Talk:Canadian English/Archive 3

Dialect surveys

I think it is great to see this page coming together with proper academic sources, linguistic analyses, etc. Clearly a group of dedicated people spent a lot of time making this happen, and if I have the *right* to congratulate you (obligatory nod to self-effacing Canadian politesse), then I do. I might add that reigning in some of the more abstruse digressions (The Chinook lexicon and Jamaican-Torontonian slang among them), all without references, has done a lot to improve this piece.

I'm not aware if anyone else has posted these links, but here are the results of a major Canadian and American dialect survey, which should assist with entries on pronunciation and lexical items, if anyone’s interested. —Muckapædia 15^e mai 2007, 23h45 (UTC+0900) 머크패저 TALK/ CONTRIBS

Slang

I am a dual US/Canadian citizen and have lived back and forth across the border for the last 35 years. There are several words(verbs)heard often among office workers of BC's Lower mainland, but never in the several western states I've lived in. I'm not sure if the these fit in the slang category or not, but they are used and accepted as "good English". The words are: CDN-'priorize'[accent on first syllable],USA-prioritize, e.g. "It is wise to priorize your goals."; CDN-'liase'[accent on last syllable], USA-act as liaison, e.g. "Part of your new role will be to liase with the local Aborginal Community." and finally, CDN-'second'[accent on last syllable, USA-no equivalent word but if there was it would mean "to loan an employee to another site, usually within the same government organization" The noun is 'secondment', as in "I am on (a) secondment to this office for 8 months, to help with the Anderson project".

I didn't notice in this article the slang CDN term 'Cougar'. This a noun for a woman who dates men much younger than herelf.[1]Nor did I see the term 'offsales' to refer to bottled (unopened) alcohol (usually beer) available at pubs on a "to go" basis. One might say,"The Beer and Wine store just closed, but we can grab a 'half-sack' (means six-pack) of offsales at the Pub". Damn, if we'd made the Beer and Wine Store, I would have grabbed a 'flat'"- ( aka a'two-four') 24 cans or bottles of beer. "Quit 'grousing' (complaining)-a 24 would cost big 'coin' (money). Let's just grab the half-sack and go watch some 'peelers'(aka strippers). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shockey (talk • contribs) 00:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slang varies from region to region, and era to era. In a day or so I am going to removed any unsourced slang words. Please find a citation for words to be kept discussing its meaning in relation to Canadian English, not simply a citation using the word(per WP:NEO). ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:JackLumber for finding citations for those words. ^(H) 22:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, the pronunciation of one word that has me stand out as a "Canadian" every time to Americans (at least in Seattle) is the word "about", and it's not mentioned here. They say abOUT we say AbOUt.

Yes, it's mentioned, under "Phonology and Pronunciation"; it's called Canadian raising. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 23:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Canadian / American word usage differences I've noticed after living in the US for 5 years: Garbarator --> Use: InSinkErator Kraft Dinner --> Use: Kraft Macaroni and Cheese (as branded in the US) Porrige --> Use: Oatmeal (porrige is considered a quaint) Bank Routing Number --> Use: ABA Bank Transit Number Constable (Police / RCMP) --> Use: Officer

A few disagreements with the words above (I was born and raised in Florida and California, and in Minnesota for the past 18 years). I've never heard the term "InSinkErator" - usually referred to as a "Garbage Disposal". However, I believe there is a company called "Insinkerator" that manufactures these units. Also, ABA Bank Transit Number is quite official-sounding; again, not used in common speech. It's commonly called a "Routing Number". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.148.101 (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree regarding garbage disposals. My relatives living in the U.S. (in this case, Ohio and Kentucky), say “garbage disposal.” While in Toronto, where I have lived since 1975, I often hear all three of the following, in order of frequency: “garburator” (said as if to rhyme with carburetor); “garbage disposal;” and, rarely, “disposall.” The Canadian Oxford Dictionary indicates the word, garburator, as a Canadianism and defines it as: “noun Cdn a garbage disposal unit. [initial element from GARBAGE, perhaps punningly after CARBURETOR or influenced by INCINERATOR.” The Canadian Oxford Dictionary elsewhere defines garbage disposal as: “noun (also garbage disposer) N Amer a system installed in a kitchen sink, with blades in the drain to mulch refuse.” (Canadian Oxford Dictionary, Second Edition (Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press, 2004).) I interpret this to mean that while garbage disposal is a North Americanism, garburator is a Canadianism. Garburator is not in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged or Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, perhaps suggesting its greater penetration into Canadian English. — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One further comment, a check of the Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged reveals definitions only for the following vis-à-vis garbage disposals: disposer, garbage disposer, garbage disposer unit, disposal, garbage disposal, and garbage disposal unit. — SpikeToronto (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Innu and Inuit

I don't think Innu is the same thing as Inuit. Inuit and Eskimo, on the other hand, are the same (but Eskimo is regarded as a slightly derogatory term).

I was going to change it, but I don't feel 100% confident. Could someone please look into it? --Caixiaohui 20:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed " and Innu to refer to the various bands of native peoples of the north who are more commonly known as Inuit, Eskimo, or Esquimault." from the article as Innu is a word in the Innu's language and not a government invented word as claimed. It also does not have the meaning this sentence claims. Rmhermen 19:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Innu are a First Nation in Quebec and Labrador, who were historically referred to as Montagnais or Naskapi. You're correct that they aren't the same thing as the Inuit. Bearcat 22:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curb and Kerb

Curb and kerb are both words in British English; they are pronounced the same but have different meanings.--80.177.205.209 19:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed in the main page that it implies Canada follows the U.S. in the single usage of 'curb', which is entirely misleading , not to mention incorrect! Lost Girls DiaryLost Girls Diary 19:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In British English we say tire and curb as well as tyre as kerb! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.176.246 (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phonology and Pronunciation

Could someone please add some real-world examples for non-linguists (e.g, "/u/ is fronted after coronals", etc.) What do these things mean? What is tense? What is a velar stop? This article would be a lot more accessible with some examples that an average high school student could understand. Also, regarding Canadian raising, the example that most people (at least in the U.S.) can relate to the unique pronunciations of words like "about" and "again", yet these are not given as examples.Diego Gravez 16:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your comment to the bottom of the page. That's where new topics typically get listed. :)

Anyways, I can definitely agree that it's frustrating to see 'real' pronunciation guides when I have to believe that the vast majority of readers couldn't possibly get any use out of them.

But, as far as "about" and "again"... I'm not sure what you mean. Especially with "again"? As far as "about" is concerned, I reeeally hope you don't mean canadians saying it, "aboot". Because, in addition to being canadian myself, I've yet to meet a canadian from Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, or Newfoundland who says "aboot", or who even speaks with a stereotypical "canadian accent". I'm sure somewhere they do that, but I have no clue where, and it really isn't what I'd call, "Canadian English". Bladestorm 17:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps as a Canadian you cannot hear the difference between the American and Canadian pronunciation of "about" (and other "out" words), but all I need to do is watch CBC for about 2 minutes to hear several examples of it (it seems particularly pronounced in Ontario). It doesn't sound exactly like "aboot", but somewhere between the American "out", "ite", "ote", and "oot". Trust me, the Candian pronunciation of "about" sounds peculiar to American ears, and is usually a dead giveaway that someone is Canadian. However, I have noticed that some people from Eastern Virginia in the U.S. pronounce "about" similiarly to Canadians (listen to Pat Robertson for an example).

When I hear a Candian (excluding my mother from New Brunswick) say the word "again" (or against), it sounds much closer to the British pronunciation than the American pronunciation (i.e., a-GAYN (Canadian) vs. a-GEN (American).Diego Gravez 17:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, again as "a gain" is common in Canada, but I don't know if it's more common than a-GEN. In Britain, "a gain" is also common, but most Britons say a-GEN. That aside, yes, you are totally right. The section on pronunciation is obscure. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 23:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an Albertan, I still haven't heard anyone locally say aboot. Most people I've spoken to think of it as an American thing actually. Over here it usually sounds like "ab-awt" or "ub-out" although I've considered they might have heard "aboot" from someone with a French or Maritimes accent? I've found pronunciations out West usually sound the same as midwestern American English... A lot of people over here like to laugh at American stereotypes about Canadians, but the whole "aboot" thing has always been a mystery. Fuchikoma 21:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not really "aboot"--that's just an exaggeration. Many Canadians pronounce "about" as [@bVU?] (the nucleus of the diphthong is "uh"), whereas in most regions of the US, (the Southwest for example), about has the same diphthong as in "ow". Most Canadians pronounce the start of the diphthong differently. Robyn Wright 03:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that most Canadians pronounce "herb" with a silent "h", but do so believing that this is the British pronunciation, while it is actually American. Similarly, as far as I can tell, most Canadians seem to pronounce the first syllable of "envelope" and "envoy" as the Americans do (i.e. with a nasal sound like the French word "en") in the belief that this is the British pronunciation (although the British pronounce it with a short e sound rhyming with "ten"). Is there a linguistic term for a conscious preference in pronunciation which is based on a misunderstanding? Graves65.94.52.100 15:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that most Canadians say /ɚb/. Remember: regional variation is enormous in Canada. However, this h-less pronunciation is actually an archaic British feature, no longer found in Britain but standard in the U.S. As for envelope, both ENvelope and ONvelope are acceptable in both UK and U.S. AFAIK. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, who am a Canadian speaker, have never heard any one say it as aboot{with a schwa before the oot}. Everyone I know says a-buh-oot. User:Low German —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.234.193 (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"aboot" is a regionalized Ontario pronunciation AFAIK. Some parallels will be heard in Nfld and the maritimes. If you're suggesting a 3 syllable pronunciation "a-buh-oot", Can't localize that, the common pronunciation is "a-bowt" with the ow sounding like the exclamation when your hurt yourself, but very clipped, i.e., shorter time to say. Fremte 03:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, "aboot" is not a region Ontario pronunciation at all. It is simply an exaggeration of what people that speak dialects that do not possess Canadian raising (e.g. the nucleus of diphthongs are raised before consonants such as p, t, k, f, s, th, ch, sh) hear when they hear a word such as "about" pronounced by a dialect that does have Canadian raising. Robyn Wright 03:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People! Let me get this straight. To my American ears, Canadian about sounds a lot like a boat as pronounced by an Englishman. Jack^(Lumber) 22:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, “aboot” is an exaggeration. However, when I moved to Toronto in the mid-1970s, it really sounded almost like that to my American ears. I notice this less and less now. I also noticed that Bloor, as in the Toronto street, was often pronounced back then to sound like “blur”. Imagine my luck in trying to find the intersection of Yonge and Blur streets! SpikeToronto (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd chime in about "envelope". I'm American, and I pronounce the "en" in envelope the same way as in "enter", Not "entree." It depends on what part of the country you're from, and how elitist you wish to sound. Also, "aboot" is a dead givaway of a canadian accent for Americans. Peter Jennings did it, half the cast of Battlestar Galactica does it, and just about any other popular tv show is full of Canadians, since they all save money by producing in Canada. 72.78.156.79 (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I first learned of the different Canadian/American pronunciations of "about" in England. The manager of a youth hostel in Arundel used it to distinguish Canadians from Americans. He easily picked me out as Canadian, although I still find the discrimination baffling to my ear. Lesfreck (talk) 27 August 2008

