Talk:South Australian English

hi!!!

Hi. Since "Southern Australia" takes in up to half of the continent, can I suggest that the article be renamed South Australian English, which probably defines it better? Grant65 (Talk) 04:23, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

There is no merger of "pull" and "pool", "full" and "fool", etc in South Australian English. The vowel in "pool" is longer than that in "pull", so vowel length alone distinguishes these words.

Delete Article

Why does this article exist? Just for a small part of speach that could be mentioned in Australian English. There really isn't a huge difference in the Australian accent over the whole country. There also seems to be South Australians that disagree with this merger (the only thing mentioned in this article). Mark 11:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am a South Australian and I certainly don't merge the vowels suggested. I think this article should be merged with the general Australian English article. The only difference between SA and others states is is a truncated "u" or "ou", a longer "a" for words such as plant and demand, unique words (eg Stobie Pole) and a cultivated tinge to the accent (certainly so after spending the weekend in Rockhampton, Queensland!). (see also my webpage at http://www.geocities.com/south_australian_stress)- Frances 6/6/05

I'm not a croweater and I'm not sure about this article, but it should be about how the majority of South Australians speak, not one or two individuals. And there is a perception out there about the "pool/pull" thing, I mean I first heard this theory around 10 years ago. The example cited was Bruce McAvaney. By the way Frances, thank you for putting your comments here rather than in the middle of articles. Grant65 (Talk) 01:45, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Australian English all sounds the same.

Of course not all AusE sounds the same. This is absurd. Why does this article exist? See the AusE talk page. It was just a response to a challange. It's served its frivolous purpose. Delete it. Jimp 6Jun05

Thanks for comments Grant65; when I say the above comments, I refer to South Australian speech in general. Of course, there is even individual variations in South Australians. - Frances 6/6/05

Since the point is a matter of some dispute I've removed the following sentence.

It is supposedly identified by the merger of the pronunciation of words like pull and pool, full and fool foot-goose and full-fool mergers etc.

Now the article is only half as long as it was. All the more reason to delete it. Jimp 7Jun05

I have a feeling that whoever wrote the thing will revert, but so be it. I think there is room for Wiki articles on regional vocabulary, I mean there are already books about this. I also think that if there were such a thing as a "South Australian accent", we would be better aware of it. Perhaps one is emerging, I mean no one identified New Zealanders by the schwas in "fush and chups" until about 20 years ago. Every working day I talk to people all over Australia, and I don't buy the "cultivated tinge" posited by Frances either. The people who want to pronounce my name as "Graant" (rather than "Gr-ant") come from every state in the country. Grant65 (Talk) 00:04, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

What a coincidence: I have much the same feeling. I agree, yes, if there were such a thing as a (markedly distinct) South Australian accent we'd have heard of it. Jimp 8Jun05

People can pick South Australians as distinct from Melbourne/Sydney by their accent (I'm from Adelaide), even if they're not sure exactly what clues they use. Pronunciation of 'a' and 'e' is definitely part of it. Even Americans can tell we're not from Sydney - I have been asked several times in the USA if I'm English, as "I know someone from Sydney, and you don't sound like them". --ScottDavis 07:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think what people often fail to recognise is that there is great variety among Australian English along the lines of class/education — i.e. "broad", "general", "cultivated Australian English" — along with ethnicity, et c., and such things can be mistaken for regional accents. For example, my accent is probably somewhere along the spectrum between "general" and "cultivated", and as a result I've often been asked if I'm a "pom", a "kiwi", and various other things, when I've spent a sum total of only two of my 40 years outside WA!Grant65 (Talk) 10:59, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Call it what you will, but there is something in the air to suggest to me that there soon will be regional accents! I do come from a non-English speaking background but whilst I lived in Adelaide (which was until the start of this year), not once was I told that I sounded strange or different, that you could tell I came from a non-English accent (go listen to the mp3s on my website for my voice). At the start of this year, I moved to Melbourne and I get constantly told by people that I sound different - "Are you a Kiwi?", "Are you English?", "you sound strange". This has also happened to MANY other Croweaters that I know who have crossed the border to Vicland, we've discussed this with each other as well as Victorians' strange vowel-swapping phenomenon. Quite frankly, I can spot a Victorian a mile away and successfully so. But not only this, I have had a friend who currently lives in the Pilbara, WA and a friend who lived in Brisbane who came back to Adelaide and they were asked if they were English themselves. The ex-Brisbane friend said that the Queenslanders told her that she sounded clipped when she talked. Doesn't say that something is happening? I'm not saying that all Croweaters speak like that, some have very broad accents but I would that there would most likely be more Croweaters on the cultivated end than say Queenlanders. OK, I admit the differences aren't as severe say as a person from NY and Kentucky but they are ever so slightly, slightly there, maybe not yet to consider a different accent. - Frances 8/6/05

