Talk:Canadian French/Archive 1

numbe rof people speaking french in Canada
The number of people speakig french in canada is not 6.4 million, but 9,4 million. source, TVA tv staton,,,heard on there.... i tihnk it needs to be change!
 * That's likely the number of people with knowledge of French, including non-native speakers. Joeldl 01:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessment
I have assessed this as a Stub, as it only contains the basic information on the topic, and of High importance, as I do feel that this topic plays a vital role in the understanding of Canada. Cheers, CP 03:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 95% of French-speakers in Canada speak Quebec French and the closely related varieties of Ontario and Western Canada. Most coverage of linguistic features of Quebec French are covered at the article of that name and related articles. Virtually the entire other 5% speak Acadian French. At that article differences with Quebec French are (or should be) noted. The reason there's not much in this article is that an in-depth discussion would practically duplicate what's at Quebec French. It's open to you to suggest that most of that material should be covered under the name Canadian French instead, but it doesn't seem rational to have that amount of overlapping content in both places. Joeldl (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge, again
I am not suggesting merging in French in Canada or Quebec French or other articles-- just French language in Canada and Canadian French. Spikebrennan 18:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * French language in Canada is intended to eventually include information primarily about demographics, legal status, etc., with only minor emphasis on linguistic features, whereas Canadian French/Quebec French are intended to be focused primarily on the language itself, with only minor emphasis on demographics, etc. At the moment, most of this material is located at Quebec French, and differences with Acadian French are noted at Acadian French. Linguistic questions like pronunciation, grammar, etc., have at most incidental bearing on a discussion of francophone communities across Canada, the status of French, and so on. Joeldl (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirect and Stub
I think the idea of this article as basically a stub or redirect to the articles on Québécois french and Acadian french is really misguided. I have read the ongoing debates, and still think the majority of the arguments at play are without merit. The decision to make the Québec french article the top-level document in the hierarchy is politically motivated (I should add that I am an ardent quebecophile and have had many debates with friends on the subject).

I think we should use the article on British English as a guide; it explains the general trends & truisms among a multitude of dialects, rather than being a redirect to various regional vernaculars. For the user interested in learning more specific information, the links to those vernaculars are there. The term “British English” is considerably more spurious than “Canadian French” yet they have a good article that serves an important, valid purpose, and we would be wise to do same.

The article on Quebec French defines it as a regional variety of french --- but the same is true of Canadian french; it depends on what you define as a region. The article on Canadian French defines it as an umbrella term for multiple varieties of french --- but the same is true of Quebec french. So what is really being said here?