In British English we say tire and curb as well as tyre and kerb!

The and Thee

I have noticed the further west one goes in Canada, the more people tend to differentiate less between when one is supposed to pronounce a word 'the' or 'thee'. For instance: The ocean, is normally promounced 'thee ocean', but go out west and you hear 'the ocean' with the clumsy clipped 'the'. This also occurs in Britain too, but usually in the less well educated, or simply careless speakers.

As in that song by that Jamaican kid, "I feel like I'm drownin' in da ocean..." Jack^(Lumber) 22:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm fairly certain this is a quality of a certain Miramichi accent in New Brunswick, and possibly other areas of the Maritimes as well. I wouldn't necessarily label it Western quite yet... - BalthCat (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These ones

I'm a newcomer to Canada (having lived in the U.S. before this) and find that "these ones" (often in combination with pointing out just which ones are meant) seems common in lower British Columbia, at least in speech. (In the U.S., my experience is that this locution is rarely used except by very young kids, say younger than five.) Is this usage of "these ones" common in much of Canada, or only in SW BC ? Is this locution also acceptable in written English here? Thanks. Daqu 01:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean, to be honest. What are "these ones"? It sounds like a euphemism for something naughty... - BalthCat 05:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the user means the phrase "these ones" as opposed to "these". For example, "I'm going to take these ones" as opposed to "I'll take these." But yeah, I find myself saying "these ones" as well. Pandacomics 18:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, "the user" did mean "these ones" used in lieu of "these" [while indicating which ones are intended]. Would appreciate learning more about when and where this locution is common/accepted in speech/writing in Canada.Daqu 06:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This construction is also found in British English, but only occasionally and chiefly in speech. In the Cambridge International Corpus, these ones shows up 7.2 times per 10 million words in British texts and 0.6 in American texts; curiously, the frequencies of the phrase those ones are closer---British 4.8, American 3.2. I ain't got no Canadian data, sorry. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, if you search the entire text of the Oxford English Dictionary, the only instance of these ones you're going to get is American---a citation from The Young Manhood of Studs Lonigan by James Thomas Farrell: "I know they ain't loaded. But use these ones. Them damn things is jinxed!" (s.v. jinx, verb.) It ain't exactly Standard English anyways... ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 19:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italian/Jewish English in Montreal

I remember watching a documentary a few years ago on Canadian English that had a segment on the unique accents the anglophone Jewish and Italian communities had in Montreal. Does anyone have any information on these dialects? --Lesouris 11:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This documentary, perhaps? On the CBC, of all places ;-) : http://www.cbc.ca/canadianexperience/talkingcanadian/ Toddsschneider 13:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's the one thanks ;D --Lesouris 01:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Melk"

The word "milk" is often pronounced like "melk". It's kind of like the Western U.S. This should be added. 208.104.45.20 21:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's under "phonology and pronunciation"---Canadian Shift: "the /ɪ/ in bit then shifts to the [ɛ] in bet." That section needs to be clarified, though. Jack^(Lumber) 14:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is not really the Canadian shift. /mIlk/ and /mElk/ exist side by side as variations on the pronunciation of "milk" all throughout North America (even in places without the Canadian or California vowel shift). It's similar to the catch vs. ketch for "catch", or route vs. root for "route". Usually an individual has one or the other--usually neither one dominates in any region--it's completely dependent on ones personal speech patterns. Robyn Wright 03:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we can still say it's part of the Canadian shift. It is a characteristic of the Canadian shift. It's just that it's not only part of that shift. We would say that it is common in other North American chain shifts and sound systems, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogue Linguist (talk • contribs) 23:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really isn't part of the Canadian shift, I had misread the original post. It's actually confined to the word milk; people with the DRESS vowel in milk usually retain the KIT vowel in silk and similar words. Jack^(Lumber) 18:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fuirther suggestion is that melk is an influence from the Scandinavian and Dutch language inheritance; i.e. depending on which are you're talking about I'd say this is household-learning thing; I've heard it in the Fraser Valley and I think my Dad (Norw.) kinda said it (though he didn't have an accent). Certainly there are borrowings from Slavic and Germanic for words for grandpa and grandma and so on, at least in BC (Oma, Bumpa, Nana...); certain food words I'd think are close enough that milk/melk is a natural enough thing to pick up around the house, from your parents or grandparents or the rest of the community; even if you're not Dutch or Danish, for instance, but most everyone else is...if this is supposed to be somewhere east of the Great Lakes, other than Little Denmark in BC, my theory's blown out of the water of course....another probable Scandinavia inheritance is the use of "hey" (hei) for "hi"; which I'll bet is more common in the West due to the relvant absence of Scandinavians/Dutch in eastern Canada....Skookum1 (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pencil crayons

Is this really a distinctive Canadianism? The term is widespread in the UK, I think, as well. (It's certainly what I used to call them.....) --RFBailey 02:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chesterfield

As a Canadian from Alberta I am a bit puzzled at the section that states that a chesterfield is "a common term for any couch or sofa in Canada." I protest this given my own personal experience, as "couch" (followed closely by "sofa") is by far and a way the most universal term used to denote the said piece of furniture. Furthermore, the use of "chesterfield" is exceedingly rare and is at best used only as a form of humorous imitation of some posh British dialect or accent. I concede to the possibility that this is only the case in Alberta, but having lived in Ontario for nine years and having frequently visited British Colombia I can also attest to the same practically absent usage of "chesterfield" in those locations as well. The first reference used for the statement in the article links to a blank search page at the Oxford University Press website, which is obviously quite useless as a source, and the second reference lists a definition from an American online dictionary. While the latter in itself may be a credible source generally speaking, it is written from an American point of view and for an American readership, which does not lend itself to credibility as a source of information on Canadian English (as in the case of the presumed constant usage of "eh" or universal pronunciation of about as "a-boot"). I would ask that this statement be revised so as to place emphasis on its previous common usage and the modern replacements of "couch" and "sofa" for all generations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrolmanno9 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a text box on the Oxford page; just type in chesterfield. The article also states that this word is "largely in decline." According to the NARVS (Boberg 2006), it's most common in ON (excluding Toronto), BC, and NF, and it's fairly rare in QC and the prairie provinces, where couch appears to be the norm. No serious American source says that Canadians pronounce about as "a boot"; rather, "a boot" is what many Americans *perceive* it to be---if they don't listen carefully. Jack^(Lumber) 19:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that this is a word from a generation or two ago, and more in certain regions than others. I grew up in BC, and my Montrealer mother, in addition to other people, use the word chesterfield. moink (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you've ever heard the song "If I Had $1000000" by Barenaked Ladies, then you've heard the term "chesterfield". I don't think it's being used in a jocular manner either. For those who don't know, the Barenaked Ladies were formed in Scarborough, Ontario, which was formerly a suburb of Toronto until it was annexed to become part of the city. Maybe "chesterfield" is more common among Ontarians. This song also contains other helpful shibboleths, like "llama", "Picasso", and "out". 208.104.45.20 (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Chesterfield" was quite commonly used when I was a kid in 70s Ontario like BNL. The use of terms like "couch" and "sofa" are more popular now even among my peers and I suspect the influence of national and American tv's lack of use of chesterfield and popularity of use of couch and sofa plays the greatest part of this shift. I'm sure that I saw a study on the use of the word about 15 years ago but no clue where now. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Yeah.. I grew up in Calgary in the 70's (with parents from Vancouver Island) and we ALWAYS said chesterfield (pronounced 'CHES-ter-filled" - though also understood couch to mean the same thing. "Hey Mom, the dog's been hiding bones in the chesterfield cushions again". We never used "sofa" - I thought a sofa was one of those things that I now realise is commonly called a "chaise lounge". On a side note, I wonder if these anecdotal stories are helpful from a scientific point of view. Sometimes it's the exceptions that prove the point. - strat

Saskatchewan Slang

I've lived in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan for my whole life and I have never heard slough as a term for underwear. Also, street hockey is used more often than shinny.

