Speech pattern and typographical variations across Canada

[wg_flamip]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I hate "programme" "tonne", "gramme", "behaviour" and "apologise" (I prefer program, ton, gram, behavior and apologize).
I also hate the way Llllloyd Robertson says "Schedule" (Sshhedule). I say "Skedjule"

On the other hand, I prefer entre (vs. Enter), and grey (vs. gray).

My own private dialect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_English

all-dressed Pizza

I was taught to use different spellings in different contexts. You listen to a program on the radio, but you buy a programme for a live show. A ton is either 2240 lbs. or 2000 lbs., but a tonne is 1000 kg. "Practice" and "licence" are nouns, while "practise" and "license" are verbs.

I always use the "-our" and "-re" spellings (behaviour, colour, centre, theatre, &c.). I never use the "-ise" ending (organise, apologise, &c.), and I believe they're even starting to fall out of favour with UK publishers. I would almost always use "learnt," "spelt" or "dreamt" casually, while "learned," "spelled" or "dreamed" are more formal.

"Schedule" is always "skedule" - Canadians who say "shedule" come off as either old-fashioned or pretentious. I believe the latter is preferred by the CBC style guide though (which may be where Lloyd Robertson picked it up) along with "HARE-iss-ment" and "PEE-duh-file." I really can't stand "ex-PEER-uh-ment," which I've only ever heard some Americans and Anglo-Montrealers use.

Generally, I prefer to rely on some of the more progressive UK style guides when writing formally (I adore the Guardian's clean and simple style, for example) with standard Canadian spellings and a few American conventions grafted on. Periods after initials (J.R.R. Tolkien or U.S.A.) drive me nuts, and I'm passionately opposed to the Oxford comma in simple lists (outside of scientific writing). But the period or comma almost always falls before the final quotation mark.

Some word choices (i.e. "sneaked" vs. "snuck," "dived" vs. "dove") and pronunciations ("pro-cess" vs. "praw-cess") are entirely context dependent. Whichever sounds/looks right in a given sentence gets used, and that can vary based off of the register I'm using (formal reading voice vs. casual speech, for example).

I'm curious: how many of you were taught the "Hallowe'en" spelling in school? I was taught it was the proper Canadian spelling, but a lot of people seem to have never encountered it before when I use it.

[MolsonExport]

"Hallowe'en"

yeah, but I have long abandoned the apostrophe for this word contraction (All Hallows' Evening).

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Our friend MolsonEx wasn't very clear either, but I am sure that's what he meant:

calibre, centre, fibre, goitre, litre, lustre, manoeuvre, meagre, metre, mitre, nitre, ochre, reconnoitre, sabre, saltpetre, sepulchre, sombre, spectre, theatre...

Couldn't say why, but the one on that list that I would spell "er" is "saltpeter". Damn Yankees!

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by wg_flamip

I was taught to use different spellings in different contexts. You listen to a program on the radio, but you buy a programme for a live show. A ton is either 2240 lbs. or 2000 lbs., but a tonne is 1000 kg. "Practice" and "licence" are nouns, while "practise" and "license" are verbs.

I always use the "-our" and "-re" spellings (behaviour, colour, centre, theatre, &c.). I never use the "-ise" ending (organise, apologise, &c.), and I believe they're even starting to fall out of favour with UK publishers. I would almost always use "learnt," "spelt" or "dreamt" casually, while "learned," "spelled" or "dreamed" are more formal.

"Schedule" is always "skedule" - Canadians who say "shedule" come off as either old-fashioned or pretentious. I believe the latter is preferred by the CBC style guide though (which may be where Lloyd Robertson picked it up) along with "HARE-iss-ment" and "PEE-duh-file." I really can't stand "ex-PEER-uh-ment," which I've only ever heard some Americans and Anglo-Montrealers use.

Generally, I prefer to rely on some of the more progressive UK style guides when writing formally (I adore the Guardian's clean and simple style, for example) with standard Canadian spellings and a few American conventions grafted on. Periods after initials (J.R.R. Tolkien or U.S.A.) drive me nuts, and I'm passionately opposed to the Oxford comma in simple lists (outside of scientific writing). But the period or comma almost always falls before the final quotation mark.

Some word choices (i.e. "sneaked" vs. "snuck," "dived" vs. "dove") and pronunciations ("pro-cess" vs. "praw-cess") are entirely context dependent. Whichever sounds/looks right in a given sentence gets used, and that can vary based off of the register I'm using (formal reading voice vs. casual speech, for example).

I'm curious: how many of you were taught the "Hallowe'en" spelling in school? I was taught it was the proper Canadian spelling, but a lot of people seem to have never encountered it before when I use it.

To me those forms don't relate to formality, but are becoming antiquated. which I find unfortunate. "Pled" instead of pleaded would be another one.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

"Hallowe'en"

yeah, but I have long abandoned the apostrophe for this word contraction (All Hallows' Evening).

I remember Hallowe'en being around quite a bit and sharing the limelight with Halloween as a kid.

Seems like it's almost disappeared now. Most of our Halloween-themed stuff comes from the States and they go for the simplified spelling I am pretty sure.

[Acajack]

A few words that Americans say bizarrely, at least to my ears:

mature: they say "matewer", and Canadians tend to say "matchoor"

pasta: they say "paw-sta", most Canadians say "pah-sta"

[kwoldtimer]

[QUOTE=Acajack;6816680]A few words that Americans say bizarrely, at least to my ears:

mature: they say "matewer", and Canadians tend to say "matchoor"

pasta: they say "paw-sta", most Canadians say "pah-sta"[/QUOTE

Those two spellings sound identical to me. Does your "pah" have the soft "a" of "can"?