You have a country, and within that country are people who speak french. As seen from a broad view encompassing the entire country, that french is Canadian french, and deserves an fully developed article on Wikipedia. Whether or not it is one cohesive dialect is not at issue (and anyone who thinks Québec french is one cohesive dialect is mistaken). —Muckapædia 16e mai 2007, 11h25 (UTC+0900) 머크패저 TALK /  CONTRIBS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muckapedia (talk • contribs) 02:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly agree -- see the discussion at Talk:French language in Canada which, despite reputable references to the contrary and Naming conventions, is where the predecessor to this article was moved through 'consensus' and which I strenuously opposed. Immediately after the move, I recreated this article.  If you build it, they will come. :) Corticopia 02:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not politically motivated. Acadian French and Quebec French are distinct (i.e. different), living dialects of French, each deserving their own article. Both are Canadian in the modern sense of the word. Hence this article essentially is a disambiguation, ever since most of its old content was moved to French language in Canada.
 * Now it used to be that "Canada" meant the settled areas along the St. Lawrence and "Canadians" were its inhabitants of French origins. Back then, their dialect of French was called Canadian French (seperate, of course, from Acadian French, as Acadians were not Canadians). But the meanings of "Canadian" and "Canada" have evolved over the years, and so has the dialect of the descendants of the Canadians (in the historical sense) and of all French speaking inhabitants of what is now the province of Quebec (outside of Gaspe and the Magdalen Islands...), along with their cultural identity. This explains why now Quebec French can no longer be called "Canadian French". It's the modern dialect of French tied to the province of Quebec, and it is different from what was spoken (Canadian French) on the same territory one hundred years ago (say). As modern Acadians are Canadians, but their dialect has always been distinct from the historical Canadian dialect which became Quebec French, it would be wrong to use the modern boundaries of Canada to invent a "regional" Canadian variety of French which encompasses all French spoken in Canada.--Boffob 04:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I take a different view. Linguistically speaking, Acadian French and Quebec French share a number of traits that distinguish them from European French. So it makes sense to speak of Canadian French collectively. Given that there are so many more sources on Quebec French than on Acadian French, and that in any event Quebec French is spoken by 95% of francophones in Canada, Wikipedia has two choices.
 * 1) In depth coverage of Quebec French at Quebec French, and an article on Acadian French explaining the differences between it and its close relative (this is not unlike most works on Quebec French — they compare it to a variety which is at present better described in reference works and more widely known, French French);
 * 2) an article at Canadian French covering essentially Quebec French with some mention of differences with Acadian French (which would in fact not be impossible in Quebec French), and a more in-depth article at Acadian French.
 * The two systems work out to be similar except for the name of the main article on Quebec French. Linguistically either would make sense. For example, in an article covering Canadian English, it is plausible for Newfoundland English to receive less attention than West/Central Canadian English. So it's just a matter of seeing which name is most commonly used.
 * Research I did on Google Scholar ended up showing that "Canadian French" was about twice as common as "Quebec French" in English, but "français canadien" was only half as common as "français québécois", although a more precise study would have to take into account the fact that more recent papers would - and this is a hunch - most likely use "Quebec French" more than before.
 * So who is politically motivated, the English or the French? I say both. There is some element of identity and politics involved in this sort of thing. For example, purely linguistically, it makes a lot of sense to speak of "North American English". We all know that Ontarians, Quebecers, etc., speak in a way that's closer to Midwesterners than U.S. Southerners do. (Although spelling and some elements of vocabulary distinguish us, I think my point is clear.) Though you sometimes hear "North American English", you don't hear it nearly as often as you should on linguistic grounds. The reason? A strong U.S. identity. They're much more likely to refer to their language as "American English". And linguistically there's an even stronger case for "North American English" than there is for "Canadian French".
 * Now, some people may say that what counts on Wikipedia is the most common name in English. But I think the fact that anglophones happen to be federalists in the country the speakers live in, and can have their own political biases, outweighs that fact. We have to either look at all languages, or, alternatively, defer to what those academics who speak the language natively call it. There's really no translation problem, so we can say that they call it "Quebec French" or "Canadian French", even though they write the name in French.
 * Anyway, if someone feels strongly about this they can propose a move at Quebec French. It is likely to be unpleasant because it is political on both sides, and has the potential to involve editors who are only interested in the subject for that reason. My position is that linguistically, both are correct, and that both are very common names for slightly different things. 90% similar content could go in Quebec French or Canadian French (probably more, given the likely level of expertise in Acadian French among editors), so a choice has to be made. If anyone is interested, there is a rarely used name "Laurentian French" that includes Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies, etc., but excludes Acadians. This prevents the paradox of saying that an Ontarian speaks Quebec French, but it is a contrived solution. Joeldl 06:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The reasoning is good. Canadian French is used as an expression and I agreed with you on the changes leading to the current Canadian French and French language in Canada. But there remains a confusion since the two varieties "Canadian French" refers to are not spoken in Canada only. It feels like an artificial categorization, not to mention that in French "français canadien" has a meaning that changes over time and is now politicized.
 * A little while ago, I bought the folk music CD Mademoiselle, Voulez-Vous Danser? : Franco-American Music from the New England Borderlands. To me, they sound like Francophone Quebecers living in the USA. My grand-father still speaks of when he was visiting relatives in Bedford, New Hampshire where his own father was born. It is also for political reason that we do not learn about them much in our history courses. I think if a category grouping multiple French varieties is to be of any use, the least is to include all its speakers. North American French seems more appropriate to me since it can also include Cajun French. -- Mathieugp 13:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right, and the phrases français américain (i.e. of the US and Canada) and français nord-américain exist in French. I have never heard them in English, but "North American French" is undoubtedly, linguistically speaking, the most appropriate name for a parent category. By the way, Mathieu, have you noticed the additions I made to Quebec French? Sources seemed to agree that moué is in the minority now in informal situations (like toi, reçoit, boit,...) but were divided on the frequency of pouel for poil, etc. (Obviously, we are only talking about informal situations.) What percentage of francophones would you say ever say pouel rather than poual for poil? Joeldl 14:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

