May 20

Were there people in Canada that spoke English in the 1690s or late 17th century? Did any of the first nations people speak English? At least, early modern English? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:5262:A00:40A8:A9A5:BA88:5FBE (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. For one thing, the Hudson's Bay Company, a company established in London, was founded in 1670 and began establishing posts in what is now Canada, so their employees, whose origins were in England, would have spoken English. Since their business involved buying furs from trappers who were First Nations people, I would assume that at least some of the First Nations people they dealt with learned to speak English too. And any First Nations people who learned to speak English then would have spoken whatever "era" of English the local English traders spoke, rather than an older or newer variant. The late 17th century is considered to be the time of the transition from Early Modern English to Modern English, although I doubt that most English-speaking people were aware of the transition at the time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The late 17th century was around the time when "thou", "thee", "thy" etc fully disappeared from ordinary spoken English, though they persisted in literary use, among Quakers, and in various dialects... AnonMoos (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A very great number of their employees actually came from Scotland, and in particular Orkney. 24.76.103.169 (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If by "Canada" the question means "what is now Canada", there is also the Newfoundland Colony and Nova Scotia. However, what was then called Canada was a much smaller area that was controlled by France at the time. --184.144.97.125 (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, it seems likely that at least some first nations people who had contacted English speakers would have spoken English. The English were well known for kidnaping and enslaving such people from coastal regions for many years before they even started colonizing the region. They also fished and set up temporary settlements, and traded with locals, and many of them learned English in that way. An instructive example from nearby to Canada, and from almost a century before the OP is asking about, is Squanto (Tisquantum), who had an amazing life story, which included being captured, enslaved, and liberated back to North America. We know of him because he's well documented in works like Mourt's Relation and Of Plymouth Plantation. He, and other members of the Wampanoag confederation, knew English, which shocked the settlers of Plymouth Colony, especially when Samoset walked into their settlement and said "Welcome, Englishmen!" in English. It seems likely from those examples that First Nations people in what is now Canada would have had similar experiences, especially since the OP is asking about the 1690s, and those examples are from the 1620s. Certainly, contact in the intervening decades would have only increased. --Jayron32 11:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• All this said… at the time in question, I think it is more likely that more First Nation peoples living in Canada would have spoken French rather than English. There would have been little need to learn English. English companies such as the HBC hired French speaking voyageurs to travel into the interior to trade. And almost all Englishmen the First Nations would have had contact with would have spoken French as a second language. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  While true, that is also a bridge too far to presume that literally zero First Nations persons spoke English. The OP didn't ask about trends or general principles, they asked if ANY First Nations people living in (what I presume they mean Today's country of) Canada would have spoken English. It seems unlikely that literally no one did, given the ample history of contact between the English and indigenous people in the area. Certainly, some fisherman setting up temporary camps and trading with coastal peoples (something we know was happening in this area literally for decades) would have had the opportunity to teach English to, and to learn native languages from, such indigenous people. It's not just speculation, we have examples from only a few hundred miles away. --Jayron32 13:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think school children bully each other because they lack confidence in themselves, and they come from different families with different discipline and morals, they need to be groomed to accept who they are and where the come from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.114.83.150 (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Bullying. HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And on Child grooming. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A ton of people here in the States are complaining of gas prices. No surprise there. Often people will come up with arguments like "You should see prices in <insert foreign country>!" But that's such an apples to oranges comparison due to differences in taxes, if they produce petroleum, etc. And those prices also the only data I can find.

What I'm looking for is data about trends in various countries. Is that information freely available anywhere? I found a site that would happily take my money for such data but nothing free. And my curiosity isn't so strong to want to pay for answers. :) I'd opt If you can help me find trend data, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks, †dismas†|^(talk) 17:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably we're talking about gasoline and not natural gas which is a bigger issue in Europe at the moment. Alansplodge (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you want data from other countries, this is a time when Americans have to recognise that their version of English is different from most of the rest of the world. Where I live, gas does not mean the stuff I fuel my car with. Well it can, but then I would be talking about liquefied petroleum gas. Then there's the fact that most people in my country would not have a clue how big a gallon is. I don't think you really have any interest in gas prices in my country. I pay for that at the rate of 2.65 cents per megajoule. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would be able to get information up to 2020 free of charge here if you are willing to create a (free) IEA account. Matt's talk 18:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another option, you could use the wayback machine to compare current and previous data published at www.globalpetrolprices.com. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For example, if you look at the five countries with the cheapest and most expensive petrol today, and check in at your timeline points of six months ago, one year ago and five years ago, you get prices per litre in US$ like this:70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela. Today 0.022. Nov 2021 0.000. May 2021 0.020. May 2017 0.01.

