Talk:Australian English/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Australian English. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Relationship to other varieties of English

Acceptance of different spellings

I take issue with this: The exposure to the different spellings of British and American English leads to a certain amount of spelling confusion—for instance, "organize" as opposed to "organise", or "behavior" as opposed to "behaviour". Generally, either variant is accepted.

I was under the impression that current Australian standards were to always use the 's' over 'z' and to keep 'u'. Or at least that seems to be how things are done in WA schools.

Actually the Macquarie dictionary clearly states that either are acceptable but in reality Australian English is quite notable for its strong preference of "-ise" spellings especially. Generally Australians prefer British spellings with -our and -re but some American spellings are more common here than in the UK for particular words. There is no one "Australian standard". The government and some large companines issue their own style guides as does Macquarie - but they don't necessarily agree. — Hippietrail 02:07, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

British dictionaries prefer <-ize> to <-ise> but this is not a good reflexion on the actual preference of British people. I've seen both in Australia. As for <-or> and/or <-er> instead of <-our> and/or <-re> respectively, though, I don't think that this is common at all umongst ordinary Aussies. - Jimp a.k.a Jim

I have taken out the example of Australian Labor Party as an Americanism - rather it is an older spelling variation. I found when researching World War 1 memorials that Honour Boards were often referred to as Honor Boards - it is only in the latter half of the 20th century that in Australia we have preferred the variant of labour and honour with the letter "u". I do not believe that the spelling without the "u" is an American variant in the case of the Labor Party. --AYArktos 08:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Aitch

I think that to say that the pronunciation of "h" as "haitch" is not universal is still an overstatement. It is not even common and, as one might predict from the explanation, it is traditionally limited to Roman Catholics (20-25% of the population). Like the expression "youse" it is not considered slang or dialect but simply incorrect, even by those who accidentally say it.

I totally agree. Does anyone really say "Haitch"? I thought everyone in Australia said "aitch" just like everyone else?!

"Haitch" is very common in Australia. I have lived in 4 states and have not yet detected a pattern of who uses it and who does not. I can't remember if I used to use this pronunciation but I do recall that certain teachers and parents used to reprimand those who do. Members of my family, all Melbournians use it. I do not use it. One of my work colleagues uses it and he was raised in the NT and ACT. At work we have many foreign travelers and often they pick up on his pronunciation of this letter and use it mockingly, though he does not seem to notice it. I've also heard British people here discussing it and generalising it as a marker of Australian speech. Where on earth does the relgion-based division come from???? — Hippietrail 13:06, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hippietrail, you are obviously from Australia (as you talk about coming from Melbourne), don't you know how to spell traveller. -- Anon

Nope, not all the time. Thanks for giving an excellent demonstration of the hard-to-define Australian term "wanker" though! You'll make a fine pedant one day. — Hippietrail 15:16, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now be nice. I only pointed this out, because it shows how American influence has had an effect on our subconscienceness, unless you were just being careless (American spelling is one of my pet peeves). -- Anon

As long as we're publicly correcting one another, there is no such word as "subconscienceness" in either Australian or American dictionaries. At least "traveller" and "humor" are accepted spellings somewhere. (In fact, -or spellings go all the way back to the Latin; the -our versions come from French. Why aren't we complaining about French influence on our language corrupting the good old Latin?) Nor is it correct (in either variety of English) to end a question with a full stop[1], and this is one of my pet peeves. You might want to work on perfecting your own English before telling others off for much smaller errors. --Calair 00:19, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're wrong about the word "subconscienceness" it's a word used in both the Australian and British dictionaries I have (an American dictionary is irrelevant in Australia as far as I'm concerned). It is also a word that is generally accepted for use in Australia - I've heard it used in the media and in government.

Can't find any hits in Oxford. Nor on any Australian site, government or otherwise. In fact, Googling finds just | 31 hits, all apparently due to people (mostly American) who misspelt "subconscious" (which sounds quite similar, but is obviously not the same thing). I would like to learn more about this word - on what page of what Australian and British dictionaries did you find it?

