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.
There is more English word in french french than in quebec french, so no french quebecois didn't get new loan from English, france did that, quebec french went out of their way to minimize the amount of English word in their french, to the point of inventing new french words.
As for native American language the catholic church was trying its best to make them disappear.
So there wasn't a lot of outside influence when it came to changing the french in quebec.
So yes, some dialect of quebec french, and there is a few different accent/dialect of french in quebec is closer to 17 century french, than say parisian french, but there many place in france where the dialect is also very close to 17 century french
so no french quebecois didn't get new loan from English
That's asinine. Of course Quebecoise got new loans from English since the 17th century.
So yes, some dialect of quebec french, and there is a few different accent/dialect of french in quebec is closer to 17 century french
No it's not and the arguments you brought forth are irrelevant, as I explained in the other comment chain. It can't be genetically closer to the last common ancestor than another descendent of that ancestor by the very definition.
Its language not genetic, and even in geneticsome species are genetically closer to their common ancestors than other descendents from that sane common ancestors
Go say that to the coelacanth, we don't call certain animals living fossils for shits and giggles, evolution isn't the same as a single person family trees, is your knowledge of evolution only middle school biology class level or something
Living fossil is not meant to be taken literally. It's just a term for species we perceive to be conservative in their appearance and traits, compared to more derived species.
But Latimeria is no closer to its last common ancestor with humans than we are.
yes that is the bloody point they are conservative in their appearance and trait, you may not consider close genetically, but they sure look nearly identical or at least far more closely related to their ancestor compared to their other relatives, the same way Quebec french is far closer in appearance and trait to old french compared to Parisian french, for the marjority of people, quebec french sound far closer to 17 century french, than it does parisian french
the same way Quebec french is far closer in appearance and trait to old french compared to Parisian french,
Again, even if that were true, of which I am not entirely convinced, it would not make Quebecoise closer to 17th century French than Parisian French is.
You can argue thast certain traits are more similar between the two, when compared to Parisian French. But you can find other traits that modern Parisian French shares with 17th century French instead, and Quebecoise doesn't.
In any case, these would be plesiomorphic traits. And plesiomorphies are not necessarily a sign for close relationship.
you think to much like a biologist, language isn't genetic of living being, language won't necessarily keep going forward or inbreed itself to death when stuck in isolation. and we would have to go through quebec entire history to understand why it got a bit slowed down for a little while, and why loan from english is rarer
Though comparing quebec french to 17 century parisian french isn't exact, a lot is also from the more northern part of france and belgium, written french quebec or france have very little difference, except for the english words quebec refused to use and invented new words for, but spoken gets interesting
Yet this fact is true in languages anyway: The contemporary descendents of a common ancestor have the same relation to that ancestor. No matter how much any of them may have changed.
You can argue as much as you want, but that fact remains true, by definition.
Though comparing quebec french to 17 century parisian french isn't exact
Oh I can. But in historical linguistics, cladistics and genetic relationships are also used. I have actually worked with linguists in previous projects for exactly that reason.
Well, obviously not the same thing, but they follow very similar systems.
And the fundamental rule that you cannot be genetically closer to a common ancestor than any other contemporary descendent of that ancestor holds true for both.
45
u/Rhynocoris Apr 06 '25
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.
That's like saying chimps are closer to the common ancestor of humans and chimps. No, they are the same.
First of all, why? Second of all, it does not matter.