# French grammar question: use of articles in French version of the Constitution Act, 1867 **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 2, 2021, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-grammar-question-use-of-articles-in-french-version-of-the-constitution-act-1867/932029 "2021-02-02T03:57:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2021, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-grammar-question-use-of-articles-in-french-version-of-the-constitution-act-1867/932029/1 "2021-02-02T03:57:33Z")
I’m puzzled by the use of certain articles in the French version of the _Constitution Act, 1867_ of Canada: _Loi constitutionnelle de 1867_. I had always been taught that provinces take a “de la” / “du” / "de l’ ", while municipalities take “de”, but that usage isn’t followed in the _Loi constitutionnelle_. “Nouvelle-Écosse” gets “de la” and “Nouveau-Brunswick” gets “du”, but Ontario and Quebec (province) both get “de” or "d’ ". [See for examples the headers for arts. 112 to 116.](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/fra/const/page-6.html#docCont) Is it because the provinces of Ontario and Quebec were new and it wasn’t yet established in 1867 how they would be treated grammatically, resulting from the splitting up of the “province du Canada”, which did get the “du”? Another usage that puzzles me is the statutes dealing with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. The statutes dealing with Alberta and Saskatchewan are _Loi sur l’Alberta_ and _Loi sur la Saskatchewan_, but Newfoundland gets _Loi sur Terre-Neuve_. Why not _Loi sur la Terre-Neuve_? Je suis quelque peu perplexe. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2021, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-grammar-question-use-of-articles-in-french-version-of-the-constitution-act-1867/932029/2 "2021-02-02T05:16:55Z")
“It’s like those French have a different word for _everything_.” - Steve Martin ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2021, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-grammar-question-use-of-articles-in-french-version-of-the-constitution-act-1867/932029/3 "2021-02-02T14:27:18Z")
I’m making a WAG here, but perhaps it is because Nouvelle-Ecosse and Nouveau-Brunswick took the names of existing countries in Europe (prefixed by “New”), so they shared the article that would be used for their European counterparts in long-established usage. Ontario and Québec, on the other hand, are original words from indigenous North American languages that did not have a previously existing European counterpart whose grammatical treatment they could borrow. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2021, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-grammar-question-use-of-articles-in-french-version-of-the-constitution-act-1867/932029/4 "2021-02-02T17:37:41Z")
That may be it. Ontario and Québec are both masculine, which tends to be the default for words from other languages which don’t use grammatical gender. It may not have been established in 1867. (Except I have seen the construction “de Québec” in a statute from several decades later, in a sentence where today we would say “du Québec”.) ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2021, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-grammar-question-use-of-articles-in-french-version-of-the-constitution-act-1867/932029/5 "2021-02-02T17:46:07Z")
I’ve also noticed in the _Loi constitutionnelle_ that there are some words with an accent aigu instead of an accent grave. The usage is consistent throughout, so I don’t think it’s an occasional typo: “siége” and “collége”, not “siège” or “collège”. I wonder if that reflects an actual idiomatic pronunciation of Quebec French in 1867? ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2021, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-grammar-question-use-of-articles-in-french-version-of-the-constitution-act-1867/932029/6 "2021-02-03T03:42:26Z")
