Sid is right. The correct name is Square St-Louis… “square” being a bona fide French word in this context. The use of Carré is to be avoided.
If I may, I think its use actually stems from a misguided hypercorrectness, all in a bid to avoid anglicisms at any cost. In this case, the cost is perpetuating an error regarding the name of this public space… but more insidious is how it perpetuates people’s obliviousness to the fact that “square” is also a French word and the fact that many English and French words share common etymologies. It’s always a good thing to emphasize what people have common.
There used to be a book store across the street (likely still there, but haven’t checked it out in a couple of years) called Libraire du Square. Its owner set me good and straight one day when I (flippantly) asked her why she gave her store an English name.
This is why the word square is pronounced a la francaise.
Skwaaarr insted od Skwear
Carré (referring to a public square) is an anglicism that has become common in Quebec since the nineteenth century. But square is also English in origin. The only difference is that it was adopted by the French in the 18th century. It might have a century of history on carré, but does that make it any more legitimate?
In Quebec, the issue is further complicated by the fact that many of the squares in Montreal are called such because they were originally named in English, not French: some examples include Victoria Square, Phillips Square and Dominion Square. Squares that were originally named in French tend to be called places, like Place Jacques-Cartier and Place d’Armes, and their names have never been translated.
I believe that in France, square refers specifically to a small garden-like public park, like the Square du Temple in the third arrondissement of Paris. Paved plazas are usually called places, like Place de la Concorde. By that standard, then, Victoria Square and Phillips Square should be called Place Victoria and Place Phillips, because they’re hard-surfaced plazas. But, thanks to a quirk of history, their names have been officially translated as Square Victoria and Square Phillips.
In any case, I used Carré St-Louis because, like it or not, that’s what many people call the square. It’s vernacular.
Christopher,
It’s true, as you say, that “square is also English in origin” and that “it was adopted by the French in the 18th century.”
But that’s only half the story because the English word square was adopted from the past participle esquarré of the Old French verb esquarrer, meaning… to make square! All I’m saying is that the French credentials of the word square are impeccable.
I agree with your analysis re how those spaces you mentioned took on the generic square rather than place. You’re right that square used in the context of Square St-Louis is a misnomer because, in French, un square is a small fenced-in garden often in the middle of what we, in English, call a square.
In any event, carré is at once vernacular, ugly, and, as you mentioned, a flagrant anglicism. I would avoid it.
6 comments
the street sign here says Square St-Louis
Sid is right. The correct name is Square St-Louis… “square” being a bona fide French word in this context. The use of Carré is to be avoided.
If I may, I think its use actually stems from a misguided hypercorrectness, all in a bid to avoid anglicisms at any cost. In this case, the cost is perpetuating an error regarding the name of this public space… but more insidious is how it perpetuates people’s obliviousness to the fact that “square” is also a French word and the fact that many English and French words share common etymologies. It’s always a good thing to emphasize what people have common.
There used to be a book store across the street (likely still there, but haven’t checked it out in a couple of years) called Libraire du Square. Its owner set me good and straight one day when I (flippantly) asked her why she gave her store an English name.
This is why the word square is pronounced a la francaise.
Skwaaarr insted od Skwear
Carré (referring to a public square) is an anglicism that has become common in Quebec since the nineteenth century. But square is also English in origin. The only difference is that it was adopted by the French in the 18th century. It might have a century of history on carré, but does that make it any more legitimate?
In Quebec, the issue is further complicated by the fact that many of the squares in Montreal are called such because they were originally named in English, not French: some examples include Victoria Square, Phillips Square and Dominion Square. Squares that were originally named in French tend to be called places, like Place Jacques-Cartier and Place d’Armes, and their names have never been translated.
I believe that in France, square refers specifically to a small garden-like public park, like the Square du Temple in the third arrondissement of Paris. Paved plazas are usually called places, like Place de la Concorde. By that standard, then, Victoria Square and Phillips Square should be called Place Victoria and Place Phillips, because they’re hard-surfaced plazas. But, thanks to a quirk of history, their names have been officially translated as Square Victoria and Square Phillips.
In any case, I used Carré St-Louis because, like it or not, that’s what many people call the square. It’s vernacular.
Christopher,
It’s true, as you say, that “square is also English in origin” and that “it was adopted by the French in the 18th century.”
But that’s only half the story because the English word square was adopted from the past participle esquarré of the Old French verb esquarrer, meaning… to make square! All I’m saying is that the French credentials of the word square are impeccable.
I agree with your analysis re how those spaces you mentioned took on the generic square rather than place. You’re right that square used in the context of Square St-Louis is a misnomer because, in French, un square is a small fenced-in garden often in the middle of what we, in English, call a square.
In any event, carré is at once vernacular, ugly, and, as you mentioned, a flagrant anglicism. I would avoid it.