Talk:Australian English/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archives and related discussion
Talk:Australian English
Archive I	Archive II	Archive III
Talk:Australian English vocabulary
Archive I	Archive II	Archive III
Wiktionary:Appendix talk: Australian English vocabulary
Talk:Australian English phonology
Archive I	Archive II
Talk:Variation in Australian English

Relationship to other varieties of English

Have removed "and freeway is the most common word for a high-speed, grade-separated road, though motorway is also sometimes used, particularly for toll roads (although tollway is also used)." As far as I'm aware 'freeway' is never used, and is, in fact, and example of the dreaded creeping Americanisms (if ever uttered at all). They're highways.

What the hell are you talking about. The word "freeway" is definitely used, at least in Victoria anyway. It is used in the Melways & UBD street directories, used on street signs, and are always referred to when uttered. The word "motorway" is hardly ever used, especially in Victoria with "freeway" the preferred word. The word "highway" is used for large main roads, not freeway type roads. I'm going to reinsert it. Also please sign your name. Mark 02:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The anonymous writer might be from NSW, where they can't handle paying a toll on a freeway, so renamed them to motorways. The only significant length of grade-separated divided road in South Australia is the South Eastern Freeway. We also have the Southern Expressway which is only a single two lane grade separated road, and the direction of traffic flow is changed depending on time of day. --ScottDavis 03:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think NSW is the only part of Au where they are called "motorways"(?) They have always been freeways here in WA. Grant65 (Talk) 03:59, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Highway's, Freeways and motorways are considered to be 3 distinctly different roads in Queensland. We have the gateway motorway (a 4 lane road designed to get you from one side of the city to the other), The Bruce Highway, another 4 lane rd though this one will take you for 1700Kms or so and then there's the South East Freeway. A 6 lane 'Freeway' designed to carry large amounts of traffic from the city centre to the outskirts. It also connects with the Pacific Highway.

There is certainly no basis for a claim that Freeway is the most commonly used term in my experience.

This should be easy to solve. The terms highway, freeway and motorway are not interchangable. They are provided in the name of the road by the relevant authorities. Shouldn't be difficult to count the number of highways, freeways and motorways in Australia. Beats relying on your anecdotal evidence.

Sorry freeway people. You're going to struggle to justify your stance here. Almost all major high speed roads in Australia are called Highways. Do a search and count the number of freeways you find in comparison to highways.

This is a list of all roads that make up the national highway...

Brisbane to Melbourne - Warrego Highway, Gore Highway, Newell Highway, Goulburn Valley Highway, Hume Freeway Melbourne to Adelaide - Western Freeway, Western Highway, Dukes Highway, Princes Highway Adelaide to Darwin - Port Wakefield Road, Stuart Highway Adelaide to Sydney - Sturt Highway, Hume Highway Adelaide to Perth - Port Wakefield Road, Eyre Highway, Coolgardie-Esperance Highway, Great Eastern Highway Perth to Darwin - Great Northern Highway, Victoria Highway, Stuart Highway Sydney to Canberra - Hume Highway, Federal Highway Melbourne to Canberra - Hume Freeway, Hume Highway, Barton Highway Hobart to Burnie - Brooker Highway, Midlands Highway, Bass Highway

Highway: 23 Freeway: 3

Just found our very own wikipedia article on the subject Australian_highways. If you can find a list of freeways that outnumbers this list of highways in Australia I will hapily eat my hat.

Here is the list of freeways List_of_freeways_in_Australia, many of which are made up of roads that include the words 'Motorway' or Highway in their names and not the word 'Freeway' which seems to be defined here as a road with a toll.

Wouldn't a freeway, by definition, be a road without a toll? ;-) To me a highway is a more generic term which can include everything from major roads in the country to inner city roads with traffic lights every block. (It does here in WA anyway.) Whereas I would consider a freeway to be a high speeed multi-lane road without any traffic lights. There are no motorways in WA. Grant65 (Talk) 16:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the whole problem here is that there are multiple definitions of "freeway", "highway" etc. current in different parts of Australia, and Australians from the various regions don't really seem to realise that. I presume that the person who added the original statement used a definition of "freeway" along the lines of major, high-speed (100 km/h +), divided road; whereas the definition of "highway" was major, mid-to-high speed (80 km/h +, faster in the country), not necessarily divided and almost never grade-separated. By this definition, "freeway" certainly seems to be the most common name for that sort of major road (and it contrasts with the "motorways" and "expressways" you find in Sydney). Presumably to other Australians, there is no such distinction (and they don't realise a lot of people only know of such a distinction). Thus, any uses of the word "highway" need to show not only that they're highways, but that they are used for I (and others who make the distinction) would call a "freeway". —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 03:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Based on wikipedia articles freeway, motorway, highway I have confirmed that my understanding of what these terms mean is correct. Overall it should be noted that freeway and motorway are two different words for the same thing, but a highway is something different. When these terms are used or applied in Aust the original meanings are completely retained. Though there are few freeways outside Vic and NSW, it seems freeway is the prefered term in Vic, and motorway the term in NSW. Both words mean the same thing. Freeway is the US word, Motorway the UK word. I don't know why people have brought highway into the discussion though because that was never mentioned by the article, and highways are different things from freeway/motorway. One locality may have both highways and freeways. It is very frustrating having to read these arguments. MinorEdit 12:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Ever driven down the Hume Highway or the Bruce Highway between Brisbane and Caboolture? These both fit the description you offer for Freeway/Motorway. I bet there are more examples of highways fitting the description than freeways.

As I said above, highway seems to be a more generic term. That is, some roads which are called "_____ Highway" could also be called freeways/motorways. But not all of them. Grant65 (Talk) 14:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I have certainly driven on the Hume Hwy. I have also driven on the Hume Fwy. The bits of it that are named "Hume Hwy" are very definitely highways according to my definition, and not freeways. The bits of it that are called "Hume Fwy" are very definitely freeways according to my definition, and not highways. (Applies only to the road in Victoria.)

The Hume Hwy also has the additional distinction that because it's such an important road that started out its life as the Hume Hwy and has been upgraded progressively to the Hume Fwy, the road, taken as a whole, is generally called "the Hume Hwy". That's a particular instance that applies to that road and not to freeways in general. Similar things could be said about the Princes Hwy, though not (say) the Calder Hwy/Fwy (out to Bendigo) or the Western Hwy/Fwy (out to Ballarat) because it's not as culturally important, and when you do "Calder" is more than clear enough. Nevertheless, both the official name of the road when it's a freeway, and the common name for the sort of road it is when the Hume/Princes F/Hwys are freeways, is "freeway".

—Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 14:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

There are plenty of highways in WA but none of them, or any part of them, is ever called a freeway. (The reverse was true of the southern end of the Kwinana Freeway between the mid-1990s and 2002, as it was interrupted by traffic lights at several intersections.) Anyway, my point is that freeway/motorway are much more specific terms and are generally interchangeable. Grant65 (Talk) 09:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yesyes, certainly I agree with you. I was replying to your parent-poster; I was meaning to be a sibling to you. (But I don't like having two different responses at the same indent level immediately after another, so I changed it by going back to zero. That's usually what it means if I go back to zero. Perhaps this is confusing and/or nonstandard.) I was also talking only of the stuff that happens in Victoria, not in WA. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 10:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Australians' use of words

Diminuitives

Unique Australian Traits - disagree with some content

Note that it's an overstatement to say that the diminutives/abbreviatives are unique to Australian English. Although the -o ending hasn't been much used outside the upper classes in Britain since the 1940s (aggro is the only common exception that I can think of offhand), the -ie diminutive is widely used in Northern English and Scottish dialects (including terms like biccie, etc.) and the -za or rather -zer endings are also used although they form a subclass of the -er ending (Bazzer, rugger, etc.). It would be fair to say that these endings are more commonly used in Australian English rather than that they are unique to it. -- Derek Ross

Yeah. There are plenty of -ie endings in UK and US speech (undies, hottie, panties, bookie, Trekkie...) and -o endings as well (aggro in the UK). Some of the US -o endings are distinctly American and not used too often in Aust (wino, sicko). Many others are universal such as wierdo. True that Aust as a unique set of diminutives though. MinorEdit 03:59, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

More use of diminutives than any other English?

I see that the rather strong claim that 'Australian English makes much more frequent use of diminutives than other varieties of English.' has just been added. I'm wondering if there's any evidence for this. If not I suggest that it either be reverted, or changed to something more like that in the previous version. --Dougg 05:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Among the younger generations of Australians, it has become common to make a mockery of these similes by saying things like "slow as something thats really slow" and "tired as a person who is tired" amongst others.

This was added recently and I don't agree with it at all. Can the author verify this??? Citizen D 00:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how much personal experience counts, but I've heard that sort of thing used (by teens/YAs) and used it myself (Aged 20). I'm not sure how much it's an Australians-Mocking-Aussie-Slang thing, it could easily be the product of someone not being able to come up with a metaphor in time to finish the sentence. From my own knowledge (Urban, General Australian English), use of phrases like 'built like a brick shithouse' while not all that common is still pretty acceptable - nay funny (when creative), espically in an ironic way. Polanyist

I'd agree with that; I'm of that generation (I'm 22), and if someone tried to say "slow as something that's really slow", I'd probably have to struggle not to laugh. I see it as wordplay: a good simile is funny and true at the same time, and shows a bit of wit. (One good one I've heard recently is "her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever".) - thefamouseccles 01:39, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

When used well it is funny, but my original point is that it's not what you would call common, and I don't believe it is a uniquely Australian youth trait so wonder whether it should be here. Citizen D 04:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Remove X-SAMPA

If no one objects I will remove the redundant X-SAMPA codings from this page.
Reasons for removal:

• The IPA template was created to give those using Internet Explorer the ability to read IPA characters properly.
• The SAMPA or X-SAMPA codes have been removed or replaced by IPA codings in nearly all other articles that include pronunciation.

– AxSkov (T) 15:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, however, some computers (& mobile phones) won't display IPA. Also, it's useful to have an easy reference for those who would like to transcribe AusE in X-SAMPA. I vote to keep the X-SAMPA. - Jimp a.k.a Jim (I've created an account) 24May05

Or at least leave the X-SAMPA only in the vowel table. Jimp 19Jun05

Punctuation

I've just reverted an edit on the article page. It seems appropriate that this page be written in Australian English. AusE follows the same rule so British English with respect to putting punctuation marks inside or outside the inverted commas. See Contents of quotations in the following section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences#Punctuation

- Jimp 8Jun05

I've just stumbled on the following.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Punctuation

This punctuation style is recomended for all Wikipedia articles.

- Jimp 12Jun05

Name of Australian English

The name used by linguists (and educators) to refer to the mainstream English spoken in Australia is Standard Australian English, abbreviated as SAE. I'm just wondering if this should be mentioned somewhere in the article.. - Dougg 01:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I've only seen it as AusE or Gen AusE Frances76 09:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Stressing long vowels

The Australian English accent stresses a long "ay" sound, whereas the New Zealand English stresses a long "i" sound.

Surely such wishy-washy terms as long "ay" sound and long "i" sound have no place in an encyclopædia for grown-ups. What really is a long "i" sound anyway: the first vowel in lighter or the vowel in litre? For that matter, there is a word ay (also spelt aye) meaningyes and homophonous with eye andI. Instead, what should be used is an IPA based phonemic transcription.

In linguistic lingo the term "stress" has a particular meaning. In NZE as in AusE primary stress falls on the first vowel in both ligher and later. It can't be stress that the writer was refering to (unless the writer was just plian wrong). Maybe it's some other kind of emphasis but something tells me "No". Worse than being poorly written, I have my doubts as to whether there is any truth in this statement.

Jimp 13Jul05

Concerning the current Edit War

Dear anonymous Contributor:

As established on this Page, the corresponding Article and others throughout the World at large, there is a Distinction in Australian English between the Phonemes /æ/ and /æ:/. One cannot derive a Set of Rules based only the phonetic Environments in which the Sounds occur to determine whether [æ] or [æ:] will occur, and words with a merged Phoneme that also have the same Coda (such as Lad and bad) do not necessarily rhyme. Worse still, minimal Pairs exist (generally spelt the same). For these Reasons, you cannot accept that [æ] and [æ:] are Allophones in Australian English unless you wish to redefine ‘Allophone’, which is inappropriate for an Encyclopedia. What holds for other Varieties of English does not necessarily hold for all Varieties: Nor is the Maquarie Dictionary a good Source for Information conecrning Australian Phonetics.

Furthermore, some Words which vary between broad and flat A's (such as Castle) use short flat A's when flat; whereas others (such as dance) use long flat A's. This is of course important and not entirely intuitive, particularly for Speakers of Philidelphian English. These People similarly have two flat A's, though one is tense and the other lax (due to Differences between our System and theirs), and normally a Philly Tense-æ that does not correspond to an Aussie Broad-a corresponds to an Aussie /æ:/; however, in these Case, it does not. (This may not be a concern of any Philidelphian Speakers.)

Lastly, as there's two Phonemes /æ/ and /æ:/, it is incorrect to say that those Speakers who do not use /a:/ in dance or France use /æ/: Quite plainly they do not, if they use /æ:/.

Please stop reverting the Article, or provide a convincing Reply.

Felix the Cassowary 12:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Archival

This page was getting quite difficult to edit, so I've archived some older content (cut-off basically May this year). I've never Archived stuff before, so I mightn't've done it quite correctly. Also, a lot of people edit anew under older topic headers... I've tried to make sense while changing that. Felix the Cassowary 12:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Problem sentence

I find the following sentence problematic: "Aside from this the Australian vowel system is quite different from that of other dialects."

