Jump to content

Talk:Canadian English: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→zed / zee: reply
ClueBot III (talk | contribs)
Bots
1,379,265 edits
m Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:Canadian English/Archive 5. (BOT)
 
(420 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Canadian English}}
{{WikiProject Banner Shell|1=
{{WikiProject Canada|class=B|importance=Top|nt=yes|bc=yes|ab=yes|sk=yes|mb=yes|on=yes|qc=yes|nb=yes|ns=yes|nl=yes|pe=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Canada|importance=high|nt=yes|bc=yes|ab=yes|sk=yes|mb=yes|on=yes|qc=yes|nb=yes|ns=yes|nl=yes|pe=yes}}
{{WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America|importance=mid}}
{{NorthAmNative}}
{{WikiProject English Language|importance=Low}}
{{LanguageTalk|class=B}}
{{WPCD}}
}}
}}


{{Annual readership|days=90}}
{{Archives|auto=short|search=yes|index=User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Talk:Canadian English|bot=ClueBot III|age=365}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|age=8760|archiveprefix=Talk:Canadian English/Archive|numberstart=5|maxarchsize=120000|header={{Automatic archive navigator}}|minkeepthreads=8|minarchthreads=1|format= %%i}}
{{Archive basics
|archive = Talk:Canadian English/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 5
|headerlevel = 2
|maxarchivesize = 120K
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
}}<!-- 12:47 August 11, 2018 (UTC), Sam Sailor added [[Template:Oca]] -->


== Citation problems? ==
{{Archivebox|
# [[/Archive 1|Jul 2003 Thru Feb 2006]]
# [[/Archive 2|Mar 2006 Thru Apr 2007]]
# [[/Archive 3|May 2007 Thru Feb 2009]]
}}


== 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 '''<font color="SteelBlue"><big><span style="font-family:eras demi itc">Jack</span></big></font>'''<sup>([[User:JackLumber|Lumber]])</sup> 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. --[[User:Goodbye Galaxy|Goodbye Galaxy]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] ([[User talk: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. – [[User:Joeclark|joeclark]] ([[User talk: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.) [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:BalthCat|BalthCat]] ([[User talk: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? — [[User:SpikeToronto|SpikeToronto]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Norum|Norum]] ([[User talk:Norum|talk]]) 23:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
:Perhaps that belongs in [[Northeastern US English]]. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] ([[User talk:Peter Grey|talk]]) 05:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

==The States==
It seems to me that Canadians are much more likely than Americans to refer to the United States of America as "the States." I haven't seen anything about that in this article. People in the British Isles seems to say "the States" much more often as well. [[User:Thegryseone|Thegryseone]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:JackLumber|<span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ]</span>]] 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. [[User:Thegryseone|Thegryseone]] ([[User talk:Thegryseone|talk]]) 04:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's more common among the US military and other Americans abroad. --[[User:JWB|JWB]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Locutus1966|Locutus1966]] ([[User talk: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 --[[User:Mikewazhere|Mike Oosting]] ([[User talk:Mikewazhere|talk]]) 18:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
::Dropping one word out of a proper name is really not that remarkable. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] ([[User talk:Peter Grey|talk]]) 23:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me guess, you're Canadian :) [[User:Thegryseone|Thegryseone]] ([[User talk:Thegryseone|talk]]) 02:47, 1 September 2009 (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 --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk: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! — [[User:SpikeToronto|SpikeToronto]] ([[User talk: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--[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk: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".--[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk: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. — [[User:SpikeToronto|SpikeToronto]] ([[User talk: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 [http://www.nextag.com/kit-bag/compare-html?nxtg=2bd20a1c0522-B42D0B0FBC5C11E1 kitbag] refers more often to an large [[Holdall|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?--[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk: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.) — [[User:SpikeToronto|SpikeToronto]] ([[User talk: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"?--[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk: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--[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk: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?--[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae|talk]]) 08:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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

== concering 'marks' or 'grades' ==

"Canadian students use the term marks (more common in England) or grades to refer to their results; usage is very mixed" Canadians say "marks" or "grades" as opposed to what? What do Americans say? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/173.32.63.178|173.32.63.178]] ([[User talk:173.32.63.178|talk]]) 06:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:"Grades", usually. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.113.109.160|76.113.109.160]] ([[User talk:76.113.109.160|talk]]) 07:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== 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:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! 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? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/174.18.144.248|174.18.144.248]] ([[User talk:174.18.144.248|talk]]) 04:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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).
[[User:Feldercarb|Feldercarb]] ([[User talk:Feldercarb|talk]]) 22:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