As for slang in general, I have never heard "rubber" being used with the meaning "eraser". I've never heard "tin" on it's own to describe a can. Long or otherwise. Tin can, I have heard. As for "eh?" On my trips to the States, I found that Americans say it much more frequently than anyone around here does. So I don't really understand how it's a "distinctive" Canadian phrase. Not to mention my friend in England says that it's used there to the extent that stereotypes of Canadians use it. Tuques rarely have pompoms on the top. (Unless you're 10 and a girl)

I'd also like to point out that Canuck, hoser, and keener are never used in everyday conversation, though they are Canadian words.

I understand that it's possible these are used more elsewhere in Canada, in small towns, or among older residents, but I'd suggest some sort of acknowledgement on the page that some of these may be extremely out of date. Like I said, my entire life has been spent in Saskatchewan, and I haven't even heard a word that's supposed to be specifically used in my province.

Jessicahalo (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been "Corner Gassed", by which I mean assumptions/impositions about Saskatchewanian Canadians as defined/imagined by Torontonian Canadians apply; the use of shinny, hoser, keener etc are explicitly Ontarian by usage and meaning but we're all expected to have them applied to us (I'm from BC, currently living in the Maritimes), just like we're all supposed to like and even emulate Red Green. On This Hour has Twenty Two Minutes there's a regular shtick where the regular cast (including Shaun Pajandrum or whatever his name is) put on macs and toques and do the Bill'n'Ted thing with thick Maritimes vs Hamilton accents, as if they were representative Saskatchewanians. So I agree with your objections; actual Saskatchewanisms probably exist, but citing them is difficult as linguists and newzies ignore local culture/identity in Canada in favour of telling us we're all hosers etc. Unless there's a specfic cite of keener or hoser being used by Saskatchewanians as unique identifiers of Saskatchewanian speech, theyshould be dropped.Skookum1 (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation

The standard abbreviation is CanE (or CanEng), not CaE, which is ambiguous. See e.g. [2], [3]. Searching books.google.com for "cae" "Canadian English" gives zero results.[4] Jack^(Lumber) 23:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for that information. I'm still unsure that 'CanE' should be used in the article over 'Canadian English', but thats up to you regular users and I'm not going to quibble over such a minor issue. 203.94.135.134 (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McArthur regularly uses abbreviations; the advantage of using them is apparent in articles like American and British English differences. Then again, there is no obvious reason to substitute "CanE" for "Canadian English", since the phrase occurs only 11 times. So it's 6 of one and 12⁄2 of the other. You ain't ever gonna become a regular, are you, 203? Jack^(Lumber) 19:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine for other authors to do that in their "own" work, but Wikipedia is a collaboration based on concensus. I just thought the abbreviations looked unprofessional and were unwarranted, that's all, no biggie. I suppose I am already a regular user of sorts, as I do make edits to Wikipedia at least once a week. Cheers. 203.94.135.134 (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Z

I'm not sure that there remains much of a "stigmatization" of the use of zee in Canada, really. Or perhaps it is more of a growing acceptance. I know for myself, I use 'zee' all the time and no one says boo about it. Maybe it has something to do with people around my age growing up on a mix of Sesame Streets which alternately endorsed one pronounciation over the other, and older people who still said 'zee'. I don't know for certain, I'm hardly a linguist. And the leftenant thing is strange, because the only people I know who say it that way are either political, military or media, and the only reason they say it that way is official government policy on pronounciation having drilled it into them. Howa0082 (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a reputable source listed for the zed/zee situation. I actually find your personal experience interesting but it has no bearing on what is stated in the article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LC for liquor commission? where?

section 6.7.2 contains this sentence: "The initialism LC (Liquor Commission) refers to a government-operated liquor store." This is probably only in one province of just a few. It's LBS in Sask, and sometimes euphemized to "Little Book Store". Someone please add the detail for the LC please, or maybe should take it out. Fremte (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I know it's a Nova Scotia expression thenslc.com and it's possible it's a Maritime expression more generally but I have no sources for it. There does seem to be a lot of provinces that use the phrase "liquor commission", however. google Liquor+Commission DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of thing varies greatly by province. In Alberta (way back before private liquor stores were allowed), ALCB stores were usually called "the vendor's". In Saskatchewan, I think the common term is "the board store". I don't know in which provinces "LC" is used, but it's certainly not Saskatchewan and Alberta. Indefatigable (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see above, it's LBS, liquor board store in Sask. Fremte (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its also used in Manitoba.

LCB in BC --JimWae (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LCBO or LLBO in Ontario (different time periods, the latter for liquor licensing board). LCBO is still used, not at all rare. Of course, liquor store is more common.--Gregalton (talk) 05:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an Ontarian, I always differentiate between LCBO as the store and LLBO as the licensing authority. i.e. you buy bottles at the LCBO but the restaurant is licensed by the LLBO. I notice that that careful distinction is not kept by others though. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that LLBO was replaced some years ago by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario - but reference to AGCO in Ontario seems to be less prevalent than LLBO was back in that time. Dl2000 (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an Albertan I frequently use "the vendor's" -- many people (presumably not born and raised here) have no idea what I am talking about. Liquor Store (pron. licker store) seems to be most common, even for stores that are primarily beer stores. I sometimes also hear "Offsales" for beer/liquor stores that are attached to hotels. I prefer to use "the vendors" because it sounds so discrete. 206.174.203.238 (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tomato

Is "tomato" often pronounced with /æ/ in Canada as well? 208.104.45.20 (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. Based on my personal experience, I believe that a significant minority of Canadian speakers have an ash in tomato. Jack^(Lumber) 23:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks. It's a significant minority, but still a minority, right? You seem like the type that might be interested in this. It discusses the exceptions to the "ash rule". 208.104.45.20 (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something I would like to note about Tomato - I didn't realise my pronunciation of it till I moved to England. The letter "t" in a canadian accent, in the middle of a word, is often pronounced "d" - so tomato.. becomes "tomado".. butter becomes "budder".. water becomes "wadder". - this doesn't happen with "cotton" or "kitten" or "mitten".

Along the lines of the "t" thing - in words like "cotton" and "kitten" we seem to pronounce it with the glottal stop often found in the Estuary English (cockney-like dialect)of London (where water becomes something like "wo'ah"). So in Canada, cotton becomes very close to "caw'in" - but with a very tiny "t" - 1/2 swallowed - not with the full glottal stop of cockney. --Stratus123 (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but none of that stuff is unique to Canadian English. Americans and Australians do that as well. Thegryseone (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volcano

Is their ever an ash in "volcano" in Canada (no grammatically incorrect pun intended)? 208.104.45.20 (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the pronunciation of volcano was immediately anglicized--that is, the word has always been pronounced according to what it looks like in English; and the same is true for potato, which has never been pronounced "potatto" or "potarto" or "pototto," pace George and Ira Gershwin. Speaking of which, tomato is pronounced "tomatto" by some Canadians because it is pronounced "tomahto" in England, and (simply put) English English "tomahto" is more similar to "tomatto" than "tomotto" as pronounced by a Canadian, if you factor in the foreign origin of the word (remember that father rhymes with bother in Canada, like in most of the U.S.). Oddly, khaki is often "car key" in Canada--to rhyme with sparky; of course, khaki has a broad A in England, and since English English is non-rhotic, khaki does rhyme with sparky there. Jack^(Lumber) 15:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadians pronounce "bother" the same way we do, right? 208.104.45.20 (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phonologically, yes. Phonetically, the vowel may be different. Jack^(Lumber) 00:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell do you mean by that? I thought a lot of Canadians used /ɒ/, where speakers of General American (or something similar) would use /ɑ/. I read that some Canadians do this in words like "caught" and "cot". 208.104.45.20 (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Phonologically" means that the stressed vowel of bother is the same "abstract entity" (i.e., phoneme) in all varieties of NAmEng--namely, the so-called short "o." *Regardless* of how this vowel comes out of your mouth. A symbol representing a phoneme is always placed between slashes or virgules; the short "o" can be transcribed as /ɒ/ or /ɑ/--it doesn't really matter, since 1) we don't care about *actual pronunciation* and 2) in NAmEng, there is no phonemic distinction between /ɒ/ and /ɑ/ (the phonemic inventory of Bostonians and some New Yorkers is a little different, but that's beside the point).

Now for the hard part. The General Canadian and General American vowels in bother can only be "phonetically" different--that is, the actual sound may be different.

When IPA symbols are used in *phonetic* (not phonemic) transcriptions, they are placed between brackets: [], never between slashes.

So, the short "o" as pronounced in General American is typically close to [ɑ], or halfway between [ɑ] and [a], with little or no lip rounding.

In CanEng, the short "o" (which also occurs in words like caught) is generally a low back vowel with more lip rounding than in GenAm, and it's often regarded as [ɒ], although it's not quite the same as the British [ɒ]; the degree of roundedness may vary from speaker to speaker--and even the usage of a single speaker may vary; indeed, the phoneme /ɒ/ = /ɑ/ may even have a continuum of different allophones, depending on the phonetic environment. For example, it may be fully rounded before /l/ (as in ball, dollar) but less rounded elsewhere.

To simplify somewhat, the more rounded is your short "o," the lower and more retracted is your ash (short a). If your "short o" is fully unrounded, your "short a" _must_ remain higher than [a]; if your "short o" is fully rounded, your "short a" may even be further back than [a], and this may trigger a shift of the other front vowels (cf. Canadian Shift). In accents with the father-bother merger (and even more so in accents with the cot-caught merger AND the father-bother merger), the "short o" and the "short a" are bound together, and the phonetic value of either depends on the other.

