Michael Dorosh Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Everyone jokes that we Canadians say "eh" a lot - but you know what? It's true. I never noticed it until I went to England for a month, though. I've talked to people I met on the internet over the phone and they all remark about my "Canadian" accent - I'm from Alberta and never considered that I have one. Even travelling to Oregon, I did notice the fellows there had a discenerible accent - I guess it would be impossible to recreate every accent in CM because there are so many of them. The obvious ones, to me, are New York, cajun, southern - and I suppose there are dozens of "southern" accents, depending on if you're from Virginia, Louisiana, etc. After reading MASH the novel, I came to realize that Maine has its own accent, too. The point about Maritimers being very distinct is true. It would be neat to hear some sound files of a Nova Scotia tank commander, say. The Maritime accent is just as distinct as a Welsh, Scots or Irish accent as far as I'm concerned. It's all a matter of degrees. People from Boston speak differently but I have no problem understanding them. Someone from Glasgow is another story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patboivin Posted January 17, 2001 Author Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zaffod: BTW, i think "Cpt. Kirk" (Shatner, yah?) was from Iowa... maybe he grew up in Canada.. i dunno.. Zaff'<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Zaffod, in the show or the movies they said he was from Iowa, but the actor grew up in Montreal. I'm afraid my sound mod wouldn't be very accurate, I'm a francophone from Ottawa. I could do a mod for some Quebeckers, that might be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MantaRay Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Yes, and please take him back. Dare I say....Beam him up Canuck. Ray ------------------ When asked, "How many moves do you see ahead?", CAPABLANCA replied: "One move - the best one." Click now for shelter from the Peng thread The Red Army of the Rugged Defense Group Ladder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc E. Sicard Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 I'd love to do a Quebecer mod. Count me in! I can't do Maritime accents, but I hope somebody can, they would be great. ------------------ "We'll fight you 'till Hell freezes over. Then we'll fight you on the ice." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 I can't do a Maritime accent either... because we don't have one, by It's all you other folks that have the accents, they way we talk in the Maritimes is correct English Cheers, Walter R. Strapps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Der Unbekannte Jäger Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 I am not a lumberjack or a fur trader and I don't live in an igloo or eat blubber or own a dog sled. And I don't know Jimmy, Sally or Susy from Canada although I'm certain there really really nice.I have a Prime Minister not a President. I speak English and French, not American. And I pronounce it "ABOUT" not "A BOOT". I can proudly sew my Countries flag on my backpack. I believe in peacekeeping not policing, diversity not assimilation (or aCMillation?), and the Beaver is a truly proud and noble animal. A toque is a hat, a chesterfield is a couch. And it is pronounced "Zed" not "Zee" "ZED". Canada is the second largest land mass, the first nation of HOCKEY! And the best part of North America! MY NAME IS (insert name here) and I am CANADIAN! http://www.adcritic.com/content/molson-canadian-i-am.html Now how can the Yanks not respect that? Or shall I taunt them a second time... *COUGH* 1812 *COUGH* ------------------ "The world is wide, and I will not waste my life in friction when it could be turned into momentum." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Babra Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 http://www.adcritic.com/content/edge-102-i-am-not.html And for our Quebecois contingent... ------------------ My P-47 is a pretty good ship And she took a round coming 'cross the Channel last trip I was thinking 'bout my baby and letting her rip Always got me through so far... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lacky Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Der Unbekannte Jäger: *COUGH* 1812 *COUGH* <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How can you taunt the USA with that war? Canada was a colony. Canada wasn't a sovereign nation. Canadian's didn't have their own flag! The war of 1812 was between the United States and Great Britain. Canada's constitution wasn't patriated until 1982! Canada's constitution was written in 1867 and it took 115 years before England allows Canada full autonomy. Some might say the United States lost the War of 1812, other's might declare it a stalemate. Yet, it was Britain who offered peace. And it was the United States who came away from that war with more land than they started with! My non-Anglo-Saxon education allows me to see, understand, and evaluate this war from an outside sphere. Do present day Canadian's realize why Britain asked for Peace? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Babra Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Some might say the United States lost the War of 1812, other's might declare it a stalemate. Yet, it was Britain who offered peace. And it was the United States who came away from that war with more land than they started with!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And at the Hartford Convention New England tabled a bid for secession from the Union to seek peace with Britain on her own terms. What land did the US come away with? The status quo ante bellum articulated in the Treaty of Ghent does not allow for the transfer of sovereignty of any lands. American gains from the war, such as they were, were the destruction of the Native Confederacy in the Northwest Territory, forever ending native hopes for an Indian nation, and a relaxation of maritime harrassment. If that was worth a ruined economy, more power to ya... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lacky Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Forever Babra: And at the Hartford Convention New England tabled a bid for secession from the Union to seek peace with Britain on her own terms. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The United States Federalists lost considerable power due to their actions. It was Britain's peace negotiators who were instructed to attain peace with minimal losses. The Napoleonic Wars, the capturing of British ships, and the utter destruction of the British Navy on the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain was having its toll. The British Empire was broke. They could ill afford a prolonged war in North America. Britian needed commerce with Canada, the United States, and the rest of the Common Wealth in order to pay their war debts. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> What land did the US come away with? The status quo ante bellum articulated in the Treaty of Ghent does not allow for the transfer of sovereignty of any lands. American gains from the war, such as they were, were the destruction of the Native Confederacy in the Northwest Territory, forever ending native hopes for an Indian nation, and a relaxation of maritime harrassment. If that was worth a ruined economy, more power to ya... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The United States came away with the lands of the Indian nations and a very generous portion of the Great Lakes. The National boundaries were to be re-defined over the next 25 years with the United States reaping more lands. It's my understanding the British paid the American Indian's for the scalps of US origins. This was an ingrain fear of the common "American". Yet, this British atrocity is rarely mentioned in most anglo-saxon literature. The US had a score to settle with their indigenous neighbors for their acts in this War. The British wrote off their Indian allies. No? The British did not insist on Indian nation representation in Belgium. Britain needed peace quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Babra Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lacky: The British wrote off their Indian allies. No? The British did not insist on Indian nation representation in Belgium. Britain needed peace quickly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sadly, true. But don't assume Britain's need for peace after twenty years of war with Revolutionary/Imperial France was influenced by American power or ambitions across the sea. Despite being vastly outnumbered in North America in the order of 20:1, despite being hampered by a European war, Britain maintained the Canadas and was on the offensive in the North, South and Centre at war's end, and with the release of the RN after the exile of Napoleon, the spectre of a blockade weighed heavily in US deliberations. Americans may cloak the war under the banner of free trade and sailors' rights, but it was a cheap land-grab aimed at an opponent they thought was preoccupied and could not defend herself. It failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lacky Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Forever Babra: Americans may cloak the war under the banner of free trade and sailors' rights, but it was a cheap land-grab aimed at an opponent they thought was preoccupied and could not defend herself. It failed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, I partially agree this was one of the reasons why the United State's went to war. In one of Madisons' letters he wrote something to the effect of annexing Canada. I don't think it was an Imperialistic maneuver, though. It goes without question to state; Britain was using her vast naval influence to intimidate the United States. After the United States war of Independence, many US merchantmen, businessmen, and traders started to conduct trade with other European nations other than Britain; this was cutting into the British Empire's revenue. Before the US War of Independence, the America's were not permitted to conduct free-trade with any nation other than Britain herself. I'm willing to dispute your statement concerning the operation offenses conducted by Britain near the end of this war. The United States military repulsed the British at Baltimore, New Orleans and the destroyed the British navy on Lake Champlain. No single event lead to the War of 1812. The British Navy was, unquestionably, the strongest military force in the western hemisphere. I feel, from my readings and observations, Britain casually used her military might to better serve the crown. The US war on Canada (which for all intents and purposes was British soil) was aimed at decentralizing the British Navy's control of the Northern Atlantic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy w/gun: Anyone here see the movie Canadian Bacon? LOL...very funny!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was just about to say that The best part was with the US Special forces running through that Canadian crowd, pushing everyone over, with all us Canadian's appologising! And the guy who gets a sprained ankle!!! Never EVER insult Canada's beer. It angered me about Phil Hartman's death. Killed by his American wife. Just goes to show you that American's with guns are dangerous! I also find it terribly humourous when Americans claim that they are anti-Imperialist. Everything about their history is imperialist. Toward the Amerindians, Canadians, Spanish, Mexicans, Cubans, Chinese, Philippino's, Japanese and so on (and all this before the 20th Century!). The War of 1812 was also an attempt at revenge for getting their butt's whupped in Quebec during the American Revolution. Technically, 1812 was the SECOND American invasion attempt of Canada, which also failed. The Americans also wanted to ensure the destruction of the Iroquois, who had claims on much of the US 'Northwest'. It would have really been interesting had the British not been overly generous at the peacetalks and demanded that all territory occupied by British troops remain British territory. America's goal = Capture Canada America's goal = failure Talking about sailor's freedom was only an excuse to invade. Equal enough to Japan's excuse for going to war in December 1941. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lacky: How can you taunt the USA with that war? Canada was a colony. Canada wasn't a sovereign nation. Canadian's didn't have their own flag! The war of 1812 was between the United States and Great Britain. Canada's constitution wasn't patriated until 1982! Canada's constitution was written in 1867 and it took 115 years before England allows Canada full autonomy. Some might say the United States lost the War of 1812, other's might declare it a stalemate. Yet, it was Britain who offered peace. And it was the United States who came away from that war with more land than they started with! My non-Anglo-Saxon education allows me to see, understand, and evaluate this war from an outside sphere. Do present day Canadian's realize why Britain asked for Peace? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Canadian Militia took as much part in the war with America as Regular British Infantry. It was as much our war against American aggression as theirs. Our system is a heck of a lot more fluid (ie. able to change with the times) than the American one. We did pretty fine without a constitution. Canadians of the era are no more opressed than Americans were. It isn't about 'Britain allowing' Canada autonomy, but, rather that we choose to finally create something not based directly off the British system. America didn't win the war of 1812. The British/Canadians didn't lose it. Britain asked for peace because they could not afford waging a war for Canada. It wasn't as profitable as many other British colonies, and since they were currently winning, why not end it here? Unfortunately American's trivialize this war too much. They see themselves against the entire might of England, when in reality this front was seen as below that of Spain. Barely any resources were spent, and the most truely amazing thing about the thing is that Canada survived. Battles were usually fought with American superiority in numbers, with Canadians predominantly winning the field. It is an amazing feat, which should not be trivialized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts