|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You say you 'Visit with someone', we say 'Visit someone'. You say 'knit cap', we say 'tuque'. Face it, Canadians and Americans speak and write differently because Canadian and American culture and history are different. As I've said many times before in other threads, people in New York speak differently than people in LA, and I'm not only talking about accent but also of their lexicon. So, criticising Canadians for speaking and writing differently than you is just plain ignorant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| so the Quebecois would have been early adopters |
But not too early. Quebec came under British control in 1759/60 and the metric system was a Revolutionary reform after 1789. (Sorry, just mentioned a French Rev class in another post. It's on my mind. Please ignore.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Adventurer

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
You could carry this train of thought further and say Canada and America should be one country. Yet, your argument ignores the fact that there are many ways to speak the English language. The Irish and the English speak English in very different ways, but they spell the same way, and so do the Australians and New Zealanders. There may not appear to be major differences between New Zealanders and Australians, but if you ask ANZACs they would disagree whole-heartedly.
As someone stated, the words you mentioned are pronounced the same way whether you are in England, Canada, or the U.S.A. Daniel Webster chose to eliminate the spelling of colour with the letter u. It had to do with American nationalism? Do you want Canada waving or perhaps either the Union Jack or the stars and stripes? You could argue that the U.S. could be open to the spelling used in Canada. Why should Canada follow the U.S.'s lead in that area.
Anyway, Canadians have less of a regional variation when it comes to English than say the U.S. Last but not least, Canada was known as British North America. Canada never had a revolution, never felt the need for a violent break or to change its spelling to differentiate itself from England. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
heeheehee
Joined: 13 Oct 2006 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Canadians are taught in school to spell certain ways, Americans are taught certain ways. These differences in spelling are nothing more than examples of conditioning and habit.
This talk about spelling nationalism is plain nonsense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SweetBear

Joined: 18 May 2003
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Just learn how to spell ridiculous boys and girls and I won't care how you spell color/colour. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
You could carry this train of thought further and say Canada and America should be one country. Yet, your argument ignores the fact that there are many ways to speak the English language. The Irish and the English speak English in very different ways, but they spell the same way, and so do the Australians and New Zealanders. There may not appear to be major differences between New Zealanders and Australians, but if you ask ANZACs they would disagree whole-heartedly.
As someone stated, the words you mentioned are pronounced the same way whether you are in England, Canada, or the U.S.A. Daniel Webster chose to eliminate the spelling of colour with the letter u. It had to do with American nationalism? Do you want Canada waving or perhaps either the Union Jack or the stars and stripes? You could argue that the U.S. could be open to the spelling used in Canada. Why should Canada follow the U.S.'s lead in that area.
Anyway, Canadians have less of a regional variation when it comes to English than say the U.S. Last but not least, Canada was known as British North America. Canada never had a revolution, never felt the need for a violent break or to change its spelling to differentiate itself from England. |
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellions_of_1837
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Canada_Rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Canada_Rebellion |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
laogaiguk

Joined: 06 Dec 2005 Location: somewhere in Korea
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There was also that guy out West who lead a rebellion with the French Metis. There was a battle where I think between 25 and 50 RCMP were killed and I don't remember how many rebels... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Adventurer

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moldy Rutabaga wrote: |
The metric system began in France, and so the Quebecois would have been early adopters. A Quebecois prime minister forced it on the rest of the country, and not without resistence.
Canada has had one foot in Europe and another in the US for a long time, for better or worse. My college English profs told me to use either British or American spellings as I wished, but to be consistent. I think the slow tendency is toward American spellings, with a few exceptions; Canadians still like to say 'fish and chips', and advertisements rarely use 'E-Z' because of the 'zed' pronunciation. This is not something to get excited about.
Ken:> |
Canadians are probably similar to the British of the past in a certain aspect when it comes to spelling. They will use more than one accepted way of spelling a word. Some will insert the letter u in color and most won't. You can say it is used by both.
I am curious about North American English in terms of how it emerged the way it did. We don't have any recordings of Canadian or American speech in the 1800s, and we do not have it for the English in the 1800s.
Is North American English of the various Canadian and American forms from a certain type of British English. Did the colonists tend to come from a certain part of Britain?
We do know that in Quebec, when the French came, they used the French court's French to be able to communicate. You need a standardized form of the language. Was there a certain standardized British English that
essentially built the bed-rock of what was found in North America?
As far as metric, it was a French Canadian prime minister who did look to Europe to some extent for nationalistic reasons to balance the economic and political interests of Canada. That was in contrast to Mulroney.
All the other members of the Commonwealth were adopting metric.
Canada followed Australia, New Zealand, and England. The U.S. was the only "Anglo-Saxon" country that chose not to have the metric system.
That is another way to look at it. Canadians and Americans don't make identical or nearly identical choices, because they are different enough which makes the divergence in decision making logical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Moldy Rutabaga