I should get my father-in-law to do some mp3s, then you'll really hear it! - Frances 8/5/05

I want hard evidence, not anecdotes! I know or have met quite a few Croweaters — in fact I sit next to one at work — and I can't hear it. Or can you name a well known SA'n, such as a footy player, with this accent? Grant65 (Talk) 12:34, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

And I would also like to know how you "spot" a Victorian, other than their eccentric vocabulary ;-)Grant65 (Talk) 12:39, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

A flat "a" tone running through speech, ie "e" becomes "a" and "a" can become "e" with other vowel swaps (mentioned in the Australian English article). For example:

""Hi, I'm from Malbourne and I bought a house at Dendinong with a belcony with the help using a home owner grant (short "a'). It was with an epplication from the benk, a friend had to tall (not as in height 'tall" but short "a", ie word is tell) me. The friend was called Elbert and he said to me that you can hev a grant (short "a") on anuhthing that is your first owned property.""

(beat that :) )

Frances 8/6/05

Sounds more South African to me than Victorian. But you may be onto something with the "a/e" thing: "There is no evidence in this data of raised /æ/ before /l/ as in “Elbert” for “Albert”, a phenomenon that has been popularly suggested for Victorians. Instead our results suggest that Victorian girls are more likely to produce “shall” for both “shell” and “shall”.[1] So their a's and e's are merging. But what about your evidence for a South Australian accent? Grant65 (Talk) 14:04, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Frances did a pretty good job of writing how a South Australian hears a Victorian. We don't have an accent - everyone else does :-) --ScottDavis 15:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grant65, Maybe there isn't any evidence as to Victorians doing that, but how come every South Australian hears Vics like that? Does that mean that we have the accent? Scott has a point, I can't hear my accent, when I hear myself or another from SA, it sounds normal. I can't provide examples with footy stars because again they sound normal to me. The only thing that I can provide in relation to something like this is that there is an SA news reporter on the Melbourne 10 News who I remember used to report in Adelaide on 10 News when I was living there by the name Jeremy Pudney. When I hear him on the news, he sounds normal to me (which is also very refreshing to my ears) but when I hear the Vic-originated reporters they don't sound normal and don't sound anything like him. My husband, SA born and bred, agrees to about Jeremy Pudney. Grant65, I return the challenge back to you (since it seems to me that you are linguist and I am not); I ask why we can as Croweaters distinguish a Victorian and why can they hear something unidentifiably "strange" in our voices? (I do believe that this is not varied enough yet to be a considered an accent). As for WA, I have had less exposure to WA speakers but of the times that I have heard them speak, they sound more like us than the Vics, and therefore we might not stand out as much to a WA speaker. - Frances 9/6/05

Oh, and in the above example of a Victorian talking, it should be "halp" not "help". I remember one person in Melbourne imitating me saying "help" as "hilp". - Frances 9/6/05

