Speech pattern and typographical variations across Canada

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's been mentioned a few times on here that Canadian English spelling used to be more consistent with that of the U.S., and that it has become (a bit) more British-influenced over time.

I honestly had never heard of this before, and always thought that Canadian English started off as primarily British-influenced, and that it had *bravely* and semi-successfully staved off American influence over a couple of centuries...

English in Canada has gone back and forth between being more British and American. There were some waves of influence due to historical events. One example I can think of is when many United Empire Loyalists moved from the U.S. to Canada and caused the English language to become more American and many American spellings were adopted.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Loco101

English in Canada has gone back and forth between being more British and American. There were some waves of influence due to historical events. One example I can think of is when many United Empire Loyalists moved from the U.S. to Canada and caused the English language to become more American and many American spellings were adopted.

When you think about it, English didn't become "more" American with the arrival of the UELs, since before then, aside from Newfoundland, Anglo-Canada didn't really exist.

[SignalHillHiker]

He posts videos where he talks like a skeet. It's spot on, sadly. Lower-class St. John's at its best.

https://www.facebook.com/MLcomedy/vi...c_ref=NEWSFEED

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

He posts videos where he talks like a skeet. It's spot on, sadly. Lower-class St. John's at its best.

https://www.facebook.com/MLcomedy/vi...c_ref=NEWSFEED

The "bah" in lieu of "b'y" is a new one for me.

[SignalHillHiker]

Oh, that's old. A lot of the youth, even upper class, say bah instead of b'y these days. And even write it out as bah when they're posting on FB or whatever.

[Marty_Mcfly]

Yeah. I always associate bah with a conscious mocking of the word "b'y". I'll use it when putting on a fake accent or mocking someone with a thick accent. There are some people who do use it normally as the pronunciation of b'y too.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

When you think about it, English didn't become "more" American with the arrival of the UELs, since before then, aside from Newfoundland, Anglo-Canada didn't really exist.

The Maritimes were under British control before the American Revolution happened. Mainland NS was British from 1713 and PEI was conquered in the 1740's. Places like Halifax, Charlottetown, and Lunenburg existed before the American Revolution and were settled directly by Europeans, not migrants from what is now the United States. Modern-day New Brunswick was sparsely populated. This is the main reason why the Maritimes did not end up becoming a part of the US. Americans attacked pretty much every town in the Maritimes, English-speaking or not, and there are surviving letters by Washington about how he wanted to wipe British settlements like Halifax off of the map completely.

Of course none of what's now known as Atlantic Canada would have been considered "Canada" back then, and Anglo-Canada is just an abstract idea.


Source

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

The Maritimes were under British control before the American Revolution happened. Mainland NS was British from 1713 and PEI was conquered in the 1740's. Places like Halifax, Charlottetown, and Lunenburg existed before the American Revolution and were settled directly by Europeans, not migrants from what is now the United States. Modern-day New Brunswick was sparsely populated. This is the main reason why the Maritimes did not end up becoming a part of the US. Americans attacked pretty much every town in the Maritimes, English-speaking or not, and there are surviving letters by Washington about how he wanted to wipe British settlements like Halifax off of the map completely.

Of course none of what's now known as Atlantic Canada would have been considered "Canada" back then, and Anglo-Canada is just an abstract idea.


Source

Even though they took over NS (for good) in 1713, I'd say British settlement in the province would have been extremely sparse in the province for almost half a century. The province's European population remained very predominantly French Acadian for that period, and any British people there would have been mostly military and administrative personnel as opposed to true settlers.

I guess the reasons for this are that Acadia (NS+) flip flopped between the French and the British quite a few times in the previous decades, and the other being that the Acadians were living on the best lands in the province.

Both factors likely made a larger-scale settlement of NS by British people a less attractive proposition.

The first decent migration of British settlers to NS coincided with the seizure of Acadian lands and their deportation, which began in 1755 but continued for years and even a decade or two afterwards. (Depending on the historian you consult.)

Which brings us nicely into the period of revolutionary rumblings in the U.S.

[SignalHillHiker]

The two dates on Newfoundland on that map made me curious, knowing the British took us over in 1583.

1763 refers to the Treaty of Paris, which granted the French the right to continue using the French Shore as defined in the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht for fishing despite British settlements now dominating that stretch of coastline.

And 1774 was the year the British downloaded onto the Newfoundland government the responsibility for overseeing missionary work, settlement, and the fishery in Labrador, which had been granted to us in 1763 but not fully implemented. It was partially a response to Canada adopting a series of positions claiming Labrador, which escalated with Acts passed in 1898 and 1912 that were repudiated by the Privy Council in 1925.