n.b. it has to do with shedding the English “province of Quebec”: > [@](#): > > ##### Distinction entre la ville et la province dans la syntaxe > > On distingue la province de Québec de la ville de Québec en disant « le Québec » et « au Québec » dans le premier cas, et en n’utilisant aucun article dans le second cas. > > - _Je vis au Québec._ _Le Québec a tenu deux référendums sur son indépendance._ (province) > - _Je vis à Québec._ _Québec a toujours attiré les touristes._ (ville) > > Toutefois, on dit normalement « la province de Québec », bien qu’on voie aussi « la province du Québec » occasionnellement. > > ##### Délimitations historiques et variantes politico-linguistiques > > Avant 1763 (fin du régime colonial français), le toponyme _Québec_ ne désigne que la ville et sa région administrative. Le grand territoire qui deviendra la _province of Quebec_ à la [Conquête](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Conqu%C3%AAte) (1763) était auparavant appelé _Canada_ ou _[Nouvelle-France](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nouvelle-France)_ . > > Pour la première époque coloniale britannique (1763-1791), le nom officiel est _province of Quebec_ , en anglais puisque cette division administrative est établie par l’Angleterre. En français, pour faire référence à cette période, on utilise soit l’expression anglaise telle quelle, soit l’expression « province de Québec », mais non « le Québec », qui donnerait une impression d’anachronisme. En 1763, la _province of Quebec_ recouvre à peu près la vallée du [Saint-Laurent](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Saint-Laurent) (sud du Québec et de l’Ontario actuels) et le sud des [Grands Lacs](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Grands_Lacs) (sud de l’Ontario actuelle). En 1774 est ajoutée la vallée de l’[Ohio](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ohio) (qui sera récupérée plus tard par les [États-Unis](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%89tats-Unis)). En 1791, la province est divisée en deux entités, le [Haut-Canada](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Haut-Canada) (essentiellement l’[Ontario](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ontario) actuel) et le [Bas-Canada](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Bas-Canada) (essentiellement le Québec actuel) ; l’appellation **Québec** pour désigner un territoire politique ne réapparaîtra qu’en 1867, au moment de la [Confédération canadienne](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Conf%C3%A9d%C3%A9ration_canadienne); il s’agit alors de la province actuelle du Québec. > > ##### Évolution de l’usage avec la Révolution tranquille > > - _Lorsqu’on écrivait à propos du **Québec** , durant les années 1950, on faisait généralement référence à_ la province de **Québec** _. On écrira de plus en plus systématiquement_ le **Québec** _, tout court, à partir du milieu des années 1960, en laissant tomber la référence à la province. En outre, lorsqu’on faisait référence à des situations, on écrivait qu’elles se produisaient_ dans le **Québec** _, tandis qu’on écrira par la suite qu’elles ont lieu_ au **Québec** _. Ainsi, de manière subtile, la province semble se muer en État jusque dans la syntaxe._ — (Chantal Bouchard, _La langue et le nombril_ , Presses de l’Université de Montréal (PUM), 2020, p. 238) ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2021, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-grammar-question-use-of-articles-in-french-version-of-the-constitution-act-1867/932029/7 "2021-02-03T03:50:48Z")
But that doesn’t explain why two of the original provinces got “du” / “de la”, while two other original provinces got “de” / "de l’ " when the provisions were using just the names of the province, not “province de”. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2021, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-grammar-question-use-of-articles-in-french-version-of-the-constitution-act-1867/932029/8 "2021-02-03T04:04:19Z")
Sorry, typo. Meant to say: > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > while two other original provinces got “de” / "d’ " ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2021, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-grammar-question-use-of-articles-in-french-version-of-the-constitution-act-1867/932029/9 "2021-02-03T05:10:42Z")
From the Preamble: > [@](#): > > Considérant que les **provinces du** Canada, **de la** Nouvelle-Écosse et **du** Nouveau-Brunswick… And sections 6 and 7: > [@](#): > > **6.** Les parties de la **province du** Canada (telle qu’existant à la passation de la présente loi) qui constituaient autrefois les **provinces respectives du** Haut et **du** Bas-Canada, seront censées séparées et formeront deux provinces distinctes. La partie qui constituait autrefois la **province du** Haut-Canada formera la **province d’** Ontario; et la partie qui constituait la **province du Bas-Canada** formera la **province de** Québec. > > **7.