To anyone sincerely interested in righting this situation and developing an intelligent article entitled Canadian French --- one that can peacefully co-exist with the current article on Quebec French --- I again direct your attention to the article on British English. The first couple paragraphs define a term that is analogous to this debate, without trying to pretend that it is a black-and-white tactile linguistic concept. Clearly it is difficult to define Canadian French exactly, but that only speaks to the need for a well-written article, rather than just a redirect. Arguments about whether or not something called Canadian French exists are, again, purely political --- if there are two dogs in Croatia, that's all that is logically required to justify the existence of an article entitled Croatian Dogs. Whether or not such an article meets the Wikipedia standards for notability is a seperate discussion entirely. What I mean by this is, whether or not there are grounds for articles entitled North American French or Gaspé French cannot preclude an article on Canadian French. —Muckapædia 7e juin 2007, 0h39 (UTC+0900) 머크패저 TALK /  CONTRIBS
 * I agree that there is room here for a comparison, from a linguistic standpoint, of the dialects in Canada. That kind of article will require an editor with significant expertise on Acadian French if we are to give it a different slant than Quebec French. Joeldl (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Phonology
I would like to see a section on the phonology of Canadian French, especially as it differs from the phonology of European French. For example, the regular change from t and d to the affricates ts and dz before i and u. Although I am a speaker of Canadian French, and am therefore intimately familiar with the particularities of Canadian French phonology, I am not a professional linguist, and I don't have access to any authoritative reference material that I might use in citations. (I also have practically no experience in editing articles.) Is there a professional linguist who could take care of this? Pictonon (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that the Quebec French phonology page has an excellent description of Canadian French phonology. Would a link from the Canadian French page to the Quebec French phonology page be appropriate? Pictonon (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's already a link to Quebec French. From there, there are links to all the subtopics on Quebec French. For the most part, discussion of the features of Canadian French is limited here to avoid duplication with other articles. Information written from a perspective of comparing Quebec and Acadian French could be added here, but it could also be argued that that should be added to articles about Acadian French instead. Joeldl (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Footnote inside quotation
There is disagreement as to whether remove the footnote number in the following quotation:


 * Francard and Latin, in Le régionalisme lexical, write: "Le français du Québec a rayonné en Ontario et dans l'ouest du Canada, de même qu'en Nouvelle-Angleterre. [...] Le français québécois et le français acadien peuvent être regroupés sous l'appellation plus large de français canadien², laquelle englobe aussi le français ontarien et le français de l'Ouest canadien. Ces deux derniers possèdent des traits caractéristiques qui leur sont propres aujourd'hui dans l'ensemble canadien et qui s'expliquent surtout par un phénomène de conservatisme, mais il s'agit de variétés qui sont historiquement des prolongements du français québécois." The footnote reads: "Il faut noter ici que le terme de «français canadien» avait autrefois un sens plus restreint, désignant le français du Québec et les variétés qui s'y rattachent directement, d'où l'emploi à cette époque de «canadianisme» pour parler d'un trait caractéristique du français du Québec."

I have copied the following discussion from User:Headbomb's talk page. 216.239.65.66 (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

