Speech pattern and typographical variations across Canada

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Yet you use standard spelling conventions in your posts, and I assume in your daily life.

I do, it's easier to communicate that way. But if someone else uses a slightly different 'improper' use of the same language that is perfectly understandable, I'm not going to think them an idiot because of it. Being a brit, I used to be pretty intolerant of bad spelling/grammar but have come to realise how inconsequential it is, and in fact am quite sympathetic on variations of words that simplify the language. Why not thru? It makes sense phonetically, and I'd argue is more proper than the mess of through, which could be parsed phonetically multiple ways.

[1ajs]

whot did spell havin to dooo wit hooked on phonix?

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The signs outside Costcos in Quebec all say "COSTCO WHOLESALE":

https://www.google.com/maps/@46.8405644,...ro3JFyzmNcn2z-djmxMBA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I believe Starbucks says CAFÉ STARBUCKS but not sure if that's a corporate choice or government imposition. Probably the former as Payless Shoe Source is still Payless Shoe Source here.

The Quebec legislature has no jurisdiction over trademarks so there is not much they can do about an "English" business name that forms part of a trademark.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by shreddog

Taken directly from the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre website:

"As the largest, most comprehensive acute leukemia treatment centre in Canada"

In the UK this would be written as:
"As the largest, most comprehensive acute leukaemia treatment centre ..."

In the US this sentence would be written as:
"As the largest, most comprehensive acute leukemia treatment center ..."

Which set of spelllung roulss should apply to the UHNPMCC website?

Canadian. It is well established that Canadian spelling uses some British spellings and some U.S. spellings - the "æ" digraph is not used in Canadian spelling generally while Canada follows British convention with respect to "re" (vs. "er") endings. This is all stuff we used to know by the time we were in junior high school. It's part of being educated to know this sort of thing. You can disregard the rules of spelling if you like, but to disobey rules you must first know what they are.

[SignalHillHiker]

I've gotten called out here for using American spelling. Truthfully I naturally use the Canadian one. I just don't bother to correct American spelling when using my mobile. If I'm on SSP using my desktop, it never happens.

[FrAnKs]

Don't throw me tomatoes. As a Francophone, I still fail to notice a difference between American & Canadian English. Both sound exactly the same to my ears, like it's 99% for the same
Except for Southern USA, I can feel something different there.

[SignalHillHiker]

The universal differences are really in writing. Canada and the United States have almost identical but slightly different written forms of English. Speech is different. And slang is different (for example, almost every time you ask what that means when I or a friend wires something on FB - it's almost never standard English when you don't understand).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I do, it's easier to communicate that way. But if someone else uses a slightly different 'improper' use of the same language that is perfectly understandable, I'm not going to think them an idiot because of it. Being a brit, I used to be pretty intolerant of bad spelling/grammar but have come to realise how inconsequential it is, and in fact am quite sympathetic on variations of words that simplify the language. Why not thru? It makes sense phonetically, and I'd argue is more proper than the mess of through, which could be parsed phonetically multiple ways.

English is not a phonetic language and there is no possible way to make English phonetic as words are pronounced differently in different regions.

[kwoldtimer]

Should the "Speech Pattern Variations across Canada" thread now be folded into this "Canadian English" thread?

[MonctonRad]

This discussion should be broadened to include more than just spelling convention.

The discussion should also include vocabulary and institutional differences.

For example, I'm pretty sure your average Canadian is much more comfortable using the word "queue" when talking about a long line up at the "cinema"; much more so than our American cousins.

Institutionally for example, RCMP officers are usually referred to an "constables", and here in the Maritimes, even municipal police forces use the term constable as well. This would never pass muster in the Excited States.

The idea of a "crown prosecutor" would cause mass confusion to them as well............

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

This discussion should be broadened to include more than just spelling convention.

The discussion should also include vocabulary and institutional differences.

For example, I'm pretty sure your average Canadian is much more comfortable using the word "queue" when talking about a long line up at the "cinema"; much more so than our American cousins.

Institutionally for example, RCMP officers are usually referred to an "constables", and here in the Maritimes, even municipal police forces use the term constable as well. This would never pass muster in the Excited States.

The idea of a "crown prosecutor" would cause mass confusion to them as well............

"Crown". Always capitalized.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

"Crown". Always capitalized.

Apologies.

Or in Canadian speak - sorrrrry.

[acottawa]

Interesting that Canadian influence in the home renovation TV market is staring to spread in the U.S. they have started using former Canadianisms like “open concept.” Pretty soon they will start putting “drywall” on their walls.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Interesting that Canadian influence in the home renovation TV market is staring to spread in the U.S. they have started using former Canadianisms like “open concept.” Pretty soon they will start putting “drywall” on their walls.

If it teaches Americans how to say "foyer", I'll be happy.

Although to tell the truth, I've been more struck by Kourtney Wilson straining not to give herself away every time she says "house".

[niwell]

It's fascinating to me that the majority of people opposed to Canadian English spellings are from Alberta. Being from Alberta it isn't surprising at all, though.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by Doug

English has 2 standards: US and International (aka British). Why is Canada so special that it needed to invent another variant in the 70's/80's that would never be used outside its borders? Probably another lame form of protectionism that serves noboby's interests beyond that of the federal government trying to overstate its value.

The same reason the US is so special that it needed to invent another variant that would never be used outside its borders. The same reason that Australia, Ireland, South Africa, and New Zealand all have their own variants. The same reason that there are significant differences in the language even within individual countries.

Canadian English was described as being distinct from US English as early as the 1850s.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Mister F

The same reason the US is so special that it needed to invent another variant that would never be used outside its borders. The same reason that Australia, Ireland, South Africa, and New Zealand all have their own variants. The same reason that there are significant differences in the language even within individual countries.

Canadian English was described as being distinct from US English as early as the 1850s.

True, but there was no particular attachment to "British spelling" until much, much later (granting that the very idea of standardized spelling wasn't all that firmly entrenched until the 20th century). Even the Globe and Mail used American spelling (albeit somewhat idiosyncratically) through the 1980s.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Andy6

True, but there was no particular attachment to "British spelling" until much, much later (granting that the very idea of standardized spelling wasn't all that firmly entrenched until the 20th century). Even the Globe and Mail used American spelling (albeit somewhat idiosyncratically) through the 1980s.

That's only partly true. The Canadian Press style guide had many British-infused Canadian spellings back then like defence, centre, theatre, etc. But it did not have the U in colour, labour, honour, etc. that most people consider Canadian spelling.

At some point though in the past couple of decades the Canadian Press decided to add the U in those words to their style guide.

I don't think I've ever read a Canadian newspaper that used full American spelling.

[Mister F]

The u in those words was the most used spelling even when newspapers didn't use it, and the newspapers were out of step with popular usage. Adding the u was a case of conforming to the standard Canadian spelling. It wasn't some artificial addition.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That's only partly true. The Canadian Press style guide had many British-infused Canadian spellings back then like defence, centre, theatre, etc. But it did not have the U in colour, labour, honour, etc. that most people consider Canadian spelling.

At some point though in the past couple of decades the Canadian Press decided to add the U in those words to their style guide.

I don't think I've ever read a Canadian newspaper that used full American spelling.

Yes that’s right - the Globe wouldn’t likely have written “center”. I remember William Thorsell saying the Globe had to keep the American spelling because of the electronic text search programs they used in the 1980s. I remember that because I asked him. The -our spellings might have been less entrenched, as in the name of the Australian Labor (not “Labour”) Party.