Fran, I'm not a linguist, but I've had an interest in accents/dialects for a long time. As I say, I speak to people around Australia on a daily basis and I'm always on the look out for differences. Also, here in WA, as a result fo the mining industry, we get a lot of "immigrants" from all over Aussie (and from far beyond). I also follow the AFL closely, hear SA'ns like Mark "Chocko" Williams, Neil Craig, Mark Ricciuto, Warren Tredrea, (etc) and they don't sound any different to members of my own family. It's possible that I'm not as attuned to different ways of speaking as you. But read the quote about Victorians again — it says that they they do do something different to the rest of us. So maybe its the Victorians who have a regional accent.Grant65 (Talk) 23:32, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that could be so Grant65, or on the way to developing one. They always have to be different to the rest of us :). Yes the players you list all sound pretty average to me with the exception of (coach) Craig and Ricciuto, who I think sound broad. I know Riccuito is from a Riverland town by then name of Waikerie and that's where he gets his broadness. However, it still doesn't explain why we get asked about being English by other states! - Frances 9/6/05

My wife and I can both pick Melbourne, Sydney and Queensland as different from South Aust and each other. When we were in Perth a few years ago, I could pick "something odd" (emphasis and tone moreso than vowel choice I think) in the accent of some locals, but my wife thought they sounded the same as us. Country NSW and Vic seem to vary - I don't know if the linguistic boundary necessarily follows the state boundary, and country accents are often broader than city ones. If we accept that Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide have three distinct accents, which one is the "Australian" accent, and which two are the regional accents? Incidentally, if you hadn't said that "Grant65" has a short 'a' (rhymes with ant, rant, pant, sat), I'd pronounce it with a long 'a' (rhymes with aunt, can't, mast, last) --ScottDavis 02:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I ocassionally can pick out the NSW or Qlder - different from Vics. I could hear a little of an accent in Karratha (Pilbara WA) when I was there recently. As an "Australian" accent, I'd probably choose Qld. I went to Rocky on the weekend and although most people spoke broadly, they sounded quintesentially (and stereotypically Aussie). I think young Qlders have a 'middle of the ground accent". But even then, I must add that these slight regional variations do not amount to a clear accent yet but might a few years. As for "Grant", I'd pronounce that with a long a, if I were not corrected. But again, I don't think that's an accent in itself. Frances 10/6/05

It is difficult for people to accept that there are regional variations in Australian English. Many linguists actively work to discredit such claims. Personnally, I do believe that there exists a South Australian variation. Unfortunately, it seems a variation increasingly confined to Adelaide and some areas of the West Coast. Interaction with interstaters and television broadcasts that are ever more dominated by Australians with more "general accents" has, perhaps, contributed to this. "Dance", I have noticed (with horror), is tending towards /æ/. It is also difficult to identify nationally recognised South Australians with this accent. Footballers are the worst possible examples, as they, in my belief, tend towards "broad". I would cite, as the Australian English page once did, Alexander Downer as an example, but his is regional once more, being endemic to the Adelaide Hills and more clipped then normal SA English. Natasha Sttot Despoja is perhaps a good example, but some might dismiss this as an example of "educated English". There is definately a difference, as there are differences from state to state and city to city. But South Australian English (if it is to be called that) is a more pronounced variation. --Cyberjunkie 10:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that Downer's speech is a classic example of what is technically known as Cultivated Australian English. I would also point out that if he is an example of the supposed accent and well-known footballers don't have it, then the "South Australian accent" must be restricted to about 10% of the South Australian population. Which doesn't make it much of a regional accent. Stott Despoja doesn't seem any different to other speakers of General Australian English such as Nicole Kidman, Naomi Watts, Judy Davis and Germaine Greer. Grant65 (Talk) 11:03, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well back to square one. I don't know, I just know that the short "ou" or "u" occurence is an Adelaide phenomenon and it even sounds like "yuy" in "thank you" when I say it. There are a lot of Hills people that sound like Downer when they speak, and yes he is cultivated. But what should be done is a study into persons who are considered to sound cultivated in each state and test them to see if there is any variation, then we'll really know. I went to the Eumundi Markets on the Sunshine Coast on the weekend and bought some jewellery from a lady. She said that I had a very different accent and I told her that I am not from Qld, but from SA. She said that she could tell that I wasn't from around the area because of my not having a "local accent" and a "precise accent". Just thought I'd share that with you. - Frances 13/6/05

See treatment of pool words in Australian English for this pull/pool issue.

