Talk:Quebec French

History
I don't understand clearly this sentence:

 Such early yet difficult success was followed by a socio-cultural retreat, if not repression, that would later help preserve French in Canada.

What do "socio-cultural retreat" mean? Is this talking about the bill 101? If yes I can't believe someone think we retreated from the american or canadian culture so easily. Before about 1890, the french canadians were forming the majority in all Canada. Before that we were even more, more than 95% in 1760. How can we "retreat", I don't understand.207.253.108.186 00:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Fred.

Rhotic
Could someone confirm what rhotics are used in Quebec? Some previous contributor and I thought it was a uvular anyway, but according to Uvular_R this is false – they don't say what is true though. (¿) --Valmi 04:05, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I do think some dialect (at least in some social groups) have a rolled r /r\/, most noticeably in Montreal. It might have disappeared more or less, though. Personally, I've heard mostly uvular trills and uvular voiced fricatives. And I'm from Quebec city.--Circeus 19:09, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it the /r\/ doesn't seem untrue, but I don't hear it that often (anymore, anyway). And I'm from Montreal. Considering User:Gilgamesh wasn't so positive after all, I understand that we agree on uvular trill/uvular v fric and I remove the "dubious". --132.204.183.87 15:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) (unlogged User:Valmi)


 * I base part of my assumption on a song by Beau Dommage (Marie-Chantal):
 * "Tu dis qu't'aimes la manière
 * Que j'ai d'rouler mes r
 * C'est frais, montréalais pis juste assez vulgaire"
 * Which is sung with audibly rolled r's. The song having been produced in the 70s, and from info gathered here and there, I assumed at least a "popular" pronounciation up to that point still had rolled r's. --Circeus 16:59, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * That would be on a vynil, and mine are quite out of reach right now. ;-)


 * I found some documentation about all varieties or R's found in Quebec though, and they indeed document an uvular trill [r] that was used in Montreal and Outaouais and has been fastly declining lately in favour of of [R] (among other things – they were actually documenting 12 different rhotics used in Quebec, I'll have to read that more carefully later and update the article). --Valmi 17:54, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The third ê
French has a third phonemic "e" vowel, always, usually in words with orthographic  or <ê>. It is also the rendering of all /e/ and /E/ before a final [r]. Minimal pairs include 'bête'("beast")/'bette'("beet") and 'maître'(master)/'mettre'(to put). I have had trouble putting a finger on it and used X-Sampa /E\/ (old IPA E), or and approximated /E_q/ to represent this vowel. --Circeus 19:15, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Quebec French has, I mentionned it in the small paragraph I wrote about its phonology as /E:/ as opposite to /E/. I never heard [E_q] but I suppose that might very well exist. The most important point anyway is France French doesn't recognise this pair. --Valmi 05:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * ¿What is /E\/ by the way? --Valmi 05:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * /E\/ is the X-Sampa symbol I use to represent the deprecated IPA E (Small capital e), which represented a lax /E/. My point was that there is a difference in quality (very audible to me) in addition to the difference in quantity. Neither distinction is made in Europe, AFAIK. --Circeus 16:54, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Glad we agree on the fact that it doesn't exist (anymore) in Europe. I couldn't really hear the quality difference, or then I would have guessed perhaps that it's (xsampa) [E_+], but I just found a book where the phoneme itself is described as (xsampa) /3/ (open-mid central). {sample} What do you think? I think it sounds weird. It would be quite important to agree on a notation for this phoneme though, since we agree it is a phoneme in Quebec French. By the way, huge shame on the Quebecer Robert for refusing to note it. --Valmi 18:07, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maurician lect??
This entry should be deleted. I hear/have heard "cossin" and "la bus"(Decried all across the province) regularly in both Quebec and Montréal. "Patente" is a bit more common for "Gizmo", though. AFAIK, "cossin" means "a small undetermined thing, usually in numbers". --Circeus 19:24, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I spent my teenage years in Trois-Rivieres and I can tell you that, first, Montrealers underline a difference and second, that cossin is well known as a Mauricien expression. Now, it may have crossed to other places throughout the territory, like Boston English expressions in the rest of the american territory or British English expressions in the US and Australia, for example. But I believe it does not remove the legitimacy of the mention. I have also been met with surprise from Montrealers when I spoke of the la bus expression (I'll note that I do not use it) ;) and, among Trifluvians, is is renown as a local term. Salutations. --Liberlogos 05:31, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A good read for all those contributing to this article
http://www.uqac.uquebec.ca/~flabelle/socio/normecajo.htm (on the Quebec French norm)

The rest of the site is also excellent:

http://www.uqac.uquebec.ca/~flabelle/socio/ (on Sociolinguistics)

http://www.uqac.uquebec.ca/~flabelle/ (on Linguistics)

-- Mathieugp 02:45, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It seems we are a 2 decades behind in the way we treat the subject. This article is comparing Quebec French to the French of France, making it a regionalism of this language, rather than considering it as a national variant of French (with regionalism all to itself) much in the same way we compare British English and American English. -- Mathieugp 02:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, this article is about a dialect, right? and it doesn't make any linguistic difference whatsoever whether Quebec is a "region" or a "nation", or really even if it would be just one person that wouldn't change anything to the way the lect is to be described.


 * A variety of a language spoken in some specific geographic place is called a "dialect", I hope we agree on that. Quebec French is a dialect of French. France French is a dialect of French.


 * No, this is not correct. Do not confuse dialect with accent.  Britons, New Zealanders or Australians spending time in English-speaking Canada have no problems communicating because there's no such thing as a Canadian or Australian dialect; it's a case of different accents, not dialects.  The difference between the French of France and Canada is somewhat greater, but do not confuse, misuse amd abuse the term 'dialect.' - User:82.68.46.46


 * Just to clearify the idea (or maybe confuse things more), see Dialect, List of dialects of the English language and American English. The words variety and dialects are used interchangeably in theses articles. - Sepper 18:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Now, how do you want us to describe the Quebec French dialect? If we were trying to make a Quebec French dictionary or grammar to the use of Quebecers, then you would be right, it would be innapropriate to describe Quebec French based on France French. But now we're writing an article about Quebec French in an encyclopedia that already has an article about France French (considered as standard French). So why describe Quebec French independantly when 95% of the material will be redundent and we could describe it differencially?


 * If you want to make an article describing Quebec French on its own, just copy this old article to Differences between the French and Quebecer dialects of French and go for it, but it will be a hard task as Quebec French short of its lexicon is not standard.


 * --Valmi 16:37, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Refactoring
No, I am not suggesting we duplicate all things in French language to here. That would not make sense. :-)

Quebec French and France French are two varieties of the same language. And yes, we are dealing with dialects, but more than that because we are dealing with normalized languages which are references by themselves. There is a France French norm to which regional dialects (marseille etc.) are compared to. There is also a separate Quebec French norm to which regional dialects (Gaspesie, Saguenay etc.) are compared to.

I am proposing that this article be refactored so as to cover more than what it currently covers. This could lead to a breaking down into other articles. Obviously, the differences between Quebec French and the French of France is going to be an important part of the subject, especially since it seems this is all that people are interesting in knowing! :-) Also popular are the regionalisms that exist inside Quebec. I think that introducing elements of sociolinguistics will help clarifiying a number of things and eliminate a number of generalizations and imprécisions currently in this article.

Also, nowhere does this article speak of the French that was spoken by the Quebec clergy, the one which was taught in Classical colleges until recently and of the important transformations in the French spoken since the education reforms of the 1960s. There is clearly an important rupture there. On top of that, I think we should cover the topic of the normalization of Quebec French that began in the 1960s and (probably in an article all to itself) of the Quebec debate over the quality of its spoken language.

What do you think?

-- Mathieugp 22:18, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I think we agree in the first place to define the lect itself differentially to the France French dialect? I agree with you to defining the Gaspésie and Saguenay dialects based on the Quebecer dialect, that makes much sense. See further post.


 * As of major additions to be made to the article, I agree to most of your suggestions. Here is how I was already getting everything organised in my mind:


 * New subtitle right after History, something like Normalisation, that would necessarily include information about the perception Quebecers have of their dialect. That would discuss both the linguistique and sociale norm as they are called in this article you wanted us to read. (I reckon this is where Quebec debate over the quality of its spoken language would belong.)
 * Sociolectal information spread across the article. Whereas information about regional variants can be kept to a separate subtitle (that used to be Lects nonetheless), social variants should be inclded in the differential description itself, that is basically stating right away the context in which a "difference" is considered acceptable.
 * Obviously the subarticle about History of Quebec French requires serious work; this is where I reckon information about the clergy would belong.


 * By the way, what about creating a WikiProject for French dialects? --Valmi 18:25, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You're right. Most of what I was talking about would make sense under History of Quebec French. Right now, the equivalent article I started on fr.wikipedia.org is more complete. The best online source I found for this is here :


 * http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/francophonie/histfrnqc.htm


 * Although not a primary source, it is very complete and up to date. What I wrote so far is evidently mostly taken from what I read there. :-) It has a political bias however. I am trying to make mine more objective, even if it means leaving out certain parts and even if I agree with most parts of this political bias. ;-)


 * Creating a WikiProject for French dialects seems like a good idea, although I am honestly not qualified to write much on the dialects of Acadia, Louisiana, Belgium, Switzerland etc. I guess I could start reading and learn. Meanwhile, you'll have to find more knowledgeable people than me. Do you know any good online sources on this subject?


 * -- Mathieugp 19:18, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I just had a look at French language for the first time since I started working on Quebec French, and it made me reconsider some things. More when I'm done with Phonetics & phonology. --Valmi 21:40, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, TLFQ @ ULaval are great as far as lexicology is concerned, they are the best source.


 * As I have just written, I hadn't read French language for a long time, and hadn't noticed how incomplete it is. That makes me reconsider my position that Quebec French should absolutely be defined differentially, and I'm suddenly thinking we could take some extra freedom, finally.


 * I'll have to read more of that FL article though. After I ate. (I indented your signature too, hope you don't mind.)


 * --Valmi 22:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * WikiProject French dialects --Valmi 00:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I think we should also create this projet on fr.wikipedia.org. This might attract more people than just on the English side. -- Mathieugp 22:06, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Phonology & phonetics
It is likely that I made mistakes in the big lot of stuff I wrote about Quebec phonetics today, please feel very very free to have a close look. Also, I worked with HTML entities, so some API may be totally wrong. --Valmi 22:18, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I honestly wouldn't be able to know without comparing what you wrote with a reference manual (which I don't have). I trust you on these things. I will focus on history for now since I already started. -- Mathieugp 22:06, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

morphologic gender
Seems good to me, however something other than "auto" will have to be used as an example as both "auto" and "automobile" are in fact feminine words... :-) Maybe "une avion" instead? That's the most common 5-year old type mistake most francophones do when they grow up. I know I did. ;-)

-- Mathieugp 12:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yuk! I would say I was probably very tired when I wrote this little bit. Very tired. :-) --Valmi 17:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Is it possible that naming the bus routes by their feminine numbers be influenced through analogy by the same habits of naming highways? La 20, la 40 are only a short way to l'autobus 7 -> la 7.--Circeus 12:22, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * points out* It seems to me like we don't necessarily need to "weaken" the article to make them identical. An important cause might also simply be the loss of nasalization before a pronounced nasal. I personnaly pronounce a distinct /y/. --Circeus 14:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is important to note the almost slavic sounding consonant clusters in spoken Québec French such as "M'a'l'vende" : Je vais le vendre (I will sell it) "Ch'tsu ben?" : Je suis bien n'est-ce pas? (I'm content aren't I?) Notice the ch'ts cluster. Many slavic languges and aslo Hungarian has a similar syllable, it almost loses its Latiness. Usually the initial voyel can be dropped as in "Vous v'nez tsu?" : Venez-vous (Are you plural coming?) The v'n cluster sounds almost scandanavian. Many such consonant cluster arise in spoken Québec French.

Hypothetic infinitive
I don't have time for an addition right now but someone should write something about the use of the hypothetical infinitive used instead of si+past subjunctive. Maybe to avoid use of the (wrong) conditionnal? Is the use of conditionnal in clauses starting with "si" widespread? --Circeus 18:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I can't understand what you mean by hypothetical infinitive, nor see any case where using si+past subjunctive is considered correct. Could you just show some examples?


