It’s hardly rare to “borrow” words that aren’t correct in the other language. For example, double entendre isn’t a French expression, and French is full of Englishy borrowings that aren’t real English, such as brushing (blow-dry), people (jet-set), and talkie-walkie. Check out Pseudo-anglicism - Wikipedia . This is just the reverse number.
As to where it’s from, I imagine it’s simply by analogy to other French words that end in a silent s.
Yes, I know. But “Northeast” still seems to me to fit the song better than “Northern”. I guess it’s not the rhythm, since they both have the same number of syllables, but “Northern” seems “flatter” and less interesting, if it makes any sense.
I’ve looked for Mulroney clips on radio-canada.ca to figure out what you’re talking about. I’ve watched this clip from the 1988 election campaign. Yes, he sounds informal in French, but not moreso than John Turner in English, for example. They’re both trying to motivate their troops. And it really is the way he naturally speaks in informal French, he’s not faking it.
But the thing is, it depends for whom. A French person could sound unintelligible as well to me. Granted, it would be harder, but that’s completely cultural: it’s because we’re more exposed to French accents than they’re exposed to Canadian accents.
Yeah, but that’s not what was bothering me. You wrote “Quebeçois” with a cedilla, which I suppose you had to look for. It doesn’t take one. It’s pronounced /kebekwa/, not /kebeswa/. As for the pâté de foie gras, the problem was more than just accents as well.
Probably. And if the Prairie Métis do pronounce it the English way, it’s probably due to being surrounded by English speakers. The same way my Franco-Ontarian friend says cuire instead of cuisiner (they’re both “to cook” in English).
Slovene is another one. It still shares the characteristic similarities that Slavic languages have, but it’s not mutually intelligible the way Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian are. (One of the fun linguistic facts of Slovene is that it not only has a singular and plural number, it also has a dual. With Sorbian, it’s the only living Slavic language to still use it, although it is preserved in old proverbs and the such in other Slavic tongues.)
Well, as neither Macedonian nor Slovenian are interesting in this context I didn’t mention them.
The reason I used the term Yugoslavian is that the former Serbo-Croatian is the biggest language in the area and I know people who prefer that name. They also call themselves Yugoslavs rather than Serbs or Croatians or whatever.
BTW Do you say Castilian or Spanish? 
I remember a questionnaire from the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies to its members. One question was what languages you know. Among the boxes to check were “Serbian,” “Croatian,” and “Serbo-Croatian.” Just to cover all political views. Or almost all, since Yugoslav wasn’t a choice.
I’m also curious as to how mutually intelligible the Central Asian Turkic languages are. My vague sense is that there were a variety of Turkic dialects in Central Asia at the beginning of the 20th century and that the Soviets consciously created Kazakh, Turkmen, Kyrgyz and Uzbek as separate languages as a divide-and-rule tactic.
I asked my wife about this since she speaks Kazakh. She mentioned that Kyrgyz and Kazakh are pretty close, but that Uzbek and Turkmen are fairly different. She can get the gist of them in the same way that a Portuguese speaker can get the gist of what is being said in Spanish.
“Yugoslavia” was a 20th century construct, a union of lands taken from the breakup of the old Austria-Hungary (plus Montenegro) with Serbia. It existed politically only from 1919 to 1990, and did not include all South Slavs. Technically, what one had was:[ul]
[li]Slovenian[/li][li]the Serbo-Croatian dialect group, including core Croatian, Dalmatian, Slavonian, Bosnian, Banat, Serbian, and Montenegrin dialects[/li][li]What mght be termed macro-Bulgrin, with Bulgarian, Rumelian, and Macedonian (FYROM) dialects[/li][/ul]
Also included were areas where *Magyar *and Banat Serbo-Croatian coexisted and where Gheg and Serbian dialects coexisted, with the two italicized dialects being non-South Slav tongues spoken by some citizens of Yugoslavia.
So frankly, I do not see a grouping that includes Slovenian and Macedonian with the various Serbo-Croatian dialects but which excludes Bulgarian dialects other than FYROM Macedonian, as being meaningful in any context outside 20th century historical ethnic discussions.
It’s important to remember that we all have different registers when we speak, whatever the language. In formal situations, we speak a more formal version of whatever language–something closer to the standard. But in informal situations, we use a different register. Word choice and pronunciation are probably the most salient differences, though there can be syntactical differences as well.
Standard Québec French is very close to Standard French French. There are some vocabulary differences and some minor pronunciation differences, but it would definitely be comprehensible to French-speaker from somewhere else. But in more informal registers, even if not full-fledged joual the difference would be far more noticeable. But this is true for different registers of different dialects of English as well.
[quote=“Polycarp, post:87, topic:533761”]
[li]What mght be termed macro-Bulgrin, with Bulgarian, Rumelian, and Macedonian (FYROM) dialects.[/li][/QUOTE]
“Bulgrin” was a bad typo for Bulgarian above. Sorry – my eyesight is getting worse.
It’s not really a big deal, but I don’t know why you’re clinging to the idea that “Yugoslavian” is a good term to use for that language. It isn’t, especially now that no such country even exists. But it’s always been called Serbo-Croatian, or just Serbian or Croatian.