I hear Alexander Downer's accent as being affected by his British education. I grew up at Macclesfield in the Adelaide Hills, a town Downer lived in for a while. My brother (whose accent is slightly broader than mine) moved to Victoria and was told by his Victorian girlfriend that she knew he was from SA, as he sounded like Alexander Downer! None of our family think we sound like him! --ScottDavis 12:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It can be hard to tell Cultivated Australian English (CAE) apart from Received Pronunciation (RP). In fact a lot of Australians and British people can't tell the difference. For example, the TV presenter Clive Hale, who died last week, was a native South Australian with CAE. I had wrongly assumed him to be English because of his ultra CAE accent. What's interesting is that he also had the "Victorian" a-e merger, but he had worked in a few different "stætes and tærritoriæs".Grant65 (Talk) 22:28, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Bred-bread split

I've added an article about the bred-bread split that occurs for some Australians.

Well, as you can see from the mp3 from my website, I only split bread from bred when I say it in isolation but not in a sentence. - Frances 13/6/05

Redirect

I've redirected this article to Australian English. It already says in that article, "For many speakers in southern Australia, pull and pool are merged in position, that is the quality distinction is lost, pull is pronounced /pʊl/ and pool is pronounced /pʊːl/, but they're not usually pronounced the same. Some people believe that when hearing South Australians pronounce these words, pronounce them the same, when in fact they do not pronounced them the same. Pairs like pull/pool, full/fool, etc. are distinguished only in length by these speakers." Where it is much better written. This content is a poor imitation of the content on that article. It should therefore be redirected, as it is possible someone will do a search for it. I'm also from Victoria, and my English boyfriend can't tell the difference between my saying pull and pool, so it's not just South Australians. Although I will concede that you can tell very slightly when someone is from South Australia, but this is not true for everyone, and it's nothing like the way you can tell if someone is from New Zealand. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the point about accent, however there is an SA regional 'vocabulary' which is worthy of an article, as are those in other states and particular regions within them. (See http://abc.net.au/wordmap/default.htm ) Grant65 (Talk) 11:55, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I will give you some time to improve this stub, if it does not evolve to more than a poor imitation of the Australian English article soon, then I will either redirect or put a merge disputed notice on it. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's very big of you :P Grant65 (Talk) 23:52, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe this article should be maintained. Rather, as Silversmith has attempted, it should be redirected to the Australian English, with any relevant information discussed there. If you wish to write about vocabularly, do so at Australian words. Whilst I do believe South Australians speak Australian English differently, it does not warrant its own article - expand upon Regional Variation if necessary.-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 15:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What's the problem? To paraphrase what someone said to me in relation to another article, "if we can have an article on every suburb of Canberra, why not?" If you look at the ABC Wordmap link, you will note that there is not one variety of South Australian English, there are three: "Adelaide", "Eyre and Yorke Peninsula" and "Northern South Australia", each with it's own variations in vocabulary. Each one of these could justify an article. Unfortunately I don't have time to write them at present, and (being parochial) I would rather write articles on the two dialects within WA :-) Grant65 (Talk) 13:31, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Get over it Silversmith.Grant65 (Talk) 18:09, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Please remove the "merge" tag; it is no longer justified.Grant65 (Talk) 04:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Why, because you don't think it is? Until we come to a consensus that either (a) it should not be merged or (b) it should be merged, it remains true that it has been suggested. The topic of merger is worthy of discussion. So far, the article says very little that would not also be said of other regional varieties, so why not just say it all at once in Regional Variation on Australian English? In fact, there's only one sentence that's vaguely particular to here (being Many regional words in South Australia are German or Cornish in origin, as result of the large number of settlers from these places who arrived in the early years of the Colony of South Australia), and one sentence does not an article make.

The article also can hardly be expanded beyond its current self; the only reasonable expansions would be on the lexical variety front. But then you're combining three distinct dialects (so the article claims) into one article because of political lines—I can't wait to see your article on Northern South Australian English. It would be better to provide the proper context surrounding the eternally small article into Australian English. The article should be merged into Regional Variation in Australian English.

