regional diversity. I agree that pubs aren't Canadianisms (I removed offending statement on pubs yesterday). I think it's pretty unanimous not to include it in the list. I don't think this section needs further discussion. Celynn (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Awkwardly worded sentence

The historical development of Canadian English is underexplored, but recent studies suggest that Canadian English has been developing features of its own since the early 19th century,[9] while recent studies have shown the emergence of Canadian English features.[10]

Above sentence was added in this and the following revision. I would have corrected it, but I'm not even sure what exactly the editor intended to say especially with the second part. Does anyone here have access to the cited sources? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The meaning is clear enough to me. I wonder if something could not be explored and added as to the opposite also occurring in terms of regional accents. Until the third quarter of the 20th century childhood immigrants to the North-West Territories from down east had a strong, now-extinct, Ontario accent. I certainly never heard it as a graduate student at U of T. Robertson Davies was a native rural Ontarian and certainly had an accent but it was not a native one; doubtless cultivated during his time at Oxford and in London. In the same era I encountered a strong accent in the region south of Ottawa: I wonder if that is also waning. Certainly Newfoundlanders I encountered in the late 1970s both in Canada and overseas had a heavy accent which is now vastly weaker. Masalai (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)