 * Si + conditionnal is a rather frequent error, but it's not exactly widespread as most people are conscious of its agrammaticality. --Valmi 23:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * My bad, should be past indicative after "si", subjunctive is used after "que", mea culpa. "Avoir de l'argent, je t'en prêterais", "Pouvoir t'aider, je le ferais" are good examples. Regular form would be "Si j'avais de l'argent, je t'en prêterais" etc. --Circeus 15:22, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Aow, yyyyes, that is a most interesting thing I had never reflected about. I would bet tis an archaic construction [I mean, in "standard" French], but shall try to find documentation about it. --Valmi 20:57, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I've read it is a grammatical innovation specific to Quebec (as is the use of surcomposed tenses (Ce couteau, il a eu coupé.) in Swiss or southern european French)--199.202.104.120 21:14, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've quickly overread an article on the subject today, and that's what it seems like, although other languages have the same -- there was an example with Italian, but I cannot remember now. Anyway I added a (very) short paragraph on the subject. And I'm not sure whether embeddable is an appropriate translation for enchâssable. --Valmi 20:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It sounds like Yoda speech to me :) Vaguely reminiscent of "J'aurais de l'argent, je t'en prêterais" that you frequently hear in France. Or is that only in the past "Tu m'aurais appelé, je serais venu..."

Epenthesis
I'm thinking more and more of adding a small section on epenthesises specific to Quebec such as the change of /Re/+stop into /aR/ (which I've heard extended to verbs like "rentrer"!)and /EksipRE/ from /EksprE/. Any remarks on it?--Circeus 17:50, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * That would be very interesting indeed. As of /EksipRE/ though I doubt that is is specific to Quebec. Also I think this /a/ is more probably an open /@/. For instance, I would personally pronounce [@_0Xa~t] (bad example I think), or [@_0RgaRd]. --Valmi 18:15, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that most of the time, the added vowel is weak, bordering /@/ or /9/ (/6/ is not impossible, but that vowel sounds more like /E/ to me), it tends to strenghten in joual-type talks. I've seen "Quebec dictionnaries" include verbs starting in ar- (artourner, arparler, arvenir). Off course these were "hard-core" dictionnaries arguing that Quebecois is a separate language and using joual as a rhetoric tool, but the orthography is quite descriptive of some talking you'll hears.


 * The same phenomenon often occurs with the article "le" in the same positions, albeit the vowel usually remains a schwa. --Circeus 20:49, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * This sort of epenthesis is also a feature of Norman language ( e.g. èrpâler, èrv'nîn, èrgarder) and Picard language (e.g. éd = de, él = le) so it is probably one of the langue d'oïl features inherited by the language of Quebec. There are more examples of 'èr-' prefix in Jèrriais article -- Man vyi 06:33, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * That is a possibility, albeit I'm not sure there were that much speakers from these regions amongst Quebec colonists. I'm not a linguist but my hunch is toward parallel evolution. THe oddest epenthesis you will often find in Quebec remains the addition of a parasitic "s" in verb ending in -ouer(louer) or -uer(puer), mostly at indicative present or imperfect tense (y lousent, vous pusez). Any other hearings of this one?--Circeus 00:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * loûser means louer (praise, worship) in Jèrriais; the mainland form is loser. Can't help with pusez without research into neighbouring languages. On the colonist question, from our side of the Atlantic we tend to believe that similarities between our langues d'oïl and the language of Quebec is explained by the influence of oïl speakers. -- Man vyi 06:49, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * On a totally unscientific note, both louer and puer were derived in Latin from nouns with a nominative in S. I'm not saying it's related – but I'm probably meaning it. (By the way, never heard pusez.) --Valmi[[User_talk:Valmi| &#10002;]] 08:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The louer I'm talking about is the "rent" one. IIRC, it has a different origin in latin. Will have to look into that. My sister will often say puser, though she is no reference, I occasionnaly hear louser here at Cegep.--Circeus 11:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lenght opposition
I think it is relevant to mention that whenever the A/a, O/o and 3/E peirs occur they are opposed in both lenght and quality.--Circeus 01:02, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * EG? --Valmi[[User_talk:Valmi| &#10002;]] 02:57, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * /pat/ & /pA:t/ (NOT /pAt/), /cOt/ & /co:t/ (NOT /cot/), /mEtr/ & /m3:tr/ (NOT /m3tr/). While short /A/ and /o/ do occur, they never do in contrasting position with /a/ and /O/ AFAIK and by such are not phonemes.--Circeus 13:48, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. I think the [A:] isn't specific to QF, but the difference in quantity of /o/ could be worth mentionning. At that, you could add a note about /ø/ and diphtongs. As of /3/, I don't think there is any kind of convention, so feel free to write /3:/ if you fancy since all allophones are long anyway. --Valmi[[User_talk:Valmi| &#10002;]] 20:19, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Re: bus lines and highway numbers

 * Answering Circeus: Is it possible that naming the bus routes by their feminine numbers be influenced through analogy by the same habits of naming highways? La 20, la 40 are only a short way to l'autobus 7 -> la 7.

I doubt your hypothesis, but I must honestly admit I shouldn't know how to prove it wrong. If only commuter train lines were numbered, we'd know if le train 4 is le 4 or la 4. I think it would be le 4 though. ;-)

It seems to me that those metonymies follow quite a logical serie anyway: le numéro 42 -> le 42, la route 132 -> la 132, l'autobus 7... [?]

I would also like to provide a more formal counter-example from France, but the only one I can think of is in Queneau's Exercices de styles, which I cannot find now because I'm repainting and my flat is a real chantier de construction, and I'm not even sure whether it's l'autobus, l'omnibus or just le bus S.

--Valmi[[User_talk:Valmi| &#10002;]] 00:58, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am from the province of Quebec myself and, for what I know, I would say that saying "une autobus", for example, rather comes from the fact that when you say "un autobus", you pronounce the "n", resulting in a similar sound. Then, you just need to, erm, "distort" it a bit for the word to become feminine. ­Puceron 02:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Linking?
Could someone please clarify that Quebecois lacks most "linking"? Do they mean liason? So does this mean that beaux-arts has a glottal stop in the middle instead of a voiced sibilant? Or what? Please be specific and use examples, I'm confused.


 * Ok it's clearer now but still not entirely clear.  When one "avoids linking", one has a vowel clash.  Is the clash resolved by blending the vowels, or by inserting a glottal stop?  Someone who knows please answer...
 * Steverapaport 15:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * or nothing. All solutions are possible AFAIK. That phenomenon is probably one of the most complex in French. I'll have to check my books when I get home. --Circeus 17:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * By inserting a glottal stop, I'd say... See Liaison for a correct definition of the linking, and for the mandatory vs. optionnal cases of linking. In QF, optionnal cases are almost never observed. --Valmi &#10002; 19:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Archiving
This talk page is extremely long. Maybe parts of it should be archived or deleted? --Circeus 22:00, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Done. Moved old or irrelevant discussions to Talk:Quebec French(archives), and appropriate ones to Talk:History of Quebec French or Talk:Quebec French lexicon. ALso deleted a few bits. --Circeus 15:15, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The above is now at Talk:Quebec French/Archive 1. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

IPA completed
I completed the IPA-ification of the article. --Circeus 15:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reorganization and separation
I'd like to have opinions on the possible moving of the Phonology article to a separate one, much like Lexicon. Merging the subsections in Regional variations should also be considered IMHO, until we have enough materials to actually separate them. --Circeus 19:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On the Quebec French norm
For those interested in the subject, there is currently a very interesting series of two articles by Marie-Éva de Villers (author of the Multidictionnaire de la langue française) in Le Devoir. The articles present the results of a study which tried to establish the real norm of Quebec French by comparing all the words used in newspaper articles published in Le Devoir and Le Monde for the year 1997. The second and last article was published today (January 5, 2005). Very interesting read. -- Mathieugp 22:17, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On the Quebec french "ear" and "mouth"
I'd love to note somewhere the obvious difference between the location in the mouth of Quebec French vs. France French, and the related difference in how a Quebecois hears foreign sounds. Unfortunately I'm not really qualified to do this in detail. All I know is that the foreign "th" sounds come out very different in the different French accents when speaking English:

Obviously the two languages are either differently placed in the mouth, or have a different "ear" for consonants, or both. Anyone understand the linguistic terminology here well enough to comment on this?

Steverapaport 20:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * While the fact has been widely aknowledged (I've seen numerous references to it), I have yet to see a suggested hypothesis. Maybe Quebecois are more exposed to English slang /t, d/ for [&#952;, ð] than European French speakers? --Circeus 20:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * First, my qualifications to comment: I lived in Ottawa (near the Quebec border) for a year, and in Northern Quebec for a summer. I've also spent a bit of time in France and in other parts of Europe where I have had business dealings with Frenchmen.  In English and in Parisian French, which I studied for 7 years.


 * The difference is definitely not due to slang English influence, because in the remote parts of Quebec there isn't any to speak of. It is rather due to an entire way of speaking.  To my ear the Quebecois speak a version of French that is spoken further back in the mouth -- their "R"s retreat almost to the uvula, the mouth is held further open, and the words alternate between sounding swallowed and sounding flat. The articulation points are further back on the tongue.  There's also a bit of an adenoidal sound, as if the speaker has a cold.


 * The Parisiens speak closer to the front of the mouth, with more closed mouth, and most of the articulation done near the tip of the tongue and lips. I'd love to say all this with authority but all I have is my own eyes and ears for this.


 * I'm pretty sure that the difference in the "th" sounds is related to the different articulation points or the adenoidal thing, but I don't have much to back it up. But I'd love to hear from someone who does! Steverapaport 23:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wow! This whole discussion is really interesting and important, so here's my (socio)linguistic grain of salt. As for the "mouth", in linguistics we call that "place of articulation"; "ear" would refer to "phonological framework". In order to understand "phonological framework", you can think of a matrix or a screen into which English-language sounds are categorized or slotted by FQ's. Naturally, the "sink"/"tink" versions of "think" show that Francophone Quebeckers have a different phonological framework in their heads than other Francophones do and vice versa. For example, Brazilians consistently pronounce "th" as f/v. Among FQ's, this difference exists despite spelling pronunciations, i.e. pronouncing what one sees; the proof of this is the "d" for voiced "th". A so-called "exposure" to English "slang" [sic] has nothing to do with this phenomenon among FQ's (or Francophone Ontarians, for that matter). The phenomenon is present particularly among unilingual francophones who have never been in contact with English, even before seeing written English or English borrowings.

However, there is someone who asserts that FQ's produce "sink" instead of "tink". She's an English instructor who was working at UQAM when I was there. I can't remember her name. Anyway, I have a hard time believing such an assertion because it's very clear that FQ's perceive both "th"'s as explosions, not vibrations. A study would use nonce words (made up, yet plausible-sounding English words); however, they would need to be read by an English speaker and repeated by the FQ.

As for what the FQ phonological framework consists of, there was an article written by Denis Dumas a few years back. I don't remember the exact title/date, though you should be able to find the info easily on line.

Btw, sorry for my laziness of not using IPA. CJ Withers 03:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... As a french speaker who already noticed this, I'd be tempted to say it's because the french are specifically taught to use those "s" and "z" sounds instead of the "th" sound that doesn't exist in french, while us Quebecers who are a bit more accustomed to english are taught the "correct" way to pronounce the "th" sound as best as we can, but since the "th" sound is very unnatural for french speakers, we mangle it into the resulting "de", "dis" and "tink"... Am I making sense? :) Etienne D. 16:39, 02 February 2007

Interintelligibility
In my own humble personal experience, as a French person:
 * Fast, colloquial Québec French can be difficult or impossible to understand (e.g. Lynda Lemay when she gives her "Québécois lessons").
 * In normal situations, while the Québecois accent is easily recognizable, there is no problem understanding Québécois speaking. David.Monniaux 18:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have a question. If the discussion page is not an appropriate page for the question, apologies. Could someone add a section to the page on the adoption of (American) English phrases in Quebec French? I live in Montreal and my French isn't good enough to tell whether this is true, but I was at a party several months ago where a number of academics from Belgium were making fun of the claim that Quebec French is "less English" and "more pure" than European French. They weren't being mean and they weren't suggesting that Quebec French is inferior. But they said, basically, if you're fluent in English it's much much easier to understand Quebec French due to the adoption of wholesale phrases from American English. Actually it's not just that. It's the use of verbs in ways that match their English counterparts. Examples: Ca fait du sense. Je sympathise avec toi. The Belgians had a long and very funny list of these but I can't remember them. I think it is interesting from a linguistic viewpoint to look at what (in terms of language "purity") can be controlled by force of will and force of law. It seems that noun substitutions can be controlled to a point, but I'm wondering how Quebec, surrounded by, what, 250 million? anglophones can keep hold of a version of French that is less anglisized than European French. MySamoanAttorney 08:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * They can, and they do, precisely because they're surrounded by 310 million Anglophones. It leads to a siege atmosphere which allows them to do almost anything, including pass questionable laws (see Bill 101), to prevent the encroachment of English into their language.  France has no such reason to worry about Spanish, German or English, so France borrows occasional words and constructions, and is none the worse for it.