By the way, I'll be away for the next week and might not have great Internet access in the interim. Please don't unilaterally remove the 'merge' tag again during that time, and please don't extrapolate an opinion from what I've just said (or what anyone else has said) because you've expanded the article. (If, however, you decide to hold a vote before I'm back, I vote for merger regardless of *any* changes that may be made.)

Felix the Cassowary 05:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The article can hardly be expanded? Dorothy Jauncey (who is referenced in the article) has managed to write a whole book on South Australian English. Is it Wikipedia policy/style now to merge stubs, into which several people have already time and effort, because said people don't have anough time to finish them? You seem to operate on the principle that simply because you don't know anything about something, it doesn't exist.

Someone may wish to write an article on Northern South Australian English and why not? If it's spoken by only 10,000 people, that is still more than some official languages about which there are articles in Wikipedia (e.g. Nauruan language and Cornish language). Until that time, NSAE can be discussed here, especially since — as you would be the first to point out — there similarities between it and the other two dialects.

I removed the "merge" precisely once, after I expanded the article, which I thought would have satisfied reasonable critics. The topic of merger has been discussed at length and the intensity of discussion shows that an article is needed, if only to debunk the nonsense about a regional accent. Grant65 (Talk) 08:13, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say the article couldn't be expanded, I said that things couldn't be added that were specific to it. I still see very little that's not more interesting elsewhere.

Regarding the removal of 'merge', it was (a) premature and (b) unilateral. I was telling you not to do that again. I wasn't saying you were doing it repeatedly. You have a vested interested and are a poor judge of whay will satisfy your critics (I don't mean to say that offensively! Everyone's biased!).

Please stop misusing the word 'theory'. There's nothing about urban legends that qualifies them for that title. Please stop removing comments which are true. (These two aren't necessarily directed at you---I'm still away so only have limited time here. They're directed at whoever made the changes. But the last para still reads a million times worse then it did at the start of the week, so I'll be fixing it when I get home tomorrow evening.)

My sincere apologies for the removing comments which are true bit. I was rushing yesterday and missed that it was simply moved. Felix the Cassowary 10:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

To those who feel that the Australian English article is too long, it would be a more efficient use of readers' time to have a single article on all the varieties of Australian English, even if it's separate from the Australian English page. South Australian English should then be a redir to that page. I would be fully in favor of this.

Felix the Cassowary 10:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it meakes any more sense than having a page on all regional varieties of English English. I mean dialects are in large part defined negatively, defined by their difference to one another. "We're not like them." Grant65 (Talk) 11:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to merge any worthwhile content to the Australian English article then I'm going to make this a redirect. If you undo the redirect I will put this up for VfD to see what other wikipedian's think. The problem with this stub is that it basically says, "In south Australia they say things a certain way, but they also say things that way in the rest of Australia." Which means this article is pointing out that there is no real difference between South Austalian English and the rest of the country's English. Perhaps you should just "get over it" and go work on improving Australian English. --Silversmith Hewwo 17:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to sign)

Anonymous, no, what it says is "they say things some things differently in SA" and if you bothered to read the references you would know that is a true statement. I didnt't create this article and I'm appalled that Wikipedians can so casually destroy other peoples work. Cheers. Grant65 (Talk) 10:32, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Australian words has already been hived off from Australian English, what is the problem here? There seems to be lot of prejudice regarding the notion of regional vocabulary, which is not a strange idea which I've come up with, but an established fact. I refer you all once again to the Australian Word Map . Read it and learn. Grant65 (Talk) 10:37, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Please be careful not to break the 3RR rule. I do not want to get into a revert war over this, and so if it continues, I will put it up for VfD to gain a consensus. --Silversmith Hewwo 17:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Please put it on VfD. I have no intention of breaking the rule. I will continue to revert within the rules, as long as Chameleon insists on deleting the article. Grant65 (Talk) 00:58, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

So now you are copying and pasting sections directly from the Australian English article to bulk this stub out, plus adding completely irrelevant information such as Alexander Downer, who does not have a SA accent but a Cultivated Accent. Are you having trouble finding encyclopedic information on the subject? --Silversmith Hewwo 09:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think gibes are necessary.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, but this is fine? --Silversmith Hewwo 22:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

