Talk:Australian English

message: Hi,
I would like to suggest a link to JustLocal (http://www.JustLocal.com.au) be added to the external links section.
This article is an example of why the work I do is important.
To quote from the "Spelling" section of the article, "In academia, as long as the spelling is consistent, the usage of various English variants is generally accepted."
Has anyone noticed "Americanism" and "Americanizm" both used in the article.
To my knowledge only the dictionary files I produce for Australian users in the form of the "kelvin" version of the files, and the Microsoft Exclude file, helps Australian's avoid this very common issue.
The Australian English dictionary spell check files can be accessed via the links at the bottom of the JustLocal page for OpenOffice.org, Firefox/Thunderbird, Microsoft Word.
The files now provide writers with invaluable tools to not only spell check when using Desktop programs, but also when using browsers such as Internet Explorer, Firefox 2 and Opera.
I hope my work is of assistance to others.
Regards - Kelvin Eldridge Audictionary 21:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian English spell check files 

message: Does anyone have sources on the use of this new Australianism - I hear it alllllll the time.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Just nigel (talk • contribs).
:The Macquarie dictionary. No Australianism, just the words used by more Australians.
:Thank you for the comment - Kelvin. Audictionary 21:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To Just nigel: I don't notice hearing "Yeah - no" very much in person. I notice on television that Jim Richards says it, but he's a New Zealander who just lives in Australia. Not sure if that proves it's local to only some regions. --Scott Davis Talk 11:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends where you come from. It is exceptionally popular in Queensland, and it is infiltrating W.A. and S.A., and not having been much to Vic, can't say. It is definitely around. I'm not sure if it's a kiwi thing in its entirety, but I do hear kiwis saying it a fair bit over here in W.A.. And it spreads easily. Yeah, nah. is probably more the correct pronunciation in my opinion.Rolinator 23:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have heard it being said by country Queenslanders, but I've never heard it in Sydney (don't know about western sydney).Volantares 16:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear it a fair bit in WA and strangely have even caught myself on using it unintentionally. The usage is less confusing than it looks when verbalised, as the "no" is attached to the next sentence while the "yeah" is a distinctly separate filler word. Orderinchaos 23:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sure I used it a lot as a kid (western Syndey) and still on occassion. I interpret it to mean "Yeah- I heard what you said and understand, but no- I disagree."--DrHacky 15:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unique to Australia? I have heard "yeah - no" in US tv series such as 24 (TV series). Format 05:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People do this in the United States all the time.  My brother does.  I don't do it because I think it's annoying and pointless as hell. Thegryseone (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Yeah - No" 

message: I thought that "Waltzing Matilda" could mean "go travelling" or "hang", and in several lines of the song it was referring to hanging (the sentence for stealing sheep), which is why the song is sung with a sad air. http://www.mamalisa.com/?p=53&t=es&c=19 Sad mouse 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The meaning of "Waltzing Matilda" 

message: I don't think it is fair to say /aː/ is preferred in New South Wales, where in my experience (and that of at others I know, including linguists) there is quite a clear distinction between different words. I am a bit sceptical about the Crystal 1995 figures for Sydney, but even the Crystal figures show that the th eplace where /aː/ is most preferred is Adelaide. Would anyone object to changing "New South Wales" to "South Australia"? JPD (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Received Pronunciation style Chahnce, plahnt et al. is famously associated with South Australia and Adelaide rather than New South Wales. While I suspect there are some cultivated speakers in most regions that favour this pronunciation, Adeliade is the place where it is the norm. Asa01 01:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This is definitely the case. And Tasmania has been shown to have the greatest use of /æ/. The Victorian "a" and "e" merger is a slightly different issue and is also well-known. Grant | Talk 08:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Having lived in WA almost all my life, hearing "chaance", "daance" or "traansport" (almost always from Adelaideans) sounds almost jarring. I think it's a North vs South England thing personally. Orderinchaos 23:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a linguist, but in my experience you could cut regional accents into NSW+WA, SA, VIC, and QLD.. with TAS is a cross between VIC and NSW. But that's just my personal experience. No real discussion of QLD, but I've heard many QLDers, both from Brisbane and country areas, say orf for off, and many other idiosyncracies that do not exist anywhere else, but are otherwise similar to NSW. I concur with the conclusion that "received pronounciation" is far far more common in Adelaide. It would be interesting to see whether we can relate accents with colony history; i.e. Perth+Sydney+Hobart were older penal colonies, Brisbane was a latter penal colony, Adelaide was absolutely free settler only, and Melbourne was also effectively free-settler with a more significant lower class.. I'd have to check that). But that's original research ;). What do people think about colony background + accent though?121.44.37.142 02:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Perth wasn't actually an "old penal colony" by the way - founded in 1829 by free settlers, the convicts actually started arriving here in 1850 after they'd stopped going everywhere else, and the numbers were far less. Most ended up in Victoria after time served as that was where the money was at that time, until the 1890s gold rush WA was a pretty dismal place to be. BTW by the time of federation the population on the goldfields almost equalled that of Perth, although it dissipated later - a lot into agricultural areas which sprung up from about 1898 onwards. Orderinchaos 23:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't really enough consistent differences to talk about regional accents. There is some evidence for diffrences if we look at the history of settlement, Victoria was heavily settled by Tasmanians and NSW people, especially during the goldrushes of the 1850s. (Thereafter Victoria developed its own strong identity, based on its big population.) Compared to Victoria, WA had less immigration from other colonies/states and more direct immigration from the UK and Ireland, and not much of that until the importation of convicts in 1850-68. I'm not sure about Queensland, but the same is probably true there, possibly to a lesser extent, considering the common border with NSW. SA, as we know, never had its own convicts and also had heavy free immigration from the UK, which may explain the stronger similarities to received pronounciation. But this is all original research and we need good sources to back it up. Grant | Talk 03:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some Queenslanders have a unique accent, far more significant that WA's. You are probably right in regards to VIC = NSW + TAS, I had always seen tasmania as having a stronger accent similar to victoria's. I think it would be an interesting idea to discuss if there ever WAS research/analysis on it.Volantares 16:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WA does not have a significant accent, but the way in which it is colloquially spoken does differ. i.e. a lazy NSW speaker and a lazy WA speaker sound very different, but the same people when speaking to be understood sound similarish. The similarity is strongest with areas outside Sydney, as I do pick a slightly 1960s accent in Sydney itself (get a Sydneysider to pronounce "Strathfield" or "Ashfield" and you'll see it right there.) Some speech patterns in Perth and southwestern WA definitely reflect some Southern European influence in word ordering, and the use of the Scots "eh?" (normally associated with Canada) is common as dirt here whereas it doesn't appear to be so in many other places. Rural WA people also have very different tones and accent to rural people in other states, and my friends from Mukinbudin, Merredin and Manjimup all sound about the same. Orderinchaos 23:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  /aː/ and /æ/ 

