Interesting, Kris. There are as many differences in cross-channel pron. as in spellings and, as you say, not a great divergence in either. Your comparison comment on French, Spanish and Portuguese is something I didn't know but can understand, esp. as those three had empires, two of which preceded the British one.
For an idea of how French people view Canadian French, I recommend the French spoof spy-show
Au Service De La France (on Netflix), which gets great mileage out of the opaqueness of the Quebecois dialect in one episode. It’s not as bad as made out there, but French friends tell me it just sounds really odd. In terms of the written word, though, the two languages are very close, with only a couple of word-choices marking them out.
Spanish is very widely spread, but is mostly mutually intelligible, although South Americans much prefer Mexican to Castilian (European) accents when there’s a choice. As for reading, spelling is the same, but an Argentine colleague tells me that while he can read a Spanish broadsheet paper like
El País, he would find some of the choices of verbs and phrasing to be strange compared to how the same story would appear in a Buenos Aires-based newspaper. If you’re careful, though, you can write in a neutral, “Universal Spanish” that is acceptable anywhere, but you really can’t use that for more than functional writing like instruction manuals or notices.
Portuguese is the tricky one. The language and vocabulary are actually closer than the two Spanish regions, but Brazilian Portuguese developed very different pronunciation to its European parent, and unfortunately those differences have been codified into the official Brazilian spelling. So, for example: the word for “fact” is
facto in Portugal but
fato in Brazil, reflecting these different pronunciation, and that’s just one of thousands of similar changes. You cannot write text that will suit both Brazilian and Portuguese readers, but the people from the two countries can converse as easily as Spanish and Latin Americans can.
Yes, this is another past-life, this time, working in software localisation.
The dropping of the 'u' ( or/our) by the Americans is actually, I believe, more accurate to C18th and previous English; the 'u' was added here in the early C19th. I'm afraid, though, that I cannot abide the dropping of French derivation pron's. One particular favourite is 'route'. They can suffer a complete rout whilst looking for an escape rout (pron.). What is wrong with the differentiation of 'root' and rout' sounds?
Dictionary-publisher Noah Webster is responsible for the u-dropping in American English, and the promotion of the word “thru” (well, it’s a word in American English at least). Some of his more outlandish suggestions (“masheen”, “ake”, “sley”, “dawter”, “wimmen”) thankfully didn’t catch on.
As for -out-, Canada adds more fun by going with us on “rout” and “route”, but striking a third-way on “out” and rhyming that with “about”, but not “stout”.
There are some anomalies in British English: a router, when it’s a carpentry tool, rhymes with “doubter”, but a router, when it’s a piece of networking equipment, rhymes with “hooter”.