As it happens, I wrote the bit on Downer in Australian English (or more precisely I corrected the claim that he had a "South Australian accent"). Anyone can cut 'n' paste anywhere if it's relevant, and it is. As I keep saying, one of the reasons why we need articles like this is to debunk the myths which are already out there about about "regional accents" (see above). Grant65 (Talk) 10:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I fully and unreservedly apologise to Silversmith for the comment mentioned above.Grant65 (Talk) 10:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Grant. And don't worry, I'm not going to try and exterminate this article any more, no matter what the VfD result. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

How does a link to Barossa Deutsch get into an article about a variant of the English language? --ScottDavis 12:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? Because German has contributed words to the regional varieties of English. Grant65 (Talk) 13:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Then provide a list of Barossa Deutsch words that have escaped into South Australian English outside of the Barossa Valley, or even into English-only speakers in the Barossa. --ScottDavis 14:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Give me a break, at the moment I'm trying to stop the page from being deleted. Have you tried the references listed in the article? Grant65 (Talk) 15:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Most of the words Dorothy Jauncey has picked as South Australian dialect are actually words for objects that only occur here, so the object doesn't need a name anywhere else. Can anyone check whether the German-language wikipedia has an article on Barossa Deutsch or Australian German? --ScottDavis 15:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I still think the article should be merged, I'm just not going to make any more attempts to redirect it. --Silversmith Hewwo 20:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

‘sharply‘?

Recently added was Some sounds are pronounced more sharply then in other Australian places, and this could be a result of the German settlement. What does ‘more sharply’ mean? Which sounds are pronounced more sharply? Can we assume that this is throughout the entire state compared with no-where outside it? — Felix the Cassowary 11:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I've heard that the South Australian accent as being described as "clipped". I presume that is what is meant by sharp. Personally I think that South Australians tend to schwa vowels where most Australians don't and tend to sound approaching a Kiwi accent. After a few more months living in Melbourne, I've noticed this phenomenon and this in my speech. I also noticed that when I went back home to Adelaide for a visit recently. I can now understand why Melbournians say that to me (not that they sound normal :) ). A Kiwi I talked to also said that we tend to schwa more than other Australians. That's probably why it sounds "clipped" or "sharp" or "truncated" like Kiwi speech - Frances 7/10/05

On the contrary, I've read reports of Victorians tending more towards the schwa than SAns. I'm deleting that sentence. There is no source for this, and one or two persons anecdotal support is not enough. Grant65 (Talk) 01:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not claiming this to be official information, it is just me listening to myself and others now that I am able to hear our "accents". This is only a theory I have developed myself. Of course, this has to be tested and it could be wrong - Frances 7/10/05

In my experience, people from the Adelaide and Outer Adelaide regions (encompassing the Hills through to the South-East "Alexandrina" area), tend to clip vowels more sharply than other Australians - approaching the distinctive Kiwi accent. However, that's just my experience...--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Frances, I have replied to your message on my talk page. Grant65 (Talk) 23:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Allophone blah blah?

Could someone please translate the bit about the "back allophone" into something a general audience could understand. --Rkundalini 15:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

"MonKEY"

I don't want to be drawn too deeply into the "robust" debate apparently surrounding this article. I just wanted to draw contributors' attention to the very peculiar (indeed, unique) way in which residents of Adelaide pronounce the diphthong in "monkey". My IPA is a bit rusty, so I won't try to reproduce the sound now, but I wonder if others have noticed the same phenomenon? Wulfilia 08:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverted merge?