TheMoreYouKnow.jpg

[kwoldtimer]

I'm pretty sure that "1763" in this case is a reference to the Royal Proclamation of that year, establishing British colonial administration in the former French colonies and reserving lands to First Nations people, following the Treaty of Paris. I think that when you hear today of places being located/events happening on "unceded territory", it flows back to the Royal Proclamation. It was also one of the grievances that eventually contributed to the American Revolution.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The first decent migration of British settlers to NS coincided with the seizure of Acadian lands and their deportation, which began in 1755 but continued for years and even a decade or two afterwards. (Depending on the historian you consult.)

There were around 10,000 Acadians in Nova Scotia in 1740. The British population would have been in the hundreds and was limited to Canso and Annapolis Royal.

In 1749, 2,500 mostly British settlers moved to Halifax and by 1752 another 2,000 "foreign protestants" arrived. NS would have been about 2/3 Acadian right before the deportation.

Another big group was the New England Planters. They came just after the deportation but before the American Revolution. There were about 8,000 of them in total before 1765. Liverpool NS is an example town that was founded by New Englanders in 1759.

By 1765 there would have been around 20,000 people in the area that's now Nova Scotia. Only a small number would have been Acadian.

Had the deportation not happened, Nova Scotia probably would have been 50/50.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

The two dates on Newfoundland on that map made me curious, knowing the British took us over in 1583.

1763 refers to the Treaty of Paris, which granted the French the right to continue using the French Shore as defined in the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht for fishing despite British settlements now dominating that stretch of coastline.

And 1774 was the year the British downloaded onto the Newfoundland government the responsibility for overseeing missionary work, settlement, and the fishery in Labrador, which had been granted to us in 1763 but not fully implemented. It was partially a response to Canada adopting a series of positions claiming Labrador, which escalated with Acts passed in 1898 and 1912 that were repudiated by the Privy Council in 1925.

TheMoreYouKnow.jpg

There was no "us" in 1583, only the native people.

The date seems to refer to the Quebec Act, 1774. and establishment of a NL boundary at that time.
http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.be...ndaryIssue.htm

[SignalHillHiker]

Wrong on both counts? I need to work on my Google-fu. The Treaty of Paris really was that year, though - and had a significant impact on Newfoundland. But reading what the Royal Proclamation was just now, I think kw is right and that's what it is referring to.

RE: 1583 - it's not accurate to say it was only aboriginal people. St. John's was already a named seasonal fishing work area at that time. No one over-wintered there on purpose, but Gilbert - the man who claimed it in 1583 - wrote extensively about all the ships from numerous European nations in the harbour, as well as the fishing rooms and flakes built around the harbour. He was even apprehended by the established local leaders when he first arrived, who were English and Portuguese. On that very first trip the locals famously gave him a dog that he wrote about, and he even collected taxes from the European fishermen in 1583 to take back to England. So, not a town in any sense, but certainly not the same wilderness as Cabot found it.

[Architype]

There wasn't any permanent settlement or culture to call "us", you can just say the British took over the island. "Us" were the British and Irish at that time. That's the Nfld. sense of entitlement showing.

[SignalHillHiker]

Oh, I see what you were saying. You're reading too much into my words - I just meant us as in what's now our territory.

I'm aware the idea of "Newfoundlander" being our identity really only started in the 1860s (and even then it was used primarily by urban Roman Catholics - who didn't want to be considered Irish because of the stigma, and weren't English). It's really only in the early 1900s that "Newfoundlander" as an inclusive term of identity became the norm, and replaced English/Irish/whatever as how most people chose to identify themselves. Rural people were the last to adopt it - with rural Anglicans especially prone to still considering themselves English until just a generation or two ago. But there are some isolated examples of Catholics resisting as well - for example, Fogo Island, where still today most people would reflexively answer "Irish" if you asked their identity, and would consider "Newfoundlander" more of a political term the way I view "Canadian". Anyhow, rambling (LOVE this stuff), but I'm well aware no one considered themselves Newfoundlanders in 1583. It's not entitlement, just didn't choose the right words for you.

[Architype]

This is a language thread, so people will notice things like that which actually change the meaning in a subtle way. I suspect no one in BC would ever be caught saying "when the British took us (British Columbians) over" except for the natives perhaps.

[SignalHillHiker]

Fair enough, but for what it's worth it's not even something I consciously noticed. Doesn't sound weird or wrong to me at all.

[SignalHillHiker]

• Video Link

[kwoldtimer]

I am embarrassed - the new TV commercials tell me that "Hyundai" is pronounced "HUN-day", when all this time I've been saying "HYOON-day" (while thinking it should really be "HYOON-die"). Now I'm wondering what other brand names I mispronounce?

[Razor]

I just stumbled on this, so I thought this thread could use a little injection.. Interesting.

http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/...n-vowel-shift/