 * Bill 101 provided, for some time, that commercial signage MUST be in French. Lawmakers also concerned themselves with making up new French words to replace English borrowings like "hot dog" (chien chaud).  Joni Mitchell said "You don't know what you've got till it's gone", but the Qu&eacute;becois have been determined since 1977 to make sure they keep it instead.


 * Both Quebec French and European French have anglicisms, but different ones (there are many cases where Quebec French uses a French word while European French has borrowed an English word, and there are many other cases where Quebec French borrows an English word where European French uses a French word). Neither one is more "pure" than the other.  The difference is that Quebec French has absorbed English vocabulary as a gradual process through 250 years of contact with English-speaking populations within Quebec, while European French with very few exceptions (spleen, clown, etc) did not borrow much from English at all until very recent decades when it became faddish and fashionable to use English words as slang. -- Curps 23:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Curps is correct too. In summary then, France has anglicisms from the late 20th century on, but few from before that.   Quebec has anglicisms (and nativisms) from the 17th century until the late 20th century, and then they stopped (mostly) taking in more.  Steve Rapaport 12:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

French is my second language, and I have little difficulty understanding either Québécois or European French as long as it's not too fast or too full of colloquialisms, but this may be because I was taught by European French speakers while living near Quebec. Anyhow, that's not why I'm making this comment. I wanted to bring up two seemingly contradictory statements in the section about interintelligibility with other dialects. It says "European pronunciation is not at all difficult for Canadians to understand; only slang expressions present any problems". Then in the very next sentence it says "Television programmes and films from Quebec often must be subtitled for international audiences, which some Quebecers perceive as offensive, although they themselves sometimes can hardly understand European French pronunciation and slang." I don't feel I'm qualified to make a judgment on this issue, not being a native French speaker myself, but at least one of these sentences needs to be changed. &mdash; &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 21:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it would be fair to say that *standard* european pronunciation (as the one you would see on the french news) is perfectly understandable for most of us but slang (like parisian argot) isn't, not at all in some cases (a few movie characters seemed to be speaking a foreign language to my ear). Then of course there is the problem of regional accent which can be quite hard in both cases if they are particularly thick (saguenayen accent to a parisian or marseillais to a québecois.)--Marc pasquin 02:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The accent of quebec may be hard to understand for someone who's not accustomed, like the accent from the south of France. It is just a question of practice. But the difference of southern french and québécois is that the metropolitans hear southern french quite often in films, ads, etc. and so we all can easily understand what they say, without subtitles. The subtitles when a québécois speaks in french television is for people who have never heard quebecois spoken before --80.11.154.154 17:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Article is NOT correct about relative Interintelligibility between French and English. I am a Canadian anglo who has lived in Montreal French for over 60 years, has family in England and who has also lived or visited for lengthy periods in France,Belgium, Switzerland, Africa etc. I have two points to make about the article (and some of the discussion):

==1 - the range of difficulty between different groups of English speakers is significantly wider than amongst Francophones; but

==2 - the English-speakers don't worry about it whereas Francophones make an issue of it.

==1. Quebecers, even those with working-class accents, can be immediately understood in Europe when they speak carefully. And Europeans can always be understood in Quebec, because of exposure to French radio, TV and films, but also because it is the "posh" language of native Quebecers, used in the Canadian media, and any where else where some pretentiousness is desired.I have seen Quebec hockey players (not noted for cultural sophistication) get on perfectly in Switzerland and France with vitually no learning curve.The same applies in French Africa.

HOWEVER, I have also been in work groups made up of US, British, Australian and Anglo-African mid-level managers. After a year together, our Australian and our US Southerner were not able to have a fully comprehensible discussion with each other. In our travels, Scottish security guards and taxi drivers were incomprehensible to most of the group. While African managers were able to speak very comprehensible English, labourers were incomprehensible (unlike French-speaking Africa where the fractured French of labourers was nevertheless immediately understandable, albeit amusing.) Indian and Pakistani taxi drivers in Toronto are often not understandable, whereas Haitian taxi drivers in Montreal have no language barrier in French, despite the obvious accent. (Language schools such as Berlitz have felt the need to teach spoken "American" as a different language from English; this does not occur in French, not even in Quebec where such an idea would be a source of amusement. As well, courses are now offered in the Southern states of the US to social climbers seeking to get rid of the regional accent. "My Fair Lady" is a G Bernard Shaw story about teaching a working-class English girl to speak "posh". I am unaware of such an approach in the French-speaking world.

2 - The Francophone world is traumitized by the need to conform. On language matters there is l'Académie française and Quebec's Office nationale de la langue française. Differences in language do not hinder understanding. But the degree of adherence to the norm is an indicator of class and education much more than in English. Some Canadian Francophones prefer to make their career in English where an accent is irrelevant, rather than in French where their birth-place and level of education becomes obvious the minute they open their mouth. Quebecers feel snubbed in France but treat Acadians with even greater disdain. North-Africans in Paris are chased away from employment centres the minute they say an accented word - but a "pure" African like President Senghor wins universal admiration in France because he masters the official version of French.

IN the ENGLISH world, Prince Phillip correctly said that "bad English is the international language." The only criterion is understandability. Anglophones never think of language as an issue of conformity to a norm. Indeed its dictionaries seek to record usage rather than to dictate rules. Thus the wide variety of spoken English is simply not an issue in the English-speaking world. However, amongst Francophones it is a source of disbute.... perhaps because they understand each other sufficiently well to be mutually insulting.

The author(s) of the text would be well advised to take another run at this issue.


 * I completely agree with you on most of the points and elaborations thereon, however, I prefer to simply say that the sections on standardization and on intelligibility not only consist of bunk but also play into myths and other preconceived notions. I did a major overhaul of the entire article EXCEPT for those sections because they were hopeless, no offense to their authors. They seem more like personal accounts on a discussion-talk page than decent article material.


 * I've avoided reworking this section because 1. the two headings need to be removed entirely (which will surely shock some folks), 2. for lack of other contributions, I could bring in personal research on language sociology, 3. I am hesitant to introduce some upsetting news to the French-language speech communities both in France and Québec (statistics on functional literacy, class issues, language awareness, etc., and 4. I got busy in the meantime. À vous de jouer... CJ Withers (sorry, the tildes and markup don't on the computer I'm currently using)

pronunciation samples
The section describing pronunciation is prety techincal. It would be extremely nice to have contrasting pronunciations of a word or two (perhaps petit). --Andrew 03:52, May 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Very good also is a comparison between the pronunciations of the 7 days of the week. We hear Quebecers (often without them truly realizing it) pronounce lundzi, mardzi, mercredzi, jeudzi, vendredzi, samedzi while the French (most of them at least) will not do the linking "zzz" sound between the "d" and the "i". (Sorry, I have no idea how to use IPA. You can fix my sentence if you want. :-) -- Mathieugp 03:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * can`t help about the way to write it but this what is called "affricative". People from the gaspesie region seem to have a much milder case of it maybe due to the acadian influence.--Marc pasquin 00:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I wrote most of this section a long time ago, and I'll take the fact that almost nobody touched it since then--even though it seriously needs better vulgarisation--as the ultimate proof that it's impossible to understand. Myself, not being so immersed in the subject anymore (in fact I'm not even using the French language on a daily basis nowadays), I'm suddenly finding it very heavy.


 * Whenever I have some time and energy for it, I'll totally rewrite it in a way that normal people can make some sense of without getting a headache. --Valmi &#10002; 05:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Oïl languages
It has been proposed that Languages of Oïl be renamed and moved to Langues d'Oïl. Comments and votes on Talk:Languages of Oïl, please, if you're interested. Man vyi 09:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Iles-de-la-Madelaine french
First, I'm no linguist, and not an excellent english speaker (and writer). I'm a French-Canadian from montreal, and I worked for a long time on Québec's lower-north shore. The accent there is sometimes incredibly hard to understand, being a mix of Acadian (Shiac), Quebec and Iles-de-la-Madelaine (Madelinot) french. One caracteristic of the language, is they omit the letter "r" in all their words. Someone told me it's because when the english deported the Acadians, some of them moved to Iles-de-la-Madelaine, and rejected the King (le Roi)and the queen (la Reine)of France that abandonned them. To be sure that no one ever spoke of the Roi (and Reine)again, they deliberatly stopped using the letter R. Thats why it's easy to spot a Madelinot on mainland Quebec. He says: Déba'que instead of Débarque, Pou'quoi instead of Pourquoi and so on. On some occasions, they use some kind of hard H, instead of R, like in h'gahde instead of Regarde. Someone can confirm or infirm that story?


 * The "r" drop, i.e. lack of rhoticity, is due to Acadian French. Most varieties of French in Canada fall into one of the two categories: Quebec or Acadian. Of course, there are some other slight differences, yet they should not necessary be considered justification for the "dialect" title. CJ Withers 02:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Salut les gars, les filles!
Hey folks! I'm re-writing bits and pieces of the Quebec French article, both in English and in French. You'll notice that some information has been removed; I've transferred the stuff into my Sandbox on Quebec French. You see, I'm trying to retain the same content all the while re-organizing, streamlining and enhancing. So, there's no need to worry about the old data. If you want to help out, PLEASE DO! CJ Withers 02:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Y'a-tu qqn qui puisse traduire les mots terminés en -oune en francais-de-France et/ou en anglais? Merci d'avance. Is there anyone who could translate the words ending in -oune in France French and/or in English? Thank you in advance. 24.203.68.10 (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-standard Pronouns
Shouldn't there be a reference in the grammar section to the (familiar) use of non-standard personal pronouns in Québec French, e.g. (quoting from the French version of the article) A m'énerve, Y sont fous, or È sont foulles ? 161.24.19.82 18:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There is info on that, but the entire repertoire of pronouns needs to be redone (check my sandboxes) because in some cases it's use, phonology or semantics. For example "y" for "ils" is not Québec French, it's all spoken French dialects. This phenomenon is due to "l" being unstable. Anyway, as I said, I'm working on a coherent presentation of the pronouns. CJ Withers 19:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * All three, A, Y, and È, are due to unstable L. Nothing to do with grammar. --Valmi--quite unable to find a tild on the Argentine keyboard.


 * Exactly. Check my sandbox on User:CJ Withers/Quebec French (syntax). CJ Withers 17:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory?
These sentences currently appear in the article (emphasis added):


 * Francophone Canadians abroad have to modify their accent somewhat in order to be easily understood, but very few francophone Canadians are unable to communicate readily with European Francophones. European pronunciation is not at all difficult for Canadians to understand; only differences in vocabulary present any problems.


 * Television programmes and films from Quebec often must be subtitled for international audiences, which some Quebecers perceive as offensive, although they themselves sometimes can hardly understand European French pronunciation and slang.

So which is correct? Can Quebecois understand Euro French pronunciation or can they not? I realize that the second sentence says "sometimes," but the first sentence seems to indicate "all the time." It seems that some clarification is necessary. JordeeBec 15:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The NATIVES of France and Québec can usually understand each other's accent ok, including on TV. (For the non-francophone immigrants, that's a different story, but they adapt pretty fast. Same as for understanding British English for an immigrant in North America.). The big issue here is with the slang which has developped independently in the 2 countries. Now, given the exposure that many Québecers have to movies dubbed in France (not all of them are, unfortunately, some are dubbed in Québec or re-dubbed due to some misdirected nationalism), many of them understand French accent and some of the slang already, but not the other way. (A similar thing, I was told happens in North Africa, where housewives in Maghreb love to watch Egyptian soap operas, so they understand Egyptian accent/slang ok, but not the other way around. I have NOT verified this since I haven't been in either country nor do I speak the language.)24.203.68.10 (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The section "Social perception and language policy" need a complete re-write both for content and style. While I feel this is probably one of the most important sections, I've been waiting to re-write it because of all the facts and examples I've been gathering. Most of what's already there is, in fact, contradictory, as it is also heresay or preconceived notions.