-

This edit of yours removed the label for a footnote in a quote. 216.239.65.158 (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And? A footnote is not part of a quote, so why should we bother keeping it? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you bother reading our footnote? It says:
 * The footnote reads: "Il faut noter ici que le terme de «français canadien» avait autrefois un sens plus restreint, désignant le français du Québec et les variétés qui s'y rattachent directement, d'où l'emploi à cette époque de «canadianisme» pour parler d'un trait caractéristique du français du Québec."
 * Without the label, it's impossible to know what footnote this is talking about. 216.239.65.203 (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Your solution doesn't say where the footnote is located in the authors' text. Having the number there does. 216.239.65.23 (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * But the footnotes' location is not important in the least. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You say that, but I don't see why we wouldn't want to tell people where the footnote was. There's no cost to keeping it, as it's just one character.
 * The footnote number is supposed to be retained in cases like this. See, which discusses the issue. In this case, we have to keep the footnote because its content is used to support assertions in the Wikipedia article.216.239.65.23 (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To quote from that link, "Footnotes contained within quotations are omitted unless the meaning or purpose of the quotation would be obscured without the footnote." AKA, we omit the footnote, since the quotation isn't made unclear by its omission. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we need the footnote in this case to support our content, and there is no harm in ishowing the location of the footnote number, which is what you are opposed to. The source indicates the appropriate format for inclusion of the footnote. "If the footnote must be retained, keep the original footnote number and place the footnote directly below the quotation, separated by a 10-space line."
 * Honestly, I don't think we're going to agree about this. At the moment, there's one of us on each side, hence no consensus, so we should return to the previous state for now. If someone else supports your view, then things will be different. I'm going to copy the content of this conversation to the talk page so other people can comment if they want to. I'm also going to return things to the way they were. With your agreement, I'll try to match the format suggested in the source. 216.239.65.66 (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I would add to the foregoing that omission of the footnote would "obscure" the purpose of the quotation, which is to support the following assertions contained in the article:
 * "The term Canadian French was formerly used to refer specifically to Quebec French and the closely related varieties of Ontario and Western Canada descended from it."
 * "However, today the term Canadian French is not usually deemed to exclude Acadian French." 216.239.65.66 (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Where does his accent come from?
Could someone tell me where the second guy who speaks in french in this video come from? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFRT78AehjU I liked his accent a lot and id so much be pleased if i could read more about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.83.25.119 (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So late, but here anyway. You mean the second person to speak in the video? The only native male French speaker we hear speak French? I'm 99% sure he's from Québec and he clearly makes efforts to speak Standart French. Good day. 64.228.76.197 (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Being from Montreal, I can assure you that this guy's native language is not french. Judging from his accent, he's an english-speaking canadian who, as he says, also speaks french. That being said, he has a huge english accent. 184.162.24.157 (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Grammar
French language people do not capitalise french as a language. Only when used as a proper noun would french be capitalised and IMHO this English style should not be used in this article. Please refer to Canadian English with it's disclamer regarding area style usage in that article. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Francophones do capitalize French as a language when writing in English; when writing in French, they don't use that word at all, preferring français. Given that this is the English-language Wikipedia, we use English grammatical conventions. As to your final sentence, I'm not sure what you're referring to, could you elaborate? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see the Canadian English discussion page for clarification of my disclamer comment. The English inflection style was used quite effectively, although I had to correct a few, there but I see your point about a completely foreign, to the native wikipedia, language. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Franco-Ontarien coinages
Just found a great link, not sure how to integrate it. Plus I'm at work, so.... — Muckapedia (talk) 11 e  oct. 2012 13h59 (−4h)

— Muckapedia (talk) 21 e déc. 2014 10h10 (−4h)
 * Link dried up three years ago, but after an hour of research I found a living version! Why do we do it? Because we’re Wikipedians.

Dubious New England claims
There are several problems in the page, all stemming from the addition of New England content. eg: In my opinion New England French is a socio-cultural definition, not a linguistic one; In the Maine state legislature such a definition would be an important and useful identifier; but in an article on Canadian French it serves no purpose and adds no new information. As a purely geographical "variety," the inclusion of "New England French" would necessitate inclusion of Ontario French, Manitoba French, Saskatchewan French, Alberta French etc. By limiting the scope of the article to only linguistic definitions we avoid this problem. — Muckapedia (talk) 21 e déc. 2014 10h36 (−4h)
 * If New England French is, as stated, a variety of Canadian French, that means it is subordinate to Canadian French by the same order as the other listed varieties. This means it should not warrant mention in the first paragraph, nor be displayed in bold text.
 * But New England French is also characterised as a variety of Quebec French — If this is the case, the region of New England should get mention in the section on Quebec French, but the entry for New England French itself should be deleted. This page is for linguistic definitions, not political definitions.
 * The American speaker stats list all francophones, but that figure is not germane to the article. Stat should be revised to list only speakers of Canadian French. This would eliminate practically all speakers outside of New England, including Louisiana speakers. (Cajun cannot be considered Canadian French, unlike specious New England French, because of Cajun’s massive cultural and linguistic innovations made in America after the deportation.)