message: I feel that this paragraph should not be in this article:
An important aspect of Australian English usage, inherited in large part from Britain and Ireland, is the use of deadpan humour, in which a person will make extravagant, outrageous and/or ridiculous statements in a neutral tone, and without explicitly indicating they are joking. Tourists seen to be gullible and/or lacking a sense of humour may be subjected to tales of kangaroos hopping across the Sydney Harbour Bridge, "drop bears" and similar tall tales.
It has nothing to do with linguistics, the use of words, terminology or accent, which is what this article is about. Trying to shoehorn it into this article by claiming it is an "important aspect of Australian English usage" seems pretty dodgy. In any event, the para itself then says the same thing also happens in Britain in Ireland (though I suspect that this sort of thing occurs in many nations to varying extents.) Asa01 07:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then. I didn't think it was really a language issue myself, more cultural. I was going to move the whole thing to the deadpan humour article but on reading that I felt such a move would just add redundancy to it. Asa01 19:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this here?

message: Is "youse" as the plural second person really an Irish influence? I hear it most from 2nd-3rd generation Australians of Italian and Greek descent. Any ideas how to find an appropriate reference? --Scott Davis Talk 04:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How common is the word youse? I use it all the time, although at the moment i'm not living in australia, so I find myself writing it quite often. Also about how it would be spelt; i initially spelt it as you'se just because it didn't look as strange in context (maybe as a contraction of 'you guys' or something like that) but now tend to spell it as youse. Also, does it appear in any dictionaries, australian or otherwise? 189.149.89.205 03:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that you guys is a relatively recent American import and that yous (I'm just spelling it as if it were a regular plural of some singular you, I'm not actually fussed how it's spelt since I never use yous) has been around for some time, the latter would not be a contraction of the former. Jɪmp 17:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youse 

message: The Victor Harbour station has historically been spelt with the U in harbour. Harbour with out the U is the official current spelling according to the SA government. The spelling with the U reflects official SA Railways policy of using 'correct' spelling. I have an ammonia transfer plan of the station dating from the 1950's. This is spelt with the U. I also have plans of the railway yards etc from the 1920's and earlier also spelt with the U. Personal photographs of the station from the early 80's alos show the U in the name. If you drive around Victor Harbor you will find many older buildings with the U in the name. It seems the dropping of the U is a more modern phenomenon. The article wrongly suggests the addition of the U back into harbour is a modern idea, this is wrong. Ozdaren 11:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I suppose that the mapmaker referred to in the council snippet thought the place was pretty non-U Albatross2147 08:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * Haha, that's quite amusing. I'd never heard of that before. I'm mostly non-U. Ozdaren 12:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  well most australians i know would use the U form anyway alos i am aussie too... so it doesn't matter lol —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Australian Jezza (talk • contribs) 14:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to say I find the whole "Australians often don't use the U" bit quite unlikely. I never knew anyone who spelled words like "Color, Humor, Harbor" etc. 34 years in Australia and the only place I have ever seen such a thing is in the Australian Labor Party's name 70.189.213.149 15:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen it in a local newspaper but it always seemed very out of place to me. Jimp 00:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Print media has propensity for it, I would suggest. I once read a letter to a magazine questioning the practice, the magazine claimed it was a "style"
ALP was named by an American, King O'Malley with a zeal for spelling reform. A lot of American things have been adopted by media which are actually not consistent with Australian style and usage (eg the use of American dates). As for Victor Harbor and Outer Harbor, they are not examples of Australian English as they were actually named by Americans in the early days of the colony. Orderinchaos 23:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have quite a bit of research in government records from the late 1860s and I can tell you that some very well-educated British people used spellings like "labor" and "harbor" at that time. The idea that these spellings are "American" is a myth. Grant | Talk 01:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victor Harbor 