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

== zed / zee ==

To say that "zee is not normally used in Canada" is to suggest that it is rare. The reference cited to support this claim says clearly that in 1991 39% of 20-25 year-olds in the Golden Horseshoe said "zee". Four in ten Canadians in the most populous English-speaking region of the country don't constitute a rarity. My goodness, by this standard one could say that "French is not normally used in Canada"! The fact of the matter is that a good number of Canadians do say "zee", and the current wording ("not normally used") is extremely misleading. I tried (twice) to correct it by saying simply: "The name of the letter [[Z]] is usually ''zed'', but ''zee'', though often stigmatized, is also used." (The comment about the stigma was in the original, and I just left it in.) I fail to see how my change is not a better reflection not only of the referenced article, but also of a lifetime of experience living in the Golden Horseshoe. [[User:Wyandzed|Wyandzed]] ([[User talk: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.
:&nbsp;&mdash; &nbsp;Paine ([[User:Paine_Ellsworth|<font size="2" color="darkblue" face="Ariel">Ellsworth's</font>]]&nbsp;[[User_talk:Paine_Ellsworth|<font color="blue" face="Ariel">Climax</font>]])&nbsp; 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".) &mdash; [[User:Wyandzed|Wyandzed]] ([[User talk: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. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<font color="green">chat</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<font color="red">spy</font>]]</sub></small>'' 22:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

:::: Of course. I'm just getting acquainted with the protocols of editing the Wikipedia. Apologies. &mdash; [[User:Wyandzed|Wyandzed]] ([[User talk:Wyandzed|talk]]) 06:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


The article currently contains warning templates saying "this article has an unclear citation style" and "this article needs additional citations for verification". It's not clear to me that these are still issues with the article. What do others think? —&nbsp;[[User:Richwales|<u>Rich</u>]][[User talk:Richwales|wales]] <small>''(no&nbsp;relation to Jimbo)''</small> 23:06, 9 April 2021 (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. --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae|talk]]) 20:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


:I looked today, there were some odd means of citation in the middle of the article, such as MLA-style parenthesis citations for source citations, such as ([80]), etc. I tried to clean these up as it was visual clutter, although, it just seemed to be that section and otherwise I believe the article is fine in this regard. [[User:Moonsoftoday|Moonsoftoday]] ([[User talk:Moonsoftoday|talk]]) 12:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
: I agree. &mdash; [[User:Wyandzed|Wyandzed]] ([[User talk:Wyandzed|talk]]) 06:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


== Reference 80 ==
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. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<font color="green">chat</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<font color="red">spy</font>]]</sub></small>'' 22:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


Reference 80 (gov.ns.ca) is broken HTTP Error 404.0 - Not Found. Unable to find appropriate and working link. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:NerillDP|NerillDP]] ([[User talk:NerillDP#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NerillDP|contribs]]) 22:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: 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] ) &mdash; [[User:Wyandzed|Wyandzed]] ([[User talk:Wyandzed|talk]]) 06:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


== Phonetic Detail ==
::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.) --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<font color="green">chat</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<font color="red">spy</font>]]</sub></small>'' 08:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


A full explanation of what sounds are used for what words need to be included, whether or not we use IPA or not. Also an explanation of how regional Canadian English varieties have shifted from, or have always differed from, the Canadian/American standard should be included and maybe a diagram or two with some arrows comparing corresponding vowel sounds would be good. Compare this article with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Northern_American_English for example. A good start would be explaining the fact that some Canadians say ‘oot’ for ‘out’, ‘treeler pairk’ for ‘trailer park’, ‘cur’ for ‘car’, ‘oover’ for ‘over’ and occasionally even ‘checken’ and ‘Recky’ for ‘chicken’ and ‘Ricky’ for example and with the exception of ‘car’ becoming ‘cur’ these are all Scottish influences (anyone doubting any of this should watch ‘Trailer Park Boys’ on NetFlix). Of course it will be difficult finding a reliable source proving this despite it being blatantly true. [[User:Overlordnat1|Overlordnat1]] ([[User talk:Overlordnat1|talk]]) 03:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
:::Taking your bulleted points, one by one:


== Chart usefulness ==
:::* 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?
There is a chart used on this page ([[:File:Atlantic Canada IPA chart.PNG]]) labeled "Averaged F1/F2 means for speakers from N.S., N.B., N.L." Since there is no explanation of what the "Averaged F1/F2 mean" is or what it signifies, I would argue that this chart provides no useful information whatsoever. I propose to remove it unless someone can convince me that it has any usefulness. [[User:WikiDan61|<span style="color: green;">WikiDan61</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:WikiDan61|ChatMe!]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/WikiDan61|ReadMe!!]]</sub> 12:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