** Les **provinces de la** Nouvelle-Écosse et **du** Nouveau-Brunswick auront les mêmes délimitations qui leur étaient assignées à l’époque de la passation de la présente loi. So it’s not the phrase “province de” which governs. Of the seven different provinces referred to in these provisions, five got “province du” or “de la”, including the provinces of Canada (the oldest name for the region now known as Quebec), and the province du Bas Canada, the intermediate name for Quebec. It’s the two new provinces, anglo Ontario and franco Quebec, which get “province de / d’ “. ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2021, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-grammar-question-use-of-articles-in-french-version-of-the-constitution-act-1867/932029/10 "2021-02-04T02:47:48Z")
_La province de Québec_ is perfectly idiomatic and is how it’s called to this day. \*_La province du Québec_ would definitely be incorrect. (According to @DPRK’s source it’s occasionally seen, but I don’t remember seeing it.) Of course, when not using the word _province_, it’s _le Québec_, so for example _les lois du Québec_ (as opposed to _les lois de Québec_ which would be the laws of Quebec City). _La province d’Ontario_ is a rare usage, but I can’t say for sure that it’d be incorrect today. Interestingly, unlike in the case of Quebec, _la province de l’Ontario_ sounds just as correct to me. But both would be rare and today you’ll simply see _l’Ontario_. Since Ontario takes the article _l’_, I had to think for a bit to decide whether it actually is masculine, but it is: the expression _le Nouvel Ontario_ used to refer to Northern Ontario but isn’t in common use today (and neither is _le Nouveau Québec_ which used to refer to Northern Quebec). I don’t know why _Terre-Neuve_ doesn’t take the article, but it doesn’t. Ever. I will point out that there are other islands that don’t take the article, for example _Svalbard_, _Maurice_, or _Madagascar_, but it’s not consistent: _l’Irlande_, _la Grande-Bretagne_, _l’Islande_. Interestingly, _je m’en vais à Svalbard, à Madagascar, à Terre-Neuve_, but _en Grande-Bretagne, en Islande_. As for _siége_ or _collége_, I have no idea: to me those are clear spelling mistakes. Would they have been in 1867? Who knows, maybe accents weren’t completely fixed back then, in printed documents at least. Or it’s an OCR error. So why _la province de Québec_ but _la province du Nouveau-Brunswick_? I can’t say. If I had to make a guess, I’d say that the expression “province of Quebec” was created in 1763 with the meaning of “the province centred around and whose capital is the city of Québec”. It naturally became _province de Québec_ in French, but the fact that it is named after the city was somewhat lost. However, you couldn’t have \*_province de Nouveau-Brunswick_ since there isn’t any city called _Nouveau-Brunswick_ (well, not in New Brunswick anyway). _Province d’Ontario_, a later coinage, was then created on the model of _province de Québec_ despite the fact that there isn’t any city called Ontario in Ontario. Is this a plausible explanation? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2021, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-grammar-question-use-of-articles-in-french-version-of-the-constitution-act-1867/932029/11 "2021-02-05T05:23:59Z")
Thanks for responding, @Hypnagogic_Jerk! > [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](#): > > _La province de Québec_ is perfectly idiomatic and is how it’s called to this day. \* _La province du Québec_ would definitely be incorrect. (According to @DPRK’s source it’s occasionally seen, but I don’t remember seeing it.) Of course, when not using the word _province_ , it’s _le Québec_ , so for example _les lois du Québec_ (as opposed to _les lois de Québec_ which would be the laws of Quebec City). > > _La province d’Ontario_ is a rare usage, but I can’t say for sure that it’d be incorrect today. Interestingly, unlike in the case of Quebec, _la province de l’Ontario_ sounds just as correct to me. But both would be rare and today you’ll simply see _l’Ontario_ . Since Ontario takes the article _l’_ , I had to think for a bit to decide whether it actually is masculine, but it is: the expression _le Nouvel Ontario_ used to refer to Northern Ontario but isn’t in common use today (and neither is _le Nouveau Québec_ which used to refer to Northern Quebec). Fair enough, but you do realise you’re shattering my image of French grammar as being all Cartesian and logical, as opposed to the helter-skelter that is English grammar? Customary differences?? The old “province de Quebec” only existed for 28 years, before