From IBWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

thanks to Nik and Dan for correcting my typos but I think a few things should have stayed the same:

  • I purposefuly wrote Laurentian and francian (with "a") since as far as I know, no language in english are written with a "-ien" ending. Whats more, real language and citizenship *here* that in french end in "-ien" always end in "-ian" in english.
    • I'd asked you if we'd decided on a "convention" for this, as the articles throughout the wiki here have it both ways. I think we should go with the "e". There's nothing to say that's not "The Way It Is" *there*. If you feel strongly about having it with an a instead of an e, that's fine...we should probably move the language pages to match if that's the case..
      • Francien is the spelling used *here* in English. See Francien Nik 19:44, 15 February 2006 (PST)
The use of the term *here* in english is a recent one and I suspect that it was taken "as is" due to its limited use: no one use use it save for discussing the fine point of langues d'oil. I have seen incidently this last term used like that (instead of "Oil languages") in some english language texts about dialects so this might prove my point.
Now, *there* francian would have been a term used for quite some time and would have, like most borrowing, being adapted to other langages habits.
Also, I get the feeling that deciding "english *there* does this" might have repercussions on other aspects of the language. If english use a "e" instead of a "a", there must be a reason.
Lastly, is there any particular reason you wanted to spell it with a "A" ? If there's one and I'm missing it, do tell.
--Marc Pasquin 16:19, 16 February 2006 (PST)
I personally like franciEn. Personal preference no more no less. At this point, I figure if you care more one way or the other, we'll go along with you and call it good. :) I just want to make sure there's some continuity in our spellings. :) BoArthur 16:59, 16 February 2006 (PST)
I feel compelled to speak up here: Language names, in English, in -ian don't have anything to do with the French ending -ien. We get ours directly from Latin -(i)anus/a/um "inhabitant of". Like Romania / Romanian. The English word for Francien is Francien *there*, like it is *here*, because Francien is the chief language of Nothern France and the name was borrowed rather recently. The ónly reason whatsoever the English speaking world even bothers with the distinction is on account of the fact that they are aware that in Southern France, they speak Gaulhosc. To be honest with all and sundry: for 98% of English language usage in IB, "French" is the word used, quite indiscriminately, for these languages. I pèrsonally distinguish between Francien and Gaulhosc because I pèrsonally am aware that there is a difference, and also that Christophe took the time to devise the language of Southern France for us and in order to draw attention to the differences that exist between *here* and *there*. This is a purely meta-IB usage. Within IB, I really don't think the English speaking world would bother to differentiate between G and F; and I also don't think they'd bother to write them in "native" form either. This is no different than Americans noting that certain Canadians speak "English" while other Canadians speak "French". I wouldn't say that those other Canadians speak Français, to say nothing of Laurentien!
A similar phenomenon is New France v. New Francy. I've always figured "New Francy" is some odd regionalism (?), on account of "Francy" not even being an English word. I'd really rather not push IB English quite this far away from reality. Frankly, I think it's probably quite out-of-hand enough as it is! Elemtilas 18:25, 16 February 2006 (PST)
  • For reason that are probably obvious, I use australian (or sometime canadian) spelling. "-ise" are not typos. This is the same reason why I write color with a "u".
    • Didn't realize those were Australian spellings...they're also typical of a French speaker writing in American english because of their natural way of pronouncing those words, hence the corrections; we can leave them stay.
fair enough. Wait till I start spelling jail "Gaol" (took me a while to figure that one out....) --Marc Pasquin 16:19, 16 February 2006 (PST)
All are perfectly good British spellings as well, and are not unheard of in the US, though they are by no means usual. Anyway, no one's ever bothered to correct ME when I write gaol! ;) But, were I to correct anything of yours, it would be in favour of -ise and -our! Elemtilas 18:25, 16 February 2006 (PST)
  • The pays-d'en-haut did not become independent from a Neofrancian point of view and even from a neutral one, independence doesn't seem to realy cover the situation. If my wording gave the wrong idea however, maybe "Became a province of NAL" ?
    • It doesn't make sense for me to have NF become a part of the NAL; why would it choose to separate later? Are you meaning that the pays-d'en-haut are now part of the NAL? What province are they? Ontario? If that's the case, I misunderstood, and revert how you see fit, but I would tag it and say that they became Ontario, as I thought you meant NF was part of the NAL for some time.
Sorry if I misexplained it somewhere, the pays-d'en-haut was the part of New France (the whole of the french colonies in north america), that was the land between New Francy and Louisianna which are now various NAL provinces. Unlike other parts, it wasn't under the control of a given Intendant but rather a hodge-podge of friendly native tribes territories, fur trader outposts and forts. --Marc Pasquin 16:19, 16 February 2006 (PST)

Hope these doesn't hide my appreciation. --Marc Pasquin 16:22, 15 February 2006 (PST)

Not in the least; dialogue is important. Thanks for the lovely article and a further glimpse into what New Francy is! BoArthur 16:39, 15 February 2006 (PST)
Yeah me then --Marc Pasquin 16:19, 16 February 2006 (PST)