The word 'subconscience' shows up a bit more often; again, most hits seem to be misspellings of 'subconscious'. The remainder seem to be modifications of 'conscience', which isn't exactly relevant to a discussion on US/Australian spelling. --Calair 00:50, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are right subconscienceness is not a word, I was careless in my spelling of "subconsciousness". I also didn't look at the spelling of the word properly in my dictionaries. I will not go around picking on anyone's spelling in discussion pages anymore. I will take your advice and improve my own English. Just, it really annoys me when I see Australians using American spelling, whether deliberate or not. -- Anon

About my punctuation, it was more of a statement than a question, but perhaps I should have phrased it better.

"don't you know how to spell humour" is in no way a statement. It is a question, and even rhetorical questions deserve their question marks. --Calair 00:50, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What happened with the -or / -our endings was that the British changed those Latin words that end in -or around the early eighteenth century period to copy the French version of those words that the French spell with an -eur ending. Then in the early nineteenth century Webster came along and changed them back to the original Latin form to differentiate the spelling of those words from the British spelling. You are right about the French influence on English though, but that started just after the Norman invasion of England, when Norman-French scribes destroyed the spelling of Old English words, the grammar and the alphabet it used. Now that we have criticised each other, lets all be friends and get on with our lives. -- Anon

Australians’ use of words

Humour

Deadpan Humour

The comment about deadpan humour is not limited to Australian English. Perhaps it belongs on the Anti-Americanism page. When Americans tell an outlandish story they will be very quick to add, "It's only a joke." -- just to avoid a lawsuit. I try not to tell Americans when I'm joking; to do so would be to insult their intelligence.

I don't think we (Australians) use deadpan humour purely to embarass Amerkins - it's a regular feature of communication between us. And whoever added that comment also noted that it is a British trait as well. It could also be added that Amerkins (in general) don't grasp the "friendly put-down" and take offence rather easily. So I do think it is quite fair to observe that (in general) Amerkins don't get deadpan humour (as used here). In their defence a handful actually do, and they can actually be pleasant to have around. (Well some of the time, anyway, until they start acting like they actually understand what good coffee is). User:MMGB

I was trying to be NPOV with that comment, in that a) Australians do use deadpan humor a fair bit, amongst themselves as well as to foriegners, b) it is inherited from Britain, and c) Americans don't (generally) use it in a similar way, thus leading to a fair amount of cultural confusion. I'm not trying to imply that Americans are stupid, merely that they don't have the same learned response to run every such story through the BS detector and laugh if it goes off. I thought it was relevant in that it is one of the major causes of confusion when conversing between Americans and Australians. As to our view of the United States, it is a highly complex one, and varies greatly according to personal experience and political outlook (and is a discussion for another page). --Robert Merkel

Mr Merkel, you are obviously from Australia (seen your user page), don't you know how to spell humour. -- Anon

This is a tricky one. Deadpan humour seems pretty universal to me. I've seen people from all sorts of places -- America definitely included -- use it and get it. Whether one gets it seems to depend more on personality than culture. Similarly with put-downs; Americans certainly flip each other shit (take the piss out of each other) all the time. It's not that Americans don't get the concept of friendly put-downs, but that the boundaries of what's considered friendly may be in different places.

On the other hand, I completely believe that Americans have a reputation, deserved or not, for missing tall tales (odd, because tall tales are a lively and vibrant aspect of many American subcultures, and the more deadpan the delivery the better). It's not clear whether more of us just don't get it, or whether Americans who don't react more noticeably to not getting a joke, or whether Americans who don't get it tend to be louder and more noticeable in general than Americans who do, or whether it's all just another national myth.

Trying to gauge what's acceptable humor is a general source of uncertainty when getting to know someone, and leg-pulling is probably one of the harder genres in that respect (another difficult and highly context-dependent area is just how much one may rely on stereotypes). As mentioned above, Americans may be more likely not put out the right cues in the "am I supposed to laugh now?" situation and thus be perceived as humourless. But this is veering dangerously close to the stereotyping that, judging by the article text, Aussies are just as sensitive about as anyone else (and rightly so). --dmh

The word larrikin seems to be in vogue right now, in this period of serious introspection, to describe a particularly Australian form of dead pan humour. An Australian myself, and having spent eleven years from age 24 on, in Europe, I am more aware of it than most ordinary Australians. I have experienced this humour from mildly ironic, thru laconic to sadonic (sick or black). It recentley took me three days to engage my inner Virtual Interpreter to translate every apparent insult into it's opposite ie Silly Old Bastard meant completely the opposite. I believe it's origin lies in the Sparten word Laconic meaning terse and rude and might probably have been used by the petty thief; english (larceny). Either way it is extremely difficult to engage in any meaningfull conversation. user:Jus

Picking on Americans

Just wanted to say, as an American, that after reading this article I feel a bit picked on. We're not all ignorant ethnocentric slobs, you know.