message: There is an unusual variation in the way that Australians pronounce the word kilometre.  Sports commentators and travel program reporters have adopted the awkward pronounciation with the stress on the second syllable (ki-LOM-etre) -, whilst the more articulate as well as the scientific community have adopted the the pronunciation (kill- O -metre)   (consistent with SI units kilogram and kilowatt).  Does this warrant inclusion in the main text ? Discussion invited
Cheers - Mark Vincent - Andmark 07:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "the more articulate"? The only people I've heard using "kill-oh-metre" are working class or foreign. Orderinchaos 22:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue is discussed in the article Kilometre. The original pronunciation is kill- O -metre; the  ki-LOM-etre pronunciation apparently developed amongst some English speakers after the term was transplanted into English-speaking countries. Kilometre is not an English word, so evaluations of how "foreign" people say it seem pretty pointless. "The only people I've heard "-type evaluations are original research and are of no consequence to WP. Likewise evaluations of who is "articulate", and who isn't, seem very POV. Format 19:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What I described as "pointless", was the evaluation made by Orderinchaos of how "foreign" people pronounce the word. I never said the discussion itself was pointless, and in fact largely was agreeing with you. However the Kilometre article seems to imply that the kil-o-metre pronunciation is neither restricted to, nor unique to Australia. If you want to add something in to the article to say that it is unique to Australia, you'll need to quote a credible external reference that clearly and explicitly corroborates that fact. Format 22:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variation in pronunciation 

message: Why does this article have so much on Unparliamentary language/bold phrases used in parliament. It is not like this sort of thing is unique to Australia. And shouldn't the article be about the everyday language used by normal people. Why so much time focusing on a small and exclusive part of society where all sorts of unusual jargon and etiquette is observed? It is not really relevant to Australia as a whole. Format 20:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Australian Parliament does gain a lot of media attention, both local and international.  Their creative use of words (Paul Keating is a good example) has often been the subject of headlines and their use of the world media has often become the public face of Australia here and overseas for good and bad reasons.  Phrases, terms and vocabulary that they use and even invent will occasionally filter through to Australian society and into common use - hence the relevance to Australia on the whole I guess.  Whether this justifies the amount of coverage that is presented here, that is a tough call.  Cheers Mark Vincent - Andmark 12:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument makes sense. Problem with the article is that all this is used to try and coroborate the articles claims that "For instance, spoken Australian English is generally more tolerant of offensive and/or abusive language than other variants . Many politicians are exponents of this style in Parliament. ..." I do not dispute that the section of Unparliamentary language exists, but to claim that it is connected with abusive language in general usage across Australia, by Australian is seriously dodgy. Format 11:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Unparliamentary language]]

message: In NSW, "castle" and derivatives are pronounced with the /aː/ whereas in Victoria, the word is commonly pronounced with the /æ/.
Was this written by someone from Sydney? I have rarely heard /æ/ used for "castle" in Victoria, and I live there. We are not all bogans. By the way, I see there is no reference, probably indicating the author made it up. RedRabbit1983 15:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about "castle" as such, but isn't it the case that Castlemaine (which I will be visiting next week, as it happens) is usually pronounced  "Cæsselmain"? I have definitely heard Victorians refer to "Næw-cassel", which isn't the way that Novocastrians say it. Grant | Talk 06:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Cæssel" is said in Victoria, but not all Victorians say this. Those in the Castlemaine region apparently do, affecting the name of that town. In Melbourne the long-A "castle" pronunciation is very common. Like Albany in WA, the vowell sound used in one place name can not necesarily be extrapolated to apply all and every pronunciation of similar phenomes spoken in that state. Accent and pronunciation does not necesarily concur to state boundaries. Format 22:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to Format's point, the lack of consistency in the pronunciation would be enough to render the generalisation untrue.  The lack of a credible external source for the information would also cast doubt on its accuracy. Change it if you want RedRabbit1983.  Cheers Mark Vincent - Andmark 12:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Grant, my sister lives there, and neither she nor her friends and acquitances pronounce Castlemaine with a /æ/. I have been to Castlemaine many times, and not once have I heard it pronounced as stated in the article. Even among the working class, people living in the south-eastern and inner-city suburbs of Melbourne pronounce "castle" with a long "a". I therefore have good reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement. RedRabbit1983 08:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just adding that I do not think I've ever actually heard anyone from Castlemaine say "Cæsselmain"?  Another myth? In any event, it would need a credible external reference before making its way into the article. Format 09:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, the 'cassel' pronunciation is usually from people with an Irish/Northern UK (Scouse, Mancs, Scots) background, or from people from a place with a significant Irish/NUK influence. For eg/ growing up in Canberra only my Queenslander rellies said 'cassel' but they were originally from the Mornington Peninsula; yet an acquaintance from rural Queensland (near Warwick) thought only people from NSW said cassel. The only common element we could identify was an Irish history (and the Irish/NUK pronunciation is generally cassel).  Natgoo 20:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh dear. All I said was I do not think I've ever actually heard anyone from Castlemaine say "Cæsselmain"?  Which means, "I've never spoken to anyone there in depth, and can't recall if/how they said the name of the town". You seem to assume I am claiming that I have heard people from there say the name of the town, and they said it different from how the article says. But I never claimed that. Format 07:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Victorians and "castle"

