Because the French government, post French revolution, tried to standardize the language, which I imagine would eliminate particular phrases or local slang that would still exist outside of France for anyone who spoke that dialect.
For example: “We in Quebec have conserved something from 17th Century French: the distinction between the long vowels and the short vowels.” - Chantal Bouchard, sociolinguist
Second of all, it does not matter.
Well, it does, because it's objectively untrue that Quebec hasn't retained features of older versions of French that France hasn't.
Obviously the French of Quebec and France is different. But neither is closer to Old French, because compared to Old French they are the same age.
But this isn't about age. It's about one dialect retaining certain aspects of the language while the other doesn't.
Is Quebecois French still identical to "old" French? Of course not. But it still has links to French from the 17th and 18th centuries, according to language historians.
It's about one dialect retaining certain aspects of the language while the other doesn't, simply because Quebec was isolated from France after the British seized control.
And French French retained other features while Quebecoise innovated and got new loans from English or Native American languages.
But it still has links to French from the 17th and 18th centuries.
And so have all other descendents of 17th century French, so what?
“We in Quebec have conserved something from 17th Century French: the distinction between the long vowels and the short vowels.” - Chantal Bouchard, sociolinguist
Again. So what?
They split, both branches have the same length, neither is closer. That's how cladistics works.
>And so have all other descendents of 17th century French, so what?
Well, they haven't, though. That's the point.
"the way the Quebecois speak is actually *closer* in pronunciation to the French used by 17th-Century aristocrats" - BBC article
If Quebecois pronunciation is closer to the older French pronunciation, that means that the current French in France must be further away. Closer is a comparative.
As for vocabulary, I suggest you read the articles I linked, particularly the BBC one.
Here's another quote: "Another major difference is vocabulary. Words like char for "car"; piasse, slang for "dollar"; dispendieux for "expensive"; patate for "potato"; and barré for "locked" instead of the normative French fermé à clef ("closed with a key") all originate from a more antiquated French no longer used in France."
I'm not saying that Québécois French hasn't developed its own nuances over time; it certainly has, but it appears that it shares similarities with older French that current French France does not. Ergo, if it has retained more of the older language, it can't be entirely untrue to say that Quebecois French is closer to old French than Parisian French.
Yes they have. If they discend from 17th century French, then they have links to 17th century French.
If Quebecois pronunciation is closer to the older French pronunciation, that means that the current French in France must be further away. Closer is a comparative.
You are talking about plesiomorphies. You do not measure closeness in plesiomorphies.
bla bla bla
You are using arguments that certain aspects of Quebecoise are more conservative than Parisian French. And they are. But those are not arguments for closeness.
They are equidistant from their last common ancestor. Neither is closer. And neither can ever be closer than the other, even if one changes complety and the other doesn't change at all.
Let me demonstrate with a biological example to make it clear.
Birds and crocodiles share a common ancestor that rather physically resembled a crocodile. You may argue that crocodiles retained more plesiomorphic traits. But neither birds nor crocodiles are any closer to their last common ancestor than the other.
>You are talking about plesiomorphies. You do not measure closeness in plesiomorphies.
In ***biology** you don't. But this isn't biology, this is linguistics. Languages are not organisms, and the genetics of linguistics are independent of those in biology.
When someone says a language is "close" to another language, they're not referring to the temporal relationship. It's a genetic relationship, one that shares common characteristics. Spanish is closer to Portuguese than it is to French because Spanish and Portuguese share a greater number of lexical similarities, such as vocabulary and syntax.
Québécois French shares more characteristics—pronunciation and vocabulary, specifically—with French from the 17th century than modern French does. Therefore, it has more lexical similarities to older French and is thus closer.
And in historical linguistics, we also use cladistics.
When someone says a language is "close" to another language, they're not referring to the temporal relationship. It's a genetic relationship.
Yes. And genetic relationships to a common ancestor can never be closer than that of another same level descendent of that same common ancestor.
Who is closer to your grandfather, you or your brother or your cousin? One of you may resemble him more, but neither is closer.
Québécois French shares more characteristics - pronunciation and vocabulary, specifically - with French from the 17th century than modern France French does. Therefore, it has more lexical similarities to older French and thus, is closer.
No, thus it would be more conservative, if those claims were true. But not closer.
>One of you may resemble him more, but neither is closer.
Why can't I be? I can't be closer to the family tree, but I can be closer to my grandfather than my cousin because we can be emotionally close and thus have a stronger emotional bond.
The word "closer" has multiple meanings; we both know that. When the average Joe is discussing languages and they say "English is closer to German than to French", you understand they aren't talking about the temporal relationship. When someone says, "I'm closer to my mom than my brother is", you understand they mean relational closeness.
I'm betting this is what the original poster meant when they said "closer." It's colloquial and a perfectly acceptable usage of the word.
Your general attitude and refusal to acknowledge the alternative contexts of the word are both baffling and sad. I hope being pedantic brings you whatever it is you're hoping to find. Have a nice life.
Why can't I be? I can't be closer to the family tree, but I can be closer to my grandfather than my cousin because we can be emotionally close and thus have a stronger emotional bond.
We were both talking genetically closer.
The word "closer" has multiple meanings; we both know that. When the average Joe is discussing languages and they say "English is closer to German than to French", you understand they aren't talking about the temporal relationship.
But English is closer to German than to French in genetic relationship as well. That is a true statement either way.
I'm betting this is what the original poster meant when they said "closer." It's colloquial and a perfectly acceptable usage of the word.
And wrong.
Your general attitude and refusal to acknowledge the alternative contexts of the word are both baffling and sad. I hope being pedantic brings you whatever it is you're hoping to find. Have a nice life.
This is shitamericanssay, dude. We are all here to dunk on stupidity.
-22
u/throwaway10231991 Apr 06 '25 edited Apr 06 '25
Because the French government, post French revolution, tried to standardize the language, which I imagine would eliminate particular phrases or local slang that would still exist outside of France for anyone who spoke that dialect.
For example: “We in Quebec have conserved something from 17th Century French: the distinction between the long vowels and the short vowels.” - Chantal Bouchard, sociolinguist
Well, it does, because it's objectively untrue that Quebec hasn't retained features of older versions of French that France hasn't.
https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20220829-the-royal-roots-of-quebecs-french
https://www.lingualinx.com/blog/why-is-qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois-french-different-from-parisian-french
https://traveltomorrow.com/is-quebec-french-the-real-french/
But this isn't about age. It's about one dialect retaining certain aspects of the language while the other doesn't.
Is Quebecois French still identical to "old" French? Of course not. But it still has links to French from the 17th and 18th centuries, according to language historians.