An example: "Ship in a click"

At CanadaPost, we recognize that your time is at a premium. That's why there's now a faster, easier way to send personal packages anywhere in Canada and around the world. It's called Ship-in-a-click and you can find it on the CanadaPost website. Use it to send birthday or holiday gifts to family and friends or return purchased items. ... your own postage-paid shipping label; then, attach it to your parcel, drop it off at a local post office or mailbox and we'll take it from there. It's that simple. ...

The lowest ash is in faster; the highest ones occur before nasals (Canada, family); elsewhere, they are somewhere in between. Before /l/, the short o is clearly rounded; elsewhere, it's less rounded.

Last but not least: In Newfoundland, /ɒ/ is typically somewhere between [ɑ] and [a]; since Newfoundlanders are cot/caught-merged, the Newfoundland pronunciation of words like long and gone may sound a little unusual.

Homework assignment #1. Listen to this soundfile (California English, cot-caught merger, young female speaker): [5] (transcription) and do your own analysis :-) note: her pronunciation of the word neologism is just a speech error. Jack^(Lumber) 19:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I want to say is that I do care about how words actually sound. That's all that matters! Other than that, thank you for the free education. I am only seventeen and will soon have to pay thousands of dollars in order to learn things like that. I did not know that whether one used brackets or slashes made that much of a difference in phonetic transcriptions. I thought you could use either one at any time. I already listened to that sound file, and I was astonished at how much different her speech sounds from my speech. It sounds a bit strange to me. Since I have never been to California, I wouldn't know how people there sound. It's funny to think that people there don't think they have accents (I know everyone has an accent, but I think you now what I mean). Anyway, I assume the reason you selected a speaker from California was to show the similarity of Californian and Canadian speech. I shall try my best on this "analysis" with the limited linguistic knowledge I possess. It certainly will not be as "professional" as yours. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Homework assignment #1

Something Interesting

After you consider the Canadian Vowel Shift and the Northern Cities Vowel Shift, "pasta" and other foreign loan words sound the same in Windsor, Ontario and Detroit, Michigan. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To simplify somewhat, yes, kind of. However, everybody knew that the Canadian ash was relatively open in quality way before somebody coined the phrase "Canadian shift"; in fact, it's not quite clear what this Canadian shift really is in the first place, or how many speakers possess it, or what its distribution pattern is. Also, the Canadian ash has considerable allophonic variation; for example, it is somewhat higher before /n/ and /m/, although not as high as in certain U.S. accents--there's some regional variation too on this one; it's higher before /t/ than it is before /d/ and /s/, and this may be surprising--indeed, it may even be centralized before /s/; before /ŋ/, it may sound like [e]; and many speakers pronounce bag to rhyme with vague... Jack^(Lumber) 16:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When will we better understand the Canadian Shift? Some people in Minnesota pronounce bag that way as well. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I first encountered the Canadian Vowel Shift with regard to names. When I moved to Mississauga (west of Toronto) in 1975 and started grade 8, I was always confused by the names Dawn () and Don (). Almost to a person, native speakers of CanE at the time pronounced the two words identically. To my Southern Ohio and South Eastern Kentucky-trained ears this was very confusing, since I would never have imagined pronouncing “aw” and a short “o” the same. Almost without fail, when a classmate would be referring to Dawn (), I thought that they meant Don (); and, when s/he would be referring to Don (), I, of course, thought that they were speaking of Dawn (). And, G-d forbid they should be speaking of that part of the day when the sun comes up, because my little 12-year-old self had to rely on context to make sure they weren’t talking about putting on some article of clothing[6]! SpikeToronto (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Jack^(Lumber), I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone pronounce bag (băg — short a) such that it rhymes with vague (vāgue — long a). Or, have I misunderstood and what you meant was that some persons pronounce bag (băg — short a) such that it sounds like (bāg — long a)? Along those lines, I do notice that Merriam-Webster’s gives the pronunciaiton of bag as “\'bag also 'bāg\”.[[7]] Interestingly, when I was in my very early 20’s, I once heard a guy from way north of Toronto ask for a bagel (\'bā-gəl\) and cream cheese where he prounced the a in bagel with a short a so that the first syllable sounded just like bag (băg — short a) and thus the word sounded like \'bă-gəl\. Is that what you’re referring to? (Sorry for my confusion). SpikeToronto (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Labov and his pals put it, ...Canada as a whole, excluding the Atlantic Provinces, is aligned with a large part of the north-central United States in the organization of short-a words. While most of North America shows more raising before /d/ than before /g/, these areas reverse that relationship, in some areas leading to a merger of /æ/ and /eɪ/ before /g/... This is precisely what M-W means by \'bag also 'bāg\ (in this and many other dictionaries, the word also is used to signal "[a] variant that is appreciably less common than the preceding variant"); another Wikiarticle calls it the "flag-plague merger"--a term I had never heard before. I had never heard of a "bagel-gaggle" merger either... Jack^(Lumber) 19:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Units of Measure

I don't think the current article does units of measure justice, and I'm exactly sure how comments are blanking scentences so I have both technichal and social reasons to be nervous about editing. But I think the more information should be here about Canada's mixed system, especially in vocabularly(of both old and young, but especially the under thirty crowd). Interesting examples:

Canada is oficially metric but almost universally people measure height and weight in feet and pounds. This includes drivers liceneses in some provinces(eg. Manitoba measures height in feet and inches)
When talking about grocery bills young Canadians still measure produce in pounds, and the price per pound is usually in larger print then the price per kilogram, however bulk bins usually advertise the price per 100g. Butter is also sold and talked of in pounds(listed as 454g, however)
Outside temperatures are refered to in Celsius, But oven temperatures are usually measured in Farenheit
Similarly While Milk is sold and talked of in Litres, and cream is refred to in mls(or fractions of litres) most recipes still use imperial measurements.

Jethro 82 (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there is a completely different scale for measuring blood cholesterol. Canada uses mmol/L and Americans mg/dl, see Cholesterol which puts the 2 measures in a Table but doesn't show which country uses which. 142.165.246.30 (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short and long initial and final vowels

Not skilled at all with this, but:

pronunciation of candidate can have a long A sound at the end or a short I sound. I thought the long A was Canandian, and the short I American
pronunciation of economic has a Canadian pronunciation of a short E at the start, and American a long E.

With both of these, I think there is a general tendency for the American versions to win and are eradicating the Canadian. Someone who know about these things and has a reference, please discuss! Thanks 142.165.246.30 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I heard ēconomics (long e) in the Economics Department at university from Canadian speakers quite often, and ĕconomics (short e) from American students quite often. But, I sometimes observed the opposite. Perhaps the distinction is determined less by the 49th parallel and more by an east-west divide. Along these same lines, one notes that Canadian medical practitioners often use long vowels regarding body parts, latin medical terms, and chemical names, while their American counterparts use short vowels for same. For example, many Canadian physicians pronounce estrogen as ēstrogen (\'ēs-trə-jən\) while their American counterparts pronounce the word as ĕstrogen (\'es-trə-jən\). Now, this is just my obervation from accompanying my Canadian partner to medical conferences. Some American doctors reading this might say my obervation of their short vowels is incorrect. (See also the Canadian physician’s pronunciation of skeletal as skelētal (\ske-'lē-təl\) versus an American doctor’s pronunciation of the same word as skelĕtal (\'ske-lə-təl\). SpikeToronto (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional:

anti as in anti-war. I believe Canadian is anti with a short 'i' and American with a long 'i': ant-ee ant-eye, but I'm hearing CBC announcers adopting the American pronunciation.
- I have read studies that confirm CanE: /æn-ti/ US: /æn-taɪ/ DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
defence: Canadian duh-fence (more or less equal syllable stress)), American DEE-fence (first syllable stress), except when talking about sports and then American version is more common.
offence: American approximates oaf-fence, Canadian uf-fence, again except in sports reference where American appears dominant.
status: Canadian stat-us or stat-is with initial short 'a', American initial 'a' long as in 'stay-tus', but again, CBC and others are saying it in the American manner.

Fremte (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the diff?

A very important part of the Canadian lexicon that isn't mentioned in this article is their shortening of some words. Canadians sometimes say things like, "What's the diff?" instead of, "What's the difference?". I have also heard, "I'm going to hang out with my friends this aft." "Aft" is, of course, short for "afternoon". The reason this is so important is because an American would never shorten words like these. Words like these are useful shibboleths. Don't get me wrong, Americans love to shorten things. We just never shorten certain words that Canadians like to shorten. I would like to find a list of these words. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was born and raised in Portland, Oregon (USA), and not only do I hear "What's the diff?" often, I say it that way sometimes too (not in formal situations). Kman543210 (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you, but for some reason I associate this with Canada. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Car, There

It seems to me that some of the Canadian R-colored vowels have different pronunciations than the General American R-colored vowels. I have heard Canadians pronounce words like car, bar, and scar differently from the way many Americans pronounce those words. I have also heard Canadians pronounce the word there differently from the way many Americans would pronounce that word. I would prefer that Jack Lumber respond to this. Thanks. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The vowel of car is usually described as being composed of two elements, the second of which is the r-color. The same holds true for the vowel of there. (By contrast, the vowel of nurse is really a monophthong). Now, where do you think the US/Cdn difference lies--in the starting point (first element) or in the r-color (second element)? Jack^(Lumber) 17:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have a little more time... In most U.S. speech, the first element of /ɑr/ (as in car) is [ä] or [ɑ]; in NYC and Philly and some other areas, it may also be rounded: [ɒ]. In Canadian speech, as a matter of fact, there is a tendency to raise it somewhat, to [ɐ] or maybe higher. Listen to the sentence "Bother, father caught hot coffee in the car park" pronounced by a Canadian speaker. This of course is supposed to illustrate the palm-lot-thought merger, but the vowels in car and park are noticeably different from those in bother, father etc. It almost (almost) sounds like the two elements of /ɑr/ are coalesced. But listen to this Californian speaker: You'll be hard pressed to hear the difference. (Audio files from http://alt-usage-english.org.) Jack^(Lumber) 19:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jack. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC) I imagine the difference lies in the starting point of there. However, I'm not exactly sure how most Americans would pronounce that in the first place. So the R-colored vowel is that er sound in water, right? 208.104.45.20 (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. In U.S. speech, the first element in the vowel of there may vary from [ɛ] to [e] (or even [æ] in some old-fashioned varieties). Jack^(Lumber) 20:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what is the first element in the Canadian there? I'm thinking some Canadians pronounce it as [eɪ]. That's just a guess. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it varies from [ɛ] to [e], like in GenAm. Before the Mary-merry-marry merger came around, the phonemes /eɪ/, /ɛ/, and /æ/, respectively, were all possible before /r/. This is no longer the case, and the exact value of the merged vowel is variable. However, Canadians are said to realize the phoneme /eɪ/ as a monophthong; a diphthongal [eɪ] before "r" would therefore be a little surprising. (To be sure, I have heard some Canadians pronounce /eɪ/ and /oʊ/ like they do in New Jersey.) Also, most North American accents make no "pre-r" distinction between /ɪ/ and /i/ (in this case the merged vowel may vary from [ɪ] to [i]), or between /ʌ/ and /ɜ/ (in this case the merged vowel is consistently [ɝ], with no following "r" at all, the "r" being part of the vowel, or maybe being the vowel itself...) Jack^(Lumber) 16:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you want to end this discussion or not (because it is hard to convey tone over the internet if you haven't realized), but I have some more questions and thoughts. First of all, I have an idea about the so-called Canadian vowel shift. I was thinking that maybe it is in reaction to the Northern cities shift across the border. I don't know if someone has already thought of this or not or if it is even possible, but I thought I would say it while I have your attention. I realize that is off-topic, but I wanted to know what you thought about it. I am not even sure of which vowel I use in Mary, merry, and marry, but I know I pronounce them all alike. I thought that the vowel in Mary was [eə] for people who pronounce the three words distinctly. I also thought many Canadians only merged marry and merry, and that Mary was pronounced differently. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the two examples you gave me were both of the same Canadian speaker; that's why they sounded so similar! 208.104.45.20 (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, fixed.

The cause of the Canadian shift (provided that such a thing exists) is the cot-caught merger. You might wonder, why don't U.S. speakers with the cot-caught merger have the Canadian shift? Because 1) the c-c merger has existed in Canada for several generations, while in the Western and Midwestern U.S., it's a relatively recent innovation and 2) the quality of the merged vowel in the U.S. doesn't leave enough space for the retraction of the front vowels. This being said, it's not surprising that, on different sides of an international border, accents tend to develop independently of each other--to put it another way, an international border is often, if not usually, an isogloss. (More often than not, when you cross an international border you find a different language!) However, the retraction of /æ/ (the first stage of the shift, and the only noticeable change in my opinion) is more advanced in B.C. than in Ontario--that is, it's more advanced in a region that is many miles away from the U.S. Inland North. And the raising of /æ/ before nasals is more advanced in Ontario than in the rest of Canada. Curiously, while the short a and the short o are moving in opposite directions, the other front vowels /ɛ/ and /ɪ/ are actually being retracted and/or lowered in both Canada and the Inland North. I personally have heard people with lower-than-normal /ɛ/ and /ɪ/ from all over the U.S.

The vowel of Mary is [eə] in English English, identical to the vowel of there (which is [ðeə] if no vowel follows), so that Mary goes (loosely) rhymes with there he goes (but not with Harry goes or Terry goes). Jack^(Lumber) 23:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, almost everything you say makes sense. The only thing I don't understand is how "the quality of the merged vowel in the U.S. doesn't leave enough space for the retraction of the front vowels." I am able to retract my ash and still keep the same vowel I use now in words like cot and caught. When I said "in reaction to the Northern cities shift", I was just referring to the first part of the Northern cities shift. As you know, the Canadian ash is even further from the Great Lakes ash than the General American ash is from the Great Lakes ash. That's why I thought that. The Canadians wanted to get as far as possible from that awful American sound across the border. I am glad you said, "I personally have heard people with lower-than-normal /ɛ/ and /ɪ/ from all over the U.S." That brings up an interesting subject for me. I find that sometimes people far away from regions with a particular vowel shift will have at least parts of that vowel shift in their speech. For example, I find myself fronting the vowel I use in cot and caught at times, even though the region I am from has no features of the NCVS. Also one of my teachers retracts his ash in many (if not all) environments, and he has lived in South Carolina his entire life (he is a younger male). In fact, I thought he was from California or Canada when I first heard him speak. I think that he might be trying to get away from the [æjə] of Southern American English. One of my other teachers was an older female (maybe in her forties), and she had an ash that was more retracted than mine in many words as well. However, she had a noticeably thick Southern accent. It is almost like unsuccessful code-switching (or successfully sounding like a Canadian or Californian with certain words; however you want to look at it). Maybe it is an incorrect approximation of the General American vowel. She seems to be kind of an anomaly, though, because I usually don't hear a retracted ash in older North American speakers. Maybe a retracted ash is common in the speech of young people across the nation (with the notable exception of the Inland North), as opposed to just Californians. I sometimes hear it in the South (especially in the large urban centers), and the Midwest as well. OK, time to take a breath. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation difference needs to be added

A major difference between Canadian English and American English is that Canadians usually pronounce kilometre as "kih-low-meter" instead of the American "kih-lom-meter". I have no idea how to present this using the format establishing. Could someone please add that to the phonemic differences section? Thanks! 23skidoo (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always seem to hear the American way here in Alberta...--RAult (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original writer must have had it backwards. kil-lom-metre is the only thing we hear in Sask. Fremte (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe kill-oh-metre is considered more correct as it follows millimetre, centimetre, metre, etc as a measuring unit. Ki-lah-metr pronunciation was more in fashion before the metric system was instituted and followed the pronunciations of measuring instruments like thermometer, hydrometer, etc. I rarely hear it anymore amongst Ontarians but do hear it from Americans. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That probably has to do with a unique Canadian prosody. Some of them also say "Calgary" as "KAL-gerry", with no stress difference between the latter two syllables. Others pronounce it as "KAL-guh-REE". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogue Linguist (talk • contribs) 23:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that dictionaries provide *phonological* transcriptions, never *phonetic* transcriptions. In Canadian English, the LOT vowel may be *phonemically* transcribed as either /ɒ/ or /ɑ/--it doesn't really matter, because [ɑ] and [ɒ] are allophones of the same phoneme; many (most?) Canadians actually use both of them, depending on the phonetic environment. For example, the same speaker may have [ɒ] (or even [ɔ]) before [ɫ] and [ŋ] (ball, long) but [ɑ] before [ʃ] and [f] (wash, off). In fact, the picture may be even more complicated, in that a speaker may have a continuum of different allophones of /ɒ/ = /ɑ/, with varying degrees of roundedness and/or backness. Thus, from a *phonetic* standpoint, it doesn't make any sense to say that "dictionaries say that hockey is pronounced as ['hɒki] in both Canadian English and British English." If anything, the Canadian vowel is longer than its British counterpart, whatever its roundedness. It makes more sense to say that "hockey is pronounced /'hɒki/ in both Canadian English and British English"--"happY tensing" aside... Jack^(Lumber) 15:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the phonemic transcription shouldn't just have the unrounded vowel. I hear Canadians use the unrounded counterpart more often than the rounded one despite context. Also, I hear some Americans round the merged vowel, especially in the Midland and northwest. I doubt there's much difference between Canadian /ɑ/ and General/Western American /ɑ/. All else being equal, the Canadian vowel seems more similar to the American than the British one regardless of context, so maybe it should be transcribed the same as the American one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogue Linguist (talk • contribs) 23:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of how a Canadian might pronounce that vowel in hockey. I speak something close to General American, and I usually don't have any of the fronting he is referring to in my speech (unlike people in the Inland North), but even then, the vowel he uses in that word is phonetically different from the vowel I would use. I can here the difference between the Canadian /ɑ/ and the General American /ɑ/ (at least in his case). I know, Jack, that I told you that I find myself fronting that vowel at times, but that is often intentional. I do that to sound different from the Southerners around me. What I'm saying is that even when I'm not doing that, his vowel is still phonetically different from mine. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and here is another example. I'm amazed at how perceptive these people are (no sarcasm intended). 208.104.45.20 (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to sound different from Southerners, your best bet is to avoid the pin-pen merger. Granted, this merger is now found all over the country--and it's increasingly common. Sigh. I do believe that pen and pin should be kept separate. And your short O should be kept in the back of your mouth. Just being a little orthoepic here ;-) Jack^(Lumber) 19:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with you, Jack. You can tell by context if someone is referring to a pin or a pen. My personal experience tells me that this merger is very widespread now, even among educated speakers who don't think they have accents, as if such a thing were possible. I'm from the Midwest, and most people would say I have no accent, but I have the pin-pen merger. I think it sounds unnatural not to have the pin-pen merger. I don't see what's wrong with change. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the pin/pen merger has been exaggerated at all? The reason that I ask is that I know these are pronounced differently (and I do), but even when I'm concentrating, they sound pretty much the same when I'm speaking quickly. Kman543210 (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Jack, just because someone has a pin-pen merger doesn't mean that person sounds Southern. My pronunciation of the merged pin-pen vowel sounds nothing like the Southern pronunciation. A Southerner would pronounce them both as [pɪjn] or even [pɪjən]. I pronounce them both as a pure [pɪn]. That's why I don't think of the pin-pen merger as a Southern thing necessarily. Just having a pin-pen merger won't make you sound Southern. It's your pronunciation of the merged vowel that makes a difference. This is just another example of when phonetics play an important role. :) 208.104.45.20 (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I know a lot of Southerners who don't talk with a drawl and still have the pin-pen merger. That aside, just because you have the ppm doesn't mean you're a Southerner, no doubt about it; but if you DON'T have the ppm, then you definitely are not a Southerner! According to Labov and his gang, the expansion of the ppm is particularly marked in OK, KS, MO, Southern IN; speakers with the merger are scattered throughout the country, although very few of them are in the North--and those who are, are African-Americans. In California, Bakersfield seems to be completely merged; San Francisco, L.A. and San Diego seem to resist the merger (African American speakers aside); in Sacramento, pin and pen are distinct but close. The TELSUR also has 3 merged speakers in CO (out of 14) and 4 in NE (out of 19); only 6 Nebraskans, however, make a clear pin-pen distinction. As for Canada, we have 2 speakers in Nova Scotia who pronounce or perceive pin and pen close to each other; but in Ontario and further west, pin and pen are clearly distinct. Jack^(Lumber) 22:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this might sound arrogant of me, but I disagree with some of those findings. The problem with TELSUR is, the only way to really tell if someone has a pin-pen merger or not is to "catch" that person in unconscious speech, if you will. Because I know people are much more likely to pronounce pen as [pɛn] if you give them a list of words to read or even if you interview them and ask them how pin and pen are pronounced. I am very capable of pronouncing pen as [pɛn], I just don't do it in everyday speech, therefore I have a pin-pen merger. I don't know exactly what you mean by "the North" (the Inland North?), but my brother, my mother, and I all have a pin-pen merger, and we have lived most of our lives in the Midland region. We're not black either (It doesn't matter to me, I just had to mention it since you said that they're the only ones who have the ppm in "the North"). Now if you don't think I understand TELSUR, then please explain it to me. I enjoy the discussions we have, by the way. I would like to know more about the Midland dialect region. My personal experience (17 years of living there) tells me that this region is more complicated linguistically than people realize. People tend to think of it as plain and boring, but it's actually kind of interesting. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listishness