A lot of folks down here would pronounce it "paw-sta" ,

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

A few words that Americans say bizarrely, at least to my ears:

mature: they say "matewer", and Canadians tend to say "matchoor"

pasta: they say "paw-sta", most Canadians say "pah-sta"

For some reason Americans say caramel in a way that makes it sound like Carmel-by-the-sea as opposed to the proper care-uh-mel.

The US "carm'l corn" pronounciation seems to be spreading in Canada, though...

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by esquire

For some reason Americans say caramel in a way that makes it sound like Carmel-by-the-sea as opposed to the proper care-uh-mel.

The US "carm'l corn" pronounciation seems to be spreading in Canada, though...

That one has come up before. For me, "care-uh-mel" is a flavour or a creamy concoction you put on a sundae. A "car-mel" (more like "car-muhl") is a type of candy.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think he meant words ending in "entre" or "enter", like centre. Not the actual word "enter" itself.

I don't know if it's the same for all Francophones but in my mind the -re and -er endings are obviously completely different and the English words that end with the "er" sound should definitely (to me) be written with an "er" ending.

Center is "center". If I see "centre" or "theatre" or "fibre" or "sabre" then to me it's centre/théâtre/fibre/sabre.

Those French-origin words that made their way into English got the pronounciation of their ending changed to sound like "er", so to me it makes complete sense that the written ending of the English word is matching.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by lio45

I don't know if it's the same for all Francophones but in my mind the -re and -er endings are obviously completely different and the English words that end with the "er" sound should definitely (to me) be written with an "er" ending.

Center is "center". If I see "centre" or "theatre" or "fibre" or "sabre" then to me it's centre/théâtre/fibre/sabre.

Those French-origin words that made their way into English got the pronounciation of their ending changed to sound like "er", so to me it makes complete sense that the written ending of the English word is matching.

If English were spelled the way it sounds, we would have a very different looking written language. Webster's best efforts notwithstanding.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

If English were spelled the way it sounds, we would have a very different looking written language. Webster's best efforts notwithstanding.

If everyone used the -re ending then fine, I'd adapt to that nonsense, but considering that a majority of the planet's Anglos have the -er sound paired with the proper -er ending, I see no reason to not join their ranks.

Now that I've written this I am noticing that with Canadian spelling, I'd expect proper to be spelled "propre" (is it?), and that word would also be on the list of words that, if I see spelled the French way, I want to pronounce the French way.

[drew]

"metre" is the correct spelling for the SI unit of measurement.

"meter" is the correct spelling for a device that measures something, for instance "parking meter".

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by lio45

If everyone used the -re ending then fine, I'd adapt to that nonsense, but considering that a majority of the planet's Anglos have the -er sound paired with the proper -er ending, I see no reason to not join their ranks.
Now that I've written this I am noticing that with Canadian spelling, I'd expect proper to be spelled "propre" (is it?), and that word would also be on the list of words that, if I see spelled the French way, I want to pronounce the French way.

Do they? I thought American spellings were pretty much limited to the USA among native speakers, with most other Anglo countries maintaining British spellings. Am I incorrect.

"Proper" is always "proper". Although logic/consistency would suggest "propre". But if it were all logical and consistent, it just wouldn't be English.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Do they?

Haven't looked it up but it's nearly guaranteed that there are way more Americans than non-American native English speakers out there. The US has like 250 million people more than the UK, and at first sight there's no way that adding all the little scraps (Australia, Anglo Canada, NZ, whatnot) to the UK can get it to overtake the US in population.

[wg_flamip]

Originally Posted by lio45

Haven't looked it up but it's nearly guaranteed that there are way more Americans than non-American native English speakers out there. The US has like 250 million people more than the UK, and at first sight there's no way that adding all the little scraps (Australia, Anglo Canada, NZ, whatnot) to the UK can get it to overtake the US in population.

IIRC, depending on how you define "native speakers," Americans represent 1/2 to 2/3 of native English speakers. I would imagine a fairly large majority of second language learners would be more comfortable with Commonwealth conventions (by some estimates, there are more fluent English speakers in South Asia alone than there are in the US).

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by wg_flamip

IIRC, depending on how you define "native speakers," Americans represent 1/2 to 2/3 of native English speakers. I would imagine a fairly large majority of second language learners would be more comfortable with Commonwealth conventions (by some estimates, there are more fluent English speakers in South Asia alone than there are in the US).

India is a bit of an outlier. It would follow UK conventions, but it is difficult to say exactly who is/isn't a "native speaker". There must be tens of millions who are fluent in English, however.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by wg_flamip

IIRC, depending on how you define "native speakers," Americans represent 1/2 to 2/3 of native English speakers.

The most relevant question here is whether the modern world's lingua franca is US English or British English.

My bet would be on the former. i.e. a random website, a random scientific paper, etc. is more likely to have things spelled the US way.

Which makes sense, too, because I am pretty sure the entity responsible for English becoming the global language is way more the US than it is the UK.

[kool maudit]

i would suspect that when you add up the english speakers of the uk, canada, australia, india, and anglophone africa, they would outnumber americans in number if not always influence.

english became the global language due to the british empire, of which the settling of the united states was a big part.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

Which makes sense, too, because I am pretty sure the entity responsible for English becoming the global language is way more the US than it is the UK.

This is an odd way to look at the situation given that US English is an import from what is now the UK.

US and UK English are also pretty compatible so I think it's strange to ask which one of the two is the more prominent lingua franca. They are essentially one thing as far as far as global information exchange is concerned, and it is trivial to switch between them so the use of one form or another says relatively little about who encouraged somebody to use English in the first place.