being replaced by the “province du Bas-Canada” in 1791 (at least, as that phrase is used in the _Loi constitutionnelle_), so I wonder how much continuing currency that usage had over 70 years later, in 1867? > [@](#): > > I don’t know why _Terre-Neuve_ doesn’t take the article, but it doesn’t. Ever. I will point out that there are other islands that don’t take the article, for example _Svalbard_ , _Maurice_ , or _Madagascar_ , but it’s not consistent: _l’Irlande_ , _la Grande-Bretagne_ , _l’Islande_ . Interestingly, _je m’en vais à Svalbard, à Madagascar, à Terre-Neuve_ , but _en Grande-Bretagne, en Islande_ . Okay, islands are grammatically different, except the statute in question is referring to the _province_ of Newfoundland, not the _island_ of Newfoundland. The province of Newfoundland is made up of the island of Newfoundland and the mainland of Labrador. So we’ve got a third grammatical treatment of a province, based on the fact that most of the province’s population lives on an island? > [@](#): > > As for _siége_ or _collége_ , I have no idea: to me those are clear spelling mistakes. Would they have been in 1867? Who knows, maybe accents weren’t completely fixed back then, in printed documents at least. Or it’s an OCR error. I don’t think it’s an OCR error, because it’s too consistent. But from personal experience, I found the accent for Quebec City to have a very strong “e” pronounced as “ay” (sorry, i can’t do the fancy pronunciation code). I wonder if it was a regional accent? I’m reading the 1867 statute version, and there were other words with an e grave, so it wasn’t that the type-set was lacking. > [@](#): > > So why _la province de Québec_ but _la province du Nouveau-Brunswick_ ? I can’t say. If I had to make a guess, I’d say that the expression “province of Quebec” was created in 1763 with the meaning of “the province centred around and whose capital is the city of Québec”. It naturally became _province de Québec_ in French, but the fact that it is named after the city was somewhat lost. However, you couldn’t have \* _province de Nouveau-Brunswick_ since there isn’t any city called _Nouveau-Brunswick_ (well, not in New Brunswick anyway). _Province d’Ontario_ , a later coinage, was then created on the model of _province de Québec_ despite the fact that there isn’t any city called Ontario in Ontario. Is this a plausible explanation? That may be it, combined with **Schnitte** ’s suggestion about lack of grammatical gender for Quebec as a region? But it still leaves the other examples in my OP, which don’t turn on the usage of “province de”. The marginal notes for ss. 113 to 115 are: > [@](#): > > Actif d’Ontario et Québec > > Dette de la Nouvelle-Écosse > > Dette du Nouveau-Brunswick It seems like a general usage in the Loi that Ontario and Quebec take “de” / "d’ ", not one that turns on the term “province de” / “province du / de la”. All very puzzling, but I appreciate your comments. ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2021, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-grammar-question-use-of-articles-in-french-version-of-the-constitution-act-1867/932029/12 "2021-02-05T19:27:27Z")
I’ve looked a bit at the Constitution Act on the official ministry of Justice’s website, [as linked by](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/fra/const/page-6.html#docCont) @Northern_Piper, and there are a few oddities there. For example, article 109 says “_Toutes les terres, mines, minéraux et réserves royales_ […] _appartiendront aux différentes provinces d’Ontario, Québec, la Nouvelle-Écosse et le Nouveau-Brunswick_ […]” which is just incorrect. What I would say is “_appartiendront aux différentes provinces de l’Ontario, du Québec, de la Nouvelle-Écosse et du Nouveau-Brunswick_” which I guess is therefore one situation where I would consider “_province […] du Québec_” to be correct. As for “_Actif d’Ontario et Québec_”, I would instead go with “_Actif de l’Ontario et du Québec_”. Then again, legal documents are sometimes written in a formal style that’s different from the one we’re used to. As for article 105, it refers to the “_Royaume-Uni de la Grande-Bretagne et d’Irlande_”, where to me this “_la_” [is definitely superfluous](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royaume-Uni). (It also calls the pound sterling the “_louis_”, but that’s not the only interesting thing about currency names in this document; see next paragraph.) Now looking at articles 112 to 116, what strikes me isn’t the grammar but the fact that they officially refer to