Which other dialects are those? The sentence seems to imply that all other (English Language?) dialects are all the same as one another and that it is just Australian that is different. This is clearly not the case - something that seems quite clear when the range of accents from Boston to Brummie to Cockney to Somerset is considered. Is the sentence trying to say "Different from RP" or should it be totally deleted? MinorEdit 06:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I suspect the next sentence is (part of) the key to decoding it (at least if you read it your way). I also disagree with your reading, I read it as saying it's disimilar to others rather than that all others are a similar point to measure from. I would suspect it was added because Australians don't like being lumped in with Brits by Americans :)

If you read it your way though, it's still not unreasonable. Read the next sentence—most other Englishes are described as having tense and lax vowels, but in Australian English most tense:lax oppositions have been replaced with a long:short or diphthong:pure opposition. No-one in their right mind would say that there's a link between AuE /e/ and /æi/ the same way there's a link between AmE /E/ and /e/. The sounds are radically different. Hence, the logical partner of \E\ /e/ is \AIR\ /e:/; of \lAd\ /æ/ is \bAd\ /æ:/; of \UH\ /a/ is \AH\ /a:/, whereas \AI\ /æi/, \Y\ /Ai/, \OH\ /@ʉ/ have no logical partners (except via orthography and history). Possibly this statement is untrue, I understand some varieties of British English (though typically still spelt phonemically as early or mid 20th C RP or RP-alike) form similar pairs.

In either case, it's clearly ambiguous and should be rewritten. I would like some comments on my two ideas before I make an attempt.

Felix the Cassowary 11:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The opening

In my view, the opening needs to be recast. It should more smoothly paint the big picture; specific examples should be relocated to other sections.

It should mention that AusEng has distinctive features in both oral and written modes. It might mention the influence of indigenous languages, particularly on place names, as a cultural courtesy as much as for other reasons. It should definitely classify AusEng as non-rhotic: that's a very basic feature.

Does anyone disagree?

Tony 07:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestions sound amenable to me.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

What influence has Aboriginal English had on Australian English? Coo-ee and what else? (almost) Everything else is a feature of World English. Wagga Wagga isn't called Princeville in America, and kangaroos aren't called Australian Giant Rabbits in Britain. Other than that, I agree.

(As for non-rhoticness, it occurs to me I have come across a handful of rhotic Aussies. There seems to be no rhyme nor reason to why they speak rhotically (i.e. no regional nor social variation), and it's not the kind of rhoticness you associate with American English where the the following /r/ tends to bleed into the vowel, but rather stressed vowels which have a written <r> sometimes or always get a /r/ put after them. They may also put the /r/ in unstressed vowels, in which case it tends to be [@r\], not [r\=] like in American. I don't know if it's a personal affectation or if it's that one parent or another spoke rhotically but they developed Aussie vowels in school or what. These are, however, merely personal observations and don't constitution grounds for objection to mentoining AusE as non-rhotic, because it overwhelmingly is and you can't understand it's phonology without understanding that.)

— Felix the Cassowary 06:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I know an Australian guy who has an unnaturally American pronunciation. He has never been to America, but he was not very well socialised as a child and probably picked up the accent from TV and a special education computer program. When I questioned him, about whether he normally says "fast" as /fa:st/ or /fæ:st/ he told me /fa:st/, but about thirty seconds later, speaking naturally he pronounced it /fæ:st/. He also speaks rhotically. I was also wondering if I'm the only one who naturally and unconsciously adopts an American accent when saying something intentionally stupid... sorry Americans, this is not my view of ALL of you... just the ones that voted for Bush. (Sorry, I don't know how to put in the phonetic "length" symbol, so I figured a colon is close enough. If it bothers anyone, they can change it.) - Ben from Brisbane

Yeah, I think a lot of people adopt an Americanised accent when saying something stupid, and quite often when quoting people. But it's not true to say it's an American accent, because it's still fundamentally Australian, I think. Things like /fæːst/ (retaining the length of Australian /faːst/, but using a fronted quality) whereas Americans say [fæst] or [fɛəst] (if they don't rhyme ‘mass’ and ‘class’). I think the same thing also happens when most/many people say ‘ass’ instead of ‘arse’, as /æːs/ so that it’s different from ‘ass’ meaning donkey, as /æs/.

(The easiest way to put in IPA symbols is to copy and paste them from somewhere else—I’ve customised my keyboard layout though, so that when Scroll Lock’s on, I can enter some characters a bit like in X-SAMPA.)

—Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 04:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Motorway (brackets)

AxSkov, why the brackets in the motorway bit? It reads funny, but perhaps there's some semantic value. (Not coming from a region where motorways are used, and tollways are called thus, I'm note necessarily the best judge.) — Felix the Cassowary 09:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the brackets. It was supposted to show that some people in NSW call the tolled freeways "motorways" and call untolled freeways "freeways/highways". If someone wants to clarify this (particularly someone from NSW) then go right ahead. – AxSkov (☏) 06:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

In Tasmania, I have yet to hear anyone say either 'motorway' or 'freeway'. Everyone seems to say 'highway' when refering to the major road between cities. - Stelard

The names "freeway" and "motorway" are usually only applied to multiple lane roads without traffic lights within cities. Major roads linking cities (with or without dual carriageways) such as the Hume Highway are not in that class. An exception would be the Pacific Motorway between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. Cities also have "highways" (usually dual carriageways interrupted by traffic lights) within them. Grant65 (Talk) 00:57, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

What! Maybe in NSW, WA, etc, but not in Victoria. "Highways" in Victoria only have dual carriageways within metropolitan areas and always have single in rural areas. "Freeways" in Victoria are always dual carriageways and they also exist in rural areas, for example: the Hume Highway as the Hume Freeway from Craigieburn to Wodonga; the Princes Highway as the Princes Freeway from approx Pakenham to Traralgon; the Calder Highway as the Calder Freeway from the Tulla to Malmsbury; and the Western Highway as the Western Freeway from Caroline Springs to Ballarat. In Victoria some major roads linking cities/towns (with on-off ramps) are called "freeways", whilst other major roads (without on-off ramps) are called "highways". Therefore in Victoria freeways are not just a type of city road, but also a type of country road. – AxSkov (☏) 07:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The South Eastern Freeway in South Australia is also a rural, dual carriageway, grade separated road. There are no freeways in Adelaide itself. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Revert war

Anonymous 203.164.*.* editor/s (203.164.184.36, 203.164.184.44, 203.164.184.117, 203.164.184.209, and probably others), what do you keep reverting the article? Could people please stop this, and discuss the problem? I’ve already outlined m objections to your wording in past edits, but I’ll re-iterate them here for your and everyone else’s convenience:

• regarding ‘spelling confusion’—what is that? The intended meaning is almost certainly ‘variation between spellings’, as User:Ntennis has observed with their edits.
• regarding the quotation marks around ‘American’—they either are American, or they aren’t. If they are, then the quotation marks are redundant. If they aren’t, then a more appropriate word/expression should be sought.
• regarding ‘and so forth’—that expression is redundant with the initial ‘such as’. You don’t need to say it twice; it simply reads badly. This doesn’t even change the meaning, so I’m not sure what your problem with it is in even the remotest way.

(I gave up on this editwar shortly after it began, but I’d still much prefer my wording.)

By the way: I’m very offended by your description of my edits as vandalism. That is hardly even remotely appropriate, and counts as a personal attack. I assure you—I have been working very hard to moderate my response to it.

— Felix the Cassowary 07:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think "spelling confusion" makes more sense, as I have come across official documents, books, etc. that used both variant spellings of "-ize"/"-our" words in the same book or page! This suggests to me as confusion rather than variation. In my lastest edit I removed the silly quotation marks.

Don't get offended by someone describing your edits as "vandalism", lighten up and move on. I would also advise you not to take this place so seriously, you'll live longer. – AxSkov (☏) 06:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Confusion implies that you know something about the mental state of the person using a spelling which you do not. Official documents are often compiled by more than one person and those persons may not be confused at all, just in disagreement about the spelling to use. Variation is a much safer description.

I also don't see what's wrong with including the old spellings of the example words. Since they are no longer current, many young Australians (and many American readers) may not know how these words are different.

Hmm...it's all very well to tell people to 'lighten up' at the same time as you are reverting only to your edits!

Yours lightly, Moilleadóir 08:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

No, the document is confused, not the person, and I don't think confusion in this sense implies "something about the mental state of the person". I still feel confusion is a more suitable word than variation. I only reverted to my edit because it included some of the changes made by Ntennis and myself. – AxSkov (☏) 09:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

How can a document be confused? If the spelling of a document is varied, then that's spelling variation. I don't know what other sense confusion in this context possibly implies. Also, I have made a conscious decision to spell words ending in -our with -or when appropriate. The current wording makes it sound like I'm confused (or my documents are, whatever), when it's just the variant I've chosen. (Wikipedia contains variant spellings in the same sentence; does that make Wikip. confused? I'm having fun attributing confusion to non-sentient objects now ;)

(I'll take things with whatever level of seriousness as I want. I'm not usually offended; if I wish to be, then so be it.)

— Felix the Cassowary 12:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Since this has to do with the same paragraph that is causing these "edit wars", may I enquire what the "ACE corpus" is? Would someone who knows be able to clarify its mention in the article?. Thanks --Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Google suggests the ACE corpus is, ahem, the Australian Corpus of English corpus. I don't know anything more about it. — Felix the Cassowary (12:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC))

There's little that can be done about anonymous users without a static IP number who edit in bad faith, use deceptive edit summaries, etc. So I agree with AxSkov that we need to keep a light-hearted attitude about wikipedia: maximise fun, minimise stress. That said, I strongly disagree with the use of the term "confused" when referring to Australian spellings. I did rewrite the paragraph to avoid making a judgement either way, and kept it to a simple observation (see below). Naturally it was quickly reverted :P. I think the sentence "exposure to American and British spellings has led to..." is unnecessary. I grew up in Australia with exposure to different styles of writing and spelling; it wasn't American or British, but a variety of Australian spellings — which had been in use for a century. And it didn't confuse me or my peers! It's like saying Australians "confuse" the terms "license plate" (US) and "number plate" (UK), when we simply use both. For the record, here's my suggested wording:

In general, Australian convention allows for both British and American spelling of words such as organise/organize and colour/color. British spelling is generally preferred, although some words are usually written in the "American" form, such as 'program' and 'jail'. Publishers, schools, universities and governments typically use the Macquarie Dictionary as a standard spelling reference. Both -ise and -ize are accepted, as in British English, but '-ise' is the preferred form in Australian English by a ratio of about 3:1 according to the Austrailan Corpus of English.

The A.C.E. is a database of Australian English texts containing over 1 million words, collected and maintained by the linguistics department at Macquarie Uni. It is the primary resource for the corpus linguistics of Australian English, similar to the Brown Corpus of American English. It is actually very relevant to this page! I wasn't the one who put the ref there, and I don't know about the 3:1 ratio, but it seems reasonable. ntennis 04:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who added the ACE reference to this page, because I thought it made some sense, but I guess I should have done some research regarding it. I got that reference from Commonwealth English, where it was added by another user – Jallan, who has since left Wikipedia – and I'm not sure where he got the information from. This is his edit regarding the reference.

Perhaps ACE deserves a page of its own and then linked to the Australian English page? – AxSkov (☏) 04:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I think some of you need a hug. *hug* - Ben from Brisbane

New Australian English phonology page

I've created a new Australian English phonology page and deleted the information that is now there from here. I did this because this page was pretty big, and the information on the phonology pretty dodgy. In particular, I didn't like the vowels table, which seemed to make Australian English into a transformation of Received Pronunciation, and the bulleted list after it, which was full of muck, and which I'm ashamed to say I contributed to.

I disagree with you about the vowels table. I found it quite useful in comparing the pronunciation differences between AuE vowels and RP vowels and I feel a bit disappointed that it's gone. You also decided to unilaterally change things without discussing it first, which is a bit rude, but anyway. I agree with you regarding the bullet list though, it was a bit messy. – AxSkov (☏) 13:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't completely get rid of the comparison to RP; you can easily derive that from the Mitchell-Delbridge system included. The only differences between M.-D. and RP are, I think, /a/ for /ɑ/ (Durie-Hajek /aː/), and /oʊ/ for /əʊ/ (revised /əʉ/). Also, M.-D. never uses the length marks that are optional in RP. Of course, there's differences between the pronunciations of words, so that any correspondances between Australian phonemes and RP ones are misleading. (e.g. we pronounce 'Austria' as /ɔstri.ə/, but I believe the RP pronounciation is not the /ɒstri.ə/ a table of correspondencs would imply, but /ɔːstri.ə/.) Anyway, a better resource is at Help:IPA for English, which further has the advantage of providing the American equivalents.

My dictionary says /ɔːstri.ə/, but I don't know who else does... It definitely starts with /ɒ/ for me. (Same with Australia.)--JHJ 07:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the unilateral change ... I was originally going to discuss, and then I thought this was kinda the meaning of ‘being bold’. I won't do it again if I make such a major change.

(— Felix the Cassowary)

Well that's true with regards to the IPA for English page, that also includes American equivalents. There is a similar page, with a simple chart, located at IPA chart for English, which I find very useful. – AxSkov (☏)

I made two changes to the IPA transcription used here. Firstly, I'm using /a/ and /a:/ instead of the turned glyphs. IPA principles indicate that Roman characters are to be preferred over non-roman ones, and in almost every other language with only one low vowel, /a/ is used. (The classification of /æ/ as open doesn't interfere with this, because it's not fully open; it occupies its usual spot.) /a/ and /a:/ are also commonly used for the phonome in question, just not by our source. In any case, the turned-a glyph doesn't really represent the sound adequately; turned-a is not a fully-open vowel. I hope this change can filter through to other pages.

I also think the AuE /ɐː/ is further forward and hence closer to the phoneme /a/; whilst /ɐ/ is further back and hence closer to /ɐ/ or /ɑ/. So the transcription of /aː/ makes sense, but I don't know about /ɐ/. I actually prefer /ɐ/ rather than /a/, because in English /hat/ could be mis-pronounced as "hat" instead of "heart" "hut".