Although I will confess that not only can I not distinguish between a New Zealand and Australia accent, I can barely distinguish between an English and a South African English accent. *sigh* Such an interesting point, one that I've never heard before, that you have to be a continental insider (Down Under; North America) to be able to distinguish NZ-Oz or US-Canadian accent differences. I've been surrounded by Canadians lately and suddenly the usually-just-mocked-and-not-much-heard Canadian accent is as clear as day. Huh. I wonder if the U.S. Southern accent is distinguishable...

Anyway, enough babbling for now. Just came to say the thing about picked on, and request someone somewhere write about "How the Australians got their accents" and "How the Americans got their accents"--aren't their supposed to be cultural/social roots in the UK? jengod 06:52, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think the general view is that the Australian accent is descended from the London - Cockney accent, since most of the early convicts were petty crims from the London slums, while the American accent descends from northern English accents, particularly Yorkshire and East Anglia, since that is where so many of the early Protestant pioneers came from. That explains why Americans and Yorshirepersons both say "can't" to rhyme with cant while Londoners and Australians say "carnt". Adam 08:14, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Diminutives

Is There A Pattern?

This quote is, I think, a bit misguided and confusing.

Australian English has a unique set of diminutives... There does not appear to be any particular pattern to which of these suffixes is used.. Occasionally, a -za diminutive is used, usually for personal names. Barry becomes Bazza, Karen becomes Kazza and Sharon becomes Shazza.

In the final example, the writer seems to refute his/her own claim that there appears not to be a pattern by giving several examples that show a clear pattern in the usage of the -za diminutive. To the casual observer, and indeed to the everyday speaker of Australian English, it seems clear that the pattern here is found in names with an R in the middle between two syllables. We could also mention that Darren becomes Dazza to further support this.

It's a small thing, but I think I'm right. However, I'm not willing to make changes to a page that I've only read for the first time today.

Thoughts?

I edited this in some time back, without seeing this here, as it happens. So yes, definitely agree. Perey 02:33, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Splitting The Article

Long list of slang

The slang words list seems very long (other "Englishs" don't have similar lists, even though they have similarly large unique slang vocabularies). Should the list be moved into its own page sometime? 29 OCT 2004

Also, I'm not opposed to splitting off the slang into its own article. — Hippietrail 23:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think, given the list's length, it would be entirely appropriate to move it to its own page with prominent links in the main Australian English article. Australian slang would seem the most obvious choice. -- Guybrush 03:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Unconvincing Solution

I believe the answer to that question is "Yes." Australian vocabulary takes up at least half of this article (and this discussion section too).

Here's what I'm about to do. I'm going to take Sections 2 and 5 ("Australian words" and "Vocabulary") and combine them to create a new article, "Australian Vocabulary", on another page. I'll leave a summarised version on this page with a link to the new page.

- Jimp

I'm not convinced of the wisdom of this, as the slang is such an important part of the way that Australians use English. And where is the link to the new page? Grant65 (Talk) 10:24, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

The link was under the heading Australian Vocabulary. The section is now renamed just Vocabulary (which is fair enough) and has the link twice. I'm not clear as to what wisdom you're not convinced of, Grant. If our slang is so important, then doesn't this mean it deserves it's own page? Also, I'm not keen on focusing on slang. Slang is only a subset of vocabulary and a rather difficult subset to delineate at that. - Jim

On the contrary Jim, there is nothing wrong with repeating some material twice on different pages -- if necessary. There is now no undue emphasis on slang and it doesn't seem that "difficult to delineate", especially given the growing list of slang that is on the Australian words page. By the way, I have removed the summary from the start of the Vocabulary section because it summarises material which is now immediately above it. Grant65 (Talk) 23:28, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think I see where you're coming from, Grant. No, nothing wrong with repetition where necessary or even just where useful. And I agree, there is no undue emphasis on slang in either article.

When I wrote about focusing on slang it was only in reference to your comment that slang was important. I had only hoped to clarify what you meant there. Vocabulary is what's important; slang is only a subset but I think that you'd agree.