the Canadian currency unit as the “_piastre_”. (The English version calls it “Dollar”, with a capital D.) _Piastre_ is a synonym of dollar that’s been in use since it referred to the Spanish dollar, it’s (informally) used in Quebec and Canadian dialects of French to this day, and I’ve also seen it in the comic _Lucky Luke_ (written by Belgian Morris and Frenchman René Goscinny) and in an earlier edition of the French version of the Haxby and Willey guide to Canadian coins, where, in the historical section, they refer to the “dollar-cent-mill” system as “_piastre-centin-millin_”. (In European dialects of French, the hundredth part of the base monetary unit is usually called _un centime_, while in modern Canadian French it’s formally _un cent_, which can informally become feminine and even be written _une cenne_.) However, to me _piastre_ is mostly an informal term, and I wouldn’t have thought it would have been the one formally used by the drafters of the Constitution Act. > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Okay, islands are grammatically different, except the statute in question is referring to the _province_ of Newfoundland, not the _island_ of Newfoundland. The province of Newfoundland is made up of the island of Newfoundland and the mainland of Labrador. So we’ve got a third grammatical treatment of a province, based on the fact that most of the province’s population lives on an island? Grammar is going to treat _Terre-Neuve_ similarly regardless of whether it refers to the island or to the province. Ireland is another word that refers both to an island and to a country that aren’t coterminous, and it doesn’t take a different preposition depending on whether we mean the Republic or the whole landmass where Dublin and Belfast are located. However, I do feel that there is something strange about _Terre-Neuve_. Suppose someone called Roger buys an island and names it after him. (In fact, it doesn’t even need to be an island, it can be any piece of land that becomes officially named after him.) If he calls it Rogerus, then I would naturally say in French _je m’en vais à Rogerus_. However, if he calls it Rogeria, I would say _la Rogérie_ and _je m’en vais en Rogérie_. This should also convince you that, even though exceptions exist, grammar is actually quite regular and predictable. _Terre-Neuve_ looks like it should be in the second category (like _l’Irlande_ or _la Grande-Bretagne_), but actually acts in a way that places it in the first one (like _Svalbard_ or _Bornéo_). I’m not sure why that is, but it could be that _Terre-Neuve_ lost its meaning of _la terre neuve_ and started being seen as a single atom, so to speak, in the same way that in English Newfoundland isn’t pronounced the way “new found land” would be. Also, _le Rogeristan_ and _je m’en vais au Rogeristan_. (As well as _au Turkménistan_, but _en Afghanistan_.) Now I’m thinking that there probably exist linguistics papers about the grammar of place names in French that could shed light on this phenomenon. I may try to look for one sometime later. > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > I don’t think it’s an OCR error, because it’s too consistent. But from personal experience, I found the accent for Quebec City to have a very strong “e” pronounced as “ay” (sorry, i can’t do the fancy pronunciation code). I wonder if it was a regional accent? I’m reading the 1867 statute version, and there were other words with an e grave, so it wasn’t that the type-set was lacking. The closed e /e/ and open e /ɛ/ are two different phonemes in French, but in some dialects they tend to merge into a single sound that’s somewhere in between. However, Quebec or more generally Canadian dialects tend to preserve the distinction moreso than others. Also, it shouldn’t affect the spelling, especially not in formal documents. Where did you see this, by the way? [Articles 68 and 72](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/fra/const/page-3.html#docCont) on the official ministry of Justice’s website, for one, spell “_siège_” and “_collège_” the way I’d expect to see them. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2021, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-grammar-question-use-of-articles-in-french-version-of-the-constitution-act-1867/932029/13 "2021-02-06T15:47:27Z")
