CANADIEN

Canada is a country which, as a result of its history, has two official languages. The United States has a different history. The experience of immigrants from Russia to the United States has nothing to do with that of the descendants of people who came from France to the St. Lawrence Valley and Acadia in the 17th and 18th century and remained there. It is irrelevant in a discussion on the linguistic rights of Canadians.

Hear hear

Hear Hear Except perhaps for the last paragraph. Looks to me that it's rather Quebec's persecution of linguistic minorities is our excusefor wanting the federal government and the other provincial governments to persecute their minorities. In other words, most of the people who ask jbg's question wanted persecution of French-speaking minorities before the current language legislation in Quebec and will still want it after it's gone....

And pray tell, how am I defending Bill 101? By calling it again and again a pile of m*nure? The 18th century was three centuries ago, deal with it.

There might be a number of reasons. The essential point is that Cartier heard a word that ended with the sound ta, and wrote it down with the final sound da.

Please someone, tell me he's trolling. Nobody can be that brainless., You don't need an alphabet, or any kind of writing system, to have a language. And as any person with a Grade 5 education could tell you, languages are made up of WORDS. And what did he hear? WORDS He indeed wrote down, using his alphabet, the WORD he had heard (and misheard) which is exactly what I and every people who understand the facts are saying. Only in your mind does the fact he wrote down a word from a First nation language mean that the word is not of First Nations origin. See, they people of Stadacone had words after all So why did Cartier write it was Canada? Because it proves the facts, and my point. . You will not produce sources contradicting the facts I have written, because you can't.

Shame on you, you did not mention that they took information from the Statistics Canada web site. It has to be a lie.

We're in 2008. Those of us who have joined the 21th century (forgive me if I believe it includes you) are passed the Conqueror-conquered mentality.

Excellant idea, which I invite you to follow. Go to your local library, and arrange to get Jacques Cartier's Voyages to Canada, in the original text. A re-edition was done by Lux, of Montreal, in 2000 (ISBN 2-922494-22-9). In that re-edition, the relation of Cartier's second expedition starts on page 55; it includes a glossary of Aboriginal terms, starting on page 122. The ninth entry on page 126 reads, and I quote: You are of course welcome to provide proof this is a forgery, or that the writer of the Relation lied, by providing either a book reference or a Web site. You won't , because you can't.

Seeing it for free then getting stuck in traffic 'till 5 in the morning, or watching it on TV for $20. If I were in the area, I would be tempted to watch it on TV.

I've checked. For years. Which is why I know there is no provincial legislation or official document stating that French is an official language at the provincial level in Ontario, or a sort of provincial language. The few politicians who have made such claims are ignorant, and for the most part are English-speaking politicians propagating (not wilfully, I hope) falsehoods in the vain hope of stirring francophobic sentiments. Most Franco-Ontarian organizations and politicians are in fact not CLAIMING that French is an official language at the provincial level, but saying it should be. I, for one, disagree with them o that account, as it is not necessary in order to maintain the linguistic rights I rightfully enjoy.

I would be happy to do so if I was in Quebec and if I were not dealing with your m*nure. Nice to see, btw, that you demonstrate once again that in your bigoted mind equal language rights is wrong and illogical in Ontario but would be right in Quebec. I of course, believe that it would be right in both provinces.

Federal and state governments and their agencies do NOT exclusively use the English language. Examples: - Hawai recognizes two official languages, English and Hawaian - In New Mexico, state laws, official documents must be available in English and Spanish - Publications of the California Department of Motor Vehicles are written in 47 languages - Questionnaires for the U.S. Census of 2000 were available in English, Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese and Tagalog - Lousiana recognizes French in state services and the education system

You tell me. Here's something you wrote. And I will admit, try to comprehend your drivel is beyond most people's capacity. Including yours.

Preferably in English only, we know. :lol: Better tell all those 200000 people (OK 100000 people if it rains a lot) that they are going to a political event. They are under the delusion they are going to a concert by a former Beatle. Which the vast majority of them would be willing to pay to attend. The embarassment is you.

Interesting, but not surprising... you are using a Nazi concept, that of sub-humans. I'll grant you something, though, some human beings are slave to their prejudices... you are a prime example. Now back to the issue at hand. Do you agree with Argus' proposal, yes or no?

Actually, he is quite able to differentiate your dumb opinions from whowhere's. Interesting btw, how you keep praising the value of British institutions then insult the Queen. I may not be a Monarchist but until further notice she is the Head of State of my country, Canada. You insult her in that fashion, you insult Canada. GET OUT OF CANADA.

My apologies, I actually misread your post and took it as meaning Mackenzie King was reviewing the troops etc., when you correctly stated the King did those things. Still, the PM could not have done them himself.

Actually, the Governor-General accepts foreign ambassadors' credentials, grants Royal Assents and acts as Commandor-in-Chief. If Mackenzie King did those things, he was acting beyond his role, and any laws assented by him would have been invalid.

If you hate Canada so much, do yourself and all of us a favour and go. I'd be tempted to suggest an animal as your mascot, but I don't feel like unsulting the donkey.

The glossary in Cartier's second Relation is sufficient proof of how he came with the word. If he took it elsewhere, prove it. He sure did not take it in French maps drawn after him, in texts written in French or any other languages after him, or in George Washington's correspondence; these prove uses of the word, not how Cartier came with it.

By the sovereignist movement, who insists that Québécois are not Canadians... perhaps to by bigoted people who claim the "Frenchies" are not Canadians.

Canada ceased to be a British colony in 1931, eight years before World War II.

The Relation of Jacques Cartier's second voyage (1535-1536) includes a glossary of words in the Iroquian language used by the inhabitants of Stadacone and Hochelaga, as written down by the narrator using the latin alphabet. One of the entries reads: Since, historians have concluded that the origin of the word Canada was most likely a mispronounciation of the Iroquian word Kanata, which means "village'. The original text of Cartier's Relation seems to support that view. If you want to argue the word comes from the French language and has nothing to do with any Iroquian word, than prove it. People usually do not name places through some sort of inspiration, putting some sounds together out of their brain. They use (sometime innacurately) words used by local inhabitants, names of people or other land they want to honour, words referring to religious symbols or concepts, names of objects or animals they found there or remind them of that place, words that refer to activities taking place there. If Cartier chose the word Canada from the French language, it must have existed before the summer of 1534. When and how was it used then, and what was its meaning.

A crack whore is a human being. An alcoholic who sleeps of a park bench is a human being. They have the same basic dignity as other human beings, and the same fundamental right to be treated as persons, instead of objects. Slavery treats persons as objects. Even the most odious criminals are human beings, and have the right to be treated as such. Anybody wants to start a thread about which rights can and cannot be curtailed for prisoners, I'll decide if I want to join. Productive value? Sorry, I didn't realize we were talking about cars or farm land. I thought we were talking about human beings.