The Australian vocabulary list is not really a list of slang. It contains such terms as Anglo-Celtic, dummy, footpath, Manchester and nature strip. None of these qualify as slang in my book. On the other hand there are terms like cactus, carn, arse and derro which definitely are slang.

When I write that it's difficult to delineate slang I refer to such words as bushwalking, chook, battler and ute. Are they slang or not? The thing is that it's not really important because they're listed under Australian vocabulary with no emphasis on whether they are slang. This is the best way to do things as far as I can see.

So, when you wrote that you weren't convinced of the wisdom of what I did you meant that you weren't keen on having all reference to vocabulary on the new page, right? That makes sense. The way the two articles have been reorganised since I split them makes good sense. I can see the advantages of this reorganisation. I don't mind your having removed the summary that I wrote. You're right: there's no need for it any more. -Jimp 10Mar05

Anyway, here's why I split the article. - Jimp 18Mar05

Before I had my go at this page the table of contents looked like this.

Contents

1 Differences from other variants of English

2 Australian words

2.1 Diminutives

3 Varieties of Australian English

3.1 Regional variation

3.2 Regional Phonetic Variation

4 Phonology

4.1 Vowels and Diphthongs

4.2 Consonants

4.3 Allophones

4.4 Other phonological phenomena

4.5 Myths about Australian English

5 Vocabulary

5.1 Unique Australian words, slang and/or usage

5.2 Rhyming slang

5.3 Old or expired slang

5.4 Food and culinary terms

6 External links

I took sections two and five, shuffled them up a bit and made a new article entitled Australian Vocabulary. It's now been renamed Australian words. - Jim 23Mar05

Why I Split The Article

Anyway, here's the logic behind my splitting the article up; it might not qualify as wisdom. The article was very long and so probably needed to be split. Two full sections (plus one subsection) focussed on vocubulary: more than half the article. Others had commented on moving the long list of "slang" (i.e. vocabulary) onto it's own page.

Had I not gone ahead and split the article there'd probably have been no change. This jumble wanted sorting into two piles. Someone had to fix it. If the person who fixes something here botches it up, there's usually someone to clean up the mess. I just wanted to get the ball rolling. I had neither imagined nor even hoped that things would be left the way that I put them.

Whilst I was at it I thought that some of the paragraphs could use being reshuffled. That I did. I think that the way I left it was better than the way I found it. I s'pose I did leave the job half done, though, but sure enough there was someone to finish it off, thank you, Grant.

Things have been rearranged again. The way things are now is better than how they were before I split the article. I'm not about to quibble about whose rearrangement is better: as I say, I was only half done.

So what I'm saying is this. It might not wise to have the articles the way I left them the on 8Mar05 but this is not the question. They say that the ends justify the means and sometimes it's true. Between us we've made an improvement so I think I can rightly say it was useful to have put things the way I did.

On a completely different note. Do you know what's going on with the Phonology section? Diphthongs are vowels, /ə/ is a vowel. There are 20 vowels in AusE (give or take) not 11. Also not all non-prevocallic <r>s become pronounced as /ə/ in non-rhotic dialects. I've ranted at length in the "The Unconvincing Solution" setion of the article's talk page. - Jim 10Mar05

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.

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 [2]), 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)

Relationship to other varieties of English

Acceptance of different spellings

Aitch

Australians’ use of words

Humour

Deadpan Humour

Picking on Americans

Diminutives

Is There A Pattern?

Splitting The Article

Long list of slang

The Unconvincing Solution

Why I Split The Article

Other Fixed Problems

The Links Don't Work

Wrong IPA/X-SAMPA symbols

Relationship to other varieties of English

Australians' use of words

Diminuitives

Unique Australian Traits - disagree with some content

More use of diminutives than any other English?

Opening paragraph

Remove X-SAMPA

Punctuation

Name of Australian English

Stressing long vowels

Concerning the current Edit War

Archival

Problem sentence

The opening

Motorway (brackets)

Revert war

New Australian English phonology page

Macquarie Dictionary

Myths about Australian accents

Libel-Bible Split and Others

Removed comment

Words from aboriginal languages

Not True

The non-standard plural of "you"

AuE verses AusE

I'm correct

Chippie = Carpenter?

What Question

Removal of Black Country English Section

Removed section

English Black Country influence