The peoples of Québec city can guess I'm from Montréal for certain specific words, but overall, our accent is pretty similar. Like 99%.
Thing I noticed in Québec city, is they tend to pronounce English words more in a french way and after 3.5 years of living here, I tend to do it aswell sometimes... darn.
__________________
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC ==> 9 050 000
MONTREAL METRO ==> 4 600 000
QUEBEC CITY METRO ==> 900 000
It's a chesterfield. And davenport if it's at all stylish.
A davenport to me is a specific type of sofa that folds down into a bed. That is to say the back and the seat become flat to make a bed - a pull-out couch/sofa bed would be something else again.
Yeah, I know. BUT these days people just say davenport if it's stylish, thin, firm. Even if it doesn't fold out. Chesterfield is for what you think it is. Comfort, fluffy, big, not stylish.
__________________ Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
The peoples of Québec city can guess I'm from Montréal for certain specific words, but overall, our accent is pretty similar. Like 99%.
Thing I noticed in Québec city, is they tend to pronounce English words more in a french way and after 3.5 years of living here, I tend to do it aswell sometimes... darn.
I have heard the expression "français de la Grande Allée". Is that an actual Quebec City accent, a different way to describe Radio-Canada French, or what? I have to admit that I tend to find friends from Quebec City easier to understand than people from Montreal, but that could just be them speaking more slowly for the benefit of the Anglo.
I have heard the expression "français de la Grande Allée". Is that an actual Quebec City accent, a different way to describe Radio-Canada French, or what? I have to admit that I tend to find friends from Quebec City easier to understand than people from Montreal, but that could just be them speaking more slowly for the benefit of the Anglo.
Honestly, I've never heard about it and I'm from here.
I'm not sure, but Montrealers are more pressed maybe ? It result that they're not taking their time to speak clearly.
__________________
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC ==> 9 050 000
MONTREAL METRO ==> 4 600 000
QUEBEC CITY METRO ==> 900 000
You know what is really annoying, regarding metric vs. imperial?
Food is priced by pounds and sold by kilograms. All the meat says "Ground beef!! $6.95/lb!" but you look at the package and it says "0.683 kg", like wtf? Pick a system and stick with it.
Anyway, it's good to know both measurement systems because each one has its positives and negatives, and I think they should be taught alongside each other. The US actually defines all of its imperial measures with metric values. At work we use both metric and imperial temperature measurements for different things, depending on the context one is more suitable than the other. And every blueprint I've ever seen is metric. It's weird, though, to see that a building is 36,576 *anythings* wide.
This whole mentality of picking one and sticking with it is stupid.
You know what is really annoying, regarding metric vs. imperial?
Food is priced by pounds and sold by kilograms. All the meat says "Ground beef!! $6.95/lb!" but you look at the package and it says "0.683 kg", like wtf? Pick a system and stick with it.
Anyway, it's good to know both measurement systems because each one has its positives and negatives, and I think they should be taught alongside each other. The US actually defines all of its imperial measures with metric values. At work we use both metric and imperial temperature measurements for different things, depending on the context one is more suitable than the other. And every blueprint I've ever seen is metric. It's weird, though, to see that a building is 36,576 *anythings* wide.
This whole mentality of picking one and sticking with it is stupid.
Here, fresh foods are priced and (sold)in both pounds and kilograms, with pounds usually more prominent. Strangely (to me), savings are shown based on pounds - I always think the saving would look bigger if they were shown based on kilos.
Being born in the early 1990s I grew up entirely in the era of metric. As such, while I use imperial for personal heights & weights everything else is in metric for me. Notably, I have zero mental concept of what a mile or liquid ounce is... I have to convert to metric to understand the quantity (ie. if somebody says 'a kilometre' I immediately have a good mental model for how far that is, but if somebody says 'a mile' I have to convert to 1.6km in my head before I understand how far, same deal for ounces). It was only just yesterday that I learned what 26oz and 40oz mean... I've always said 'seven fifty mills' and 'one point one four litres' for the bottle sizes at the LCBO.