 * There are some surprising facts in terms of language attitudes versus linguistic realities that will be presented. For example, the television series Fortier, which is 99% intelligible to francophones even if they are not used to Quebec French pronunciation, is available dubbed into Metropolitan French. Also, many films are dubbed into Metropolitan French though in Quebec by speakers of Quebec French. An example of this is Brokeback Mountain, whose vocabulary is completely foreign and whose pronunciations are devoid of anything cowboy-sounding regardless of the regional dialect. More on these issues later. CJ Withers 01:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The apparent contradiction might partly come from this: "standard" european french (the type heard on tv news for example) is, apart from the odd expression, perfectly understable to quebecois in general. Argot on the other hand sounds completely alien.--Marc pasquin 18:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue has nothing to do with structure or any other intrinsic properties of either dialects and all of their registers. It's familiarity, not inter-intelligibility. Speakers of Acadian French or Quebec French are exposed to Metropolitan French in film/tv/radio whereas other francophones are not. In fact, the tv series Fortier, which is clearly intelligible in terms of structure, pronunciation and its quite non-regional vocabulary, is dubbed into Metropolitan French because of a perceived lack of intelligiblity, not familiarity. Also, it's not so much "accent", i.e. pronunciation, that people modify; it's syntax, vocabulary and rythm. Keep in mind that North American francophones when in Europe are in an environment that encourages socio-linguistic convergence. Therefore, the modification cannot be contributed to inter-intelligiblity only.


 * It would be interesting to compare actors' dialog from Les Invasions Barbares (which was not later dubbed) with dialog from Fortier (which was later dubbed). Clearly, the former is less "intelligible" outside of Francophone North America. CJ Withers 16:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"courriel"
You said that the word "courriel" is widely used in France. That's not the case. Almost everybody in France use the word "mail" ou "mel" for "E mail". "Mel" is the official word (Académie française) in use in France, but many people write it "mail". "courriel" is mention in the french dictionary as "used in Québec". Excuse my poor English... Clio64B 20:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You who? The preceding message is in the 2nd person, though it's about a subject of general interest, i.e. the term "courriel". Could you specify the name of the contributor whose statement or words you're referring to. Personally, I can't imagine anyone saying such a thing because it's common knowledge that "mail", "mel" and even "mél" are used in most French-speaking countries and regions other than Canada and Québec. Oh, and don't worry about your English! ;-) --CJ Withers 21:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

He's right, virtually nobody outside of Québec uses the word 'courriel'. It is strictly a canadianism. The French Ministry of Culture has adopted the use of 'courriel' in all their official documents; however, the word has not and probably will not be accepted by the French public. I cite an article in Wired Magazine as a resource here, but I'm sure there are others to back it up. The article can be found at: http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2003/07/59674. I am changing the Wikipedia entry for the time being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.163.32 (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC) In French dictionaries, they don't put "(used in Quebec)" anymore for "courriel", as the word has been "adopted" by the Académie française. Have a nice day. Jimmy Lavoie × Vive le Québec! talk 23:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Anglophone Emigration
Need something on Anglophone emigration from modern Quebec affecting language balance.


 * Could you sign your comment please? :-)


 * This article is about the regional variety of French called Quebec French, not about language demographics for French and English in Québec. There are two articles, French in Canada and Language demographics of Quebec that are appropriate places for the info you mention. CJ Withers 04:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

English Influence?
In PRONOUNS - "this is one of the very few possible influences of English on Quebec French aside from vocabulary".

A section summarizing these non-lexical influences would be useful.

Wondering: are the slack [ɪ], [ʏ], [ʊ] from some regional dialect of France, and not English?


 * Could you sign your comment, please? :-)


 * The lax, not "slack" (connotation!!), vowels are phonologically conditioned and do not come from English. This lax/tense pairing is also seen in German and Swedish. There is a detailed discription of the phenomenon in Denis Dumas' book Nos façons de parler : les prononciations en français québécois, which should already be cited at the bottom of the main article, but isn't. Anyway, the main article for Quebec French is way too long as it is. Should it be truly needed, an explanation of the lax/tense phenomenon would go in the Quebec French pronunciation article, which, by the way, needs a major overhaul. CJ Withers 04:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Little question about grammar
* Particle "-tu" used to ask "yes/no" questions or to form tag questions. In this last use, "-tu" functions in the same way as "n'est-ce pas":

C'est-tu prêt? (Est-ce prêt? / C'est prêt? / Est-ce que c'est prêt?) Is it ready?

is it a '-tu' or is it a 'y' with a liaison like in some french dialects. In 'haute bretagne' there are a lot of people who use 'C'est-y prêt ?' pronounced 'ces ti prêt'. Chris CII 14:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * BOTH these come from "Est-il prêt?" or "Y-a-t-il ..." where the -t-il got mistaken for -tu (or est-il for est-y). Then the mistake went further where -tu is now used where there would be no -t-il in literary French. As simple as that. 24.203.68.10 (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it probably has the same origin, indeed; it would seem plausible anyway. But it is usually spelled (and pronounced, for that matter) as "tu" in modern Quebec French Saintamh 16:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is definitely pronounced [tsy], at least in all my experience. It is used to ask yes/no questions, and is always placed directly after the verb. It is used only in matrix clauses. From what I have read (in linguistics classes at McGill, in Montréal), it used to be pronounced [tsi], and has gradually shifted to its current pronunciation. It is a grammaticalization of the inserted pronoun "il" that is inserted into interrogative sentences.

The evolution would have gone something like: "Louis est-il beau?" (note inserted pronoun) --> "Louis est-ti beau?" (the /l/ is deleted, and it is treated as an affix with no relation to the pronoun)) --> "Louis est-tu beau?" (pronunciation shifts to rounded vowel) Dr-ring-ding 22:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The -y sound is, by my experience (which I don't have much of, don't take my word for it) used more often in rural speak, which tends to sound slightly more like Acadian French. It's not used much, and I've mostly seen it used by humourists spoofing people living in rural areas, but I've occasionally heard it used in plain speech too. Ryke Masters 22:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Guy in The Simpsons (washing floors at school) who looks comming from Scotland : in french canadian this guy use the particle Y, like a french acadian living in nova scotia... it is very funny and quebeckers laught a lot.. We laught because in reality we don't use that here in Quebec, except by some people from Gaspesie (in quebec but close to new brunswick and nova scotia). Quebec use right now the particle -TU, but it has increased recently, because I remember we were using a lot more the "est-ce que" before. 207.253.108.186 23:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Fred.

Renaming article French Language in Quebec (lingusitics) / Moving Quebec and Canadian French to disambiguation page
This article refers to a dialect of French that is called "Canadian French" elsewhere in Canada and in most areas of Quebec. Many authoritative sources refer to it as Canadian French. Choosing Quebec French over Canadian French (or vice versa) is POV. Both Canadian French and Quebec French should point to a common disambiguation page explaining the controversy. It would also be consistent with naming convention of Canadian French to French language in Canada. Also, this is mostly an article on linguistics, and doesn't dicsuss the political and demographic aspects of the language. --Soulscanner 20:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are some easily verifiable online references that, among other things, distinguish between Acadian and Canadian French. All refer to Canadian French for what is refered to exclusively as Quebec French on this page. )--Soulscanner 02:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support --Soulscanner
 * Oppose. There are two main dialects of French in Canada: Quebec and Acadian French. This is the main article on the former. It shouldn't discuss politics or demographics of French language in Quebec, because it's about what Quebec French is as a regional dialect distinct from metropolitan/international French. There are other articles addressing the language politics and demographics of Quebec. To rename this article "French Language in Quebec (linguistics)" would be dismissing the nature and importance of Quebec French. I would also like to point out, as an example, that there are seperate articles for Cajun French and French in the United States. The former discusses a dialect of French particular to Louisiana, the latter the demographics and history of French usage (as opposed to history of the language itself; its evolution) in the US.--Boffob 23:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The article discusses political aspects of French in Quebec in the history section. Canadian French is referred to primarily as Canadian French outside Quebec. To choose Quebec French is to introduce a Quebec POV to the article. It in no way negates that it is spoken in Quebec, but acknowledgers that it is the same dialect spoken in most of Canada. The idea here is to find a way of lending equal weight to both names as both are in common use. --Soulscanner 02:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, let me rephrase. This article shouldn't discuss language politics of Quebec (that's a pretty big can of worms), but should mention how political aspects influenced the evolution of the dialect in the history section. Second, as this article is still about the dialect, there is no reason to call it "French language in Quebec (linguistics)". At most, your argument is to move it to "Canadian French" but then you do get issues about Acadian French (also a canadian dialect), and the change of identification since the Quiet Revolution (Quebec Francophones abandoning the "usurped" canadian qualifier for a Quebec identity). But there's already a sizeable Canadian French article explaining all this. So I don't see the point to change the status quo.--Boffob 06:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Some discussion of historical/social aspects is relevant to provide context, though in-depth coverage could certainly be provided elsewhere. Joeldl 03:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The name might indeed be confusing but I think the first two paragraphs explain pretty well that it's spoken outside of Quebec. I don't think it's a POV, it's just how it's called (to be distinguished from Acadian French, as mentioned above). I also agree this article shouldn't be about politics of demographics themselves. Saintamh 12:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Explanation for why the equally common name "Canadian French" is used is subjective and POV. Many learned people use Canadian French to describe this dialect, as the references above clearly show. --Soulscanner 02:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Quebec French is a variety of French. This article is about that variety. The nominator has expressed, on previous occasions, a preference for the name Canadian French over Quebec French. This issue will have to be dealt with head-on, and this move request seems like an attempt to sidestep that debate. The debate will have to take into account the slightly differing meanings of Quebec French and Canadian French, while recognizing that full articles on each that acted as if the other didn't exist would probably have 90% overlap. Also, the move debate at Talk:Canadian French isn't over. Joeldl 03:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I went over the four "easily verifiable online references" that Soulscanner provides in order to support his position. The first reference is a 1984 document, whose overwhelming references date before 1975, at a time when the use of "Quebec French" was still not in use among the scholars. Wikipedia is a 2007 on-line reference, and the overwhelming majority of the newest articles on this topic clearly distingues between "Quebec French" and the other forms of "Canadian French" spoken in Canada. Indeed, the third reference provided by Soulscanner clearly supports this latter view. The third reference lists a dozen of titles most of them about French spoken in Canada. The first title of this list is: A comparison of 19th and 20th century spoken Quebec French. Another title is even more revealing: "Le français canadien parlé hors Québec: aperçu sociolinguistique". Other titles refer to "question formation in Québec", to "the Récits du français québécois", and to the "temporal reference system in Quebec French". (Please note that all the preceding titles are post-1975). Two titles refer to the French spoken in the Ottawa region, which in itself suggests that it might be a French with a distinct accent compared to the one spoken in Quebec. Only a few titles refer specifically to the Canadian French. The second reference is a list of classes available at University of Calgary. Needless to say, the value of this reference is none. Only the last reference is of some value in backing up Soulscanner's point, but even then, the author says that "there are differences between Acadian French and Canadian French". To the extent that Acadian French are Canadians and speak one form of "Canadian French", we should be able to replace "Acadian French" by "one form of Canadian French", but the sentence does not make sense anymore ("there are differences between one form of Canadian French and Canadian French"). The logic is preserved, however, if we say that there exists different forms of "Canadian French", of which "Acadian French" and "Quebec French" are two varities. This is exactly the position advocated by Wikipedia. Marcus wilby73 01:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unfortunately, I didn't see this in 2007 because I would have opposed the proposition. In the meantime, the question has bee settled and Canadian French confirmed as an umbrella term for all the different varieties of French in Canada.

Marcus wilby73 08:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Expanding on Quebec/Canadian French
I would propose expanding on the usage of "Canadian French" to refer to what is otherwise known as "Quebec French". I am afraid edit conflicts are likely to occur in the future if we do not clarify this.

Under a heading that could be named Quebec French or Canadian French? we could expand on this, making references to the past and present use of both expressions in French and English. We could then clean up the intro, leaving one or two sentences on the subject.

In French, français canadien and canadianisme have been gradually replaced by the more prevalent français québécois and québécisme. -- Mathieugp 13:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All right. I think "français canadien" is not unusual. It's just less common. There's little doubt that that's in part political, but to actually find a source that talks about this might be difficult. Joeldl 19:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Typing "canadianisme québécisme" in google.ca returned many links that seem relevant:


 * La norme lexicale et le classement des canadianismes, by Jean-Yves Dugas, 1983, Conseil de la langue française
 * La normalisation favorise-t-elle l'implantation terminologique, by Jacques Maurais, Le Terminogramme, no 20, Office de la langue française, 1982.