Is there enough distinction to justify List of words having different meanings in Canadian and American English, per the Britlish/Amglish list? (Or just List of words having different meanings in Wikipedia than real life? ;D) Trekphiler (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prod (= pro[posed] + d[eletion]) and transitive revert, for example. How about a List of Wikipedia phrases not widely used in real life, such as citation needed or per nom. Uhhh... the very UK/US list doesn't make any sense at all. About a year ago, I put it up for deletion (after 600+ edits in 1½ years); if you're curious, check out the discussion and my ongoing project. Jack^(Lumber) 13:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Default

I don't know if this only takes place in Canada, but I've noticed that default tends to be stressed on the first syllable. Thus it is pronounced [ˈdiːfɒlt]. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on sentence/phrase rhythm/position, and sometimes on whether it's a noun, adjective or verb, and how it's conjugated/declined. "he's gonna default", even slangily, might have the accent on the second, no? As a stand-alone question, not in teh course of a conversation, maybe the accent might be on the first (to me). "Is it a default setting?" could have a differnt accent, even with the same person; and in the same context but with a different rhythm, also potentially from the same person (me) What's the default?". "he is defaulting" (as in a loan) seems invariably to be on teh second syllable, unless there's an emphasis reason of some kidn to stress the first; and so on. And yeah, I'm not sxure it's Canuckistan-specific either - whichever it is.Skookum1 (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of recently added section: Canadianisms established abroad

Go figure and hottie are listed as "orig. U.S." in the Oxford English Dictionary. The real McCoy was probably coined in Scotland as Mackay, and subsequently altered in the U.S. Dog's breakfast also originated in Scotland. Hello was first recorded in a newspaper called The United States Telegraph in 1827. Fuddle-duddle is somewhat like googol and boondoggle--that is, an arbitrary coinage, and not even that common or "established" in conversation as far as I can tell. Lineup in the sense "queue" appears to be a Canadian regionalism; that meaning aside, the term is American in origin. Jack^(Lumber) 14:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rising voice in declarative sentences in Toronto

I am not a linguist, but I've always found curious the fact that in Toronto, many declarative sentences are pronounced with a rising voice, making them sound like a question. To me, it sounds as if people are being defensive, as if they are not sure of themselves when they make the utterance. I have noticed this especially among lower-middle class and working-class women, but sometimes among men. Am I right? If so, could someone more technically proficient than me add it to the article. Bellagio99 (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to find a source in order for it to be included rather than just personal experience. I do know what you're talking about though, and the same thing has happened on the west coast of the U.S. (especially in California) and more with women than men. Kman543210 (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian dialect in the United States

Canadian English is also spoken in parts of the Upper Peninsula in Michigan and in some parts of Upstate New York. I believe parts of Maine as well. Perhaps we should find a source and add this info. Azalea pomp (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it can't possibly be Canadian English if it is spoken in the United States. The term Canadian English refers to any English that is spoken within Canada, and nowhere else. Some people in the places you mentioned might have Canadian raising in their speech, but by no means does that mean they speak Canadian English. Maybe that's why you were confused. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that a small percentage of people in northern Maine do still speak French. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forget the source, but I will try to find it. These dialects I mentioned are more closely related to Canadian English than to other English dialects. More example, American English dialects to not form a valid genetic unit of English. Some dialects came from the English of the various settlers who left the British Isles at different times. Although, there are some Sprachbund features of American. Still, back to Canadian, parts of the Upper Peninsula do speak a dialect related to Canadian English. Azalea pomp (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dialect in the UP might be related to Canadian English, but I don't think it would be considered Canadian English. People in the UP may have Canadian raising, and a conservative /oʊ/ and /aʊ/, but I don't think anyone there has been shown to have the Canadian Shift. Also I don't think the F2 values of the vowels in the UP are quite the same as those of the Canadian vowels. Nor do people in the UP have quite the same lexicon as an authentic Canadian. Nor would they ever pronounce been as /bin/, progress as /ˈproʊɡrɛs/, or llama as /læmə/. I would say that parts of Upstate New York are even less related to Canadian English than the other places you mentioned because of the Northern Cities Vowel Shift. Because of the NCVS, there is a significant difference between the dialect of people in Niagara Falls, New York and the dialect of people in Niagara Falls, Ontario. For example, the way Canadians pronounce map sounds like the way people in Upstate New York pronounce mop. However, most varieties of American English are rhotic, like most forms of Canadian English, and many speakers in the United States (I think probably a majority now), have the cot-caught merger, like most Canadians. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we define the Canadian shift as the simultaneous lowering and/or retraction of the three vowels /æ, ɛ, ɪ/, then I don't think that most Canadians have the Canadian shift either. As for the retraction of /æ/ in the South, I've found something interesting in the Handbook of Varieties of English, page 308:

Both the tripthongization [the old familiar drawl] and the raising [to [ɛ], which used to be common] are subsiding among young Southern whites. A few younger speakers from, e.g., Texas, who show the LOT/THOUGHT merger have TRAP shifted toward [a], but this retraction is not yet as common as in some non-Southern regions (e.g. California and Canada), though it is increasing in parts of the Midwest on the margins of the South (e.g., Central Ohio).