Fascinating, thanks! I’ve been using the original French version, printed in the federal statutes in 1867: > **[Statuts du Canada : \[Statuts du Canada passés d... - Canadiana](https://www.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.9_01839_1_1/4?r=0&s=1)** > > Statuts du Canada : \[Statuts du Canada passés dans la trente-et-unième année du règne de Sa Majesté la Reine Victoria et dans la première session du premier Parlement du Canada : commencée et tenue à Ottawa le sixième jour de novembre, en l'année de... The version used in the DOJ website has been tidied up a bit, correcting some other typos and fixing the accents aigu to « _siège_ », and « _collège_ ” ». In addition to « piastre », the Act also uses « centins », in s. 118, the “eighty cents a head” subsidy to the provinces. And in ss. 146 and 147, there is yet another differing usage of the article, in regards to islands: « provinces de Terreneuve et l’Ile du Prince Edouard ». Two islands, but one with an article and one without. All very interesting - thanks for your comments, **Hypnagogic Jerk**. I"m just coming to the conclusion that French is not as orderly as I had assumed it was. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2021, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-grammar-question-use-of-articles-in-french-version-of-the-constitution-act-1867/932029/14 "2021-02-10T19:11:59Z")
“The French don’t care what they do actually, as long as they pronounce it properly.” - Prof. Henry Higgins ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2021, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-grammar-question-use-of-articles-in-french-version-of-the-constitution-act-1867/932029/15 "2021-02-11T18:38:37Z")
Okay, I’ve searched for the words “_[siège](https://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/si%C3%A8ge)_” and “_[collège](https://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/coll%C3%A8ge)_” in the _Trésor de la langue française informatisé_, which provides historical and etymological information. Here are the relevant lines: - For _siège_: **Prononc. et Orth.:** [sjε:ʒ]. _Ac._ 1694, 1718: _siege_; 1740-1835: _siége_; dep. 1878: _siège_. - For _collège_: **Prononc. et Orth. :** [kɔlε:ʒ]. Ds _Ac._ 1694-1932. Écrit _collége_ ds _Ac._ 1762-1835 : ,on prononce _colége_``. Pour cette graph. _cf._ aussi Nod. 1844, Besch. 1845 et _Lar. 19e_ ; écrit _collège_ pour l’_Ac._ à partir de _Ac._ 1878 suivie par le reste des dict. gén. Cette graph. est déjà celle de Fér. 1768, Fér. _Crit._ t. 1 1787, Land. 1834 (qui transcrit cependant [e] fermé) et Gattel 1841. So the word “_siège_” was spelled _siege_ in the first two editions of the _Dictionnaire de l’Académie française_ of 1694 and 1718, _siége_ in the next four published in 1740, 1762, 1798 and 1835, and _siège_ starting with the seventh edition of 1878. As for “_collège_”, it was spelled _collége_ in the 1762 to 1835 editions and _collège_ afterwards. However, the spelling of this word was more debated since the modern spelling was already used in other dictionaries since the 18th century. However, the pronounciation used a closed [e] (which would suggest a ‘é’ spelling) instead of an open [ε] until at least the 19th century, even according to some dictionaries otherwise recommending the “_collège_” spelling. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2021, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-grammar-question-use-of-articles-in-french-version-of-the-constitution-act-1867/932029/16 "2021-02-11T18:45:43Z")
That’s interesting, thanks. So it looks like the accents changed on “siege” right around the time of the 1867 Act, and therefore it was an acceptable usage, while “college” was debated? I guess the DOJ just decided to update to the modern accents. Thanks for digging that up. Fascinating. ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2021, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-grammar-question-use-of-articles-in-french-version-of-the-constitution-act-1867/932029/17 "2021-02-11T19:03:51Z")
It’s possible that the spelling of _siège_ was also debated; the _Trésor_ also shows uses from the 19th century where it appears to be written with a grave accent, although maybe they’ve modernized the spelling. The _Dictionnaire de l’Académie française_ only adopted the modern spelling (for both words) in its 1878 edition, so if the drafters of the 1867 Constitution Act used as reference its 1835 version, that would explain their choice of spelling. But I don’t know if that would also have been the more common spelling among educated people in Canada at the time, nor what dictionaries were in common use. The _Dictionnaire de l’Académie française_ is known as fairly conservative, but I also don’t know if it was the case back then. There are other interesting word choices in this document, such as the word “bill” being used with the same meaning as the English word. But now that I search for it, [it’s actually found in the _Trésor_](https://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/bill) with a reference from the 1835 _Dictionnaire de l’Académie française_. Modern politicians in Canada would say _projet de loi_, however. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2021, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-grammar-question-use-of-articles-in-french-version-of-the-constitution-act-1867/932029/18 "2021-02-11T19:23:43Z")