message: "Because of a backlash to the perceived "Americanisation" of Australian English, there is now a trend to reinsert the "u" in words such as harbour."
I'm sorry but what trend? I was ALWAYS taught to use the letter "u" in words such as "colour" or "harbour", as were my parents and my grandparents. If there was a trend to reinsert the letter "u" into words, surely it was many years ago, shortly after the apparent "Americanisation" of Australian English.
I think the line should be deleted or should read
"Because of a backlash to the perceived "Americanisation" of Australian English, there was a trend to reinsert the "u" in words such as harbour."
JWPJ 15:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there even was a trend at all.  There is no documented evidence of such a trend, and grammatical and spelling using Australian English has always been preferred in formal contexts.  Any variation toward American spelling would be more out of a relaxing of the Australian English standards than a trend.  Either way, current focus on Education  and literacy in schools initiatives have had the effect of tightening those standards.  Go ahead and change it, I say.  Cheers - Mark Vincent  Andmark 00:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trend? 

message: There seems to be an increasing American-style "softer" Aussie accent.  There's no mention of this in the article... All I have to say is: "like", "what's up with that"?  What's the deal? Like, I have so many like good buddies from like the beach and stuff, and they are sooo into like surfing.  It's sooo cool!   
That's an exaggeration, but there does seem to be an American influence, a softer accent people are using that doesn't sound like Steve Irwin, Geoffrey Rush or Nicole Kidman.
:You could be right but you'll need sources & a precise discription of what's going on (soft really doesn't mean anything—no offence intended, it just doesn't). Jɪmp 01:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you are referring to Valspeak. It's so totally cool! RedRabbit1983 14:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Mention of an American style twang in some East-coast city (maybe beach) suburbs. 

message: Can someone rewrite this - it is an eyesore:
Since the 1950s, increasing availability and importation of US English via pop culture, the mass media, such as books and magazines, television programs, computer software and the world wide web, have raised concerns of a new wave of Americanisation, though in a global context, such concerns are shared by users of other varieties of English: words such as freeway and truck have been naturalised so completely that few Australians would recognise them as borrowings.
Can we also minimise the emdash? It really gets on my nerves when overused. RedRabbit1983 04:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is specifically making you sick? Do you believe dialect and accent are used too often? Do you have any suggestion on what to use alternatively? GizzaDiscuss © 01:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I wasn't the original commenter, "concerns" has got to be the biggest, most nauseating weasel word of all time. Format 02:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: DaGizza, it is the use of "English", "dialect", and "accent" interchangeably that makes me sick; there is no, or little, concern for consistency or precision. RedRabbit1983 05:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph

message: Only okay, you guys, and, in some circumstances, gee have persisted.
In some circumstances gee has persisted? This doesn't make any sense. RedRabbit1983 01:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Awkward

message: The first three paragraphs of Use of words by Australians look suspiciously like trivia. RedRabbit1983 14:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cut them. RedRabbit1983 04:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of words by Australians

message: There is a widely held belief in Australia that "American spellings" are a modern intrusion, but the debate over spelling is much older and has little to do with the influence of North American English. For example, a pamphlet entitled The So-Called "American Spelling.", published in Sydney some time before 1900, argued that "there is no valid etymological reason for the preservation of the u in such words as honor, labor, etc." The pamphlet noted, correctly, that "the tendency of people in Australasia is to excise the u, and one of the Sydney morning papers habitually does this, while the other generally follows the older form".
The tone is inappropriate and negates even the pretence of impartiality. It is not good enough to hide behind a pamphlet. RedRabbit1983 15:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you mean; what is the passage "partial" to? Grant | Talk 12:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the last sentence again. If "noted" is not enough, "correctly" will point you in the right direction. RedRabbit1983 08:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: Does anyone have an opinion on the one-sentence paragraphs? RedRabbit1983 08:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like them in some circumstances, especially in encylopedias. Grant | Talk 12:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, sure. We should add some more, then. RedRabbit1983 08:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: One-sentence paragraphs

message: This article is lacking an introduction. No, just one sentence doesn't count. RedRabbit1983 11:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? Grant | Talk 12:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LEAD RedRabbit1983 23:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Needs expanding. Nurg (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction needs expanding

message: Before some pompous fool (there seems to be a few of them watching this talk page) pounces on me as an easy target, let me first say I know little about this subject. However I have heard it said that, uniquely among English speaking countries, the English spoken in any particular part of Australia is the same as the English spoken anywhere else in the country. That Australian English is very standard right across the country. I have never been to America or the United Kingdom but I understand that both the UK and US are very different in this regard. If the phenomenon I refer to does really exist I would love to see a section in the article that refers to this phenomenon (and explains it) of great uniformity in the Australian English. Ryan Albrey (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is correct that Australian is much more uniform than other English languages (eg. the English spoken in US or UK). This is especially noteworthy because Australia is so large geographically. There are however subtle differences, in both vocabulary and accent, between different parts of the country. Logicman1966 (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this section- Australian English#Varieties_of_Australian_English- cover what you are talking about? Or does it need some work to make it clearer? --DrHacky (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh yah! I didn't see that on my first read through! Thanks. However, do linguistic experts have any theories as to why this is the case in Australia and not the case in Northern America or the UK? Why is it that someone from inner city Brisbane sounds the same as someone who is otherwise of the same demographic but from inner city Perth? The same comparison between New Jersey and Boston I am sure would be very different. Or am I wrong? Ryan Albrey (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Australian English or many? 