 * Dictionnaire du français plus, présentation, by ?, Site de l’aménagement linguistique au Canada
 * La prise en compte de l'Acadie dans les nouveaux dictionnaires québécois, by Gabrielle Saint-Yves, Université Laval, 2000
 * Québécois, in French Wikipedia (not bad but unfortunately unsourced)


 * -- Mathieugp 20:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work finding those. I think they're a good basis for the discussion. As you no doubt are aware, the majority of "Quebecisms" (this word just doesn't work for me in English, although I have seen it, primarily from francophones writing in English) are also used in Acadia, so there is a good deal of overlap. Also, because Quebec French is spoken by 95% of francophone Canadians, it is legitimate to make slight generalizations. For example, the most common U.S. pronunciation of tomato is an Americanism, despite the fact that New Englanders traditionally used, and still often do use, the British pronunciation, and the majority U.S. pronunciation is also used in Canada. (I don't have a lexical example in mind, but there are some.) So my own feeling is that the linguistic arguments some people make to distinguish between Quebecism and Canadianism are window-dressing for something that is basically a political change. That's fine, a choice has to be made. By the way, there's a project called the "Bilingual Canadian Dictionary". It's not clear whether that dictionary will see the light of day, but their intention is to use the labels CF and FC for "Canadian French/français canadien", while Dictionnaire du français standard en usage au Québec will use FQ. They will likely also use a label for a small number of Acadian words. It would be impractical to try to identify those Quebec words not used in Acadia. I think there's very little information on that anywhere.
 * I think that if the subject grows to more than a couple of paragraphs, a summary should be given and it should be moved to a separate article. That's because I think editors are likely to be more interested in this than readers. I could be wrong, though. I don't feel strongly about it, so if you disagree, I won't object. Joeldl 22:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I just want to note that the two references found by Mathieu on "canadianismes" are from 1983 and 1982, where the process of speaking about "quebecismes" instead of "canadianismes" when the latter refer to those spoken in Quebec was still going on (indeed the other two references are recent). "Canadianismes", nowadays, refer to the "regionalist" French expressions heard throughout Canada, and not those specific to the Quebec French. The need to make those distinctions are obvious: The roots of the French communities established in Manitoba, in Acadia, and in Terre-Neuve (among others) have a distinct history from the French community that primarly established in Quebec for over centuries. Marcus wilby73 01:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Most words used in Quebec but not in France are also used in Acadia, so the distinction between "canadianisme" and "québécisme" is not a major one in practice. "Elevator" could be called an Americanism, Canadianism, or "North Americanism" (if there were such a word), and all would be accurate. So what Wikipedia needs to do is follow majority usage in this regard. Canadianisme is still a perfectly accurate description of words used in Quebec. I think québécisme is likely the majority word in French. In English, however, I think the word "Quebecism" just sounds funny, and that is probably one reason it is used less often. As I said before, theBilingual Canadian Dictionary will refer to "Canadianisms" and even "Canadian French", even though little attention will be paid to distinguishing characteristics of Acadian French. Joeldl 02:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Joeldl, your argument that "most words used in Quebec but not in France are also used in Acadia" is not convincing. First of all, you refer to words, that is to semantics, which is only one of the three big sisters of linguistics. The biggest differences between Quebec French and the French spoken in Acadia are in phonetics, and there is no reason to treat phonetics with less standards than semantics. Moreover, there are substantial syntactic differences as well between the two regions, in a way you will not find between, say, Abitibi and Mauricie. Second, it is expected that there is an overlap between Quebec French and the French spoken in Acadia not found in France because they both need to describe the Canadian reality (in politics, in botany, in fauna, etc). The question, therefore, is not whether there is an (expected) overalap. The question is rather if there exists substantial differences despite the overlap. And the research in linguistics indicate that there is, even at the semantic level. Third, from an historical point of view, the distinction between Acadians (Poitou) and Quebec French-speaking people (Normandy, Paris, Brittany) is entirely justified by the fact that they don't come from the same French regions, at a time when the regions in France spoke different dialects of French. Finally, as I wrote above, from an organisational point of view, we need a word that incorporates the words employed by all French communities living in Canada. Therefore, it makes much more sense to conclude with "le Dictionnaire du français plus" that "Le terme canadianisme [...] est aujourd'hui une appellation générale englobant les acadianismes et les québécismes» (p. 1371)". Marcus wilby73 03:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For an old account of the regionalisms found in Acadia, See Le glossaire acadien: http://www2.umoncton.ca/cfdocs/cea/livres/glossaire_index/glossaire.cfm?retour=G0503&lettre=A —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marcus wilby73 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
 * The book "NTC's Dictionary of Canadian French" says that "Most of the Québécois words in this dictionary are also used in Acadia." (p. 263) There are many other similarities. No doubt there are many differences as well, and I do not dispute that there are more of them than between regions of Quebec. I agree entirely with the quote from the dictionary. But that means that faced with an expression like fin de semaine, one is free to call it either a Canadianism or a "Quebecism". I have no objection in principle to either word. I am just saying that "Quebecism" is not often used in English, probably because of the odd change of a k-sound to an s-sound. In French, québécisme has become more common than canadianisme, but the fact that every québécisme is a canadianisme as well means that when people choose québécisme instead of canadianisme there is a certain likelihood that it is for political reasons. The reason "North Americanism" does not exist is probably that North America is not thought of as a relevant political unit, though there is no doubt that it is relevant linguistically. As I said, the BCD will use the label FC meaning français canadien, and it will be coming out at some point in the future, and will likely refer to words as canadianismes. Joeldl 06:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, let me phrase it this way: if you believe that "canadianism" and "quebecism" are interchangeable and refer to the same reality, with all respect, I sincerely believe that your idea is wrong. My opinion is not motivated by politics; it is based on pure good science: if two terms refer to two different objects, then it is our scientific duty to disentangle them. In most recent linguistic works, canadianisms refer to the lexical phenomena shared by all the French communities in Canada. Quebecisms refer to the lexical phenomena shared specifically to the Quebec population. "Whip" is a canadianism. "cocotte" is a quebecism (Acadians will tend to use "berlicoco", and Westerners started to use "cocotte" following Quebecers). By extension, "canadianism" also refers to any French word used only in some part of Canada, and not outside Canada. But then again, this extension doesn't make "canadianism" equivalent to "quebecism". Under this extension, "foudrillement", "foutreau", "poudrage" are perhaps "canadianisms" (they are used in Acadia), but they are in no way "quebecisms".


 * That said, it is true that, in the past (and perhaps this is still in some part of the United States, although the scholars are less and less following this practice), canadianism were referring to the French lexicon used specifically in Quebec. But this was because the other French-speaking communities were seldom studied, and because there was this belief that all French communities were sharing the same linguistic facts. But once linguists realized that this belief was wrong, and that there were phonemes, words, and syntactic forms used distinctively in Quebec, in Acadia, and in the Franco-manitoban/Franco-saskatchewan communities, they needed to distinguish between the two words. Precisely, when linguists started to study the French expressed outside Quebec, linguists realized that there were other worlds to be explored, and that French Canada was not limited to the one found in Quebec. As a consequence, linguists needed to distinguish those facts found only in Quebec from those found elsewhere in Canada (and particularly in Acadia). It is my belief that Wikipedia should be updated to the latest scientific facts and best precision provided by the scientific study of the World, and that politics should be left aside from science.Marcus wilby73 08:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not say that Canadianism and Quebecism are interchangeable. In my view, all Quebecisms are Canadianisms, but not conversele. You wrote this: "In most recent linguistic works, canadianisms refer to the lexical phenomena shared by all the French communities in Canada." I disagree with this statement. Words used only in Quebec or only in New Brunswick are Canadianisms. Poirier, in the sentence you quoted, wrote "Le terme canadianisme [...] est aujourd'hui une appellation générale englobant les acadianismes et les québécismes". What that means is that a word is a Canadianism if it is a Quebecism or an Acadianism, not and. I do not believe that the word Canadianism has ever been used in the way you say, requiring that a word be used in both Quebec and Acadia. The expression "running shoes" is a Canadianism, even though it is not used in Atlantic Canada. (There, people say "sneakers", like Americans.) People in the Prairies say "runners", which is not used in Britain or the U.S. That too is a Canadianism, though few Ontarians (except perhaps in northern Ontario) and no Quebecers would say that word. A definition requiring every Canadianism to be universal throughout Canada would make life extremely difficult, since before saying a word was a Canadianism, you would have to verify it was used everywhere in Canada, which would not be practical.
 * Currently, there are few data available on words used in Quebec but not in Acadia. There is more information available on words used in Acadia but not in Quebec. Unfortunately, in most cases, there are no sources confirming that a word is only a Quebecism and not also an Acadianism. However, the source I gave above confirmed that most Quebecisms are also Acadianisms. Joeldl 08:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In my reply, I already conceded that "canadianism" is used by linguists to refer to any expression found in French Canada. In your reply, you conceded that there are linguistic facts specific to Quebec, to Acadia, and to the Western Canada. You even seem sympathetic to the quote by Poirier that there are a scientific basis to distinguish "Quebecism" from "Acadianism". In my opinion, it follows from our discussion that there is sufficient ground for Wikipedia to follow the current practice in linguistics and have specific articles for Quebec French and Acadian French. It thus follows that we should reject the view proposed (and which is at the basis of this discussion) to have one article, called Canadian French, to regroup all those linguistic facts.


 * If I may respectfully add: you keep limiting yourself to semantics. It is perhaps true that the data available on words used in Quebec but not in Acadia are still few. But semantics is only one of three large branches of linguistics. We must also consider syntax and phonetics (with perhaps history as well). On phonetics, in particularly, there are many articles on the differences that exist between Quebec French and Acadian French. This research only underlines the need to follow the current practice in linguistics to have specific articles for Quebec French, Acadian French, and the other French communities that have a distinct linguistic practice in the rest of Canada.Marcus wilby73 06:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this section was to discuss Soulscanner's proposed move of Quebec French to French language in Quebec. I opposed that move. Not only am I sympathetic to Poirier's view, I agree with it wholeheartedly. It is essentially the same as what Francard and Latin write in the note at the bottom of Canadian French, which I added myself. But one of the consequences of this view is that there will be many cases where one has a choice to speak of a certain thing as being characteristic of Canadian French or Quebec French. I do not believe that there is a clearly predominant practice in this regard. Linguistically, there would be no problem discussing features of Quebec French at Canadian French, just as the article American English discusses the fact that American English is predominantly rhotic, even though it is not in New York City, parts of New England, and parts of the South. I do not see any point in continuing this discussion, because currently there is no proposal on the table to move any part of the content of this article to Canadian French. Although I still don't fully understand your position, I would prefer at this point to agree to disagree. Joeldl 07:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * While the purpose of this section was to discuss about Soulscanner's proposal, (which we both agreed in opposing to it), the purpose of our discussion---at least, it seems to me---rather commented on the following, legitimate proposal by Mathieu "I would propose expanding on the usage of "Canadian French" to refer to what is otherwise known as "Quebec French"." In essence, my points were that, if we follow Mathieu's suggestion 1- we should be very, very careful in generalizing that Canadian French is equivalent to Quebec French (rather, both refer to different realities, eventhough they are overlapping); 2-that we should not limit ourselves to semantics (but rather consider phonetics and syntax as well); 3- that the reason to use one rather than the other is not solely based on political views, but also (and more fundamentally) on linguistics. I hope my point of view is clearer. Marcus Wilby 73 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.202.95.16 (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

I wasn’t sure where to write my opinion, but there is some debate on the Canadian French discussion page about this problem. This *ongoing* problem, that has yet to be resolved. —Muckapædia 16e mai 2007, 11h30 (UTC+0900) 머크패저 TALK /  CONTRIBS

Neutrality and unsourced tags
Does anybody have any objections to removing the neutrality tag? And as for the unsourced stuff, well, probably somebody should say what they mean. A lot of what's here is sourceable but nobody's bothered. A lot of the unsourced stuff seems correct. I have my doubts about the "interintelligibility" section, though. Joeldl 14:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Be my guest. Soulscanner put them up, I guess because he objects to the article being called "Quebec French" instead of "Canadian French". I don't really see how that makes it unsourced or POV.--Boffob 15:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"ne" deletion and the role of syntax
I just want to stress that there is likely a complicated relationship between the deletion of the "ne" and the structural changes of syntax occurring in French, that is perhaps not stressed enough in our article. The transformation of subject clitics into affixes has been hypothesized by several authors as being at the source of the deletion of the "ne". This transformation occurred the earliest in Quebec French, and this fact explains probably the larger diffusion of the "ne" deletion in Quebec French (absent in 99.5%). Please read section 5.2 of an article by France Martineau and Raymond Mougeon, published in Language, 2003, vol. 79, no1, pp. 118-152, for a very interesting discussion on this topic.