Libya. Today 0.031. Nov 2021 (no data). May 2021 (no data). May 2017 (no data)

Iran. Today 0.053. Nov 2021 0.060. May 2021 0.068. May 2017 0.37.

Syria. Today 0.286. Nov 2021 0.231. May 2021 1.456. May 2017 1.05.

Algeria. Today 0.314. Nov 2021 0.332. May 2021 0.344. May 2017 0.32.

Monaco. Today 2.361. Nov 2021 1.978. May 2021 1.909. May 2017 1.68.

Central African Rep. Today 2.386. Nov 2021 2.094. May 2021 2.034. May 2017 1.44.

Denmark. Today 2.463. Nov 2021 2.150. May 2021 1.970. May 2017 1.62.

Norway. Today 2.547. Nov 2021 2.205. May 2021 2.068. May 2017 1.79.

Hong Kong. Today 2.897. Nov 2021 2.631. May 2021 2.497. May 2017 1.90.

Depending on measures and time frames, here's a source: [[1]], Hong Kong is US$2.90/liter, or $10.97/gallon. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everyone, I'm referring to gas/fuel/petrol that you would put in your car. †dismas†|^(talk) 23:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, I might put something we call gas IN MY CAR here in Australia, but then I would be talking about liquefied petroleum gas, which isn't petrol, or gasoline. When Americans say "gas" on an international platform, they really do need to ALWAYS clarify. HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, HiLo48 (talk · contribs), it was not my intention to be such an uncaring ass. I'll see myself out. †dismas†|^(talk) 09:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just want Americans to realise that their version of English is in many ways very different from that used in other parts of the world, and in some cases, like this one, very confusingly so. I've seen Americans writing online as if gas pipelines in eastern Europe, impacted by wars such as that currently in Ukraine, carry the stuff they put in their cars. They don't. HiLo48 (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest that it is not helpful to imagine that variations in English usage are something that should be blamed specifically on Ameicans. --174.95.161.143 (talk) 02:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those same people perhaps think that Colorado Interstate Gas distributes gas for use on interstate highways in Colorado, and who knows how they interpret Peoples Gas? I mean, these are ambiguous uses of "gas" in America, so any Americans getting mixed up are just suffering from ignorance, not a language problem.  Card Zero  (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For cheap gas eat beans. DuncanHill (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing this may be explained by the ability of large container ships to go upstream all the way to Montreal. Can that be considered a reasonable explanation? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax? Or is that not large enough? Blueboar (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax is small compared to Montreal or Toronto (ships that cross the Atlantic can reach Toronto too, but I think few of them do, and I surmise that that's because that's more expensive than going to Montreal). Vancouver, BC is part of a conurbation that is fairly big even though the part that is strictly within the city limits of Vancouver is just a small part of that. I suppose there's a question of how much freight imported to or exported from Canada goes through Halifax, and I don't know the answer to that. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean a coastal urban area of 1 million or more, then there are none north of Boston. I don't think that containerization started to have a big economic impact until the 1970s, which seems a little late to explain Canada's pattern of major cities. AnonMoos (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Saint Lawrence is navigable up to Montreal, that was a logical place for a major city, far more accessible o the continental interior than anything farther south and east than maybe Albany. Acroterion (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: So what? Before container ships there were other large ships carrying freight. They were able to go upstream all the way to Montreal. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But you were the one seeking to explain the settlement pattern in terms of, specifically, container ships.  --Lambiam 07:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 5 Largest Major Ports in Canada has 1. Vancouver (on the west coast), 2. Montreal, 3. Prince Rupert, British Columbia, 4. Halifax NS, 5. Saint John, New Brunswick.