message: I found this article quaint because it appears to be based on many long superceded arguments and misconceptions, for example the suggestion that there are roots in Cockney. Unfortunately I am at present unable to reference the following but I have heard several 'experts' make a highly convincing argument that realistically it is only the 'rhyming slang' aspect of Australia's cunning linguistics that underscores this dubious argument. Moreover, it may well have been similar needs that created this parallel rather than 'dialectic transportation'. Thus having come about simply as an effective tool when these cultures found themselves in need of 'Coded Speech' between like minded groups (ie. Barrowmen, stall holders and such in front of the establishment of London and convicts in front of their guards in the colonies). 
Just a thought but perhaps a very elegant one. Also I'd like to mention how important this article is to any true blue Aussie and how it desperately needs a lot more effort put into it. At best this could be called an early draft I feel. 
Yeah, no, but...
Outofthewoods, who couldn't log in because I wrote this via my Nokia N95 and Wiki won't let me whenever I access this site from my phone. Grrr! All other sites I access will, why not the wonderful Wiki? My all time favourite site- I used to Google- now I just Wiki!
PS. No one so far has mentioned the 'Rising Terminal 'BUT as in displaying severe insecurity by a person about what they themselves have just uttered. Now THAT is uniquely strayn!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.145.148.3 (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condescending and Quaint. 

message: How does the vowel sound in words like "like", "ride", and "side" in Australian English differ from the sound of those words in Cockney or Estuary English? 208.104.45.20 (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Like, Ride, Side, etc.

message: The template is up for deletion on the grounds that it contains errors and it is not referenced. Can it be saved? Jɪmp 15:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Aust Beer Glass}} 

message: Varieties of Australian English has been nominated for deletion on the grounds of being mostly original research.  Do we have any sources for the claims made in the article (including the claims about who speaks what)?  Of that which we can support is there enough to warrent an article? Jɪmp 00:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the varieties should be better explained.  I would be interested to know more about them. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Varieties of Australian English 

message: Would a table of common Australian phrases benefit this article?  ie:  Raw Prawn = Bullshit, Spit the Dummy = get upset at something 
I can see the validity of both arguments that Australian English is "complete tosh", and yet it is distinct from the Queens English in many ways.  It would be nice if the article would reflect that.  There is also some deep academic bullshit in here that I cannot understand, such as "/dj/, /sj/ and /tj/ into /dʒ/, /ʃ/ and /tʃ/."  It must mean something, but I don't think it belongs.
Mr. Welsh (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Common words/expressions, that's what wikt:Appendix:Australian English vocabulary is for.  That deep academic bullshit is the International Phonetic Alphabet.  The /j/ stands for the sound of "y" in "you"; the /ʒ/ is the "ge" sound in "beige" (/dʒ/ is the "j" sound in "jump"); the /ʃ/ is the "sh" sound in "fish" (/tʃ/ is the "ch" sound in "chips"); the /ʉː/ is the "oo" sound in "roo"; and /s/, /d/ and /t/ are as they usually are.  The section talks about how certain sounds join with the "y" sound to produce something different.  Say "lightyear", compare it to "lie-cheer".  Do you pronounce "jew" and "due" the same?  It's an important aspect of the accent, it does belong.  Of course, we could adjust how it's expressed if need be. JIMp talk·cont 17:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you find the phonetic alphabet in standard encyclopedias? Mr. Welsh (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't have one at hand but it is common in standard non-US dictionaries e.g. Cambridge.  Have you got a better method in mind? JIMp talk·cont 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Australian phrases 

message: I know what you're on about but I'm a AusE speaker.  A non-Aussie mightn't have the foggiest.  Could this perhaps be reworded, maybe labelling them "short of a expressions" and giving a couple of examples? JIMp talk·cont 03:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  <Part> short of a <whole> 

message: I'm aware this might be taken as an insult, but it's not meant that way. Is there any particular reason why australians talk at a louder volume than other English speakers, and is this a known phenomenon?
I've lived with six Australians, had two Australian workmates and have an uncle, aunt, two cousins and three second cousins who are Australian. And all of them had  much louder voices than British people. Other people I know have commented on this too.... 86.2.38.112 (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we are less loud than people from the USA? maybe Brits are unusually quiet? Irtapil (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

text: This isn't meant to be an insult either, but I've noticed that Australians are always talking about either Foster's, Vegemite, didgeridoos, boomerangs, dingos, koalas, kangaroos, wallabies, Redback spiders ("They'll nip ya down unda while your on the dunny!"), crocodiles, or how "them Kiwis aa shipe luvas".  I've met a few Australians; these are just a few things I've observed. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both of these comments are nothing more than stereotypes / generalizations. They have no basis in fact, and therefore have no place in Wikipedia. Logicman1966 (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm pretty sure the Fosters bloke is joking?
well we do like to live up to our sterotypes however innacurate  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5349U11 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volume of speech 

message: There is an article on this subject at 
http://www.archive.org/details/NickRentonBeingWithiwnCooeeofGettingaFairCrackoftheWhip
Nercat (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Metaphors 

message: As Swag (disambiguation) makes clear the above meaning is not "Australian" English. Format (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Swag = items of value in Australian English?