Latest edit by CJ Withers
It's not clear to me that this edit is an improvement of the explanation of the terms "Canadian French" and "Quebec French". Also, "Canadian French" does not refer only to that which is common to Quebec and Acadian French. This would be analogous to saying that "running shoes" is not Canadian English because people in the Maritimes say "sneakers". Rather, "Canadian French" groups Acadian French and Quebec French without regard to what is common to the two and what distinguishes them. It also makes sense to mention the existence of common features distinguishing Quebec and Acadian French from European French, for if these features did not distinguish them there would be no justification for grouping them under the names "Canadian French" or "North American French" on linguistic grounds. While "Canadian French" and "Quebec French" may not be perfectly synonymous, no mention is now made of the fact that the term "Canadian French" is quite common [where "Quebec French" would be equally acceptable Joeldl 03:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)]. Entire books are devoted to "Canadian French" which scarcely mention Acadian French, so in practice the term is used where "Quebec French" might be expected. Presumably, in these cases a generalization is being made because of the predominance of Quebec French in Canada. (This is similar to writing that "American English is rhotic", not an uncommon statement.) It is in these cases that the distinction between "Canadian French" and "Quebec French" is not considered relevant by the author. This is a frequent occurrence. What does CJ Withers object to specifically? Where is the "doubletalk"? What are the "tangents"? Joeldl 02:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory
"European pronunciation is not at all difficult for Canadians to understand; only differences in vocabulary present any problems.

Television programmes and films from Quebec often must be subtitled for international audiences, which some Quebecers perceive as offensive, although they themselves sometimes can hardly understand European French pronunciation and slang."

These sentences clearly don't go together. Lfh 11:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right. It is contradictory and false at the same time. Quebecers are excellent to understand pronunciation, and even a good part of french slang. Only some "intense" slang could not be unsderstood. -Fred.

KitQC2 question from a brand new Wiki user
Hi;

Today is my first day on Wikipedia. So, I hope I am posting this correctly. It isn't too easy to figure out this environment.

After reading the Wikipedia:External Links - I tried to post a link to a web site that I created that helps people learn French with the accent of Quebec (a software program called KitQC2).

The link has disappeared. So, I went back and re-read the short little easy-to-read whole thing again. I caught this part this time : It seems that the link does not qualify because I created the web site?

I figured that the site could be useful as an external link because it provides a free software resource used by thousands of people to help them learn Quebec French. The English language part of the web site provides a nice, compact list of articles and references. Just a lot of useful stuff that can help English speaking people moving to Quebec avoid months of aggravation.

Since I get visitors (people, not bots) from about 30 different countries per week now, I thought I'd mention it on Wikipedia.

Now, the hard part - I've done the 'Show preview' and I'm going to press 'Save page'. But I'm not certain yet about how to see if there is any answer to this comment or where it will end up exactly.

Thanks for your patience. No harm intended.

Qcfrenchcda (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * First, welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, your link appears to be a violation of the conflict of interest guidelines and will set off many people's spam senses, particularly because you posted the same link in many articles. Under the external links guidelines the best you can do is discuss whether it is worthy to be linked on this article. Promoting your software, even if it is free, is advertising for a particular product, which in general goes against Wikipedia's mission and policies. As such, it has little chance of being accepted. But, if your product or company happened to be notable (you need a reliable, secondary reference), it could have its own Wiki article (with the external link included), the only problem being that you still couldn't be the one to write it, as it would remain a conflict of interest.--Boffob (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Boffob - KitQC2 notes and wind-up
Hi folks;

Thanks for the quick reply Boffob! I really like this Wiki page. However, this Wiki page is text, not sound.

If you know anything about Quebec, then you know that immigrants to Quebec are a bit surprised by Quebec French when they get here.

First the basics : KitQC2 is under the GNU GPL and the source code is included in the download. So, no problem there, I hope.

KitQC2 was introduced a couple of years ago in Quebec. It was on a very credible web site (CDEACF) which has the mandate of helping only French speaking people. So, the product became well-known in the French speaking world. If you look at my clicks map it is almost a map of the entire French speaking world. And in Canada, 95% of the clicks come from Quebec. Due to their mandate, the CDEACF (very nice people!) couldn't even post the English or Spanish translations of the thousands of vocabulary words.

In KitQC2, it is very easy to switch the accent to any area in the world. KitQC2 was also designed to run on very old computers. So, even the poor French countries really like it.

Now, if you know Quebec today then you know the following: 1) The Federal government gives about 550 million dollars a year to Quebec to help immigrants - but a large part of this money is not spent on that (seen in debates of Quebec Assemblee Nationale) 2) language centers for immigrants to Quebec are closing 3) even French people from France have trouble with Quebec French - Google on 'Quebec French Wall Street Journal' for a taste of the problem 4) Quebec French is a very different accent 5) many immigrants to Quebec leave for other areas of Canada - because the language is so hard to learn.

Why is the language so hard to learn? Because there were no resources for learning French with the accent of Quebec. Resources to help get an ear for the accent.

So, I finally got fed up and made a free resource that people could use. The fact that it is so popular in Quebec is just helping with damage control.

My goal was to help people *before* they come to Quebec.

KitQC2 has an interface that can be switched between English and French, the documentation is in English and French, the words have been translated into English and now KitQC2 has its own web site. But very few English speaking Canadians know about the software.

This Wiki page is great. But English speaking people in Quebec or who are moving to Quebec need more than just text. They need sound.

At least in the French speaking world, KitQC2 would probably qualify as a "notable product"?

Imagine this : you are thinking of moving to Quebec. You find this Wiki page. You read all kinds of interesting things. And then, tada, you find the only free software program that can help you learn French with the accent of Quebec. I think that's a good thing.

Wikipedia is a place where people start looking for information. The sooner they get started on their Quebec French, the better. That's why I think that a link to KitQC2 belongs on the Wiki pages : Quebec French, Quebec, Joual, and Quebec French Lexicon.

And a funny note : I found one of the key problems that English speaking people have when they move to Quebec. As far as I know, I am the only person who has spotted it. And I've had it confirmed by many people over the years (including business people). As weird as it sounds : Don't grunt in Quebec (I'm not kidding!). If you want to find out why, please feel free to read the English language documentation to KitQC2. It's a little pdf file on the web site. You may even wish to include this tip on this Wiki page!

So, I'll leave it at that. If you want more information feel free to contact me on the KitQC2 web site 'Contact Us'.

Thanks again for your patience and thanks for a great Wiki page! Qcfrenchcda (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Dialects of Quebec French and their classification
I have revised and sourced the section. Messages of concern may be left here. Thanks. Eklir (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

bare ISO tags don't apply
The ISO 639 tags in the infobox (none for ISO 639-1, the tag for French for 639-2 and 639-3) are misleading. This is not a language but a sublanguage (regional variant), so per definition it shouldn't have any ISO 639 tag. The infobox should contain the IETF tag - is fr-CA-QC correct? I've also seen fr-qc but that doesn't look right. Or does it have a cryptic region number like es-419 for Latino Spanish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.44.44 (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Etendue
What does etendue mean in the following sentence from the article: "It is spoken all over the southern part of St. Lawrence valley ... as well as the Western etendue going from Gatineau to as far as Rouyn-Noranda."

Is this a word that is regularly used in English in specialized discussions like this, or did someone inadvertently write a French word that should be replaced by an English one? Indefatigable (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

interesting article but maybe exagerating, especially about presenting mistakes as accepted in a so called "Quebec French"
I found the article interesting, I learned a lot about my own "language" or "dialect" (still not sure how you call it). However, I think some examples are exagerated and the distinction between a mistake and a regionalism isn't always clear in the article. First, how can you say that the Quebec city dialect is the most predominent if the western-central includes Montreal (and from Abitibi all the way to Trois-Rivières)? Montreal alone is about half of the population. Is it because many people in Montreal speak the Quebec city dialect? Next, I think that a lot of words are slang and/or considered mistakes while others are much more accepted. "courriel" is not considered a mistake in Quebec French, unlike "char" (for designing a car), which you will almost never see written. The whole part about syntax could be renamed "syntaxic errors in spoken Quebec French" because we don't consider those examples to be good French, not even good "Quebec French". These are not regionalisms or additions to the language (unlike "courriel", which is good), these are clearly mistakes. The same is true for the verbs. "Je vas" is clearly a mistake and we know it. It is presented as the correct way to say "je vais" in Quebec, which couldn't be more false. And because we don't all make these mistakes, even when talking, it's either not all people in Quebec speak Quebec French, or the description of Quebec French isn't good.

I don't think you would talk about such mistakes in an article about, say, american english, even if some groups have their own slang. Like everywhere else, we have generally more educated people with a "higher" (I don't know if it is the good term for that but) level of language, and generally less educated people which use more slang. All of them generally agree with standard terms which form what you could call "Quebec French" but insisting on the mistakes of one group to make look Quebec French different from the French of France (where, apparently when reading the article, everybody speaks a perfect French) seems the wrong way of doing it. To me, Quebec French concists of a few regionalisms and of course a different accent, not a different syntax and use of verbs. What I consider Quebec French is what I learned at school and read in newspapers. We don't feel like switching to a different language in those two cases. That's also why we think that we speak French, and not a different language. I found interesting the comparison with British/American English and Mexico/Spain Spanish because I also speak those two languages. I tough before reading the article that the difference between my French and the French of France was of the same order. But there is no source in the article for saying that the difference is bigger. --zorxd (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article could do a better job distinguishing between:
 * standard Quebec French, as written and used in formal situations; (example: acériculture)
 * colloquial Quebec French as used by people, including educated ones, in relaxed settings (example: je vas)
 * popular Quebec French, characteristic of the speech of less educated speakers or those belonging to a lower social class. (example: moé)
 * In that sense, you're correct in saying that the article isn't careful enough. However, I must object to the characterization of je vas or moé as mistakes. They are not mistakes, even though they may be disapproved of in certain circumstances by certain people. :In linguistics, a "mistake" would have to be something that a person said that was outside the linguistic system accepted in his speech community. For example, saying j'allerai instead of j'irai would be a mistake, and writing something like je vas in a newspaper, say, would be a mistake. Je vas is clearly accepted in the spoken language from people of all socioeconomic and educational levels. The fact that everybody says it but few write it is proof that when people say it they are not making a "mistake", since they know what the form in grammar books is.
 * Also, one may use moé deliberately out of solidarity with one's social group, knowing full well that it is frowned on in other circles. That cannot be called a mistake. Again, you can only make a mistake if you don't know you're making it.
 * It is a commonly held belief in francophone culture, both in Europe and in Canada, that what is "correct" is defined by school books rather than by what people actually say. Linguistics is a science that studies language as it is actually used, so it cannot take this point of view. It must use vocabulary that doesn't stigmatize the linguistic practices of some segments of society. Calling those things a mistake would amount to saying that people who do not follow official grammar prescriptions are doing something wrong, when in fact they are following a different set of norms that exist in their community.216.239.65.150 (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, not everybody uses je vas. I don't see how you can say that it is more Quebec French than je vais. Would you say that if I say je vais, I am not speaking Quebec French even if I lived all my life here? If so, it is a very different definition of what is Quebec French. Would you say that people here don't speak the same language that they write? If it is considered a mistake (by the whole community, not only the grammar book) when written, why wouldn't it be one when spoken? Why did nobody wrote a grammar book about the proper way of speaking Quebec French which inlcudes je vas if it isn't a mistake? Also, just because 50% of the people don't know the difference between a horse and a zebra doesn't make it not a mistake to call a zebra a horse. I could have found a better example but I am sure that you understand the point. That said, starting to make the distinction as you said would be a very good starting point. --zorxd (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Je vas would generally be negatively evaluated if written. That's not the case when it's spoken. A majority of educated speakers use it when speaking. There are big differences between written and spoken French, both in Europe and in Canada.
 * As for grammar books, you can have a look at Grammaire québécoise d'aujourd'hui by Léard. Obviously, this is not used in schools, because there are many aspects of the spoken language that are viewed as unacceptable in writing, and teaching people to write properly is probably the main goal in school. Schools are not there primarily to teach kids the variety of the language they learn at home. They teach them how to use other forms in appropriate circumstances (a job interview, writing, etc.) An example of this is the use of ne. Even the best speakers in Europe and in Canada (such as journalists, university professors, etc.) frequently omit it, but its omission in writing is a no-no. 82.124.96.60 (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, do you have a source supporting this claim? Also, saying that Je vas is Quebec French doesn't mean that Je vais isn't. They could be two accepted forms. The article shows that Je vais is translated as Je vas if you want to speak proper Quebec French. --zorxd (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I this case you should rename the whole article popular spoken Quebec French or such. You would also need to change the definition at the top of the article, because it clearly states that Quebec French is used by the education sector, the medias and the government. You just said the opposite. --zorxd (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've grouped your paragraphs together so that they don't break up what I wrote.
 * As I said previously, there are several registers available in Quebec French. And the article should discuss all of them, focusing on ways in which Quebec French differs from other varieties, especially European French. For example, acériculture is a Quebec word and is part of Standard Quebec French, but not European French. Also, I didn't say anywhere that Je vais was unacceptable in Quebec French. I said that Je vas was used by a majority of people in informal circumstances. I'm making statements here based on my own experience and not on sources. This is permissible because we're not discussing specific statements to be included in the article, but rather its overall attitude to the different registers of Quebec French. 82.124.96.60 (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem, I think, is that the article doesn't say that je vas is used only in informal circumstances, spoken only. It is presented as the standard Quebec French way of saying je vais. It gives the reader the impression that je vais isn't valid in Quebec French. In all cases where a word isn't used in all registers of Quebec French, the register should be specified. --zorxd (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