Note that a modern large port does not equate with a large city; the UK's busiest port is located next to the sleepy seaside town of Felixtowe, population 141,000. Alansplodge (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty certain that figure is wrong. The local District Council (East Suffolk) places the population at circa 24,000. (Felixstowe Town profile) The source for the 141,000 figure won't load for me so I can't check it.--Phil Holmes (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Holmes: Felixstowe is a few miles from Ipswich, population 133,384. 2A02:C7C:365E:E700:497A:B97C:8087:CCF8 (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I volunteer in Felixstowe and worked in Ipswich, so know both quite well.--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was changed from 23,699 by a mobile edit on 6 March 2022. Possible vandalism. I have replaced it with the 2017 figure quoted above. Alansplodge (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Québec used to be the main port on Canada's Atlantic coast (as one would expect) and that's why it's a large city, but, as noted above, in modern days the correlation between the size of a port and the size of its host city isn't very strong. The lack of large cities on Canada's Atlantic coast may have more to do with the unfriendly climate and poor conditions for agriculture. It's pretty cold for its latitude. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge: Milford Haven is the UK's fourth busiest port - I've not researched the locations of nos. 2 and 3. 2A02:C7C:365E:E700:497A:B97C:8087:CCF8 (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second is Port of Southampton and third is the Port of Tilbury, the sad remnant of the London Docks, once the busiest in the world. Alansplodge (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Milford Haven is specialised in oil and LNG, liquids coming in very large ships. That allows for a huge tonnage compared to the number of jobs. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• To get us back to Canada… a big issue is simple geography: the Maritime provinces have few sizable natural harbors. Most of the coast consists of small, rocky inlets… fine for a fishing village, but a navigational hazard for bulk cargo ships. Meanwhile, the St. Laurence River is one giant harbor. This moved trade inland, which limited growth on the coast. Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that OP says: (...) the ability of large container ships to go upstream all the way to Montreal. According to our article on container ships, they come in 7 size categories: small feeder, feeder, feedermax, Panamax, Post-Panamax, New Panamax and ultra-large. The largest container ships that can reach Montréal are of the feedermax category, so they are medium-sized, not large. They are mostly for the shorter distances, but may occasionally cross the ocean.

I think it all comes down to two points:

• Places that were important ports around 100 years ago were likely to become large cities. The limit of navigation for both windjammers and Panamax ships is Québec (which became a large city), so there was no need to build large ports further east – and it would have been hard anyway. Nowadays, the large ships go to Halifax, but thanks to containerisation we no longer need a large city to support a large port.
• Some coastal cities get large without having an important port, but they need something else, like tourism or agriculture. The climate on Canada's Atlantic coast rules that out. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The limit of navigation was LAchine Rapids in Montreal - and the locations of these cities were set hundreds of years before the 1920s and long before any large ships anyways. It mostly depends on the beavers. Rmhermen (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In the east of the U.S. most of the earliest "large cities" were somewhat-to-significantly inland; and developed on well-protected natural harbors, usually at a point which were the furthest upriver where a large ship could reach; think like London. None of these cities had significant beachfront property. You don't stand in, say Manhattan, and walk to the Atlantic Ocean itself. Even Boston, when you zoom in on it, is well protected, there are several levels of protective land before you get to the Shawmut Peninsula. New York (historically Manhattan) also developed similarly due to a supremely well-protected harbor; it is several miles from the open seas before you get to Manhattan. Moving down the coast, you see similarly well-inland cities like Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Norfolk, Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah, Jacksonville, Miami. If you look at every one of these cities, you don't find a city lying on the open beach, indeed they are all lying somewhat inland along a navigable inland waterway of some sort, usually as far as ships could reach. Some are closer to the coast than others, but they all have that in common. Look along eastern Canada for similar Geography. As noted, the St. Lawrence River as far as Montreal, meets this requirement. The position of Montreal, Philadelphia, and Baltimore are all essentially the same relative to their neighboring waterway, it's just that the St. Lawrence remains navigable much farther inland than any other east coast waterway. The only other similarly protected harbors are at St. John and Halifax; as noted above these are among Canada's top 5 largest ports. --Jayron32 12:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]