message: The Phonology section of the article states the following:
This suggests that there is a class distinction in the uses of various Australian accents as there sometimes are in other parts of the English-speaking world. This comment has been flagged with both the  and  templates.
Can this claim be substantiated? I have some reference material that I will be consulting later this afternoon and will report back if I find anything. — SpikeToronto (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry I removed that earlier.  I honestly don't understand the meaning of that statement now that I've thought more about it.  It doesn't make any sense to me.  Can you explain it to me? Thegryseone (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m kind of with you there, Thegryseone. I’m just trying to follow established wikiprocess, which is that we flag unsourced, suspect statements with one of the templates found at  until either the editor that inserted it fixes it, or one of us can come up with support for it. If neither approach yields any results, then it is justifiable to delete it, and not fear receiving a delete warning (e.g., ). As for what this disputed statement is saying, the nearest I can figure is that, as in the U.K., U.S., and Canada, accents vary not only regionally, but socio-economically within regions. In this part of the world, this is well-documented by linguists. I imagine that it is there too, we just need to find support for the statement or remove it. What I don’t understand is, what are “below features?” :) — SpikeToronto (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, since you’re the person who put it in (possibly false assumption based on IP address), do you have a reliable source/citation for the statement? Something verifiable? You might also want to have a look at the following Wikipedia policies/guidelines: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:REFBEGIN. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

text: You know what takes very little time, can be totally anonymous, prevents people tracking you through your IP addresses, and obviates the need for having to tell people who you are each time? Why not register for a full-fledged account? You get much greater functionality plus all the things I just mentioned! — Spike (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: I am rather concerned about misconception drawn from parts of this article, specifically two examples.
The first is located under the phonology header, and could even be deemed offesive:
'The following linguistic features of Australian English are generally employed by people with lower standards of education and socio-economic background, and those with higher economic and/or educational standards speak in a manner which does not compress, shorten or remove these features.' This seems to imply that the following speech (which refers to coalescence, alveolar flapping in the stead of alveolar plosives, and dropping /t/ from /nt/ in words like winter) is inferior. It probably should be altered to state that Cultivated Australian English lacks these features. The second is located under the Vocabulary header:
'Australian English and several British English dialects (for example, Cockney, Scouse, Glaswegian and Geordie) use the word mate.'
Here it should be noted that Cultivated and occasionally General Australian English speaker do not use the word mate, as the article refers to specific dialects.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enauspeaker (talk • contribs) 12:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misconception 

message: Australian English (AusE, AuE, AusEng, en-AU[1]) is the form of the English language spoken in Australia.
I might be wrong, but wouldn't the reader, of whatever nationality, be surprised if Australian English weren't the form of English language spoken in Australia? Therefore I ask, how does this sentence have any value? Giving due charity to the intelligence of the general reader, perhaps a less trivial opening sentence is called for; the present one seems to be there as a matter of form, not because it tells the reader anything. And its standing alone draws attention to its vapidity. RedRabbit (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: "Some words, such as freeway and truck, have even been naturalised so completely that few Australians recognise their origin."
Bah! I've never heard anyone refer to any sort of road as a freeway, or a motorway for that matter. I've only ever heard them referred to as a highway. Some people may use freeway, but I think a better example should be put in that sentence, or at least remove that one.
As for truck, it hasn't completely transferred, as few Australians will call their ute a truck. Perhaps this should also be changed? Not as important as that blantant lie about freeway being used! ozkidzez91 (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: i thought "truck" seemed Australian, till i realised you meant ute, a ute is a ute. Truck would only refer to a garbage truck, furniture delivery truck, concrete mixer truck etc. Irtapil (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In Melbourne "Freeway" has been commonly and routinely used in official naming, and amongst the general public, for decades. A freeway is a particular type of roadway, and it is not the same as a highway. See Eastern Freeway, Tullamarine Freeway. Format (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  And in Perth, Mitchell Freeway, Kwinana Freeway, Graham Farmer Freeway. I notice that our article Freeways in Australia includes some "Highways", even though we have a separate article for Highways in Australia. From personal experience, I know that people sometimes refer to Roe Highway and Tonkin Highway as "freeways", even though they are not (they both have traffic lights). Mitch Ames (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Examples 

message: "Australia adopted decimal currency in 1966 and the metric system in the 1970s. Australians have measured temperatures in degrees Celsius since 1972, road signs were metricated in 1974, and goods of all kinds have been measured in litres and kilograms ever since that time. While the older measures are usually used and understood by those born before 1960, younger Australians rarely use pounds, ounces, stones, degrees Fahrenheit, yards or miles[citation needed]. Some imperial measurements persist in popular usage, such as feet and inches for people's height, along with pounds and ounces for newborn babies and pints for beer[citation needed]."
Ok, first of all, I've change kilograms to grams, since that is the base measurement. I  What also changed that to very rarely use pounds etc. as rarely doesn't seem to emphasize how rarely it is used.
::No, Kg is the base SI unit, not grams. Irtapil (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted the paragraph about obsolete measurements. This is not relevant to an article about Australian English. It is the actual, official, measurements that changed, not simply the words used to describe them. If Australia used particular measurements but had unique names for them, maybe that could be listed here, but that is not the case. An inch is only ever called an inch, a milimeter is only ever called a milimeter. (American talk of 35mm: but that does not mean it is added to the American English article.) Format (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ... or a "millimetre" ... no, it doesn't belong.  P.S. the kilogram is the base unit in the SI. JIMp talk·cont 22:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just some observations 