Can you give sources for this (why /a/ and /aː/ is used instead of /ɐ/ and /ɐː/) and were I can obtain them? – AxSkov (☏) 12:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

In most diagrams I've seen, AusE /aː/ is definitely not a front vowel; it's usually drawn almost perfectly in the middle if you get one of the normalised diagrams as in the IPA chart. Apparently there's a fronted allophone after velars, though. Aside from general principles of IPA (e.g. using the Roman character when you have a choice; the fact that [ɐ] is intended more for a "second schwa"; these are cited in Durie and Hajek, but I was familiar with them well before, and for my own purposes have usually used /a/ and /a:/ for these reasons), the best source I can point you to at this stage is Durie and Hajek (1994) as quoted in the article. If you want, I can give you an electronic copy (PDF) of this I got via my Uni library's databases; email me.

The fact that /hat/ could be mispronounced (it's actually hut, not heart, but nevermind) is, I think, neither here nor there. After all, cannot /j/ also be mispronounced? /i/ when used in the M.-D. system?

(— Felix the Cassowary)

I guess so. – AxSkov (☏)

Secondly, I've included the phoneme /æ:/. I think "proper linguists" can justify this better than me, so I've included references to two of many sources that consider it a separate phoneme. (In spite of the fact that one source is called ‘“Short a” in Melbourne English’, this is not a phenomenon specific to Melburnian English.)

I'm not a proper linguist either, but I don't think [æː] is a separate phoneme from [æ], rather they are allophones of the one phoneme. Do you have any sorces to back this up and where I can obtain them? – AxSkov (☏) 12:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

As cited, there's Durie and Hajek (1994) and Blake (1985); also Durie and Hajek (1995). These cite a variety of different sources (who I haven't followed up on yet). The page on the Bad-lad split cites other sources, which I also haven't followed up on. Ingram (1995) is a response to Durie and Hajek (1994) who argues (very poorly, IMHO!) against including it. D&H 1995 is a reply to his response. If you want, I can give you D&H 94 and 95 and Ingram 1995 (which are all from the Au. J. Linguistics, vols. 14 and 15). Another Wikipedian gave me an article written on the subject which has so far not found a publisher; it is as such unfit for citation, but if you are curious I might be able to find it and forward it to you.

There is the possibility it's a phoneme for some speakers an allophone for others. If this is true, it's best to include it, because you can always derive the allophonic variation from split-phonemic form, but you can't always do the reverse (hence being separate phonemes).

Would you say "bad" and "lad" (etc.) rhyme for you? Whenever I've read English poetry that wants them to rhyme, I've always found it stilted and jarring—a bad rhyme—even before I knew anything about linguistics. Just a personal annecdote, of course, not an argument :)

— Felix the Cassowary 15:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Well sometimes "bad" and "lad" rhyme and sometimes they don't depending on the context they are in. Two words that – to me – never rhyme and are always pronounced differently, no matter the context, is the noun span /spæːn/ and the past-tense verb span /spæn/. I think span-span is a good example for the bad-lad split, clearly showing minimal pairs. – AxSkov (☏) 03:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

It's probably worthwhile adding an extra chapter there on Broad/General/Cultivated AuE, and removing the one from here.

— Felix the Cassowary 11:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Add it there by all means, please do not delete it from here. You have a mania for deleting perfectly good information, Felix.Grant65 (Talk) 06:05, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Not really. I wasn't advocating deleting the information on Sth Au English, just merging it into another article: One which discusses all regional variation. And here, I wasn't advocating deleting the information, just moving it into another article (after all, it was generally decided that this page was too big). [I have advocated deleting stuff on Conlangs, but that's another matter entirely.] — Felix the Cassowary 07:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Macquarie Dictionary

As far as i am aware the Macquarie Dictionary is not used as a reference in academic writing. The macquarie dictionary has typically been the butt of several jokes concerning its validity.

The sentence "Publishers, schools, universities and governments typically use the Macquarie Dictionary as a standard spelling reference" is therefore a little excessive, and may be misleading. I find that more often than not, the Concise Oxford Dictionary is used for schools and universities.

perhaps "The Macquarie Dictionary is often used as a spelling reference by publishers, schools, universities and governments " but that sounds a little strong to me, perhaps a weaker construction may still be needed

AusInfo's Style Guide for Authors, Editors and Printers (Commonwealth Govt style guide), at least the edition of it I've read, certainly says to use Macq's spelling as a default. That sounds like a standard spelling reference to me (even though you can use another if you have reason to). —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 10:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The Macquarie Dictionary is Australia's first true dictionary and is used in academic writing etc. It is no less a joke than other dictionaries...I think that is a stupid comment. Dankru 11:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the cultural cringe dies hard it seems. Grant65 | Talk 12:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Myths about Australian accents

A small point, but the last sentence of the second paragraph sounds awkward, especially the last few words. Is this just me? E.g. I believe the original:

Many Australians' speech patterns do not conform to this stereotype, and the "questioning intonation" is often found in many regional speech patterns in the south of England, Northern Ireland, and in some American ones.

should be more like:

Many Australians' speech patterns do not conform to this stereotype, and the "questioning intonation" can be found in many regional speech patterns, such as those in the south of England, Northern Ireland, and even North America.

I'm not 100% sure of this, or if it reflects entirely the original author's intent, hence it being here on the discussion page first. Thoughts? Citizen D 23:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't let concern for the original author's intent stop you from improving the article. Go ahead and edit: your version sounds better. Jimp 19Oct05

Libel-Bible Split and Others

See pages such as http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t122.htm. Sorry to raise this, I know this has been raised previously. I think there is a difference in pronunciation for "libel" and "bible" for me. I'll try and get a recording up. Frances76 09:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed comment

I've commented out:

If anything, the tendency for Australians to prefer diphthongs over monophthongs requires more work from the speech organs. <!-- We're overlooking the monophthongal realisation of vowels which are centring diphthongs in other nonrhotic dialects (e.g. RP), aren't we? -->

from the article. It was recently changed from:

If anything, the tendency for Australians to turn pure vowels into diphthongs requires more work from the speech organs.

by the anon 218.223.112.144.

Anon has a point: monophthongal realisations of centring diphthongs are very common, particularly in connected speech—still, similar changes are happening in RP. Also, the diphthongs that in RP are [aʊ] and [aɪ] are shorter in Australian English: [æɔ] and [ɑe] in normal but clearly-annunciated speech, and especially the former tends more towards [æə] in connected speech. On the other hand, compared to RP, our diphthongs /æɪ/ and /əʉ/ (which has a very open starting point, more like [ɐ]) are longer than RP /eɪ/ and /əʊ/. Like many generalisations about dialectal usages, this particular one (however phrased) seems to be inaccurate and/or meaningless.

—Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 14:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Felix,

Anon is me ... or should I say "I" ... Jim. I agree with your commenting this out. It was rather inaccurate and/or meaningless. Now that it's been moved here might we not do away with the comment altogether? Jimp 08:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Suppose we might as well. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 11:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Words from aboriginal languages

In this section we mention how rare such words have made it into Australian English and go on to mention "cooee" and "yakka". There is also the word "bung" meaning "broken" or "on the blink" which comes from the same language as "yakka". Though it seems rare today, so does "yakka" and we certainly used "bung" in my family in Melbourne when I was growing up in the 1970s. — Hippietrail 21:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I use bung all the time - add it in if you feel it will add to the article. Natgoo 22:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added it to the Australian words article. Natgoo 19:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I use "bung" too Frances76 21:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Not True

The rarity of use of Aboriginal words within the Australian language is a misnoma at best and miss leading at worst, the number of diverse Aboriginal dialects is the direct cause of this. This page would be more accurate if it acknowledged this fact rather than dismissing the use of Aboriginal words. Besides early exploration adoptions aboriginal words, words that are common knowledge across the whole country are the result of commercial usage. 'Cooee' early use was with WWI advertising and recruitment, there was also some washing powder/soap that used the it as well. 'Yakka' is a direct result of the use of this word in the clothing lable.

Then there's the yabbie, though growing up in perth i know them as gulgies, but you can catch them with a gidgee they look the same and taste the same cause they are the same. Oops translation catch Maron with a spear. Gidgee is a Noongar word for the best type of tree used to make spears, but hey I brought a gidgee in Melbourne a couple of years back though this was aluminium. Now its time for a couple swigs of wobbla join the corrobbaree and listen to stories from the dreamtime about the wagyl. Gnangarra 14:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There is also bung (in the sense of bad/defective/infected), which is a Jagara (Murri) word for "dead".

Gilgies (or jilgies) are technically a different species to yabbies, although (just to confuse matters) the crustaceans farmed commercially in WA are usually yabbies, introduced from the eastern states. A lot of people in WA use the two words interchangeably. Grant65 | Talk 15:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The non-standard plural of "you"

How about we rephrase this? The word you cannot have a plural standard or otherwise: not any more than the word children can. The word is plural. It a plural word which has come to be used as a singular one not the other way around. The question is, though, how best to rephrase it. Jimp 16Dec05

I don't follow your objections. Are you claiming that "you" is not used in the singular? Are you claiming that "youse" is not used in the plural? Are you claiming that no-one has a contrast between "you" in the singular and "youse, y'all, you guys" etc. in the plural, in at least some circumstances? I think maybe your example of "children" is confusing me: Perhaps something like "fish" would be better ... "fish" nicely parallels "you" in that by default, the plural of "fish" and of "you" is "fish" and "you", but in some circumstances, the plurals become "fishes" and "youse". I mean, the fact that when people have decided that "fish" and "you" are hard to use in the plural for whatever reason, new plurals have cropped up, respectively "fishes" and "youse"/"y'all"/"you guys"/"you'ns" etc. etc. So yeah, "you" is plural, but it's also singular, so if someone says "'youse' is the plural of 'you'", it's obvious they're talking about the singular meaning of "you" and not the plural.

So I don't think there's anything wrong with the current phrasing. We could perhaps be more specific and describe "youse" as "a non-standard second-person plural pronoun", but then we alienate those who don't know what a second-person pronoun is, plural or otherwise. OTOH, everyone who's English is up to the level this article should be at will be able to understand "the plural of 'you'".

—Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 11:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if Jim means that gramatically the word "you" acts as a plural (you are, they are, we are — but: he is, she is, it is, I am)? "You" in middle English was the polite or formal form of the second person pronoun (object form), comparable to vous in French or Sie in German, which also behave as plurals. But we've lost the casual/intimate 2nd person pronouns that those languages have retained (see T-V distinction). Maybe a comparison to "chicken" rather than "fish" would be helpful — chicken was a plural of chick (cf. ox->oxen, brother->brethren) but has come to be seen as singular, with a new plural formed by adding an "s", a bit like "yous". Or I might be completely off the mark here...? ntennis 01:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Aha - see http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/6361Malton.htm ntennis 02:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that you is not used in the singular nor am I saying that youse is not used in plural. Maybe children was not the best example. Okay, fish: by default the plural of fish is fish but by default the singular of you is you. Ntennis points out that in Middle English you was the "polite or formal form". However, in Old English you was the plural with thee the singular. Unlike chicken the word you is now both singular and plural. The fact that it has come to also be used as the singular doesn't detract from the fact that it still is plural. How do you have a plural of a plural? I s'pose it's not really that great an issue. Jimp 20Dec05

According to your logic fish has no plural, because it is a plural. Yes, you is a plural, but it's also a singular. Just like fish is a plural, but it's also a singular. It doesn't matter which form came first. So, yes, you has a plural. The plural of you, is you, y'all, you guys or youse. 64.194.44.220 03:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

How about we change it to the nonstandard plural of singular you. Then it would definitely be describing the singular, not the plural. 64.194.44.220 03:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimp, are you trying to argue that by default, "you" is interpreted in the plural, which contrasts against my "fish" because by default, "fish" is interpreted in the singular? or are you taking it wholy from the etymology? I think the etymology is irrelevant. "You" is today used in the singular and the plural, so the fact that once ge was only used in the plural is neither here nor there. If "you" can be used in the singular and the plural, then I don't think anyone would interpret "a plural of you" to refer to the plural of a plural usage, neither would "a singular of you" be interpreted as referring to the singular usage. As you say, a plural cannot have a plural. Maybe to take a different example—"people" is the plural of "person", but it's also another word which itself has a plural. If you say, "foo is a non-standard plural of people", then people will think foo==peoples (with a meaning along the lines of "ethnic group"), whereas if you say "bar is a non-standard singular of people", then people will think bar==person. (Of course, in general you wouldn't say these things, you'd use clearer words, but this is an example. ... yet there's no clear word that means singular-you in English, apart from "you", so you can't use clearer words except "second person plural pronoun".) —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 10:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• You is singular and plural in modern English. In older forms of English there were separate singular and plural forms. Thou was already disappearing in Shakespeare's time as the unambiguous singular 2nd person plural. He uses thou sometimes and you sometimes. Ancient etymologies do not directly determine modern senses or uses. Different English-speaking communities around the world have for some time been using various new unambiguous 2nd person plural pronouns, all of them unstandard. Some are you guys, youse, yous, y'all. — Hippietrail 17:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

AuE verses AusE

Until I saw the AuE in this article I'd only ever seen AusE. Which is the more common? Jimp 20Dec05

I'm correct

I've been talking to a AuE speaker and he uses "I'm correct" alongside familiar (to me) expressions "I'm fine" and "I'm OK." At first it was confusing because I didn't know what he was so sure he was correct about :) Where can I post AuE expressions that might be unfamiliar to speakers of other dialects? -Iopq 07:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's the Australian words article. However, I wouldn't add that one in. Do you mean he says "I'm correct" perhaps in response to something like "How are you?"? If so, I think that's more likely to be a personal ideosyncracy rather than a feature of Australian English: I've never heard anyone else do it! (Well, maybe they do it in Brisbane or something, but I would want further evidence. It's this sort of thing we have WP:NOR policy for!) —Felix the Cassowary 10:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I ask him things like "Do you want this?" he responds with "I'm correct." -Iopq 08:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no, that I've never heard. Same sort of thing, probably idiosyncratic. —Felix the Cassowary 08:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

He said he was from Brisbane. But I misremembered. He said "I'm right." Of course to me that's the same thing but maybe those two words might not be interchangable :D -Iopq 10:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Not in the least! "I'm correct" is totally bizarre and I've never for the life of me heard it. "I'm right" is normal and everyday, and I've heard it often enough that I'd be surprised if it was unique to Australia! "I'm right", I imagine, is a contraction of "I'm alright", but when you say it you don't think of it as being that—you just think of it as being a standard reply. (Actually, I was thinking that it was a personal idiosyncracy of his that caused him to change "I'm right" into "I'm correct", when you said it was a response to "Do you want this?".) —Felix the Cassowary 13:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It was my personal idiosyncracy to replace "I'm right" - which is what he said with "I'm correct" - which is what I THOUGHT he meant. This is not standard in America. -Iopq 12:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I missed this response. Nah-nah, what I meant was that when you reported him as saying "I'm correct" as a response to "Do you want this?", I thought maybe it was his sense of humor or something. You do get people like that. When I thought that I of course didn't know you'd misremembered! —Felix the Cassowary 14:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You meant "all right", right? ;-).--cj | talk 14:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No. I pronounce it as one word. Why shouldn't I write it as one word? —Felix the Cassowary 15:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Because (at least as far as I'm aware) it's not a word --unlike although, already, also, altogether -- but a common mistake.--cj | talk 13:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I pronounce it as a single word, so I'll write it as a single word. Better still, it's in the dictionary—not that inclusion in a dictionary is a prerequisite for wordiness. You might think of it as a common mistake. If that makes you feel good, then great. But it doesn't give you room to criticise me, because not everyone thinks it's a mistake, including a number of fine authors. (Still, I would be interested in how you define being a word. Obviously being in the dictionary doesn't mean it's a word, which is an interesting diversion from most people's most conservative definition. And there is no Academie Anglaise to make pronouncements.) —Felix the Cassowary 13:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I will lighten my tone, by the way, with the following quote (from [1]), which might give you something to think about next time you feel like criticising someone's informal language use. —Felix the Cassowary 14:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

‘And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!’