Being born in the early 1990s I grew up entirely in the era of metric. As such, while I use imperial for personal heights & weights everything else is in metric for me. Notably, I have zero mental concept of what a mile or liquid ounce is... I have to convert to metric to understand the quantity (ie. if somebody says 'a kilometre' I immediately have a good mental model for how far that is, but if somebody says 'a mile' I have to convert to 1.6km in my head before I understand how far, same deal for ounces). It was only just yesterday that I learned what 26oz and 40oz mean... I've always said 'seven fifty mills' and 'one point one four litres' for the bottle sizes at the LCBO.
I don't think there's anybody under age 60 in Canada that doesn't have at least a basic grasp of the metric system. I'm a bit surprised that the Imperial system has lingered as long as it has, at least in things like supermarkets, height/weight, etc. I have to confess that I still find "miles per gallon" easier to grasp that "kilometres per litre" or "litres per hundred kilometres" or whatever it is.
Here, fresh foods are priced and (sold)in both pounds and kilograms, with pounds usually more prominent. Strangely (to me), savings are shown based on pounds - I always think the saving would look bigger if they were shown based on kilos.
The upmarket places here use 100 grams for bulk goods. They should be using hectograms!
I don't think there's anybody under age 60 in Canada that doesn't have at least a basic grasp of the metric system. I'm a bit surprised that the Imperial system has lingered as long as it has, at least in things like supermarkets, height/weight, etc. I have to confess that I still find "miles per gallon" easier to grasp that "kilometres per litre" or "litres per hundred kilometres" or whatever it is.
What makes the miles-per-gallon / litres-per-100-km distinction so hard to keep track off is that they not only use separate units they work the other way. MPG keeps track of how much distance you can get per bit of fuel, the metric version keeps track of how much fuel you need to get a specific distance. As such, with MPG, a higher number is better, whereas with the metric version, the lower number is better.
What makes the miles-per-gallon / litres-per-100-km distinction so hard to keep track off is that they not only use separate units they work the other way. MPG keeps track of how much distance you can get per bit of fuel, the metric version keeps track of how much fuel you need to get a specific distance. As such, with MPG, a higher number is better, whereas with the metric version, the lower number is better.
Canada is definitely stuck between the two systems.
I'm going to guess that the majority of people in Canada measure their height in feet and weight in pounds. And most people seem set their ovens to a temperature in F, and measure things in cups and tablespoons, etc.
We buy fuel in litres, but car mileage is often advertised in MPG. Most boats have a speedometer that reads in miles per hour, and on airlines, they announce altitude in feet, yet signs along the highway display elevation in metres.
It's a pretty messed up situation. But I will say... Spending a couple years living in the states gave me a much better intuitive grasp of imperial measurements, and actually made the situation here in Canada less confusing when I returned.
I use Imperial for height and weight - though I do know my height in metric. Weight, though, I'd have to Google.
Certain body parts in inches. Distances less than 1 metre in feet. Salt beef and wild berries in gallons. Many foods in pounds, but never ounces for less than 1 pound.
Otherwise, more or less completely metric as far as I can tell. Oven is in C, no idea how much a yard is. No concept of a mile, though I did have one - obviously - on the prairies.
My father can barely function in metric. Distance, temperature, everything. I don't think I've ever heard him use a metric measurement. He even talks about gallons of gas. All American, though, not British. Mom is the same as me except all distances are imperial for her and she does the oven in F. And probably some other ones too, if they ever came up.
__________________ Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
On speech, I was thinking this morning how there really is a speech pattern and tone that is characteristic of CBC national programming. It's like a hushed, soft, serious way of speaking. Never get excited and never sound too happy. Not all of the programs feature it but most of them do.
Prev
And davenport if it's at all stylish. 
Linear Mode