message: I dispute the phrase in this article that 'program' is more common than 'programme'.  While it is officially endorsed by the gov to use 'program', this is almost universally ignored when referring to a programme of events, or an agenda.  'Program' is always used to refer to a computer program however.  
Simply do a Google search for the word 'programme' on Australian sites and you'll see what I mean.  I'm Australian and I was taught to use 'programme' over 'program', except when referring to a computer program.
Examples from the Australian government and Universities:
http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/programs/rnhp/index.html
http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/ncphome.nsf/Page/National_Community_Crime_Prevention_Programme
http://www.somerset.qld.edu.au/conflib/programme/
http://www.nla.gov.au/initiatives/internat/iflapac.html
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/cda-pubs-annlrpt-gonoanrep.htm
http://www.catl.uwa.edu.au/tlf06/programme  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyGod (talk • contribs) 03:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course both forms remain, at least for the moment, technically "correct" Australian English - but "program" clearly continues to displace "programme" in several departments. Many years, I trow, since anyone would write about a "computer programme" - it just looks silly - but a radio or television program is usually just that nowadays - "programme" in this context is becoming increasingly quaint. The only situation where "programme" actually still feels more natural is, perhaps, a theatrical programme (especially an operatic one?) although even in this context most Australians (and I am elderly and in many ways a bit old-fashioned myself) would be at least quite accepting of the shorter form. On the whole I think the original text should stand, although a mild qualification may be in order. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Soundofmusicals on this matter. In my experience "program" is now the standard Australian spelling and is much more frequently used than "programme". In any case the article is referring to what the Macquarrie Dictionary says on this. Afterwriting (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Was going to chime in here about the reference in the original text to "our" standard dictionary myself. While I wouldn't always endorse everything Macquarie says the fact is that the article itself simply mentions that the dictionary prefers "program". Which is technically exactly 100% true, even if you think (legitimately) that Macquarie is incorrect on this point. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Until John Howard became Prime Minister, the preferred recent spelling in the APS was 'program', he was clear in his preference for the frenchified version, and where he was able forced its use. Tony Abbott followed suit. It is discussed here Macquarie Dictionary (3 October 2013), From the Editor: Programme or program?, looking at the Australian Government website finds both. The Australian Government Style Manual 5th edition only uses 'program'. Recent discussion in The Canberra Times on this at Malcolm Turnbull sticks with the 'programme' ... or does he?, (2 February 2016), THE PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMANT). Paul foord (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to change it just to include the original text with a qualification, but there are a *lot* of examples of programme being used out there!  They almost always government websites, and they're often quite schizophrenic, the 'Graduate Programs' government website also includes a section on 'ICT entry-level Programmes'.  It seems to me that government program(mes) are usually be spelt with the the double m.  Happy to go with the consensus.  Just going over my past wiki contribs, and following through on my edit promises :-) HappyGod (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul's comment that a reversion to the use of programme on (current) government websites might be political seems plausible enough. That mob wants us to go back to God Save the Queen, the Union Jack, and Pounds Shillings and Pence. As for that filthy French republican system of weights and measures! I think they have fundamental objections to Magna Carta for that matter. I exaggerate but little, alas. In any case, to repeat - the statement in the article is that the Macquarie dictionary prefers "program" - not that it has absolutely replaced "programme". So there is no need or justification in changing it really. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think programme has become increasingly rare. I am from a younger generation but I have almost never seen program used with the possible exception of a classical music or theatre program. I am sure I have looked at Australian English corpus data as well which showed program being by far the dominant spelling. Anyway just as the courts, universities and statutes federally and in all states use the macquarie dictionary as their reference on preferred spellings, so do we in this article. The only headword that exists for this word is 'program' from memory in the Macquarie with a note after the definition saying that programme is an alternative spelling
*I correct the Abbott–British "programme" to normal Australian usage every time I see it. Tony (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programme vs Program 

message: I've removed "couldn't care less" as an example of an Australian variation of the American "could care less", on the grounds that the American version is actually the variation of the (literally correct) "couldn't care less". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This wouldn't be a feature of Australian English.  It's the Americans who stuffed the saying up.  Put the info on the US English page.  Jimp 08:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

text: My original objection was that the article said "... instances of idioms [taking] different forms in Australia than in other Anglophone nations" then quoted an example where the Australian idiom is the same as most other English-speaking countries (as far as I know, but admittedly based primarily on the Wiktionary articles). "Could care less" is a good example of the US differing from the rest of the Anglophones, but it is not a good example of Australia differing from the many other Anglophone nations that are not the US. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah I see what you mean. I wasn't trying to imply by 'taking different forms in Australia than in other Anglophone nations' that necessarily we were in the minority, merely that in some other Anglophone nations regardless of the number, another form exists. Anyway I can see where you come coming from now. Thanks--Saruman-the-white (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idiom - could [not] care less 