A necessary condition for the Canadian shift is the cot-caught merger in low back position--provided that the low central seat is not already taken, as it is in Eastern New England and Southwestern PA. On the flipside, just because /æ/ is lower doesn't necessarily mean that /ɛ/ and /ɪ/ have to go along for the ride; and, contrariwise, a backward movement of /ɛ/ and /ɪ/ has been detected in many speakers who don't have /æ/ = [a] (in the NCS region itself, but also, for example--and now I'm going WP:OR--in Florida and South Jersey). The cot-caught merger is taking over the West and is probably spreading in the South too; in parts of the North Central area (Western MN and the Dakotas), it is apparently being realized in low central position--and this of course raises a lot of questions... Jack^(Lumber) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say that younger speakers in Western PA are now retracting TRAP as they increasingly diphthongize MOUTH; I believe I read that in a paper by Corrine McCarthy--the linguist who appeared on the Nick Digilio show, referenced in the Inland Northern American English article. Jack^(Lumber) 14:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I like her. That was an interesting interview as well. Thegryseone (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of a guy from Ontario who definitely has a lowered /ɛ/. Listen to the way he says 4 a.m. It sounds to me like four a am. Also note that, contrary to what the Canadian English article says, he is from Ontario, and he has a retracted ash before a nasal consonant when he says and for once (the article says that only people from Vancouver would do such a thing, although my personal experience says otherwise). However, I'm not so sure about his /ɪ/. What kind of questions are you talking about? You can write as much OR as you want. If I am going to trust anyone's OR, it would be yours. I think it is really fun to talk about this stuff because it will be interesting to see what happens to North American English in the future. Oh yeah, and don't forget the Midland when you talk about the cot-caught merger. Everyone seems to forget the Midland. I guess it's because there are relatively few people there. My mom's about 50 years old and I think she's completely merged. But then again, women do tend to be ahead of everyone else (you know, all the other sexes) when it comes to these changes. I see having a cot-caught merger as a generic American accent. In other words if a particular speaker doesn't "pick up" the features of his or her local dialect for whatever reason, he or she will have a cot-caught merger in his or her idiolect. This is true for many Southerners. I'm not sure if it's always true, though. What annoys me a bit is that I have read that linguists can't agree on what defines General American. In my opinion, what defines General American is the following: 1. Merging cot and caught as something close to [ɑ] (but definitely not as [ɒː], because that's what it is in Boston, and not [ɔ], because that's what it is in Pittsburgh) 2. Lacking any vowel shift in one's speech; This includes the NCVS, the Southern Vowel Shift, the Canadian Vowel Shift (if such a thing exists), and the California Vowel Shift (if such a thing exists or if such a thing is restricted to the borders of California). 3. Canadian raising of /aɪ/ is acceptable, but no Canadian raising of /aʊ/ is allowed. 4. Rhoticity 5. Lacking any other distinct regional features such as the monophthongization of /aʊ/ in western PA (it would take forever to list them all here, but at least I know what I mean). 6. Man, I didn't realize how difficult this list was going to be, I'm going to stop now. :) 208.104.45.20 (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmm... that guy's /ɛ/ sounds fairly normal to me. Only in very few environments does he tend to lower it, e.g. when he says seventeen, 2:35. When he says alphabet, zed, and U.S. (1:55 ~ 2:05) some lowering would be expected, but he shows none. He retracts it before /l/, though. Perhaps that a.m. sounds lower to you than it does to me because you have the pin-pen merger and I don't. His /æ/ is, for the most part, [a], except in some function words (that, have, as) and before nasals, where it is usually [æ]; in the word and, it's usually around [ɛ]. In general, he doesn't tend to show significant ash-retraction before nasals, but AFAICT most Canadians tend to raise it a little bit more than he does, or to give it some kind of twist [^jæ ~ æə ~ ɛə], while he doesn't. Actually, some teenagers in Ontario do show a lowered ash even before nasals in some environments, but this appears to be confined to a specific age-group, and perhaps to a specific social context. I do believe I have a source for that; if I find it, I'll put it in the article.

The list would be endless! Instead of defining General American by saying what it isn't, maybe we can try to define what it *is* supposed to be. For instance:

KIT ɪ

DRESS ɛ_-

TRAP/BATH æ̝ˑ ~ ɛə

LOT/PALM äˑ

STRUT ɜ_-

CLOTH/THOUGHT ɔ̞ɒ

NURSE ɚ

FLEECE ɪi ~ iː

FACE eɪ

GOAT oʊ

GOOSE ʉu

PRICE a_-ɪ ~ ɐɪ

CHOICE ɔɪ

MOUTH æʊ

NEAR ɪɚ

SQUARE e̞ɚ

START ɑɚ

NORTH/FORCE oɚ

CURE ʊɚ

Well, that doesn't work either--that's my own accent, for lack of a better idea. How about this one? Or maybe Ohio? There's also Standard Canadian, of course. OK, time to call it quits! Jack^(Lumber) 01:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you have better ears than I do. I will say, though, that that kid sounds extremely Canadian to me for some reason. Maybe it was the tone of his voice or something, I don't know. How do you know all this, Jack? Do you mind telling me where you're from (or which dialect you speak)? I just want to know so I can try to make sense out of your vowels. This stuff is so interesting to me. Phonetics is fascinating. How did you find the phonetic values of your own vowels? Did you use a spectrogram? Or do you just have really good ears? Because I have a difficult time differentiating between certain vowels such as [ɒ] and [ɔ], and [ɐ] and [a]. I have so many things I want to ask you; that's why I digress so much. For contrast, I'll do the best that I can on my own vowels with my limited linguistic knowledge. This should be fun!:

KIT ɪ

DRESS ɛ

TRAP/BATH æ ~ ɛə I think I have sort of a "twist" before nasals as well; like those damn Canadians.

LOT/PALM ɑ̟ It doesn't sound quite like the sound sample, so this is just a guess. I'm trying to change my pronunciation of palm words :).

STRUT ʌ̟ The sound sample for [ɜ] doesn't sound quite right for me.

CLOTH/THOUGHT ɑ̟

NURSE ɚ

FLEECE iː I don't think I have the [ɪi] variant.

FACE eɪ I think :).

GOAT ʌu̟ Not sure, but definitely not [oʊ].

GOOSE u̟ Could be even [ʉ]. Definitely not cardinal [u]. Hard to say.

PRICE aɪ

CHOICE ɔɪ I think so :).

MOUTH æʊ I thought that was a Philadelphia/NYC thing, but I think I have it too.

NEAR ɪɚ

SQUARE eɚ I really don't know about this one. It's really hard to hear.

START ɑɚ

NORTH/FORCE oɚ

CURE ɪu̟ɚ The first element sounds just like the vowel I use in cute. I could be wrong though.

That was fun even if I did a bad job. I have to go now. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about POOR (as compared to CURE}? -- 173.34.39.46 (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Dialects dipping into the USA Map

Here is the map I saw a few years ago, someone had put it on Image Dump:

http://www.imagedump.com/index.cgi?pick=get&tp=510627

Azalea pomp (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a better version of that map (on page 30). Presumably it was a mistake that part of Upstate New York and part of the UP were included as part of Canada, as you'll notice that one part of Mexico is included as part of the West and another part of Mexico is included as part of the South. Obviously, that's not possible since they speak Spanish there. Good attention to detail though. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 05:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Things About The Canadian Accent That Stick Out To Me

Another user and I have observed that when not subject to Canadian raising, the nucleus of /аɪ/ tends to be retracted/lowered to something like /ɒɪ/ in much of Ontario. This other user also added, "This shift also triggers nasalization of the diphthong in the vicinity of nasal consonants; consider the Ontario pronunciation of "nine times" (with nasalized /ɒɪ/ in both words — sorry, I can't see any way to write a tilde over these IPA symbols)". I don't know much about nasalization, but I think there is some retraction and/or lowering of /аɪ/. I have also observed that /ɝː/ as in nurse doesn't sound quite the same as it does in GA. I can't get into anymore detail than that; it's just different. Also /iː/ as in fleece doesn't sound quite the same. Once again, I can't explain; I just believe my ears. Maybe it has something to do with the averaged F1/F2 means chart that Jack so helpfully added, but that still doesn't explain the difference in /ɝː/. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, General Canadian and General American NURSE sound pretty much the same. Or rather, there are differences even within GenAm, although they are largely unnoticed. For example, there are several possible articulations for the sound we perceive as r. If you pronounce your r's with your tongue slightly behind the alveolar ridge, then the sound you make is a "postalveolar approximant" [ɹ]. If the tip of the tongue is curled back, than it's a "retroflex approximant" [ɻ]. However, you can also produce a [ɻ]-like sound by just humping up the body of your tongue instead of curling back the tongue tip--that's what many speakers actually do.

As for FLEECE and PRIZE, let's compare the F1/F2 means for the TELSUR speakers from Canada against those from the Inland North, the Midland, the West, and the Mid-Atlantic region (centered on Philly). Remember that, roughly speaking, the first formant is proportional to the openness of the vowel, while the second formant varies inversely with vowel backness.

Dialect area	FLEECE F1	FLEECE F2	PRIZE F1	PRIZE F2
Atlantic Canada	366	2502	807	1339
Western/Central Canada	379	2472	811 (ON: 805)	1404 (ON: 1392)
Inland North	393	2363	809	1488
Midland	403	2639	808	1451
West	402	2379	809	1450
Mid-Atlantic	444	2393	807	1353

This means that

1) FLEECE is higher and fronter in Canada than in the U.S. (If this is what you meant, you have exceptionally good ears.) But see Pacific Northwest English for a different picture...and a different chart.

2) PRIZE is (audibly, I might add) backer in Atlantic Canada than in the other regions; Ontario is somewhat halfway between Mid-Atlantic and Midland/West.

PRIZE-backness-wise, the "top 10" TELSUR speakers are from: Bloomington, IL; Springfield, MO; Trenton, NJ; Harrisburg, PA; Columbia, MO; Miami, FL; Halifax, NS; Hamilton, OH; Lena, IL; and Montreal.