:The purpose of this chart is similar to that of the quadrilateral chart with all the vowels on it in the [[California English|California English page]]. For the purposes of the article, you can think of F1 as a quantitative measure of how low a vowel is, and F2 as a measure of how front it is (in the IPA sense of height and front-ness). The YouTube videos "Formants - Why are Voices and Vowel Qualities Different?" and "Vowels 201: The true meaning of the vowel space (feat. nasal vowels, rhotacization, ATR, semivowels)" go into more depth if you want. [[User:Tyrui|Tyrui]] ([[User talk:Tyrui|talk]]) 11:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
:::* 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".
:: {{reply|Tyrui}} Doubtless the F1/F2 measurement has ''some'' meaning, but if the article does not explain it, then the chart has no meaning to the reader. [[User:WikiDan61|<span style="color: green;">WikiDan61</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:WikiDan61|ChatMe!]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/WikiDan61|ReadMe!!]]</sub> 22:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
::: In the absence of any significant expansion of the usefulness of this chart, I have removed it. [[User:WikiDan61|<span style="color: green;">WikiDan61</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:WikiDan61|ChatMe!]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/WikiDan61|ReadMe!!]]</sub> 12:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
::::I'm not entirely sure that removing the chart was the best idea; I think it would be better to change the text under the chart. I'd had the [[Formant #Phonetics| Formant page]] linked, but if it's really necessary, I can (briefly) explain F1 and F2 in the caption. I don't think removing the entire chart is a great idea because that chart (if understood properly, of course) concisely conveys quite a bit of information on the vowel system used in the Maritimes. [[User:Tyrui|Tyrui]] ([[User talk:Tyrui|talk]]) 03:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
::::: {{reply|Tyrui}} Thank you for point me to the [[Formant]] page; I had not known of that concept before. If that link is provided in the chart caption, it actually does lend meaning to the chart that was previously missing. I'll restore the chart with the proper link for context. [[User:WikiDan61|<span style="color: green;">WikiDan61</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:WikiDan61|ChatMe!]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/WikiDan61|ReadMe!!]]</sub> 11:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


== Survey Questionnaires ==
:::* 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".


A section is needed to explain how Canadian English was studied by using written questionnaires as it pertains to the linguistic usage of Canadians within everyday life. Some examples by Avis and the Survey of Canadian English directed by Scargill [[User:Brycewaynego|Brycewaynego]] ([[User talk:Brycewaynego|talk]]) 21:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
:::* 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.


== Yod-dropping in B.C. ==
:::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?


@Jyqwang You wrote the following line:
:::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."


"It is only after alveolar consonants (/t/, /d/, /n/, /s/, /l/) the /j/ is then dropped (e.g. duke, new, tune)"
:::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? &mdash; [[User:Wyandzed|Wyandzed]] ([[User talk: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"--[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] ([[User talk:JimWae|talk]]) 21:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


This seems typical of North America, especially among yod-dropping dialects, but I notice that the list doesn't include the palatals /t͡ʃ/, /d͡ʒ/, /ʃ/, /ʒ/, and /j/, the dental /θ/, and the rhotic /ɹ/. If this line is meant to imply that yod-dropping really does only happen after alveolars (and not in the environments I listed), I think it should put emphasis on where it doesn't drop because of how common yod-dropping is in North America. On the other hand, if it does include those consonants, I think the line should be simplified or dropped, because that's where you would expect yod to go. If this a typo or something where it's supposed to say that yod ''is'' preserved after alveolars, but not after other coronals (similar (I think) to nearby Victoria according to Roeder, Onosson, and D'arcy (2018)), then obviously that should be fixed. (If the source doesn't specify at all, that's fine.) [[User:Tyrui|Tyrui]] ([[User talk:Tyrui|talk]]) 03:47, 3 May 2023 (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."'' --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<font color="green">chat</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<font color="red">spy</font>]]</sub></small>'' 22:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


== American-Centric comparisons ==
::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? &mdash; [[User:Wyandzed|Wyandzed]] ([[User talk:Wyandzed|talk]]) 05:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


I feel as if a lot of the comparisons are directed toward the US. Although its Canadas' direct neighbour, examples should be diversified to add additional understanding to more readers, rather than relying on knowledge of American-culture and lingustics. [[User:Moonsoftoday|Moonsoftoday]] ([[User talk:Moonsoftoday|talk]]) 12:56, 26 June 2023 (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. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<font color="green">chat</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<font color="red">spy</font>]]</sub></small>'' 20:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


== Rhoticity in Canadian English ==
::::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. &mdash; [[User:Wyandzed|Wyandzed]] ([[User talk:Wyandzed|talk]]) 06:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if Canadian English is rhotic or non rhotic! How can I learn rhoticity in Canadian English? [[Special:Contributions/47.145.181.198|47.145.181.198]] ([[User talk:47.145.181.198|talk]]) 00:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
: Refer to the Article on [[Rhoticity in English]]. [[User:Mediatech492|Mediatech492]] ([[User talk:Mediatech492|talk]]) 01:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:52, 26 March 2024



Citation problems?