Joined: 01 Jul 2003 Location: Ansan, Korea
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A good read for a more technical explanation of how English came to NA is Nicolas Ostler's Empires of the Word. I haven't finished it yet, but it also has chapters on everything from how Sumerian to Spanish to Chinese spread. A general tendency for North American English is to preserve the sounds brought with them from Europe longer than the Old world does. In some respects, a New England speaker is closer to Shakespeare's tones than a 21st-century Londoner is, and outport Newfie dialect still uses 'ye' and other archaisms.
The Canadian rebellion of 1837 was a serious matter but involved relatively tiny numbers of people compared to the American revolution, which was a sustained rebellion with large armies. The Louis Riel rebellions of 1870 and 1885, coming after confederation, had more to do with anger between Manitoba Metis and greedy Ontarian land speculators-- it was a little more like civil war between prairie and eastern Canada than a Canada-England feud, and to this day many prairie Canadians cherish Riel as the first person to stand up to Ottawa.
Canadian independence in 1867 came with no bullets fired; with little fur left and no idea that this tree-covered icebox had any future value, England saw little reason to oppose what turned out to be a loyal member of the commonwealth anyway.
To me the differences between Canadian and American speech are largely geographical anyway; we say touque because Floridans don't need them, and we don't need words for alligators. It would be more useful to speak of dialect or vocab areas on the continent. Newfies have many different fishing-related words; Californians have surfing slang. Western Canadians generally don't say 'eh' or 'aboot'; that's a central thing.
Ken:> |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Adventurer

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Moldy Rutabaga wrote: |
A good read for a more technical explanation of how English came to NA is Nicolas Ostler's Empires of the Word. I haven't finished it yet, but it also has chapters on everything from how Sumerian to Spanish to Chinese spread. A general tendency for North American English is to preserve the sounds brought with them from Europe longer than the Old world does. In some respects, a New England speaker is closer to Shakespeare's tones than a 21st-century Londoner is, and outport Newfie dialect still uses 'ye' and other archaisms.
The Canadian rebellion of 1837 was a serious matter but involved relatively tiny numbers of people compared to the American revolution, which was a sustained rebellion with large armies. The Louis Riel rebellions of 1870 and 1885, coming after confederation, had more to do with anger between Manitoba Metis and greedy Ontarian land speculators-- it was a little more like civil war between prairie and eastern Canada than a Canada-England feud, and to this day many prairie Canadians cherish Riel as the first person to stand up to Ottawa.
Canadian independence in 1867 came with no bullets fired; with little fur left and no idea that this tree-covered icebox had any future value, England saw little reason to oppose what turned out to be a loyal member of the commonwealth anyway.
To me the differences between Canadian and American speech are largely geographical anyway; we say touque because Floridans don't need them, and we don't need words for alligators. It would be more useful to speak of dialect or vocab areas on the continent. Newfies have many different fishing-related words; Californians have surfing slang. Western Canadians generally don't say 'eh' or 'aboot'; that's a central thing.
Ken:> |
You made my point about that part of the reason why the U.S. has a certain way of spelling that is noticeably different from England was because it was an independent country, it broke away from England, had a revolution. As I said, Canada did not have a revolution against England. The U.S. Constitution is phrased to some extent in response to what they say was wrong with British rule, the ideas of the enlightenment philosophers of England and France. That probably has something to do with the huge suspicion towards a powerful government and an aversion to taxes that doesn't exist on the same scale in Canada. I am aware of the rebellions mentioned. I studied them. They weren't a massive revolution where most were against the Crown. Rebellions were beginning to emerge in parts of Europe due to injustice as well.
I do think that, to some extent, some of the English spoken in the U.S. and Canada are different forms of British English that just changed, and the British eliminated some of what used to be part of their speech.
It is normal. People don't sound the same and often don't spell the same. I am sure the Australians have a different way to spell things as well.
I say vivre la difference... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kermo

Joined: 01 Sep 2004 Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Americans spell things differently because of the Spelling Reform movement. Canada tends to use "British" spelling because the reform movement didn't really take off there.
I think it makes sense for Canadians to use British spelling, because there have been no formal decisions to change from the original, but I understand that pervasive influence from America (books, magazines, web content) has had a strong influence.
Moldy Rutabaga (Ken), I usually agree with you, but this notion of the North American pronounciation as preserved antiquity has been largely debunked from what I've read. Adventurer, Aussies use British spelling, and some similar jargon, but their dialect sometimes sounds like it's from another planet.
I feel that any question of Canadian vs. American vocabulary isn't that relevant. That falls under the category of difference in dialect, as Ken pointed out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cbclark4

Joined: 20 Aug 2006 Location: Masan
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Isn't there a Canadian Heritage Dictionary?
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Cliff for King
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I haf an eyedeer. Whai don't we all just axept that my speling is rite and move on. I don't mind yoo all copying my wurk.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Don't be so fast to dismiss the Canadian Rebellions and the Metis Rebellions. For one, the Confederation wouldn't have occured if it wasn't for the resulting political climate. Metis and Native Canadians would also disagree with any labelling of the Metis Rebellions as anything but a major events. Oh, but I don't blame you for that. Remember high-school history? When you look back, you see that Canadian educational system is purposely avoiding indepth analysis of historical events, probably to promote its federalist policies. They want us to believe that all Canadians were 100% behind British rule and Confederation...except for those pesky Quebecers, which couldn't be further from the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|