classification
Classifing Quebec French as a variety of French is fine. But classifying it as a variety of Canadian French? I think this is a big mistake (and is unsourced). The definition of Canadian French is an umbrella term. That means that Canadian French isn't a variety of French so Quebec French can't be a part of it. We could say that Quebec French is part of Canadian French which is part of North American French which is part of American French which is part of French, but it is irrelevant. I think we should just skip the canadian French classification level. --zorxd (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have restored this. By definition (e.g., Canadian Oxford Dictionary), Canadian French is the umbrella term for all varieties of French in Canada.  Please demonstrate how this does not include Quebec French.  And this isn't about the other unsourced umbrella variants you have noted.  Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you take two different definitions of Canadian French to make your claim. 1st is only a recently created umbrella term. 2nd is the variant of French spoken in Canada, including Quebec (depending of definitions, that can include Acadian French or not). If we take definition #2, this article should be renamed Canadian French as some suggested. If we take definition #1, which is the definition used in Wikipedia, Quebec French must be classified under French and here is why : Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langues_d%27o%C3%AFl#List_of_O.C3.AFl_dialects_and_O.C3.AFl_languages . Cajun French is classified under Acadian French which is classifed under French. However, Acadian French is part of the Canadian French, while Cajun French isn't. This clearly shows that Canadian French is only an umbrella term and not a level of linguistic classification. It is a political division of language, not a linguistic origin one. A French variant that includes all three of Acadian, Quebec and Cajun French is much more relevant than a political, present day "Canadian French" category because they share a common root in time and place (New France of 17th and 18th centuries). Anyways, is there a source that classify Quebec French under Canadian French under French? If not, this is original research, so it can be removed until someone brings that source. Having two different sources, one that claims that Quebec French is a variant of French, and an other one that claims that Canadian French is the French spoken in Canada, isn't enough to claim that Quebec French is a variant of Canadian French, which is what the current classification in the article implies. But as I don't want to start an edit war, I will leave it like that for now. --zorxd (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Canadian encyclopedia is an example of a source that classify Canadian French (used as a synonym of Quebec French here) and Acadian French as two varieties of French. --zorxd (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Digression and semantics aside, at issue is whether QF -- not any other -- is a variety of CF, and should be classified/stratified so. The sources provided clearly indicate or support this, whereas self-references to other Wikipedia articles (particularly regarding a hierarchy without a supporting source) are insufficient.  And, thus, it will not be removed. Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Which sources? --zorxd (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources linked to above, which specifically deal with QF within CF; as well, the Canadian Encyclopedia does distinguish between both, noting QF in 'The Quiet Revolution' section. Your argument above, however, is just opinion.  Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I looked at your two sources again, but they are irrelevant since they talk about Canadian French. Neither of them say that Quebec French is a variety of Canadian French. The U of Ottawa PDF document talk about Canadian French as a variety of French spoken accross Canada including Quebec, with regional variations, yes, but it doesn't say that Quebec is one of them (more precisely it says that there are many different variations of Canadian French within Quebec, and those variations aren't necessary limited to Quebec). The general approach in the Canadian Encyclopedia is to talk about Canadian French and Acadian French as two distinct varieties of French. There is a paragraph about Quebec French, but only about the debate on the standardisation after the quiet revolution and the OQLF. It doesn't say that Quebec French is a variety of Canadian French distinct from Canadian French itself. In their view it *is* Canadian French, but with an other name. Remember that your source need to directly and explicitly support your claim. See WP:OR and WP:SYN. --zorxd (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? The two sources are hardly irrelevant.  Here's another entitled Mixed-mode Multilinguality in TTS: The Case of Canadian French, which notes: "Prominent dialects of French spoken in Canada include Quebecois, Franco-Ontarian, and Acadian."  If you also choose to ignore that the U of Ottawa paper deals with QF within the context of CF (and so titled; noted numerous times in the paper), not to mention that your keyboard and display settingsare likely set to Canadian French standards, perhaps in furtherance of personal sentiment, that is not my/our problem.  Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but there is stil a difference between saying that there are different varieties of French spoken in Canada including Quebec French(or Quebecois as your new source say), and saying that Quebec French is a variety of Canadian French. Your quote doesn't prove your point. It's like if I say that there are many varieties of French spoken in New Brunswick including Acadian, Quebec French and Chiac. It doesn't mean that they are all varieties of a so-called New Brunswick French. Your sources aren't irrelevant, but they are irrelevant as a source for classifying Quebec French as a variety of Canadian French, which is the debate here. What you do is original research because you do a synthesis of multiple sources (and you ignore sources that say otherwise). I don't say that Canadian French doesn't exists by the way, and keyboard layout doesn't have much to do with varieties of languages. For many linguists, Canadian French and Quebec French mean the same thing, so that could also be used for classification. Classifying Quebec French as a variety of Canadian French seem to be the point of view of a minority (if any) only. Without a clear concensus, we shouldn't classify it this way and should discuss the issue in the article. Classifying Quebec French as a variety of French, however, isn't controversial so can be done safely in Wikipedia. --zorxd (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As my new source says? You have provided nothing to support your argument: I cannot 'ignore' sources you have yet to provide.  Your purported synthesis and original research are as imagined as your argumentation.  In fact, the only one who is apparently making a controversy of classifying QF as a variety of CF at this point, despite the wealth of information to date, is you.  I would even go so far to say that is perhaps due to nationalist sentiment.  So, until a consensus supports your position or unless compelled otherwise, the current classification will hold. Bosonic dressing (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't need a source to remove unsourced content from wikipedia. There is no need to prove that this content is false. You need a source if you want it to stay in the article. As I said, none of your sources (yes, I call them your sources because you brang them here first, but call them as you wish) say explicitely and directly that QF is a variety of CF. But even if there was one source proving your point, you would also need to show that it is the majority view among linguists. And please, what you think of my intentions is irrelevant to the discussion, and you have no special authority about what will hold or not. Don't forget that making a distinction between CF and QF isn't enough to claim that one is part of the other. --zorxd (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What I meant about ignoring sources is that you ignore parts (and even big parts) of you own sources, like the Canadian encyclopaedia, which for most of the article, describe Canadian French as distinct from Acadian French. You ignore especially this :

Canadian French, although spoken throughout an extensive geographic area, and having certain regional differences in vocabulary and pronunciation (Montréal, Québec City, central Québec, Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean, the Ottawa valley, northern Ontario, etc.)
 * Which shows that CF is mostly the same as what we call QF in this article. The French version of the article goes even further (just to show that I am not alone with this view) :

''Normalement, les locuteurs du français acadien et du français canadien (parlé au Québec et à l'ouest du Québec), se comprennent facilement. Il n'en reste pas moins que l'on peut observer des différences entre ces deux variétés de français.''

''Normally, Acadians and French-Canadian speakers understand one another easily. However, there are differences between Acadian French and Canadian French. The differential origins of settlers in Acadia and New France mentioned above are a key reason for these differences. Acadian French, spoken in the Maritimes and in parts of Québec''
 * Which shows that CF doesn't include Acadian French, and therefore, doesn't include all varieties of French spoken in Canada, unlike what you say. --zorxd (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok I will try to explain again because I thing that my view was misunderstood. Canadian French can mean either :
 * 1. A variety of French spoken mostly in Quebec, Ontario and the west, that includes dialects such as Quebec city, Montréal Quebec, northen Ontario, but *not* Acadian French. This view is expressed in sources such as the Canadian encyclopedia and many others. In this case, it is almost a synonym of what some call Quebec French, and it pre-dates current Canada's foundation.
 * 2. Simply an umbrella term, not a language variety by itself, and not spoken by anybody, much like European French is defined, that includes most notably Quebec French and Acadian French. This is, from what I understand, the view pushed forward by Francard and Latin in Le régionalisme lexical and probably others.
 * 3. A variety of French by itself, spoken by all Canadians who speak French, that includes sub-varieties such as Quebec French and Acadian French.

.#1 is described as an old view in this article, but many recent sources still use it. #2 is what I think this article tries to favor as a more modern view. However, we must be carefull to make the distinction between #2 and #3. If we take Belgian French. Is is classified as a variety of French, not of European French, even if it is technically european. This is because European French isn't a variety of French, but a neologism to make the distinction between the different varieties of French spoken in Europe and those of the former colonies (especially in North America). Likewise, Canadian French, in the modern form, is a neologism to regroup all varieties of French spoken in Canada but not a variety of French by itself. Being a political and not linguistic division of the French language, it does not includes Cajun French, even if it has roots in Acadian French. #3 means that Acadian French is a variety of Canadian French. And since Cajun French is a variety of Acadian French, Cajun French becomes a variety of Canadian French, even if not spoken in Canada. It may seems to contradict itself, but it doesn't as languages aren't bound by borders (British English can be heard outside Britain). The problem is that #3 is not supported by many, if any, reliable sources. But many people make the mistake, because they find both sources of #1 (which means that Canadian French is a variety of French), and of #2 (which means that Canadian French includes Quebec and Acadian French), of concluding #3, which is that Canadian French is a variety of French and that Quebec French is a variety of Canadian French, but this is WP:SYN. An other problem that adds confusion is that some sources with view #1 also talk about Quebec French, but in this case they merely introduce #2, or talk about the language politics of Quebec, the OQLF, the rise of nationalism, etc. It does not mean that they say that Quebec French is a variety of Canadian French. In that specific case, Quebec French is a synonym for Canadian French. --zorxd (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Zorxd, I think you have a good understanding of the situation generally. My only caveat would be that "North American French" would be sensible on linguistic grounds, as is "European French", because it is clear that the dialects are closely related. I think I read somewhere that 75% of the vocabulary of Acadian French that is not present in European French is actually shared between Acadian and Quebec French. So if we forget about Louisiana temporarily, "Canadian French" is a term that makes sense on linguistic grounds, and interpretation #3 is not a ridiculous one.
 * British English is also a meaningful concept, despite the fact that an Australian accent and an English accent are much closer to each other than either is to a Scottish accent. English and Scottish people share much modern vocabulary as a result of shared media and institutions, regardless of the historical situation. Likewise, Quebecers and Acadians now share much vocabulary (sous-ministre, comté "circonscription électorale", etc.) that a Louisianan would not know. This is a further reason to treat #3 as reasonable.
 * So unless we have academic sources saying that sense #3 is not reasonable, that is certainly not something that we would want to "clarify" for our readers, as it might be an error to advance that view.
 * What matters at Wikipedia is reliable sources. As you noted, both senses, #1 and #2, have been used by academics. At the moment, we have a single quote from an academic source that addresses the vocabulary issue directly. See footnote number 4 at . That quote favours sense #2 and says explicitly that sense #1 is no longer used (by means of the adverb "autrefois"). Perhaps that is an exaggeration, but if you would like to question the article's approach, which is based on that source, you will need to quote academic authorities that address this vocabulary issue specifically. 82.124.231.13 (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Lexis
I think the lexis contains bad examples. It is written as if Arrêt was only used in Quebec and France always uses Stop. This is only true in one particular case : stop sign at an intersection. Tabarnak, sti, and câlice are bad examples again, because is gives the impression that tabernacle, hostie and calice aren't valid words in Quebec French. --zorxd (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the section on lexis could be improved considerably. There is a lack of informal words in "Lexical innovations", which should include all kinds of words created since 1760 (or before), not just technical terms for modern concepts.82.124.231.13 (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

References in the Middle?
Is it my wild imagination or is the References section of this article smack dab in the middle of the text? Would it be ok if I moved it down, or is it there for some particular reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djkernen (talk • contribs) 20:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Those references belong to the section Regional varieties and their classification; that's why they're up in the middle. Eklir (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Avoir su, j'aurais... (Si j'avais su, j'aurais...)
If one wanted to leave out the "si" in European French, would it be correct to say "En ayant su, j'aurais"?--95.116.231.215 (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Gaspésie dialect
In Gaspésie, the word fête is really pronounced [fɛːt] ? But this Gaspésien pronounces [fnaɪ̯tʁ] for the word fenêtre. 198.105.114.217 (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Comparisons with other languages are not appropriate
The article states that:

''Mutual intelligibility of Quebec French with Metropolitan French is a matter of heated debates among linguists. If a comparison can be made, the differences between both dialects are probably larger than those between standard American and standard British English, but less than the differences between Brazilian Portuguese and that of Portugal.''