[edit]

The article currently contains warning templates saying "this article has an unclear citation style" and "this article needs additional citations for verification". It's not clear to me that these are still issues with the article. What do others think? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked today, there were some odd means of citation in the middle of the article, such as MLA-style parenthesis citations for source citations, such as ([80]), etc. I tried to clean these up as it was visual clutter, although, it just seemed to be that section and otherwise I believe the article is fine in this regard. Moonsoftoday (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 80

[edit]

Reference 80 (gov.ns.ca) is broken HTTP Error 404.0 - Not Found. Unable to find appropriate and working link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerillDP (talk • contribs) 22:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phonetic Detail

[edit]

A full explanation of what sounds are used for what words need to be included, whether or not we use IPA or not. Also an explanation of how regional Canadian English varieties have shifted from, or have always differed from, the Canadian/American standard should be included and maybe a diagram or two with some arrows comparing corresponding vowel sounds would be good. Compare this article with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Northern_American_English for example. A good start would be explaining the fact that some Canadians say ‘oot’ for ‘out’, ‘treeler pairk’ for ‘trailer park’, ‘cur’ for ‘car’, ‘oover’ for ‘over’ and occasionally even ‘checken’ and ‘Recky’ for ‘chicken’ and ‘Ricky’ for example and with the exception of ‘car’ becoming ‘cur’ these are all Scottish influences (anyone doubting any of this should watch ‘Trailer Park Boys’ on NetFlix). Of course it will be difficult finding a reliable source proving this despite it being blatantly true. Overlordnat1 (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chart usefulness

[edit]

There is a chart used on this page (File:Atlantic Canada IPA chart.PNG) labeled "Averaged F1/F2 means for speakers from N.S., N.B., N.L." Since there is no explanation of what the "Averaged F1/F2 mean" is or what it signifies, I would argue that this chart provides no useful information whatsoever. I propose to remove it unless someone can convince me that it has any usefulness. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this chart is similar to that of the quadrilateral chart with all the vowels on it in the California English page. For the purposes of the article, you can think of F1 as a quantitative measure of how low a vowel is, and F2 as a measure of how front it is (in the IPA sense of height and front-ness). The YouTube videos "Formants - Why are Voices and Vowel Qualities Different?" and "Vowels 201: The true meaning of the vowel space (feat. nasal vowels, rhotacization, ATR, semivowels)" go into more depth if you want. Tyrui (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyrui: Doubtless the F1/F2 measurement has some meaning, but if the article does not explain it, then the chart has no meaning to the reader. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of any significant expansion of the usefulness of this chart, I have removed it. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure that removing the chart was the best idea; I think it would be better to change the text under the chart. I'd had the Formant page linked, but if it's really necessary, I can (briefly) explain F1 and F2 in the caption. I don't think removing the entire chart is a great idea because that chart (if understood properly, of course) concisely conveys quite a bit of information on the vowel system used in the Maritimes. Tyrui (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyrui: Thank you for point me to the Formant page; I had not known of that concept before. If that link is provided in the chart caption, it actually does lend meaning to the chart that was previously missing. I'll restore the chart with the proper link for context. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Questionnaires

[edit]

A section is needed to explain how Canadian English was studied by using written questionnaires as it pertains to the linguistic usage of Canadians within everyday life. Some examples by Avis and the Survey of Canadian English directed by Scargill Brycewaynego (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yod-dropping in B.C.

[edit]

@Jyqwang You wrote the following line:

"It is only after alveolar consonants (/t/, /d/, /n/, /s/, /l/) the /j/ is then dropped (e.g. duke, new, tune)"

This seems typical of North America, especially among yod-dropping dialects, but I notice that the list doesn't include the palatals /t͡ʃ/, /d͡ʒ/, /ʃ/, /ʒ/, and /j/, the dental /θ/, and the rhotic /ɹ/. If this line is meant to imply that yod-dropping really does only happen after alveolars (and not in the environments I listed), I think it should put emphasis on where it doesn't drop because of how common yod-dropping is in North America. On the other hand, if it does include those consonants, I think the line should be simplified or dropped, because that's where you would expect yod to go. If this a typo or something where it's supposed to say that yod is preserved after alveolars, but not after other coronals (similar (I think) to nearby Victoria according to Roeder, Onosson, and D'arcy (2018)), then obviously that should be fixed. (If the source doesn't specify at all, that's fine.) Tyrui (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American-Centric comparisons

[edit]

I feel as if a lot of the comparisons are directed toward the US. Although its Canadas' direct neighbour, examples should be diversified to add additional understanding to more readers, rather than relying on knowledge of American-culture and lingustics. Moonsoftoday (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rhoticity in Canadian English

[edit]

I was wondering if Canadian English is rhotic or non rhotic! How can I learn rhoticity in Canadian English? 47.145.181.198 (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to the Article on Rhoticity in English. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canadian_English&oldid=1215653712"