Jack^(Lumber) 20:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been trying to figure out why I can sometimes tell when someone is Canadian even if they never utter a shibboleth. So I was trying to pinpoint which sounds let my brain know that a Canadian ain't from 'round here. As you know, Americans mostly communicate with each other, so were used to hearing our vowels pronounced in a certain way. Seemingly slight differences matter sometimes. It's amazing what one vowel can tell us. One question I was going to ask you earlier is why do you code-switch? For fun? To relate to others from different regions? I could definitely believe that Seattle has a fronted /i/; especially the females. That strikes me as a feminine sound for some reason. Maybe one of those possible articulations of r is more common in Canada, although it also would exist in GA. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute in Vocabulary--Education subsection

It'd be great to know how to cite something you simply hear day in, day out, as some hoser's gone and tagged a couple sentences as cite needed. Here's my experience. I've never, nor have any of the folks I've been to school with, sat an exam. I've taken them, though. And they were supervised by teachers or proctors, never invigilators. Perhaps it's a Toronto thing, I can't really speak for other parts of the country. But I've never heard anyone use those words for those purposes, not in the 9's or in the city itself. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 02:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Accents

The Canadian accents seem to be shifting more and more towards the US in sound, right or wrong, in comparison to how older folk still speak in some regions. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Canadian born (Toronto raised) lad that married an American lass and she brought to my attention that part of the difference in dialect between what is known as Canadian English vs what is known as American English (without regards to regional speech patterns) tends to indicate some large variances between speech tempo and meter. Oftentimes words are said with different emphasis, but there is also a different speed. She noted that, outside of Torontonians, a lot of Canadians speak a hair slower, which can make the entire pronunciation of certain words markedly different. Right now, we're in the American Mid-West, which has a different region speech pattern than, say, Buffalo, but, overall, the meter of the words is roughly the same so the pronunciation itself doesn't differ all that much. On the other hand, when living in Hamilton, Ontario, one can hear the variation between that and Buffalo clearly if one listens carefully to what is said. In addition, I have personally found it helpful in the past to consider the position of the tongue and the passage of air through the vocal chords, nose, and mouth in the changes in speech. For instance, French is a very nasal language, where German is guttural, and English is spoken much with the teeth and the tip of the tongue. If one accepts these facts, then areas with a higher ratio of individuals with a Germanic background will have a slightly deeper, more throaty vocal pattern, and areas with a high percentage of French influence will have a more nasal twang to their voices. Further, in areas with a high English (read: from the UK) history will have a slightly faster, a touch more clipped, mode of speech. (GeoffreyR - 0306, 17 February, 2015)

I think you're right. I'm not sure if I could find a source for this, but I think many North American regional accents are merging into a more standardized accent due to television and mobility in both countries, so I don't think it's just a Canadian thing. Might be good to try to find a source that discusses the possibility of merging accents, but maybe it's just our perception. Kman543210 (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys. Try reading this essay and this essay. They're very interesting. Enjoy! Thegryseone (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review your basic Phonology 101 course: Television has no influence on our accents. Because we basically don't talk with TV sets. People from Buffalo, Chicago, Detroit, etc. are generally convinced that they have a TV-like accent, but they quite obviously don't. We do talk with each other however, and mobility (both physical and social) is indeed a major leveling factor. Many Americans and Canadians move around a lot; these people are systematically ignored by dialectologists like Labov (and were not represented in the TELSUR survey.)

That said, television may have a powerful influence on our grammar and vocabulary, and (to an extent) our "phonemic incidence" (e.g., EEconomic vs. EKKonomic, EE-ther vs. EYE-ther, etc.). But not on how our words "sound"! Jack^(Lumber) 22:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually find it sad that "mobility is a major leveling factor". Stop moving around people :).Thegryseone (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you what--this factor is much more prevalent here in North America than in Great Britain, or Europe, FTM. An example: Once upon a time in Europe, as I talked with my European colleagues about American vs. European sports, they found the concept of franchise relocation just inconceivable, and they wanted me to explain it to them. This is one of the reasons why there is more regional variation in Britain than in North America--the primary reason being their 1200-year head start in dialect formation, of course... Jack^(Lumber) 00:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'm part of the problem ;). Thegryseone (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well i made the point because, as an Englishman, Canada is often known as the more English part of North America (dont worry, that's a good thing), and whereas that is possibly true for some of the eastern parts of Canada, to my knowledge these Englishisms are generally declining with each generation.

Also, franchise relocation in sports; we definately do not get or like it, over here a sports team (or more specifically a football team) can come to represent the city or region it is located and was founded in, the teams supporters and often the local identity and accent of those people (think RedSox with fans that don't have a Boston accent! outrageous!). The majority of successful professional football teams in England were founded between 1870 and 1900, so they are thoroughly woven into the culture of their respective areas.

Example, i am from Sunlun, as a result i speak with the peculiar Mackem accent and that means ofcourse like 100% of the other bloke in town i support Sunderland AFC much like my father, his father and my fathers fathers father (eh?)

SAFC is as much a part of my make up as Coal Mining or Ship Building, and if it was moved away because some rich guy with plenty of money thinks he can it would be venemously opposed. 92.41.37.112 (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point 92.41.37.112, but honestly most Americans don't care if Red Sox fans have a Boston accent or a Midwest accent; you can be a fan of whatever team you like here. Thegryseone (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well we do have that to a degree here, for example Manchester United are notorious for the fact that alot of their supporters travel from the south of England to support them, the majority of these supporters made the conscience decision to support the winning team. They're often termed plastic supporters and it is not uncommon for them to jump to the next team who are doing well. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We call them fairweather fans here. Thegryseone (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In English&redirect=no&oldid=229106776 the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

"Labov" :
- Labov, p. 222.
- Labov p. 218
"Labov2" :
- Labov p. 218.
- Labov p.218.

DumZiBoT (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Upcountry" and lumberjack

Two different items; one is "upcountry" which I'm pretty sure is BC-only but very common; pretty much means going anywhere outside of the South Coast, more usually the Interior, maybe not for hte regular lexicon section but for hte BC subsecton only; "lumberjack" wanted to comment on, as it seems common in other parts of Canada but in BC it sounds hokey - "logger" is the preferred usage (also common in the adjoining parts of the US, at least within the industry although folkd culture still uses "lumberjack"....things have never ben the same since Monty Python, but it was never in use in BC anyway - other than in "Lumberjack's Breakfast" (which you'll see as "Logger's Breakfast" also, but that sounds a bit nouveau).Skookum1 (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parka and Anorak (and Oookpik)

Parka and anorak, both terms from Inuktitut, are now widespread in English but are of Canadian origin (i.e. in tersm of English usage) and would seem appropriate to mention here; not sure of the wording. Anorak seems used differently in Canada than the US, though - not sure, but the Canadian meaning of a head-opening-only-and-with-a-hood all-weather pullover garment isn't the same south of the border; I've seen it used for things that are more like just akicoat (and near-invariably made from Goretex). "Ookpik" I guess isnt' a word, more of a cultural icon; never got into common currency for "owl".....more for a Canadian culture page I guess...Skookum1 (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parka originally from Aleut's word 'pariixax' meaning 'zipper'

Anorak originally from Kalaallisut's (Greenlandic) word 'annoraq' meaning 'heavy jacket'(Haqqalikitaaq (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In & at

Is it a Canadian usage only, to say "while in university" as opposed to "at". And to be "graduating high school" rather than graduating from high school. Sask. usage is the former in both cases. --Fremte (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 American cents:

University: A direct US/Cdn comparison is not possible, since (as you know) we say go to college whenever you would say go to university. However, we may say He studied at Oregon State University, or He went to college at Oregon State University, never *in (to be sure, no native English speaker would use in in those sentences!); we say, While in college I met my wife, never *at college. The British often (if not usually) say things such as my daughter is at school to mean "she is a student"; to an American, that sentence can only mean that she is physically at school now.

Graduate high school: No, that's not a Canadianism. It's a relatively recent construction, usually frowned upon by editors and commentators in the U.S. and elsewhere. Graduate from high school is standard English wherever English is spoken--including Saskatchewan! See the M-W usage note. Jack^(Lumber) 00:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done school / Finished homework.

I imagine that sourcing this might be difficult without personal research. With that in mind, I want to say that this is acceptable usage where I am, Fredericton, New Brunswick, so it is in need of sourcing rather than in need of cutting :) - BalthCat (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But... is it more common among tweens and teens, or is it used by their parents and teachers as well? I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 00:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

skookum and saltchuck?

I've lived in BC my whole life and this is the first time I've heard of these words. And appaerently they have come into general use in people from BC's English? Sounds like a bunch of BS to me.
24.87.41.247 (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saltchuck is more a coast thing, I think (obviously there isn't any in the Interior), but I've certainly heard skookum, though only from older people.24.67.137.170 (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"conspicuously"

"Tap, conspicuously more common than faucet in everyday usage."

This just made my day, but it sounds way unencyclopedic. 64.231.109.179 (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation

I live in the Maritimes and I've never heard "subway" to refer to an over/underpass. Is this specific to a small region or single city? 142.167.154.131 (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ JackLumber

I had assumed the obvious required no explanation, but since you reverted me and demanded one, here it is.

Demanding a citation on not "sitting" exams is like demanding a citation for the fact that the sun rises. As someone else pointed out on this page, how do you find (and why would you need) a citation for something which is obvious from everyday experience?
You yourself deleted new content without explanation in your second reversion; please read the edits you undo more carefully in the future. As to why I removed the entries I did:
- "Brown": because I've never heard it used that way in over 30 years of living in Canada, and because, despite what the entry said, I was worried that it might be racially offensive. That is not a situation for erring on the side of inclusion, especially since no source was cited.
- "Hockey hair": Same reason (except without the racial bit, obviously).
- "Homo (milk)": I did not delete this, I merely moved it to the correct place. Some previous editors, apparently, do not know the alphabet.
As to the third reversion you made, again, I must ask you to read content more carefully before deleting it. There is no contradiction between saying "Canuck" is used one way and saying "Hoser" is used another way.

As I said, I find these things rather obvious, especially the last one. I had assumed I could credit the editors of this page with a certain level of intelligence. I will be sure not to repeat this error. 69.154.185.205 (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was actually a line about the word hoser in the article, with a reference to Bob & Doug McKenzie who first popularized it, and I was sure that line was still there; sorry, my bad. You can only remove a statement either because it's unsourced (WP:OR, WP:V) or because you take issue with the source (WP:RS). You can't remove a statement because "you've never heard that."

After going back to work after a 3-day weekend, a fellow may have a bad day. That doesn't necessarily imply lack of intelligence on his part.

All that aside, all right, I messed up. I screwed up. It was a self-induced injury that left me frustrated with myself. It happens. It can happen to people way more important than I am.

I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 19:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]