That comment is subjective (POV) and not supported by any reference or meaningful statistical study. I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Mutual intelligibility
Both are definitely mutually intelligible.

The argument stating that some forms of colloquial Québec French (e.g. working class Joual) are not easily understandable by a metropolitan is a bad one.

Many examples can be found within one language where native speakers would have trouble understanding a certain social group. E.g. scousers in England, good luck to an Oxbridge English speaker. Or certain forms of southern US accents.

Of course even within France, if someone from Lille starts speaking really fast using local words - which vary in every language, of course a speaker from Marseille will have trouble understanding him. Would be the same between an american and e.g. a cockney - it doesn't change the fact that it's still the same language! So basically, as a metropolitan French speaker I understand 99.9% of what people say around me immediately - be it in shops, on the TV, on the street, etc. The remaining 0.1% usually makes me smile since they can be somewhat archaic words which are funny to hear sometimes. Not unlike British and US english.

Likewise, a speaker from Québec will also understand pretty much everything in France and if he speaks normally - as in not fast Joual, but rather the language that is spoken on the street, in the shops and on TV in Québec, everyone will of course understand him, but we do of course recognise the accent which sould cute in French because it's the French with the accent we used to speak until not long ago - it has a countryside connotation. The belgians and Swiss can still have a bit of this in some remote places, as do we, indeed in Saintonge / Poitou (I lived in La Rochelle and when going deep in the countryside you can hear accents that remind you of Québec French). The other places where local dialects can remind of the old way of speaking include Saint Barthélémy, Louisiana, Guadeloupe. Even in creole this accent still somhow exists - especially the "h" after a "t" for e.g. "partir"

In any case, to try and say that metropolitan French and Québec French results of not only typical ignorance but also of denial of the French language in particular by certain Anglos, trying to divide us to better impose English on the planet. With fake facts, e.g. also claiming that somehow German is closer to French than English to French, which reflects a total ignorance and overlooks the fact that probably 40-50% of words in English come from French/Latin and are of course related, for the simple reason that the successive invasions - of French speakers (Normans, Plantagenets) etc between 1066 and the 100 years resulted into a massive pouring of French into English. E.g. before being translated into English - which none of the kings/noblemen/knights could speak until the 1400's, the Magna Carta was first translated into French from Latin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.20.243 (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Comparison to Brazilian and European portuguese: Rubbish!!
As a native French speaker who has also heavily been exposed to Quebec French, I can clearly state that approximating differences between European and Canadian French to those between European and Brazilian Portuguese is a gross overstatement. Brazilian Portuguese, uses different personal pronouns for the second person (tu vs voce) for colloquial varieties, a phenomenon that does not exist between European and Canadian French. The differences in vocabulary are also considerably higher (e.g. toilet/bathroom: banheiro vs sala de banhos), which funny enough is also different between US and UK english. Or driving licence/driver's license (carteira de motorista vs carta de condução), again notice the differences in US/UK english even in spelling. None of this occurs between European and Canadian French: one single word for toilet (toilettes) and driving licence (permis de conduire). The differences in phonology are also much greater in Portuguese variations, Brazilian portuguese has lost a considerable amount of dipthongs while none of this has happened in either variation of French. The "old" pronunciation for certain words in -oi remains in colloquial speech in several regions of France (Poitou, Pays de Loire, Normandy and Nord-Pas de Calais) and is immediately understood by any speaker. Same goes for idioms such as "C'est-tu prêt?" - which is informal anyway: the direct equivalent is widely used in colloquial French as "C'est-ti prêt" or "C'est-y prêt" (http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/ti#fr-part). Since it is never written (neither in France or Quebec) and pronounced the same thus ti or tu are an approximation anyway.

In brief, the arguments used to distinguish them in this article and by "linguists" (read francophobe canadians/americans/brits) would amount to split even France French into several languages since there are of course regional variations (like in England or the US) whereas the reality is that Quebec French is as close to standard French as e.g. Swiss or Belgian French or even the French spoken in Lille or in Poitou to standard French. There are more variations in vocabulary between US and UK english as they are between Quebec and European French. So to treat it as a separate language is a gross overstatement, mutual intelligibility as stated above is total, and to base it on colloquial variants is totally inappropriate as e.g. someone from e.g. Birmingham, AL would have a hard time understanding someone from Birmingham, England if colloquial variants are used (totally different accent, pronunciation and vocabulary). "Y'all" does not exist in the UK for example and not even above the Mason-Dixon line (where they use "Youse"). Neither does "Ta-ra" (bye) in the US, nor "Ta" or "Cheers" to say thank you. Those who deny those differences and treat French and Quebec French as separate languages are biased, ignorant fools.

If anything, those differences are far lower than Brazilian Portuguese vs European Portuguese, lower than European Spanish vs American Spanish (again, a lot of diverging vocabulary and even pronouns (vos vs usted and vosotros vs ustedes), and probably as large as between US and UK english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.71.12 (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion and insert request
Can someone delete this

"Mutual intelligibility of Quebec French with Metropolitan French is a matter of heated debates among linguists. If a comparison can be made, the differences between both dialects are probably larger than those between standard American and standard British English, but comparable to the differences between Brazilian Portuguese and that of Portugal (but with fewer differences in phonology and prosody compared to the Portuguese)."

It is absolutely not comparable to differences in Portuguese (see comment above, especially vocabulary, pronouns), contradictory (how can it be comparable if there are fewer differences), subjective, without reference and biased. It has no place in an encyclopaedia and was probably written by francophobes.

Can someone replace this paragraph with the following

"Canadian French is considered a variety of French by linguists and although there are minor variations in vocabulary and phonology, both variants are mutually intelligible"

With the following valid, PUBLISHED REFERENCE that states that both are mutually intelligible

"La langue de papier: spéculations linguistiques au Québec, 1957-1977", by Karim Larose - 2004 - ‎Bilingualism

Referring to Miron's works:

"À cet égard, elle demeure dans la famille du français, une variété du français" (To this extent, it remains part of the French family, a variety of French)

Larose agrees and states that he has "reussi a mettre d'accord litteraires et linguistes" (succeeded at getting the literati and linguists to agree" and agrees with his argument by saying "il y a intercompréhension entre la France et le Québec" (There is mutual intelligibility between France and Quebec) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.71.12 (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on mutual intelligibility
The sentence "The number of such TV shows from France shown on Quebec television is about the same as the number of British TV shows on American television: they are seldom broadcast except on obscure cable channels." lacks references.

As a matter of fact there are two main french channels from France broadcast in Canada: TV5 and France2 24. Obviously all US programmes are translated (without accent), e.g. X-files "au frontieres du reel" etc - same as in France, so both the French and French Canadians are exposed to similar programmes overall (US series amounting for a significant part of broadcasts in both cases). Finally, many series from France are shown in Quebec (e.g. Tintin, les gens de mogador etc)

Conversely, there are numerous series from Quebec that have made it to France, e.g. Tete a Claque, L'ete Indien. Finally, TV5 also broadcasts programmes from Quebec in France.

Obviously, TV programmes from famous comedians are shown in both countries (e.g. Anthony Kavanagh, Gad Elmaleh). Same goes for singers. There are much more cultural exchanges than the above-mentioned statement lets on.

A fair statement, with references, would read

"There are two TV channels from France broadcast in Quebec: TV5 and France 24, both containing TV programmes from France. Certain French series are shown on all province-wide channels, such as Tintin, Les Gens de Mogador. Conversely, TV5 also broadcasts TV programmes from Quebec in France. Certain TV shows from Quebec are also broadcast in France (Tete a Claque, L'Ete indien")

References:

http://www.allocine.fr/series/meilleures/pays-5018/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV5_Qu%C3%A9bec_Canada

http://tv5.ca/

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.71.12 (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Mutual intelligibility
Thanks, 147.188.71.12, for your comments. Though they're interesting, by Wikipedia rules, personal judgements count as original research and thus are not considered solid sources for Wikipedia articles. Then again, the current section on Mutual intelligibility has no sources at all -- which is not a good situation.

The way to improve Wikipedia is to use reliable sources -- and of course cite them. There is surely a rich literature (in both French and English) on Quebec French. Do your research, summarize what you find, and cite it. --Macrakis (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Quebec French. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140228055319/http://wwwens.uqac.ca/~flabelle/socio/attitude.htm to http://wwwens.uqac.ca/~flabelle/socio/attitude.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice article
I didn't through the page history to see who's been tending to this article, but thanks for your work all the same. Even a few hints of systemic functional linguistics there, if I'm not mistaken! Tony  (talk)  10:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Quebec French. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030408135400/http://www.granddictionnaire.com/btml/fra/R_MotClef/index800_1.asp to http://www.granddictionnaire.com/btml/fra/r_motclef/index800_1.asp
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090622184234/http://alternative-dictionaries.net:80/dictionary/Quebecois/ to http://www.alternative-dictionaries.net/dictionary/quebecois/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Quebec French. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141222194738/http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca:80/pub/pdf/C-71.pdf to http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/pub/pdf/C-71.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141124194707/http://slat.arizona.edu/sites/slat/files/page/linbonnie.pdf to http://slat.arizona.edu/sites/slat/files/page/linbonnie.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040803153912/http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca:80/axl/francophonie/histfrnqc.htm to http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/francophonie/histfrnqc.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20031118183025/http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca:80/ to http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

What's a hickey?
Is it a love bite? (I googled the word.) What has it got to do with lollipops? The word (piece of slang?) is not known to me as a native British English speaker. Please use standard international English and avoid folksy North American colloquialisms. They aren't encyclopaedic. (Whatever next? "Pinkie" for "little finger"?!) APW (talk) 09:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thank you; this is now fixed. To answer your question: both love bites and lollipops involve the action of sucer (to suck) but the words for each are exactly swapped between metropolitan and Quebec variants of French. [It is one of the joys of Wikipedia to find myself explaining this to a complete stranger! ]
 * With kind regards;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 10:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Systematic/unsystematic?
Could someone clarify, and possibly correct, the italicized notes in the Phonology section that begin with "Systematic" or "Unsystematic"? Especially under § Vowels, it has: "Systematic, i.e. in all formal speech", "Systematic, i.e. in all informal speech", and "Unsystematic, i.e. in all informal speech (Joual)". I don't think the person who wrote this understood what "i.e." means. Nardog (talk) 08:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quebec French. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303235701/http://www.billcasselman.com/quebec_sayings/quebec_words_phrases_nine.htm to http://www.billcasselman.com/quebec_sayings/quebec_words_phrases_nine.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * New-Map-Francophone World.PNG

Hijacked mutual intelligibility section
The section about mutual intelligibility was hijacked over a year ago by 201.17.103.84 who has also completely distorted the references, effectively negating them: the refs actually cite Quebec and Metropolitan French being at least as close as US and UK english), while the user has changed it to the opposite. This - anonymous - user has previously posted xenophobic content e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_French_riots&diff=prev&oldid=28044099.

The original references, still there, do not support these modifications.

He also hints that he has introduced his own point of view "I am Quebecois and I can tell you that we understand absolutely everything of Metropolitan French but the same cannot be said about European Francophones understanding us" (22:35, 24 April 2019) thus breaking the neutrality principles of Wikipedia. I suggest reverting back to the previous version of this section (15:01, 13 April 2019‎)

(Pcauchy (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)).


 * In fact, another reference shows both varieties 93% intelligible Pcauchy (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

POV tag on "Use of anglicisms"
I put a "neutral point of view" warning on this sub-section. The sub-section is included in the "Relation to European French" section because Qubec French has a higher frequency of anglicisms than European French. The contents of the section attempts refutes that claim. The sub-section continues to justifies the use of anglicisms in Quebec French on either the historic oppression of Quebecois, or the "the [Qubec French] anglicisms used are different [than European French anglicisms], and thus more noticeable by European French speakers".

This language article would be more informative if it discussed differences in the use of anglicisms between European French and Qubec French, rather than discrediting any possible higher frequency of anglisms and attribute such a notion to a) the oppression of Qubec or b) the ignorance of possibly european linguists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.152.51 (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)