Why was the merge to Regional variation in Australian English reverted? --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Such proposals were voted down after a long and intense debate --- see above. No one would try to cram all British or American regional dialects into one article, why do it their Australian counterparts? Also, the merger took place only four days after a proposed merger tag was put on the article!!! It seems almost sneaky to do that, when so many people, myself included, are away over Easter. Grant65 | Talk 14:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see "voted down" as the outcome of the above. Maybe you do and I don't because we were both involved in the discussion and each see our own expectation. I thought User:jimp did a good job of the merge and thought one article gives more credit to the subject than myriad similar articles on what are very minor differences. There is no minimum time required by WP:MM for a {{merge}} tag to be present, or indeed a requirement to use one at all. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If I recall, the formal vote took place at VfD or somesuch. I stand by the rest of my comments. Grant65 | Talk 14:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Here it is.[2] Grant65 | Talk 22:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, Grant. Four days is not a long time but four days without a single comment ... how long does one wait? Yes, I could have waited longer and perhaps I should have but, as Scott points out, "There is no minimum time required ..." I saw no reason not to merge them nor do I really see one still. As for people's being away over Easter, I hadn't given that a thought: it's pretty much just another weekend to me.

No, I hadn't read the VfD. This Talk page hadn't linked to it until you were kind enough to provide the link, Grant. Now I have read it and, as I say, I still see no reason not to do what I had done. "Such proposals were voted down after a long and intense debate ---" you write. I'm afraid that I read it rather differently.

Right up until its final stages the discussion focussed on three options: keep, delete or merge with "Australian English". So a merger with "Australian English" was voted down but, mind you, not exactly overwhelmingly so. Note for the record that I agree with the outcome of this vote. Of those three options I'd have chosen "keep".

However, what I had done was completely different to what had been voted on. It wasn't until the third last comment, which was made by Felix, that this was even mentioned. What I did was to create a new page for regional vrieties of AusE and to merge South. Aus. Eng. there. This was not what was being voted on. So, now let's discuss this.

"No one would try to cram all British or American regional dialects into one article," you write, Grant "why do it their Australian counterparts?" No you wouldn't. I certainly wouldn't try to cram all Australian dialects into one article. Reading the VfD, Grant, you seem confident enough. So I challenge you. Take this pet stub of yours to full article status and I'll stick a {{main|South Australian English}} between the title and text of the respective section in my pet article & we'll all be happy as Larry. Jim 16:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I also checked, and while there is not a single article for all varieties of British English, there is also not a separate one for each tiny variation. For example there's only one Welsh English and one Midlands English. Variations within these are discussed in the geographic or culture article for the smaller area (e.g. Black Country), or in a section of the main article (e.g. Regional accents within Wales) not a separate language article. Canadian English covers the whole country with only separate articles for a few extremely distinct accents (like Quebec English). --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Jim, the article is hardly even a stub anymore. And I don't see why it's incumbent on me to take it to a "full article", whatever you mean by that: 10kb? 32kb?

Scott, how about English English, East Anglian English, Estuary English, Highland English, Manx English, Mid Ulster English, Northern English, Received Pronunciation, Scottish English, West Country dialects, Cockney#London_speech, Norfolk dialect, Brummie, Geordie, Pitmatic, Tyke, Scouse and Mackem. There are probably others. Then there is the myriad of articles on US dialects. Grant65 | Talk 22:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Grant; yeah, no, you're right it need not be incumbent on you to expand the article. I just threw the challenge out because you are the one who is disagreeing with my merger. So my challenge would go out not only to you, Grant, but to everyone who thinks that the merger was a mistake.

I don't believe it was. The article is still rather small: fair game to be merged in my way of looking at things. But, no, my way is not the only way and not necessarily the best way. "hardly even a stub anymore", yeah, well, it's borderline. But, fair enough, I had left "full article status" vague and undefined.

Anyway, as I see it, it just makes more sense to keep everything pertaining to regional variation in AusE in the one spot ... until, of course, there is no room. This seems to me a more useful way of oraganising information.

Grant, you've given us a nice long list of articles on various British dialects. I assume it took a while to gather the list up. You even write "There are probably others." You can't really be sure whether there are or not, right?

Ending up with this kind of mess is the kind of thing I'm trying to avoid. Do we want 27 odd articles, most of which will never be more than stubs, each covering some AusE dialect, all floating about unconnected to one-another?