‘I don't know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant “there's a nice knock-down argument for you!”’

‘But “glory” doesn't mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.

‘When I use a word’, Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’

‘The question is’, said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is’, said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that's all.’

I wasn't criticising you, so please don't think that. I was being cheeky (it's not in any dictionary I've seen; but you're right - that doesn't matter). Time to get back to writing the encyclopædia, methinks... Sorry again, --cj | talk 14:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If you think about it as "all right" then saying "right" instead is not a mistake. But to me "alright" in this situation has a completely different meaning from "all right." Well, it does to me. So "I'm right" sounds the same as "I'm correct" to me. -Iopq 12:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:) It's funny. Maybe you should try saying "I'm left" to him one day :) I'm still really surprised it's an Australianism. (Or maybe it's an unamericanism? Are you American or British or what...?) —Felix the Cassowary 13:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I live in America. I can't say "I'm left" to him because after I say it three times it will be right again. I'll just tell him I'm wrong. :) -Iopq 15:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL! You could always just say it twice, and then start saying "I'm wrong"! :) —Felix the Cassowary 15:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps cf the common Australianism "She'll be right", meaning "Things will turn out OK". Sbz5809 13:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Felix, you meant "wordliness", right? ;-).--Jim 10Jan06

:) (No.) —Felix the Cassowary 01:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This is kind of a bit off-topic, but I noticed that when I was living in Bundaberg Qld last year for a few months that when you apologise to someone (say you bump into a stranger in a supermarket), that people respond with "no, you're right". It's relatively uncommon to hear that in the Southern States (SA and Vic, the two that I have lived in). When that happens, you usually get "that's OK". Has anyone else made that observation? I will be moving to Cairns in the next few weeks (will mess Melb dreadfully and I don't know how Cairns' humid heat will be dealt by this little Croweater) and I have to keep my ears open for this.

Another one (again a bit off-track), another Australianism surely would be the "yeah, nah" thing ("yeah" I acknowledge what you are saying and answer in the negative to a question) Frances76 21:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry bout the late response, but: I've spoken to a couple of people who aren't Australian (but live here) and they all reckon that saying "I'm right" is not particularly an Australianism, people do it elsewhere too. It might just be an unamericanism or an unbriticism or something. As for "no, you're right" after an apology, I wouldn't've described that as particu'ly uncommon in Melbourne. In fact, I would think about the only way you could say that it's uncommon in comparison to another region is if that region uses it nearly exclusively. As for "yeah, no", there's a paper in an issue of the Australian Journal of Linguistics about it. Can't remember which issue though, and I've never read it yet so... —Felix the Cassowary 09:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Is "yeah no" an Australianism? What about Vicky Pollard? :-) Grant65 | Talk 09:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no, I'm not sure, I didn't read the article. It might've just been on its use specifically in Australian English, it's title is something like "Obligatory Bad Joke: The use of "yeah no" in Australian English". (Vicky Pollard doesn't really seem significant enough to get her own article... Am I becoming a deletionist in my old age?) —Felix the Cassowary | toːk 14:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but, no but. Not nearly as sad as Wikipedia:Pokémon Adoption Center ;-) Grant65 | Talk 18:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well saying "No, you're right" sounds like it's interchangable with "No, you're correct (in doing what you did)." But about other people who live in Australia... I even say things in Russian that make no sense, but I believe that they do because their English translation makes sense :) I still feel that even saying "I'm alright" is falling into DISUSE in California. It might be an un-Californianism.

Chippie = Carpenter?

I grew up in the Castlereagh area (west of Sydney) but moved into the Eastern suburbs as a teenager. I have always heard and used "chipie" as a reference to the local "fish and chip shop" as in "gunna go to the chippie for lunch?" I don't know if that is a regionalisation or just another use of the term. It was also common to have heard Pauline Hansen referred to as an "ex-chippie".

What Question

From the article Perception has it that a common trait is the frequent use of long-winded similes, such as "slow as a wet week", "built like a brick shit-house", "mad as a cut snake", or "flat out like a lizard drinking". Whether this perception is based in reality or has been produced by popular culture items of fiction such as the (successfully exported) television soap opera Neighbours and the films of Paul Hogan remains in question

I grew up with these sayings as a part of a normal day long before neighbours and the crocodile dundee movies... so why are questionable, and they cant be ficticious creations of the writers of these. Gnangarra 10:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that it exists. I've certainly grown up with it myself, but it might be a long stretch to call it a 'common trait'. It certainly exists. --Randolph 12:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've heard phrases like that "built like a brick shit house" my dad used to say it to me, cause as I was growin up and gettin bigger, refering to the old says when the toilet was in the garden, it was big n solid. paul

It mightbe disputable as a current 'common trait' but it definatley hasn't been produced by the metioned programs, they would utlize such language only if it was recognisable as a stereotypical 'common trait'. It's occurance through most shows produced for Australian TV during the 60's, 70's and 80's including Prisoner, Kingswood Country, Cop Shop, Sullivans, Skippy, Blanket Blanks, Family Feud, Number 96 indicates that it must have been at least a recognisable style of Australian English. The wide spread nature of the use would also dispell it as an individual character trait created for any one particular character, or by anyone group of writers... From memory most of the people i knew who used this style of language frequently were from the generation that grew up prior to television this generation didnt have media based language intrussions of those who have grownup through the 80's and 90's. Gnangarra 17:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I know some others like "its black over bills mothers" "As big as a bonk 'oss" same sorta sayings http://www.sedgleymanor.com/dictionaries/sayings.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.193.70 (talk • contribs) .

I adjusted the article to reflect this Gnangarra 06:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Black Country English Section

Removed section

The section quoted below was recently added by an anonymous editor, 195.93.21.10. I've removed it. It's riddled with factual mistakes, unsourced assertions and statements so broad as to be meaningless at least as often as its spelling mistakes and poor formatting. Perhaps someone can salvage a point or two from it; I doubt it, though. —Felix the Cassowary 00:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

===Black country and south staffordshire influences===

There is some influence from broad Black_Country english, the tonality of the broad outback australien in some regions are related braod working class black country in england. In the black country region of england youl'll hear people talking with the greeting "warro aer kid" "ow bin ya mayte" in that sing songy loose tone the same as australien, often when someone from the black country region of england travels they will often get mistaken fpr being australien, ain't gets pronounced as "aye" "don't" as "dow" "did'nt = daye" "you as yo" which is common in outback talk. its widely regarded in the black country that the black country diallect was a dominant force behind the aussie diallect. the black country diallect is so broad its almost its own language and is regarded as the most broadest and most depronounced accents. In the black country and south staffordshire t's are often pronounced as R's and whole vowels can change, someone askin for a cup of tea might ask "dyo wanna cupataye" it is also common in black country to replace my for me. Black country wasnt the only influence there were many others from all the broad working class regional diallects in england and Ireland, but the sing song tonalty of black country and the relaxed pronunciation shows a prominent link. The black country is a isolated community with a distinct diallect of its own, and if you hear it in its broadest form, the australien diallects sound the same. Durring the last century there was vast amounts of immigration from this region when the black country was going into industrial decline, the black country refers to the area of south staffordshire that was heavily polluted in the last century for the heavy iron foundaries and coal mines and all sorts of industry, it was a very industrial area, producing heavy anchors and chain saddles, when the area went through the depression there was lots of people willing to seek a new life down under, and they brought their broad black country diallect with them. The Black country diallect is widley known as the broadest oldest diallect in england. heres an example,

warro aer kid, ows it gooin me ol' mukka? ows it gooin me ol chiuyna? arm alriute arr! warrayo bin upto? I aye bin doin alot, just drinkin me beer n avin a baga pork scratchings

Nah Felix, it's just an attempt at humour. I just removed it again. Grant65 | Talk 18:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No its not an attempt at hummor, i'm from the black country and I know. The language words I have used are used by my own relatives and older people in the local area with the broader diallects. You need to compare a broad black country diallect with a broad australian one on tape they share the same sounds. Its a little known diallect and its rare. How can you say what I say id facturally inaccurate if you don't live in the black country, theres alot of innacuracies on the black country page due to the fact that some of the people who wrote it arent from the area, intellectuals sitting on their ivory tower so to speak. What you need is recordings of the two accents side by side and judge it for yourself, and write your own artical on the subject if you don't like mine!.

my names paul email me here bluenfunky@aol.com I have loads of diallect recordings, if you guys wanna deny your roots, and think of any stupid excuse, go ahead, but hey thats all part of being australian and american, why don't ya go and change the names of your towns, theres so many black country town names in australia, tamworth, tipton, dudley you could research more, the people named the towns after the towns they immigrate from, theres not a "new northen ireland" or a "new belfast" your all just being wishful thinking. To be fair irish dialect sounds nothing at all like austrailian, if you want the real answer it lies in the dirty coal pits and smog of the black country dirty lands unfortunatley. Now you'd of thaught with most of the population being miners they would naturally be ideal people to take part in the gold mining of the 1850's. The black country diallect has definatley been overlooked as a colonial influence, probably cause of the class prejudise of the black country people and the fact that few people know it. If you look in the records there are vast amounts of people from the region who emmigrated, and it makes sence the black country was the worst place to live.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.4 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 20 January 2006 (ACST).

What you're saying is very interesting Paul, but wikipedia doesn't allow original research. You will need to find some verifiable, published sources for the information you're conveying to include it in this encyclopaedia, otherwise your additions will keep being reverted. You will also need to rewrite your information to make it more clearly understood. There are some resources available at Category:Wikipedia_help that may help you in this regard. Natgoo 21:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, the township presently called Port Fairy (SE Victoria, near Warrnambool) was previously called Belfast, see 1866 Warrnambool Postal Directory salada82 06:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are many such examples, including Dublin, South Australia, Londonderry, New South Wales, Shannon National Park, a "Donnybrook" in three states, the most prominent being Donnybrook, Western Australia, and so on.

Also, that there is a controversy about Ned Kelly's accent: even though he was born in Australia and some observers said he had an Australian accent, others said that he had an Irish lilt (which is how he was portrayed by Heath Ledger). The truth probably lies somewhere between the two, but not even the staunchest Australian monarchist/anglophile would seriously question the importance of the Irish influence on Australian culture. Grant65 | Talk 06:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

English Black Country influence

the only thing I've found that backs me up in what I'm sayin is from a book called "the story of english" written by Robert McCrum back in 1992. I dunno what else it says but I just quoted it from an australian slang page.

Today, Australian English, famous for its air of novelty, is something of a living museum, preserving.. eighteenth and nineteenth century regional words from Cornwall, Wessex, the Midlands, East Anglia, Northumbria, Scotland and Ireland.

alot of my relatives. my grandads they say "warro mert" "warro aer kid" and I just wondered is "warro" meanin hello used in australian dialect? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.4 (talk • contribs) .

No, it isn't. I've been to the Black Country and I'm buggered if I can see any similarities between the local dialect and Australian English, to be honest. Grant65 | Talk 19:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Warro? No. If anything, the 'h' is mostly silent, and we have no trouble saying our l's. So 'hello' becomes 'ello or 'allo. Imroy 22:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Or we say "hey" or "hi" or "g'day" or "(g')morning"/"(g'd) afternoon"/"(g'd) evening". Most ex-colonial dialects could be thought of in some ways as "living museums", most especially Scottish, Irish and American English as the oldest exports of the language. Still, I'd be hard pressed to think of very many Australian words that hark back to British regional ones. Basically "tucker" and "chook". —Felix the Cassowary 09:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And dinkum (East Midlands). Grant65 | Talk 11:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

warro is similar in sound to hoooroo its not a greating as such but a means of identifing ones presence within house or where one is within sight or another but that person has yet notice them Gnangarra 10:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of hooroo. But does it come from warro, a similar regionalism or somewhere else? Grant65 | Talk 11:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've always thought "hooroo" meant "goodbye"? I have no idea where it comes from; if someone has access to a decent Australian dictionary it might say. —Felix the Cassowary | toːk 15:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

My Macquarie Dictionary (4th Ed., 2005) says hooroo is "an alteration of hooray" (i.e. hooray as a salutation). So there doesn't seem to be a connection to warro. Grant65 | Talk 16:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Usage of Cunt

The section I removed from the main article, original insertion of cunt had no relevance to the topic. The original editor has since reword the the statement and reinserted with unsubstanciated claims, I have also removed with the similar claims.

This is what was stated

The word cunt is used extensively by a portion of the Australian population, usually as a pronoun, though this usage is not considered polite, it is not always intended to be offensive.

• how big a portion are you claiming
• not only used as a pronoun but also the noun.
• the use of cunt is intended to be offensive.

Also what of other words like wanker, pig, coon, abbo, gin, wog, wop, dago, pom, gook, skippy etc all are extensively used by portions of the population.

All of these would have a claim to existance within Australian English.

Lets obtain a fair concensus as to its relevance, and formulate the appropriate wording with examples of propper usage prior to it insertion on the main article. Gnangarra 07:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

One more point within the article the editor created for the word Cunt it specifically mentions its use in the US, Britian, and Australia. Its not exclusive to the Australian English and therefore shouldn't be in this Article Gnangarra 07:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• 1. Portion

I cannot say how large of a portion, though I estimate more than 10%. All of the people I asked (my friends, so yes a biased sample, but no i didn't tell them i was arguing on wikipedia about the subject) all but one agreed that the word was used ALOT in Australia. Then, after I described the word as being used as a pronoun, all agreed that this was right.

So you're saying this is Original Research? Then we can't include it anyway no matter how true it is, see WP:NOR. —Felix the Cassowary | toːk 13:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no research I know of that entirely describes the extent of the usuage of the word. The same is true, for many other Australian words used here.

However, the Macquarie dictionairy slang project listed 9 definitions of the word, including "any person", "an object of annoyance", an expletive, sexual intercourse etc. And then 7 compound words.

So this is hardly "original research", it is hard however, to exactly determine the extent of it's usage in Australia. However, I challenge you to determine the extent of the usage of other slang included in this article. All we have is anecdotal evidence, and slang definitions. --R0m

• 2. Pronoun, Noun and Expletive

It is used as a noun (for female genitalia, as a misogynistic expression for women, an obnoxious person, any person) on this we can all agree.

As a pronoun for example "Pass me the cunts", "That cunt dropped his wallet" etc. This usuage is less offensive and doesn't neccassary imply anger or annoyance. Ie "that cunt over there" is less offensive than saying "that bloke over there is a cunt".

As an expletive "I've had a cunt of a day" "This cunt of a thing won't work" "this games a cunt to finish".

• 3. Examples of use not intended to be offensive

Using cunt as a pronoun "pass me the cunts" etc

• 4. relevence

Why is it relevent? because among the large minority of people who use it, it's used ALOT. I think on construction sites, workshops, and primary industries it's usuage would certianly rival that of fuck.

It was inserted in the relevent section in a paragraph beginning with "Spoken Australian English is generally more tolerant of offensive and/or abusive language than other variants". There aleady offensive language in that paragraphy "arse-licking". This is a worthy example of tolerance of offensive language in spoken english.

The funny thing is, few would argue that motherfucker was used as a pronoun among some sections of the American population. The people who use cunt as a pronoun in Australia use it more often than the section of the US population that uses motherfucker as a pronoun.

Like I said earlier, to say that cunt is not used this way in Australia, is to claim you've observed a large sample of people, from all sections of society, in a large number of situations over a long period of time. But to say cunt is used as a pronoun, only one example is needed, and i've heard it literally thousands of times.

• 5. Other offensive words

As for the arguements that abo should be included .. it already is. Wanker is used alot, but only as a common noun (has other forms verbs (wanking), adjective (wanky), and the usuage isn't unique. The other words mentioned are used in even more limited ways. Cunt has alot of flexibility, many definitions and has formed many compound words. (sus-cunt, cunt-struck, fat-cunt, rich-cunt, sly-cunt etc)

• 6. Other countries using cunt similarly

Though other commonwealth countries (such as new zealand) may use cunt in a similar fashion, Australians do seem to use it more. However, this arguement is irrelevent since many "Australian" words such as "mate, bloke" etc are used extensively in NZ, and the UK, though are still in the article. The reason is that being entirely exclusive to Australia is not the litmus test of relevence for Australian English.

--R0m

I think you might be trolling ROm, but anyway, there is zero hard evidence of the word being used more by Australians than by other nationalities. Grant65 | Talk 03:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? Then that being the case there is no evidence that "Spoken Australian English is generally more tolerant of offensive and/or abusive language than other variants." The reality is that cunt is used alot in Australia, and is perhaps the best example of this sentence. So far there have been no points against the words cunts inclusion, except sourcing, even though Macquarie dictionary of Australian slang includes may definitions and compound words for cunt. If Macquarie dictionary accepts the word cunt as Australian slang what's stopping wikipedia? (people who want to censor this article)

Is there any evidence that Mate is said more in Australia than New Zealand? Should mate be deleted untill it's proven that it's said more in Australia? What happens if it's said more in New Zealand? As I said earlier, that's not the litmus test for inclusion as Australian slang.

Cunt is widely used enough, in enough ways to be notable, particularly in a paragraph showing spoken english is more tolerant of offensive language?

--R0m

Or maybe you've just got Tourette's... Grant65 | Talk 04:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Talk page guidelines - Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and be nice." Who's the one trolling again?

Honestly, why is this even being discussed? As shocking a word as it is, ROm has a very good point, which (so far) no-one has been able to debate.

- J

to date the only people pushing its inclusion are annomous ip adress and user:R0m. I have remove a repost by R0m please let the discussion page reach a consenus. Gnangarra 05:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't a repost, that was adding a famous quote from Jeff Kennett and Andrew Peacock.

I agree with - J, why are we debating this? Nobody has came up with a good reason why the word, listed in the macquarie dictionary book of slang, should not be included in the paragraph stating Australians are more tolerant of offensive language in spoken english? -- R0m

• Can someone do a sockpuppet check on the anon and R0m? They both started posting around the same day in the same areas. I suspect there's a good reason the two of them agree. (Though of course it could just be R0m and a friend.)
• R0m, ——————————— (old content deleted, see below for a better response).

—Felix the Cassowary | toːk 14:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

User:R0m and scoket User:210.84.41.100 are the same peroson User R0m was previously signing this socket as R0m. this is based on contribs by both R0m 1st post was after 0900 hrs 26 januARY 2006. THIS WAS REVERTED. after 1400hr saem day socket 210.84.41.100 entered the discussion supporting R0m. edits prior to 26th by socket 210.84.41.100 were signed R0m. Gnangarra 14:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

So then he's different from J, and I'm wrong. Apologies. Still, I imagine you're friends/family and that doesn't really make you a representative sample. —Felix the Cassowary | toːk 14:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I looked at J five edits 2 on 27 march 2005 and then three for his contirbutions to this discussions, nothing within those edits to show a connection, the other two have been referred to a specialist socket puppet investigator. Gnangarra 14:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's not really fair. R0m, we don't need to include the example; it does not add much to the article. On the other hand, it significantly detracts from the article. Consider:­ We already say "Spoken Australian English is generally more tolerant of offensive and/or abusive language than other variants", and continue on. The point is made, it does not need to use the word cunt explicitly.

On the other hand the word "cunt" is generally considered highly offensive, both within Australia and without. Regardless of your intention, I as an Australian would be offend if I heard you, referring to me, saying "That cunt's dropped his wallet". If we include your specific reference to "cunt", then many parents will simply not want their children to read Wikipedia, nor will teachers be allowed to direct their classes to it. The language is simply inappropriate and is not of central importance; the point is already made without reference to the usage of a specific word. That's why we can't include it.

Anyway, as to my other comment, a pronoun is a specific part of speech. You seem to be under the impression that a pronoun is signfied by use as "people, objects, any subject of a sentence". It is not. See the pronoun article, and in particular personal pronoun for what a pronoun actually is. All your examples are simple nouns. Try replacing "gentleman" for "cunt", and "he/him" for "cunt" (and "cunt" alone).

That cunt's dropped his wallet.

That gentleman's dropped his wallet.

*That he's dropped his wallet.

I saw the cunt.

I saw the gentleman.

*I saw the him.

(The star before the sentence means it's ungrammatical with the meaning intended.)

This diagnostic isn't always reliable, but generally in English a pronoun will stand for a whole noun phrase, which includes any modifiers, and cannot then be combined with them. It would be interesting if cunt was used as a pronoun (in more than a couple odd cases): But it isn't.

I hope this helps

—Felix the Cassowary | toːk 14:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Good thing for a real objection, is cunt a personal pronoun? You have demonstrated it can't be used as a pronoun and is a replacement for a noun, with this understanding the motherfucker article should be looked at. My interest in cunt started when i noticed that men at construction sites said cunt, far more than black americans say motherfucker. However, cunt is used as a replacement noun extensively in Australia. Making wikipedia non-offensive to parents, teachers, or any other group (religious, political, corporate)etc isn't a worthy objection.

Does the use of cunt add to the article? Does mangy maggot? arse-licking? Why should something that could be said in a PG movie demonstrate that Australians are more accepting of offensive language.

I'll accept your informative edit about cunt not being used as a pronoun, though due to the lazy grammatical rules followed by slang etc.

but that doesn't change that cunt : cunt

noun (Offensive) 1. the vagina or vulva; a woman's genitals. 2. women considered as sexual objects: There'll be plenty of cunt at the party. 3. (Derogatory) a despicable person. 4. any person. 5. sexual intercourse. --interjection 6. an exclamation of disgust or annoyance, often used as a mere intensifier. --phrase 7. a cunt of a (thing), an extremely annoying (thing): I can't get this cunt of an engine to run. 8. cunt off, (used imperatively) go away; fuck off. 9. pissed as a cunt, extremely drunk. [Middle English cunte, counte, in Old Norse kunta, Old Frisian kunte]

4 - 9 are definitions that many english speakers, who are used to American english, would be surprised by.

And the many compound words cunt has spawned. It's a word that has been taken up particular currency in Australia.

It is the most offensive word in the english language to many people including most Australians, but it's used so much in spoken english in Australia that it's certianly notable.

No, it's taken up particular currency amongst some people who happen to live in Australia. Most Australians don't use "cunt" the way you claim. Before it has any place in this article, it must be shown that the same sort of people who use "cunt" in this way in Australia don't also do it in other places. With cited research, not random nonsense from someone who wants to swear in an encyclopedia article. —Felix the Cassowary | toːk 15:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You have demonstrated that cunt shouldn't be considered as a pronoun, but not that it shouldn't be considered in the article. --R0m

I don't need to. You need to demonstrate that it should be in the article. You have not. Find some published research on this topic so we know it happens, and we will come back and discuss it (i.e. that's a necessary, not sufficient, condition for inclusion). —Felix the Cassowary | toːk 15:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've no problem with the inclusion on cunt on the grounds of any offensiveness. I'm not in favour of censorship. However, I would question what this example adds to the article. Do we include a bit on every offensive word? If so, then this section would soon expand into an article in its own right ... which may not be a bad thing. Also if there is no source for this, then it doesn't belong as per Wiki policy mentioned above. Jimp 16:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That was majorly my point. It adds nothing, so it doesn't need to be added, so it shouldn't because, even if you aren't in favor of "censorship" (nothing's being censored, we're just finding a more acceptible way of expressing it), some people prefer a more acceptible way of expressing it. —Felix the Cassowary | toːk 15:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we have a problem here with original research rule as well.Grant65 | Talk 08:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no problem with the original research rule, cunt isn't a personal pronoun, it means "any person", is an expletive etc.The research comes from the Macquarie dictionary of Australian Slang.

As it stands the paragraph about Australians being more tolerant of offensive language in spoken english is weak. "Arse-licking" is an OK example, but the other quotes are more examples of direct language, and "mangy maggot" is offensive in the sense that it's insulting, but not offensive language.

This paragraph should be justified with the best example, the use of the word cunt, usually considered the most offensive, by Australians to refer to "any person", or as an emphasizer etc. Without this the paragraph is weak.

I was wrong to consider cunt a pronoun, that's the good thing about discussion, but the objections that cunt refers to "any person" in Australian slang are invalid. -- R0m

Spelling question

Are Australians careful not to let their tires rub against the curb, as Americans and Canadians are, or not to let their tyres rub against the kerb, as the British and Irish are? Angr/talk 09:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"Tyres" and "kerb", at least for the moment. Grant65 | Talk 09:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Angr/talk 09:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I can second what Grant says. Jimp 15:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Whingey British English

The article had read as follows.

Australian English is sometimes described as high-pitched, nasal, lazy, or drawling. The 
claims of high pitch and nasality are not entirely true, as many Australian English 
speakers perceive much of American English to be nasal, British English to be "Whingey" in 
tone, while laziness and drawling are impossible to test objectively.

I've removed the reference to British English's being to be "Whingey" in tone. I don't think that this is the perception at all. It is true that Aussie stereotype the English as whinging Poms but this is not due to the perceived tone of British English. It's a stereotype about what the English say not how they say it. The conception is that the English complain a lot it has nothing to do with their tone of voice. I think the editor who added this had confused these two concepts. Jimp 04:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The farmer's wife's ute

I've just removed the following.

A farmer's wife once required a vehicle that could be used as a farm hack (farm car) through (during, in) the week, and used for church over(at[UK], on[US]) the weekend, which resulted in the "ute" (pick-up truck). Words such as "biro"(ball-point pen), named after its designer, can be heard in the United Kingdom and France.

What was it trying to say? What relevance did it have? What's with all these alternative prepositions? (Use Aussie English here.) Where is this information from? Jimp 02:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

means utillity vehicle, a bloody toyota, ute as in "ute"ility

paul the ranter

I know what a ute is but what's all this about the farmer's wife? Jimp 17:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, just re-reading that, it looks like it's explaining the origins of the ute - a farmer's wife needed a car that could be used on the farm during the week and at church on the weekend, hence the ute was born. Stevage 13:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure but the point remains that it is not relevant. We're discussing a dialect not a vehicle.Jimp 07:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

jail/gaol

This seems strange to me: "commonly one could be 'jailed' in a 'gaol'". Surely such a strange combination of spellings wouldn't normally be found...? --Singkong2005 (from Sydney) 10:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

where I come from we say "in clink" "in the slammer" "behind bars", theres jail pronounces in south staffordshire jayul and bayul, ie " a yo gorra goo t'jayul, no iye aye"

What was all that about above? If this is that paul bloke who's trying to push the black country influence debate then give it a rest mate. Also sign your comments with the four tildas so we can see who made the comment and when. As to the original question, 'gaol' isn't used very often thesedays so I'm not sure what the original author of that section referred to as 'commonly'. Citizen D 23:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would appear that it's the same guy. I removed a rather long rant of his last week. This one at least started out on topic, so I left it. Is everyone else sick of his long, rambling, and poorly-written rants? At least he's no longer trying to insert similar material into the actual article anymore. Imroy 08:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Another long rant by 195.93.21.70 (talk · contribs), removed because of its largely off-topic nature.

If you want somewhere to vent, I suggest you go start your own blog. This page is for discussion of the Australian English article. Either address specific issues for discussion or I will continue removing your rants. Imroy 13:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, I won't remove your text. I'll leave it for everyone to see. How does that fit into your conspiracy theory then? Not that it matters much, anyone who went through the page history could have seen your other rants anyway.

I don't know where to start replying to your allegations. It would help if you tried to write more clearly. Try learning about punctuation and sentence structure. If it weren't for some of the topics you raise, I would swear you were in primary school, because that's how you write. Seriously, if you want people to read all of what you write and give your opinion any weight, then try making your comments a little clearer.

1. I have never "carefully edited the parts of [your] comments that have some bal[sic] behind em and left the light ones". I have only ever removed your comments, in whole.
2. Britain is not the only source of white people. There's Europe for a start. Have you heard of the term caucasian? Have any idea where the caucaus region is? Or how about Aryan?
3. It might surprise you that I quite like the Queen of England, as do many Australians. My wish for Australia to one day become a republic has nothing to do with my opinion of the British monarchy.
4. Just what is your problem with the Irish? You rejection of the suggestion that Austrlian English has been influenced by Irish immigrants strays into what looks like ethnic hatred.
5. Just where is your proof? All you've offered so far is opinion. Your opinion. Show me some proof of your long-winded claims and I won't be so quick to dismiss you.

Imroy 16:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

aussie dialect migrants dialect example captain cook proof of a dialectual shift [irish mining herritge] [english mines] they always say most of the miners came from ireland, but there were just as many mines if not more in england

"Alot of you guys descend from convicts look at your horse saddles". Wow, some inspiring research there. I still can't quite figure out what your point is, though your English really is terrible. All I get is anger, bitterness, and resentment though I'm not really sure what your angry about. Can you explain, in 50 words or less the point you are trying to make and how it is relevant to the Australian English Wikipedia page? Citizen D 03:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"...miners came from ireland...". Really? A lot of Australia's early copper and silver mines were developed by Cornish miners and the ore was smelted by Welsh smeltermen. Overgeneralising again, the gold rushes brought a lot of Chinese miners. I doubt any of these would have appreciated being told they came from Ireland. You would do much better writing with proper sentences with proper punctuation, and sticking to your point (whatever it is). --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

1. upper class diallect that had germanic, yiddish influence; Actually, the upper class dialect is more Francophone in derivation. You've conveniently glossed over the Battle of Hastings, and the [[Foreign language influences in English|influence of French] language on the current dynastic rule of England (the Tudors, etc). After all, matinee is an English word derived from matins, a French and Latin word. Also, don't discount the influence of Romans upon the Bretons and Angle tribes.
2. there was mass emigration from this region during the colonial persiad, because people wanted to get away from the melencholy and dull sceenery; thanks. You really cleared up our convict history there.
3. diallectual shift in alot of people over here because of the jewish migrants; ok. Firstly, the Jews have migrated most toward Poland from Spain at the end of the Christian conquest of the Moors. Then from Russia to central europe in the early 20th centruy, thanks to the Russian pogroms. Then from Europe to Palestine in 1948 due to the war. So, which Jewish migrants? The ones stealing your jobs and your spelling and punctuation?
4. If it wasnt for us you wouldnt be there, youd probably be in some meloncholy smokey town (1). Irish didn't start building big ships until the early last century (2), and they only built two of them, and they still had to relly on us to make the anchors and chain and it had a fake funnel and lets face it, the hull was paper thin. you guys arived in australia in the 1750's (3) in english galleons(4), the fisrt ship to arrive in australia was sailed by a man called captain cook an english explorer(5), who went as far as hawaii to watch them surf(6), he wrote about it in his diary. the first white man to see a budgerigar was called "Gould" he was also english. Alot of you guys descend from convicts(7)

• 1: You said you all left during "colonial persaid".
• 2: The Irish were sailing during Roman times and had an effective Navy, enough, in fact, to defend themselves against the Vikings. Fact, but not known in smokey midland shitholes full of illiterate idiots.
• 3: We actually arrived in 1788, as a colonial convict culture. Cook sailed into Botany Bay in 1770. Right after La Perouse. So the French technically discovered Australia first, but the English gazetteered the find first because La Perouse considered the coastline at Botany Bay "worthless". Ditto the Dutch 200 years before for the coast of Western Australia. And see 5 and 7 below.
• 4: The English did not field galleons in the 18th century; they were exclusively a 15th and 16th century vessel. Galleons wouldn't be able to make a long journay, being too top-heavy and laden with cannon.
• 5: The first man to arrive in Australia was actually a Dutchman, so you're well wrong there.
• 6: He actually went to Hawaii to watch the solar Transit of Venus across the sun, an astronomical observation, not a sporting leisure trip. How ignorant are you?
• 7: You just said we were descended from Midlands emigrees. I'm confused.

Rolinator 14:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

some people calls it a lorry some truck, but its a wagine in my county. but ya don't say lorry driver, you say waginedriver. if your a working driver they say "yer on the wagines" or "om on the wagines" and theres all difrent kinds, tatwagine which is for the scrapmetal, builderswagine the yellow one for the brickie, cattlewagine for the livestock.

if your refering to purely sand and coal you say skip, and much the same for a truck lorry wagine or train carrying raw materials such as sand.

the real aussy for a big truck with loadsa trailers its a "roadtrain", they run through the dessert and they won't stop for you.

funny you should mencion chippie, where I come from its a carpenter or joiner, also we have brickie for bricklayer, a bloke who does more than one trade is called a builder, you can call any a builder though.

also theres chippy with a Y, the fish and chip shop. leckie does not mean electrician it refers to the electricity bill. we call the electrician the "sparkie", in america sparkie refers to the chair mr sparkie, old sparkie aswel.

I don't think there is slang word for plumber. but i do know one called lee king, hes very good, if we sue the same sorta slang ideal, a plummer would be a waterie but it just doesnt sound good cause theres alread the word watery, describing "like water", ive heard of gas fitter, which most plumbers are.

good onya is when you give someone credit, its like saying "good on you" I've heard that saying since the day I was born. but cause skip a few generations over a few hundred years you aussies have forgotten, to say it full you say "good onya'r'aye" "good on you ain't it" we black country folks are better than you people at speaking slang, thats cause were the master copy of the record the silver one that reads backwards, and the viynl has the arragance to say he knows best. I think if your this arragant about your history you should all just be eaten by the abbos, theres another we invented putting the o to shorten a word we usually do it with the village names, like cheslyn hay becomes chesso, if you don't beleive me email anyone from my village the school the church and ask em whats slang for it. if we can, but if a name sounds okay we use a small part of that name, great wyrley will be just wyrley. years ago walsall was called walesho the oh is hundreds of years old from old anglo saxon language, you aussies never invented it, we did. look on the internet and see how many refferences there are to "wolvo" for wolverhampton,

where I come from we say canabea or canabaya, theres only one other place that I know of that referes to beer or ale as beah baya, thats down under. if you don't beleive in me well why don't you call a few of my local brewers and ask em how you say beer in south staffordshire and the black country.

Now you're just coming across as a complete tool. Oh let me guess - you came up with the idea of using the word "tool" as an insult too? I'll email someone from your village to find out. Or you're local brewer. Hell, you don't get much more credbile as far as evidence goes in my book...ahem... Citizen D 04:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear anonymous twat;

Well, now we know you aren't an Aussie and Australian English didn't come from Staffordshire.Sure, you can crap on aboutyour chippies and sparkies and brewies, but you didn't know the true-blue fair dinkum ridgy-didge word we use for plumber over here: a staffie. Because anyone who plays in shit all day long must come from Staffordshire. Rolinator 07:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Strine

C'mon, who seriously calls it that? One book named it that. One book. I've never heard anyone call Australian English "strine" and I've never heard an Australian pronounce it that way, either. Yes, I am one. Even the Steve Irwins and the Harry Butlers and Rex Hunts of this world say it "Australian".

I'd love to see a poll or something where people associate it with Australian English, 'cos I tell you what, it'd be news to most Australians, that's for sure.

It's one of these bogus appellations that somehow gets tagged to something that nobody uses. Peter1968 15:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone (who is actually signed into Wikipedia) like to comment on the above diatribe, please? I'm tempted to delete it, as it is tangential rubbish, but I'll probably get labelled a big bad, censor or some such. Peter1968 07:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. I tried that already and was labelled a censor or somesuch by him. The best tactic so far seems to be to simply leave his long, pointless rants. Any sort of response, including removal of his rants, only provokes more from him.

My god, he's written so much but I still have only a vague idea of what his point is. I wish he would either state his issue(s) succinctly, or go away and leave us alone. I've long since given up on trying to communicate with him. Imroy 08:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Something about Staffordshire, as far as I can tell. Regardless, it seems to be totally irrelevant to the subject at hand here. Peter1968 09:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

He's been given plenty of opportunities to state his case here and all he has done is waste time and space with incoherent ramblings, and now has resorted to vandalism and abuse. I say ban him, delete his tirades, or both. Citizen D 03:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. The way this is going, I'm going to request new user/unsigned protection for this page. Edit: requested semi-protection. Peter1968 03:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested, and was blithely told by whoever thinks they're in charge of these things that it wasn't getting enough vandalism. Alrighty then. Individual who makes this decision noted 195.*'s vandalism and "banned" him/her as a compromise. As they say in the classics; fat lot of good that did. This talk page needs semi-protection. End of story. Peter1968 15:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously there is a new phenomena that needs to be documented. Last night completely out of the blue the thought popped into my head, "I wonder if there is an entry on 'Strine'". A few hours later I land here to find an ongoing contoversy. Kewl. But I digress. Should "Strine" (ie as a proper noun) have its own entry given that it was an ongoing joke (in Sydney and Melbourne at least) 40 odd years ago (that was later picked up by the Poms to describe Australian pronunciation perjoratively)? Albatross2147 23:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Russell Crowe

Seems minor but should he be listed under Samples Of Australian English? It is a good example of an Australian accent but he isn't Australian (unless he has dual citizenship, couldn't find any proof of that anywhere). No big deal I guess, just wondering.

Zujik 17:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit - removed irrelevant nonsense. Peter1968 04:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Zujik, the thing is, you don't have to be Australian-born or an Australian citizen to speak Australian English. The article is not about nationality, it's about language and the way it's used. And Big Russ simply doesn't sound like a Kiwi. Grant65 | Talk 12:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

True, that's why I said no big deal. He definitely is a good example of Australian English just thought it might have made sense. Let it stand.

Zujik 06:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

xxxxx xxxxxxx rantings

[rant snipped]

Huh? Xtra 14:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The answer to huh? is to read the history of this page. Some *individual* sees fit to insert his/her/it gibberish regularly. Peter1968 14:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

you don't know its gibberish yet, already got a few linguists from a few univeristes studying it for me. you people are a joke, because you think your irish when you aye. Its thins kinda corruption that feeds republicanism.

Au contraire, it is gibberish. If you run your gibberish through a spell checker it may help a little, but the message will be same old prattle. Peter1968 16:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of making a personal attack, here's some information about our British AOL'er, found after five minutes of googling. In previous messages (check the archives) he provides the email address of xxxxxxxx@aol.com and the name 'xxxx'. And he just recently linked to an image in bluenfunky's members.aol.com web space. Do a google search on 'xxxxxxxxx' and you find quite a lot. His full name would appear to be Paul Hinton, but be careful searching with that name as it seems to be fairly common. There's also a golfer with that name. On a few forums he uses the name xxxxxxxxxxx', which fits with some of his rantings about the Black Country. He's also made [xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] to the Urban Dictionary, which lists his location (click on one of the definitions).

So with this information we can at least give him a name now. I'm half tempted to look up his telephone number and give him a sampling of my Australian accent! How many xxxxxxxxxxxxx could there be in xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx? Imroy 19:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

you aye nothing but a bunch of bastards, theres loads of words you people steal off us working class people of the west midlands, how about crikey, insteada saying oh god, thats a midlands saying, and you people are denying you ever borrowed some of your language off us. your irish thing is a case of missplaced identity with our folks, I was brought up to say haitch, and good onya, in the black country we say ya for you too. your not really all of irish decsent but because of the broad black country diallect, people for got about it and assumed it was irish, I'll proove you people wrong one day. and you are, your too pussy to put your names down to see if they english or not, that proves me right, your not really irish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.4 (talk • contribs) .

Paul, the article only says that "many Australians are of Irish descent", not 'all' or 'most'. It also refers to "the influence of Irish Catholic priests and nuns", meaning it's not necessarily us who are of Irish descent. As for my name, my mother has done a lot of research into our family history and I know I'm of mostly English ancestry. But that doesn't change the fact that information on Wikipedia has to backed up by sources. Until you find some credible sources for your assertions, you're just another anonymous loon expressing his opinion on a website. Imroy 21:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

whats that crap about being irish? we are australian!!!! descent is irrelevant, very few people (to be safe) dont have distant ancestors who came from foreign lands, no matter where you live, humanity stemmed and became more diverse as it became larger. if you find that irrelevant, then you get my point already. i am 5 generations (at least) australian, as a result i find where my great-great-great- grandparents who i didn't even live to meet came from irrelvant, this stereotype that we find being australian inferior and instead to restore our sense of sanity we must find what foreign "culturally superior" lands our ancestors came from is total b/s, and it should not be considered a general feeling of all australians, many couldn't care less about the lands their distant ancestors came from.

"Myths about Australian accents"

I have removed this entire section from the article as I'm not sure it has a point, and even less sure its point is universal across teh country.

===Myths about Australian accents===

Similarly, stereotypes of Australian speech as having a "rising tone" or "questioning intonation", known in linguistics as high rising terminal, are not justified by the empirical evidence. Most Australians' speech patterns do not conform to this stereotype, and the "questioning intonation" can be found in many regional speech patterns, such as those in the south of England, Northern Ireland, and even North America. Australians often describe their own accent as being 'twangy' in sound.

"Similarly" to what? In what sense? The preceding sentence was about consonants, and did not mention stereotypes. The rest seems to make a claim, say it's false, then say it happens everywhere else too! --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Status of Australian English

I have just been looking at articles about various branchs of Arabic and notice they virtually get their own pages with population figures etc.

Given Australia's isolation it would be surely true that although obviously English in origin, Australian English could constitute a language comparable to various dialects of Arabic, and due to our isolation I would think perhaps it'd be even more applicable.

Given that Australian English indeed does have its own page it receives wide recognition as a distinctive dialect.

The isolation of Australia from Britain alone should almost contribute to such a idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.239.197.156 (talk • contribs).

I think you underestimate the amount of variation in the Arabic language.

From Arabic:

"Colloquial" or "dialectal" Arabic refers to the many national or regional varieties derived from Classical Arabic, spoken daily across North Africa and the Middle East, which constitute the everyday spoken language. These sometimes differ enough to be mutually incomprehensible.

From Varieties of Arabic

One factor in the differentiation of the varieties is influence from the languages previously spoken in the areas, which have typically provided a significant number of new words, and have sometimes also influenced pronunciation or word order

The English language doesn't really have the same level of variety or regional influence from local languages, at least in modern times. English does have a lot of borrowed words, but they were borrowed a long time ago and are in the base standard used by everyone. And the influence of radio, movies, and TV means that most English speakers (mostly) understand the variations from other parts of the world. I'm not an Arabic speaker, but the impression I have from those Wikipedia articles and other sources is that the variety in Arabic is much greater.

Imroy 12:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A question re the POV nature of "Use of words by Australians" The examples are of two labour party leaders using colourful language. Are there Liberal Party equivalents? Given the ratio of blue collar workers who came from the shop floor that is indeed possible. But is it true that say Tony Abbot has no similar quality colourful quotes. I dont listen to parliament often enough to know for sure.

Program/Programme

For some reason I won't even try to understand, there seems to be a dispute as to whether "program" or "programme" is the correct spelling of television and radio shows. I have been drawn into this with extreme reluctance, after turning to the Seven Network article this morning in search of information and discovering a war in progress.

The standard dictionary of Australian English is the Macquarie, which prefers "program" over "programme". The ABC, conservative old Auntie, likewise. The Australian Government Style Manual uses "program". I have yet to see a current authoritative reference for "programme". --Jumbo 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My dictionary says this:

programme

programme or (especially North American, and comput)

program

...

Chamber's Dictionary - 1994. Xtra 04:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

File:MacProgram.jpg

page from Macquarie Dictionary showing "program" as a headword.

I point out that Chambers Dictionary is a good reference for British English. Current Australian usage, as per standard Australian references such as the Macquarie Dictionary, is for "program" over "programme". --Jumbo 05:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point, yes, but does the Macquarie Dictionary set the standard? Perhaps the editors here are less ready to adopt Americanisms than the authors of the Mac Dictionary. Does the Macquarie Dictionary call programme unAustralian? As far as I'm aware both are acceptable in AusE. Where this not the case then there'd be no debate, would there? I remember years ago someone writing to Auntie pulling them up on program. Aunty quoted the Mac Dictionary at them.

Bold move, Jumbo, removing the mes from the programmes, bold move for someone reluctant to join the dispute. Yes, yours is just another edit in what has turned into an edit war over here too. I'm not about to revert you but I don't think it will be long before someone does.

Given that both spellings are acceptable would it not be best just to leave it spelt the way it first appeared in the article? Perhaps, on the other hand, it wouldn't be a bad idea to take a vote on it. My vote would go to "programme". Jimp 06:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WP is an encyclopaedia. We've got to have sources. The Macquarie Dictionary lists "program" as a headword and not "programme". (See pagescan.) I don't need to feel bold about saying that "program" is the common Australian usage, because every authoritative source says it is. I can't believe that there is any debate over such trivia. --Jumbo 07:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You do have a good point. I vote for programme as a matter of taste. Yes, we've got to have sources but the Macquarie Dictionary does recognise programme. However, I'm not about to loose sleep over this debate nor am I going to join in the edit war. It is rather trivial as you note, Jumbo. But as for belief that there is any debate ... well you're part of it. Jimp 08:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• QUT style guide see 6.1.8
• UQ Style Guide section G
• Australian Antarctic Division Style Guide "Spelling Preferences"
• [http://home.pacific.net.au/~bangsund/ramble.htm An editor's view: Earlier, I consulted OED to reassure myself that my "program" is a better spelling than Meanjin's "programme"; OED's entry for the latter reads, in full, "see Program"

A Google search of Australian pages containing "program", "programme" and "Style Guide" throws up hundreds of examples preferring "program" over "programme". --Jumbo 08:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Both correct?

Both "program" and "programme" mean the same thing, and both are used in Australian English, but the difference between the two lies in the relative popularity. "Programme" is increasingly rare, and "Program" common and increasingly so. This article should reflect the actual usage, not "what came first". If we stuck to "what came first", then both articles and language would never change, and as we all know, this is not the case. As I mentioned to User:Xtra, this shouldn't become a pissing contest over who is an admin and who isn't. That's a poor way to write an encyclopaedia, especially one where we must rely on sources. May I respectfully ask anyone who prefers "programme" over "program" in this article to provide a source? --Jumbo 09:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually would use "program" in usual usage, but would use "programme" when it is a more formal occasion. Xtra 09:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem unaware of our style conventions. To avoid conflicts exactly like this, it is established that where a spelling exists that is consistent with the appropriate variety, it shall remain. The dispute over programme and program is the same as that between s and z in articles using British English. I could care less about what the preference of individual editors is; so long as it is correct, whatever spelling the orginal author employed should not be changed and subsequent edits should be consistent. It is not Wikipedia's place to assist change in language. --cj | talk 10:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, CJ! Looking at the MoS, the only thing I can see that looks consistent with your advice is this: If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article.. I hope we haven't reached the stage of all else failing, quite yet!

You make a good point about WP not assisting change in language, and of course our role is to reflect what is common usage, which is why I cite the Macquarie Dictionary, the accepted standard reference to Australian English. In fact the Macquarie has been criticised for lagging behind current usage. As evidenced in the pagescan above, "program" is the headword and "programme" is not.

On looking into the history of this article, I find that you may be embarrassed by your supposition that the original usage was "programme". In fact it was "program", as seen in this version of 16 November 2005.

May I ask if there is any good reason why you (or any other editor) should think this article should now change to preferring "programme";; over "program"? The original usage was "program", the accepted standard for Australian English prefers "program", the overwhelming majority of online Australian style guides specify "program" over "programme", and all of the major television networks use "program" (even the ABC, the most conservative of the four).

So far in this discussion we have had two reasons advanced:

1. Xtra cites Chambers Dictionary
2. You claim that "programme" was the original usage in the article.

With all respect, both arguments fail, the first on the grounds that Chambers is a dictionary of British English, the second because it is incorrect.

And finally, may I quote from the very article we are discussing, in the version to which you reverted: The exposure to the different spellings of British and American English leads to a certain amount of spelling variation such as organise/organize. British spelling is generally preferred, although some words are usually written in the American form, such as program and jail rather than programme and gaol (although commonly one could be 'jailed' in a 'gaol'). Publishers, schools, universities and governments typically use the Macquarie Dictionary as a standard spelling reference. --Jumbo 11:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What seems to be coming out of this is that Australians don't necessarily respect any coherent particular spelling pattern. Also, on the MoS rule, what happens if the first major contributor mixes several different styles? What if he does something new and funky? Is that to be respected too? :) Stevage 13:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The general rule on Australian articles is to use "Australian" spelling unless it is a quote from a foreign source. The problem is when there are different variants of Australian English. If this is the case there are two options. 1) get uniformity by having all uses of that word to be identical; or 2) stick with the usage of the original contributor. However, just changing words from one style to another when both are accepted is never appropriate. Xtra 14:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to use programme in this article - program is (by far the) more common spelling in Australia and was used by the editor who initally added the word to the article (User:SuperJumbo's post two above this one gives the links to the diff and the relevant MOS quote). If this discussion comes to 'consensus by numbers' I'm for program. I always find it jarring to read programme in Australian-related media, it happens so rarely. Natgoo 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, individual preferences are irrelevant; in disputes such as this, we fall back to the spelling employed by the original author. Since Jumbo has shown that program was the original spelling, that form may prevail. --cj | talk 10:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No argument from me. Program let it be. Jimp 14:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ripping Yarns

This article suggests that yarn, meaning story, is somehow Australian. I thought it was general English-language slang and not originally Aust. It was even the title of the UK series Ripping Yarns of the 1970s; they'd hardly use a title that the native audience wouldn't understand. Asa01 10:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct - while the expression is well-used in Australia it didn't originate there. This website has one version of where it came from, and here is the 1913 Webster's dictionary definition. Natgoo 19:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sweet as

The New Zealand English page has an entry for 'sweet/sweet as' = "fine, good" and indicates that this usage is also found in Australia. In NZE the use of 'as' as an intensifier is said to be spreading. Eg: How's the car going? Sweet as. How's the dog today? Sick as. This has developed from the use where an 'as' phrase modifies an adjective: 'the parrot was as old as anything' > 'the parrot was old as'. Does sweet=fine, good actually occur in Australian English too, and is there any evidence of the intensifier use of 'as'? Cheers Kahuroa 19:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep. 'Sweet as', 'dodgy as', 'rich as' etc are prevalent in Australia, but it's quite likely it originated in NZ and moved over. I always took it to be a polite way of saying "[sweet] as fuck" without swearing, but I could be wrong. Natgoo 19:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Its been around in NZ since the mid-90s at least. Never thought of the politeness thing and wouldn't have thought so - it just originated in NZ as cool/friendly speak Kahuroa 22:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe it has been used in Australia since long before the early 1990s. It was previously very common to say good as anything, boring as anything, Mental As Anything etc, and eventually the anything just got dropped. I don't think it was politeness, because before it begun being dropped out, the third word was always anything. Phrases such as dodgy as fuck, queer as fuck were as far as I knew much newer and were imported from the UK (I believe, that's why they had a tv show called Queer as Folk-an old phrase but now it was also a pun) mid 1990s, sperate and subsequent to the anything being popular and then dropped. Asa01 23:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point - but by the time I was in high school (late 80s) the 'anything' was well and truly dropped in favour of 'fuck' in the company of anyone who wasn't your grand/parents/teachers. It certainly pre-dated Queer as Folk. Natgoo 01:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"less cultured persons"

what exactly is meant by this comment? this is standard dialect in the area i come from. are you calling everyone who talks this way in rural areas bogans? i think the statement needs a little clarification 202.173.128.90 15:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC) RaYa

I delive in the old sence, it reflects a person who knows shit all about the fine arts of Classical music, paintings etc. Enlil Ninlil 06:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Foreign words in Australian English

User:Masalai has just added this section with some pretty broad claims that I do not agree with. He/she claims that Australians generally aren't taught other languages in school and that we don't pronounce foreign words "correctly". They even claim that other countries pronounce them better! So, just how many Americans do you think would pronounce "nice" correctly?

As far as language education is concerned, in highschool we all studied three languages in year 7 - French, German, and Japanese. The next year I did a language elective for half of the year, again Japanese. Many of my classmates went on to study other languages in more detail in later years. One girl I knew studied Russian for the HSC (years 11 and 12), and a friend of mine was studying German. A few years later a friend of my brother was also studying German at the "3 unit" level, which was helpful one day when he came across some lost German tourists who spoke little English. We regularly had exchange students from around the world, which were very helpful for those studying their language and culture (and swear words). My youngest brother is now trying to learn Russian, all on his own. And IIRC, a friend of his is learning Japanese.

Might I also point out SBS? Every morning from 6am to noon is a good number of foreign news services. Every evening there is the world news, and subtitled (not dubbed) foreign movies. And it's not just the migrants that watch SBS. Many of us 'locals' watch it to learn about the world.

I may come from a more "cultured" background, but I strongly disagree that Australians are generally less aware of foreign languages or pronounciation. We may not all be polyglots like many Europeans, but we're not totally ignorant either. Unless Masalai or someone else can come up with a source then I'm going to remove it. --Imroy 11:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do. I also disagree, having had 5 years of compulsory schooling in Italian, Indonesian, French and Japanese (and the opportunity for three more years). Perhaps Masalai was homeschooled. The examples are also silly. Natgoo 12:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the claims are true or not, Wikipedia isn't the place for linguistic prescriptivism. This section doesn't belong as written. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 13:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Plus, the examples are terribly ignorant. Australians say entrée to mean starters, because that's what the word MEANS in modern French usage. It's the American usage which is out of line with the rest of the world and "wrong" if you want to get prescriptivist. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 13:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Censorship of "Articulacy"

This section, stating noticeable Australian cross-class inarticulacy ie low oral word utterance rate per unit time, was suppressed by the apparent Australian nationalist "Randwicked", who employs the neologism "linguistic prescriptivism" for observations which offend his possible feeling of superiority. He attempts to justify his action by adding the note that the suppressed section contains original research/is unsubstantiated. In reply: firstly, the entire article (Use of Words, Diminutives, Use of Humour) is based on unsourced generalisations, in some cases claiming knowledge of all (!) other English varieties. This however fits the mindset of certain Australian nationals, ie reflects their outlook. That being so, suppression of "Articulacy" as a contribution to sociolinguistics is for political and not for Wikipedia reasons. In other words, statements of 1. Australian class origin 1788-1945 2. consequent relationship between occupation/vocation and oral proficiency are taboo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.134.80.24 (talk • contribs) 6:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC).

Australian nationalist? :D That's a first. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 12:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I love watching self-important newbies smash their egos up against the wall that is WP:NOT and then cry "conspiracy!". Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system! Yes, we're all against you, mate. And of course it's because we're Australian nationalists. --Imroy 14:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

after edit conflict:User:Trödel and User:Imroy also objected to the section. I probably would have too, if I'd noticed it. The "Irish influences" is only marginally better. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

@Imroy: "I love watching self-important newbies smash their egos up against the wall that is WP:NOT and then cry "conspiracy!"". The tone of the article as it stands, however, is unmistakeably self-congratulatory (see e.g. amused condescension towards tourists), in the mode found not only in and around Randwick itself. Viewed from outside the Anglosphere, it is interesting to see how entries on identical topics in Wikipedia reflect the nationalist biasses of the authors/readers concerned. It is true there are occasional clashes eg between US and Aust. nationals on the merits of eg various US wartime generals in the S. Pacific. But I estimate that only ca 1% of those reading this article on Aust. English can read anything but English anyway, so the matter is a closed book to them.

No linguist at an Australian university and thus close to his source material is going to make a safe career by publishing on inarticulacy, not least because he would necessarily be commenting adversely on the oral proficiency of many of his university colleagues, not to mention eg John Howard.

Varieties of Australian English

It is sometimes claimed that regional variations in pronunciation and accent exist, but if present at all they are very small compared to those of British and American English – sufficiently so that linguists are divided on the question. Overall, however, pronunciation is determined less by region than by social, cultural and educational influences, as well as a generic urban-rural divide.

I take the above paragraph to mean "there is more difference between English spoken in Auburn, New South Wales (ethnically, arabic/turkish) and Cabramatta, New South Wales (ethnically Asian - hey, another generalisation) then there is between (say) English spoken by the same ethnic group in Sydney and Brisbane or Melbourne. Simliarly, people from Wagga Wagga, New South Wales could be assumed to speak similarly to those from Alice Springs, Northen Territory, but differently to Canberra? Somehow I don't think that is quite right.

But I had to think about it before I came up with my interpretation. Did I interpret it the way it was intended? I think it needs some kind of clarification.Garrie 23:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded it. Clearer now? I won't be offended if you fiddle around with it a bit more. Metamagician3000 10:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a difference in Adelaide where the accent sounds closer to the New Zealand accent than in other parts of Australia. The number six sounds like the NZ sux. There is also a distinctive immigrant accent depending on parentage. The accent is maintained by locally born descendants. So you have a clearly recognisable Lebaness, Greek, Italian etc Australian accent. Also the Sydney Westie and Melbourne Bogan accents are clearly identifiable. These may be more socio-economic than regional however. Roonz123 00:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

But are the Sydney Westie and Melbourne Bogan accents similar to each other, or is the Sydney Westie accent closer to the Sydney Cultured Australian English, and the Melbourne Bogan closer to the Melbourne Cultured Australian English? That is the distinction the article seems to be trying to make. Garrie 04:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

From my own experience with people from Adelaide I would have said it closer to a London accent than a New Zealand one. Due to the high proportion of Ex-pat Brits who settled in areas like Elizabeth, the received British pronunciation is far more common in SA than Victoria or Sydney.~ Brother William 17:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Order of sections, split & expansion

1. History
2. Spelling
3. Irish influences
4. Samples of Australian English
5. Vocabulary
   1. The origins of Australian words
6. Varieties of Australian English
7. Phonology
8. Use of words by Australians
   1. Humour
   2. Diminutives
   3. Rarely-used phrases
9. See also
10. References
11. External links

This is the current order. The article starts with history then goes on to spelling after this we go on to Irish influences. Irish influences, however, are very much connected with history so wouldn't it be better if these sections were closer together? Similarly vocabulary and the use of words by Australians are connected. Also, the latter is rather large and would probably be best split out into a new article. I'm moving things about. I'm also getting rid of the subsection title "The origins of Australian words": it's nothing but clutter. Jimp 04:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've also expanded the phonology section. It's good to have a bit of a summary here. Jimp 05:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

midlands convicts

some of the broader aussie accents mostly comes from 18th century black country convicts from the midlands, I fought for ages trying to proove it, but its bloody obvious the diallects are the same only the australien is slightly stronger because it has other influences aswell. I know you all got this thing saying its mostly irish, but hiberno irish is from midlands settlers anyway,most of the irish irish people spoke gaelic. and on the pitcairn islands its mostly 18th century portsmouth diallect.

convicts

paul

I still can't see the point of having a whole section for hiberno english when its, from personal experience I'd say the aussie dialect is like 18th century midlands mixed with 18th century true cockneys, so it sounds stronger than both dialects because they became mixed togethor, I don't beleive it "diverged" from socalled british english but rather a mongrolisation of regonal working class diallects and this mongrol workin mans dialect that is aussie sounded alot stronger, don't scorn off what I'm saying I'm not saying it comes from standard british english or anything like that, in anycase standard british english didnt exist during the time of the colonisation of australia and it sounds bloody aweful.

paul

"Whilst" vs "While"

Hi, I've just been involved in a considerable discussion on the Talk:Steve Irwin page about the use of "whilst" in his article. I took a straw-poll, and then changed all the numerous instances of "whilst" to "while", but then one user pointed out to me some archived discussions that had come down in favour of "whilst". My favourite example is "whilst snorkelling". So, I wonder if this minor point should get some general discussion and resolution, and Australian English seems like an appropriate place. My own opinion, as an educated Australian, is that "whilst" is rarely used in writing, and virtually never used in spoken English, and is both old-fashioned and (often) pretentious. Furthermore, the article on American and British English suggests that "whilst" always sounds archaic to Americans, no matter what the context. This suggests to me that "while" is the safe, uncontroversial choice. On the other hand, there seems to be some opinion around that "whilst" is actually a a distinctive and valued part of Australian English. Any thoughts? Can we get a WP-wide recommendation? Thanks. Leeborkman 22:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Lee. FWIW, the current edition of the in-house News Limited (Australia) book, Style: The Essential Guide for Journalists and Professional Writers says: "whilst, with amongst and amidst, is not to be used." I think this is like the gaol v. jail issue here where some editors are wanting to hang on to the old spelling. However, these spellings are no longer commonly used in professional writing in Australia. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah. An interesting stat to indicate relative actual use... Google while site:*.au gives about 37 million hits, but whilst site:*.au gives 12 million. That's actually a lot more pages with "whilst" than I would have expected, but "while" is clearly the more common on Australian pages. Thanks again. Leeborkman 23:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is approaching instruction creep. It's better just to respect the previous author's usage (as is the convention currently), than to enforce another. It's plainly not constructive, especially when you consider that the only likely result will be edit warring; people simply don't like to be told that their English is incorrect or not allowed.--cj | talk 09:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought that this was why you would have a debate, and then a style recommendation, so that you don't have the war. I would have thought that consistency of style was a worthwhile goal for an encyclopedia, so when you have a style question, you can just point to the style guide and everybody is happy. It's not about what is correct, just about about which (if any) is the recommended WP style. Anyway, thanks, and I'll look at the Convention link you provided. Leeborkman 10:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have looked at the WOP again, Cyberjunkie, but I can;t find anything particularly relevant to this situation. In particular, I can't see any recommendation to go with the previous author's choice, only a recommendation not to change unilaterally from American to British English (or vice versa). This is not a case of American English versus British, but about whether "whilst" is universally acceptable in Australian English. As far as I can tell, "while" is universally acceptable, whether you are American, British or Australian, so there is no reason not to use it. But this might just be me - I also dislike "orientated", so you can see the kind of guy I am ;-) THanks again Leeborkman 10:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm... As I remember it, the Manual of style discourages making purely language-preference edits.... Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That's true. I was probably out of line, even though I canvassed opinion on the subject before I edited, but that is not why I am raising this point here. I am simply asking if it would not be appropriate to include some while/whilst preference in an appropriate style guide (if there is such a thing for Australian English). I would like to avoid debate on such a matter, not only because the matter is so trivial, but because I am sure the question has been raised, discussed, and decided countless times on countless pages. Pointing to a recommendation in a concensus style guide would effectively save everyone a lot of time (and heat). Is this not an appropriate question for a style guide? Thanks. Leeborkman 04:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I use "whilst" all the time in speech & writing. I don't find it old-fashioned or pretentious in the least. It's just a regular word to me. What the exact guideline might be here I couldn't say off hand but it seems to me that the spirit of the WP:MOS would suggest that one should refrain from changing from one perfectly acceptable style to another without good reason. It seems to me that "whilst" is perfectly acceptable in AusE (we needn't worry about other dialects). Certainly the fact that previous dicussions came down in favour of "whilst" should carry some weight. One might also pick through the history to find what was used first. Jimp 15:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify... I am not asking for support to change whilst to while. I am simply asking if a whilst/while preference would be appropriate to be decided and included in a Style Guide to prevent this kind of trivial and aggravating discussion from being repeated ad nauseum. In other words, is there an Australian English Style Guide for WP, and if so, is while/whilst a candidate for inclusion in that Style Guide? Thanks again. Leeborkman 21:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Could be a good idea. As far as I know there is no Australian English Style Guide for Wikipedia. If the discussion is being repeated ad nauseum, yes, I suppose it would be a candidate whether it be on an Aussie specific page or elsewhere.

Anyhow, you mention Google hits. I seem to get about 32 million for while but I checked through the first five pages and found that one hit per page had a while for which whilst could not be substituted. For example Lyndon While (a surname), while-loop (a computing term), for a while (here the word is a noun, whilst cannot be a noun). Note I only get about 8 million for whilst so it's still about a one to three ratio.

For what it's worth I tried plain Google and got about 1740 million for while verses about 91 million for whilst i.e. about a one to nineteen ratio. Google UK gives about 86 million for while verses about 47 million for whilst i.e. a bit better than a one to two ratio.

So wherever you look while seems to be the more popular but if we take raw Google search results at face value then we might conclude that about 25% of Aussies prefer whilst over while. That's a fair chunk of us. If there is an Aussie style guide written, I'd suggest either be allowed with preference going to the use by the first major contributor to an article. We don't need to cater to the Americans. Jimp 01:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jimp. Actually, I would think it perfectly appropriate to cater for Americans if we can do that without sacrificing anything Australian. As far as I can make out all readers, even Australians, find "while" completely unobjectionable, so I would think it could be recommended without qualification. "Whilst", on the other hand, is obviously objectionable to some people (including some Australians), so cannot be recommended, even in Australian articles. That would be my basic position if this point were being considered for inclusion in a Style Guide. Thanks for your thoughts, although it seems that there is no substantial support for including such a thing in a recommended Style Guide, so I will let it go. Thanks again. Leeborkman 01:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. No, there's nothing wrong with choosing something that would work for the Americans as long as we "can do that without sacrificing anything Australian." I dunno, perhaps we can even in this case. However, I just get the feeling that the more words we ban the more artificial the language becomes and the more artificial it is the less Australian it is. I wonder how many Aussies really find the word objectionable; you're one but I'm not. I wouldn't mean to recommend the word I'm just uneasy about having it banned. Note I've got nothing against Americans nor American English in general. Jimp 03:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jimp. The truth is, I had never considered "whilst" to be a normal part of Australian English at all. I have always assumed, in those rare cases where I have heard it, that it was merely an affectation akin to raising the little finger while drinking tea. If I am wrong about that, however, and it is a word that Australians value, then I would not wish to see it die. As for "banning" it, that was never my intent... merely some recommendation such as "in cases where there is dispute regarding the use of 'while' or 'whilst', 'while' is usually to be recommended as having more universal acceptance". But there you go... it begins to seem that "whilst" is indeed part of the Australian character, and I am in fact mistaken. Thanks for your trouble. Leeborkman 03:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No trouble. You know, you could be right after all. I mean, I can't exactly claim to speak for the entire country. I'd always felt it to be normal enough but I'm only 0.000005% of the population. There are the Google results which tend to show the whilst is alive and kicking in Aussie English (but which do still come down in favour of while). Citing raw Google results, though, is not the same thing as conducting a thorough study. As for me, I'm not really too concerned about the matter. Recently on Wikipedia a whilst I'd written was changed to a while. I wasn't jumping up and down about it.

I don't suppose you'd get too much opposition to your proposal the way you've phrased it here ... I could be proved wrong. The real problem is that, as yet, there really is no where to put it. There's the Wiki Manual of Style but there are no dialect-specific style guides. Before we can put forth such recommendations we'd need a Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Australian English) page to put them on. What d'ya reckon? Should we start the page up? Jimp 06:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I found myself writing something yesterday, and I first typed "while", then went back and "corrected" it to "whilst". I then recalled this conversation, and have now checked a Macquarie Dictionary:

• while is a noun, a conjugation, and a verb
• whilst is only a conjugation, and is defined as meaning "while".

The fact that "while" has three uses could naturally lead to the observed higher usage in Google. "Whilst" is not noted as old-fashioned, just different. So, observing my own behaviour, I believe that I must have been taught to use "whilst" in written South Australian English. I don't think I use it in spoken English. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)