Yes, there is a bit of a discussion about the wording of the 1867 Act. It has been criticised for the anglicisms, such as the use of “bill” instead of “projet de loi” and “acte” instead of “loi”, the latter as a _faux ami_. As part of the patriation project, the federal government directed that the unilingual English parts of the Constitution should be translated into French and then enacted. The versions produced by the drafting committee are also on the DOJ website, including a new version fo the 1867 Act: > **[Partie 1 - Partie I: Loi de 1867 sur l'Amérique du Nord britannique - Texte no 1](https://www.justice.gc.ca/fra/pr-rp/sjc-csj/constitution/loireg-lawreg/p1t11.html)** > > Site Internet du ministère de la Justice Canada However, that version, and the translation project in general, have been critised by Professor Choquette at Queen’s, as trying to re-write the historical version, thereby deny the legal and linguistic heritage of French-Canadians from the Confederation period, and anachronistically reading in subsequent constitutional concepts that were not in existence in 1867, such as “dominion status”. He also makes the interesting point that although the 1867 version was drafted by Eugène-Philippe Dorion, there is some indication that George-Étienne Cartier also had a hand in it, which increases the significance of the Dorion version as reflecting the views of a key Father of Confederation. Choquette’s paper is available here: > **[Translating the Constitution Act, 1867: A Critique](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1933505)** > > Canada’s Constitution Act, 1867 is not a fully bilingual instrument; most of it is officially expressed in English only. However, an unofficial French translati ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2021, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-grammar-question-use-of-articles-in-french-version-of-the-constitution-act-1867/932029/19 "2021-02-11T19:35:33Z")
So if I understand correctly, the original French version printed in the federal statutes in 1867 does not have official status as law. What about this translation that was prepared following the 1982 patriation, has it been officially adopted? And is the version on the Departement of Justice’s website that you linked to in the OP the same as this modern translation or yet another version? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2021, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-grammar-question-use-of-articles-in-french-version-of-the-constitution-act-1867/932029/20 "2021-02-11T19:45:07Z")
None of them have official status, because the British Parliament only enacted the BNA Act (as it was originally named) in English. Dorion then produced the French version, which was published in the French volume of the 1867 statutes. It’s been cited ever since by the courts, so it seems to have some customary law status. The DOJ version on the main page is the Dorion version, with some typos cleaned up and the accents updated. Howver, that version keeps the original usage of articles which started this discussion. The new version produced by the French drafting committee is just a draft, and has no official status. Parliament alone cannot bring it into force. To have constitutional status, it would need to be enacted by the amending formula set out in the Constitution Act, 1982. That hasn’t happened, probably because it would likely need unanimous consent of all the provinces. My guess (just a guess, haven’t seen this set out anywhere) is that Quebec would have difficulty agreeing to do so, because that might be seen as ratification of patriation. For whatever reason, those new drafts have been sitting there for almost thirty years, not enacted. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/french-grammar-question-use-of-articles-in-french-version-of-the-constitution-act-1867/932029.md?page=2)