The way I see it, it's better to have everything in one place where it's easier to find. Then when sections become large enough, split them out. Do we need to do things the way they were done for British and American English or do we do things our own way and let them copy us? Jimp 15:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Jim, you said: "as I see it, it just makes more sense to keep everything pertaining to regional variation in AusE in the one spot ... until, of course, there is no room. " I don't see any reason why we can't have it both ways: the general article on varieties of AusE should remain and so should the articles on various dialects.

You say "you've given us a nice long list of articles on various British dialects. I assume it took a while to gather the list up. You even write "There are probably others." You can't really be sure whether there are or not, right?" In fact it took me all of about five minutes; categories make searches like that very easy. I was giving examples, not an exhaustive list.

You say: "Ending up with this kind of mess is the kind of thing I'm trying to avoid. Do we want 27 odd articles, most of which will never be more than stubs, each covering some AusE dialect, all floating about unconnected to one-another?" Jim, the "mess" is in the eye of the beholder; there is no reason not to duplicate material on different pages when appropriate. They can be easily connected to each other by links in the articles (as they are in the "See also" section) and by categories. Grant65 | Talk 07:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I'd like to state that I now oppose any merger.--cj | talk 09:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Grant,

I've been a while getting back to you. Yes, have it both ways but iff the article on the specific dialect is large enough. Yes, duplication isn't bad if done right. When I split this stuff off from Australian English I left a summary there. This is the way to do it in my opinion. What we have now is the entire article duplicated as a section on the other page. The setion is too small really to warrant summary. There is also the problem of editing. Now that this stuff appears twice it is likely to be edited in different directions. Wouldn't it be better to direct potential editors to the one copy?

Cyberjunkie,

Why?

Jimp 00:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and precedent exists.--cj | talk 04:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopædia but I think this merger makes sense in spite of this. From the point of view of readability it's better to have one decent sized article than to have a bunch of little ones. Cyberjunkie, you write that you oppose any merger. Do you mean any merger of this article or any merger of any article at all? Precedent exists, yes, and there is precedent of merging articles. I've merged a number of articles. I've also split quite a few too. It's all a matter of attempting to find the best way of organising information. One huge article can be a pain to get through whilst a dozen tiny ones can be a pain to surf about. I was only trying to better organise this Aussie English stuff. It makes no sense to me to have such a small article as this when there is a spot where it all fits nicely elsewhere paper encyclopædia or otherwise. Jimp 06:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That's awfully patronising. Of course I know that mergers occur, and I have personally precipitated many. I should think it obvious that my statement refers to this article. However, since this appears not to be so, I shall clarify any remaining ambiguity: by precedent, I refer to the list of other variety articles. And no, I see no cause for the topics to be subsumed into Regional variation in Australian English; that article need only touch on them, not cover them in full. --cj | talk 06:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not my intention to be patronising. Thanks for clarifying what your position. Regional variation in Australian English does only touch on South Australian English, it by no means covers it in full. This article does no more than this either. I'd like to see the full coverage and to see it here but until such a full coverage exists I don't understand why the article should exist. Jimp 05:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why it shouldn't exist, as opposed to an article that attempts to cover all variation in Australian English. Have a good look at the ABC/Maquarie Australian Word Map site and you will start to get an idea of the absurdity of attempting to capture the whole gamut of regional variation. And that's without there's the education/occupation/class split into Broad/General/Cultivated. Grant65 | Talk 09:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea of "the absurdity of attempting to capture the whole gamut of regional variation" in one article. I agree with you here, Grant. Does Regional variation in Australian English do this? Far from it: the sections on specific varieties are very few and breif indeed ... as yet. Yes, they could and definitely should be expanded in size and in number and when they are they should be split out. So, yes, I agree that there is a great deal to be covered and I agree that this is too much for one article. However, this is talking of what there is to be covered. Now, if we look at what is presently covered, we see a different picture. At present we just don't have the kind of detail that you find at ABC/Maquarie Australian Word Map. It would be great if we had, we wouldn't be having this debate in that case. At present we have Regional variation in Australian English plus two stubby little articles floating about. What I don't understand is why the latter should exist when there's a perfectly good home for them. Jimp 07:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)