message: Considering that most of the English speaking world considers the word one of the most offensives slurs in the whole language, while in only Australia it is allegedly used on television quite commonly, this would seem to deserve a mention. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 10:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge as an Australian (admittedly one who doesn't watch much television), cunt is still considered to be too rude for TV (whereas fuck for example, is acceptable on evening TV). Mitch Ames (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems about right. Tony (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus it just varies by dialect more widely (e.g., in NAm, it's an insult almost exclusively against a woman, an intensified alternative to bitch; in the UK, it's mostly applied to men, and with an implication that varies by region and context: of being a mark or a pushover, a fool, a scumbag or evildoer, etc. It can even be used in an endearing way: "You lucky cunt!").  Better covered at the article on the word.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it's not common I've certainly heard, on more than one occasion, one mature aged Australian male say to another "How are ya ya silly old cunt?" It's not offensive to the parties involved. HiLo48 (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on the person, it's highly variable. My mum and her brother (my uncle) both consider "cunt" extremely offensive, both were born in Australia in the late 1950s and have never lived anywhere other than Australia. My uncle called it the worst word in the world (but i consider that statement offensive, particularly given it was in a conversation about racial slurs). My friends and i are not very offended by it (born in the 1980s, most have degrees and a lot have doctorates) but we know others find it offensive, most of my friends would get angry at me if i said it in front of children in public or in front of their extended families, but only mildly annoyed, not horrified like my uncle. And yeah, it tends to be applied to men, or to refer to part of a woman, i think everyone i know would be either offended or just baffled if you used the term to refer to a whole woman. It can be offensive or friendly, but even when it's friendly it tends to be in that "friendly mockery" way. Kind of "i know you well enough that i can call you an obscenity without you being offended", or something like that. Irtapil (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any reason for the lack of mention of "cunt"? 

message: This paragraph is full of grammar errors, which make the intended meaning not quite 100% clear.  I  I could fix it to be correct, but it would be better if someone who's a native Australian English speaker did it. , maybe?
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's gruesome. But I looked wider, and felt that so too is the whole section, which is completely bereft of sourcing. So is the next section. I would also disagree with a couple of the statements. "Thongs" is mentioned in the previous paragraph too. Large swags of the article need to be rewritten. I wouldn't be game to tackle that paragraph in isolation. Maybe one day, when I have a few hours to spare.....HiLo48 (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's horrid. Tony (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix mangled English please 

message: Australia shies away from Oxford English. 124.106.140.87 (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  How come Australian english doesn't use Oxford spelling? 

message: An editor reverted a change I made here.  While Australian English has unique characteristics, it is not considerably different from New Zealand English, the lede needs qualification, hence the addition of "most".  See New_Zealand_English#cite_note-8, New Zealand Lexicography.  New Zealand English "is a southern hemisphere variety of English, and the variety to which it is most similar is Australian English...speakers from the Northern Hemisphere have great difficulty telling the two varieties apart." (New Zealand English By Jennifer Hay 2008, p.14)  The point is not that Austrlian and New Zealand English are different, they are, but they are not *considerably* different. --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  *considerably* different 

message: What other "Southern Hemisphere accents" is this talking about? "It shares most similarity with other Southern Hemisphere accents, in particular New Zealand English." And does Australian English actually have much in common with them? I have heard people claim South African and Zimbabwean English speakers sound like us, but i think this is just a lack of familiarity with those accents rather than any real resemblance. To me they sound indistinguishable from native speakers of Afrikaans, and i cannot see how there is any similarity?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irtapil (talk • contribs) 15:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Southern Hemisphere English accents are distinct in the following: Fiji, Tonga, PNG, New Zealand, Australia, Mauritius, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Zambia, Tanzania, Falklands. FWIW, there are very distinct differences within South Africans English, both in comparison to those with non-English mother tongues (compare and contrast Zulu to Afrikaans!) and those (of all backgrounds) schooled during the apartheid era (where Afrikaans was compulsory in some form) and those schooled in a later period. --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  what do you mean by distinct? distinct from each other or distinct from the North as a group? What do they have in common? Irtapil (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What do I mean by distinct?  Well, between South Africa and Tanzania, someone who has Swahili as a mother tongue and who speaks English as a second language will have a different accent to a person with Zulu .... not to mention the contrasting historical/colonial legacies/influences of Arabic, German, English and Cape Dutch/Afrikaans.  In Aeteroa/New Zealand there is recognition that there are differences within English: Māori English. I'm not a linguist or ethnographer, I'm not using distinct in any particular technical sense other than a generalised usage - discernibly and commonly different. I'm not aware of Southern Hemisphere English being anything other than a grouping for geographic purposes. Although, in case you have not seen it before, this table is of interest: Regional_accents_of_English#Overview - which does indicate the greater influence of Irish English on North America in contrast to Australia/South Africa/New Zealand which had greater Scottish-English and Regional England English influences (I'd also add that Yiddish had far more profound effect on US English than anywhere else!). --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  Ah! I would call Tanzania east Africa. I thought we were talking about just SA and Zimbabwe. I didn't think there were many people using English as their primary language between Zimbabwe and Nigeria? They would often speak English, but as a secondary / foreign language? That's different to the accent that comes with a dialect of English. Angela Merkel speaks perfect English, but i'd not count Germany as a meaningful comparison for dialects of English. Irtapil (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

text: the USA certainly sounds different, but Australia and NZ sound more like the UK than USA, so north/south seems like a strange divide. Irtapil (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Southern Hemisphere accents" 

message: The final section of the article, on keyboard layout, has got me wondering whether Aussies use the British “different from” or the American “different than”. Anyone? Mr Larrington (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I've ever seen a survey on that. I say "different from", and I've definitely heard "different than", but you might find "different to" is more common. HiLo48 (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different  

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion