Talk:Australian English/Archive 2

message: === 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Australians' use of words 

message: ====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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Diminuitives 

message: 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)
thread_title: More use of diminutives than any other English?

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph

message: 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)
thread_title: Name of Australian English

message: 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)
thread_title:  Concerning the current Edit War 

message: 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)
thread_title: Archival

message: 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)
thread_title: Problem sentence

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, the cultural cringe dies hard it seems. Grant65 | Talk 12:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macquarie Dictionary 

message: 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)
thread_title: Libel-Bible Split and Others

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I've added it to the Australian words article. Natgoo 19:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Words from aboriginal languages 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not True 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I adjusted the article to reflect this Gnangarra 06:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Question 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: English Black Country influence

message: Are Australians careful not to let their tires rub against the curb, as Americans and Canadians are, or not to let their tyres rub against the kerb, as the British and Irish are? Angr/talk 09:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Tyres" and "kerb", at least for the moment. Grant65 | Talk 09:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Angr/talk 09:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can second what Grant says. Jimp 15:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling question 

message: The article had read as follows.
 Australian English is sometimes described as high-pitched, nasal, lazy, or drawling. The 
 claims of high pitch and nasality are not entirely true, as many Australian English 
 speakers perceive much of American English to be nasal, British English to be "Whingey" in 
 tone, while laziness and drawling are impossible to test objectively.
I've removed the reference to British English's being to be "Whingey" in tone.  I don't think that this is the perception at all.  It is true that Aussie stereotype the English as whinging Poms but this is not due to the perceived tone of British English.  It's a stereotype about what the English say not how they say it.  The conception is that the English complain a lot it has nothing to do with their tone of voice.  I think the editor who added this had confused these two concepts. Jimp 04:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whingey British English 

message: I have removed this entire section from the article as I'm not sure it has a point, and even less sure its point is universal across teh country.
:===Myths about Australian accents===
:Similarly, stereotypes of Australian speech as having a "rising tone" or "questioning intonation", known in linguistics as high rising terminal, are not justified by the empirical evidence. Most Australians' speech patterns do not conform to this stereotype, and the "questioning intonation" can be found in many regional speech patterns, such as those in the south of England, Northern Ireland, and even North America. Australians often describe their own accent as being 'twangy' in sound.
"Similarly" to what? In what sense? The preceding sentence was about consonants, and did not mention stereotypes. The rest seems to make a claim, say it's false, then say it happens everywhere else too! --Scott Davis Talk 12:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Myths about Australian accents" 

message: I have just been looking at articles about various branchs of Arabic and notice they virtually get their own pages with population figures etc.
Given Australia's isolation it would be surely true that although obviously English in origin, Australian English could constitute a language comparable to various dialects of Arabic, and due to our isolation I would think perhaps it'd be even more applicable.
Given that Australian English indeed does have its own page it receives wide recognition as a distinctive dialect.
The isolation of Australia from Britain alone should almost contribute to such a idea.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.239.197.156 (talk • contribs).
:I think you underestimate the amount of variation in the Arabic language.
:From Arabic:
::"Colloquial" or "dialectal" Arabic refers to the many national or regional varieties derived from Classical Arabic, spoken daily across North Africa and the Middle East, which constitute the everyday spoken language. These sometimes differ enough to be mutually incomprehensible.
:From Varieties of Arabic
::One factor in the differentiation of the varieties is influence from the languages previously spoken in the areas, which have typically provided a significant number of new words, and have sometimes also influenced pronunciation or word order
:The English language doesn't really have the same level of variety or regional influence from local languages, at least in modern times. English does have a lot of borrowed words, but they were borrowed a long time ago and are in the base standard used by everyone. And the influence of radio, movies, and TV means that most English speakers (mostly) understand the variations from other parts of the world. I'm not an Arabic speaker, but the impression I have from those Wikipedia articles and other sources is that the variety in Arabic is much greater.
:Imroy 12:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of Australian English 

message: This article suggests that yarn, meaning story, is somehow Australian. I thought it was general English-language slang and not originally Aust. It was even the title of the UK series Ripping Yarns of the 1970s; they'd hardly use a title that the native audience wouldn't understand. Asa01 10:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct - while the expression is well-used in Australia it didn't originate there. This website has one version of where it came from, and here is the 1913 Webster's dictionary definition. Natgoo 19:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ripping Yarns

message: The New Zealand English page has an entry for 'sweet/sweet as' = "fine, good" and indicates that this usage is also found in Australia. In NZE the use of 'as' as an intensifier is said to be spreading. Eg: How's the car going? Sweet as. How's the dog today? Sick as. This has developed from the use where an 'as' phrase modifies an adjective: 'the parrot was as old as anything' > 'the parrot was old as'. Does sweet=fine, good actually occur in Australian English too, and is there any evidence of the intensifier use of 'as'? Cheers Kahuroa 19:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. 'Sweet as', 'dodgy as', 'rich as' etc are prevalent in Australia, but it's quite likely it originated in NZ and moved over. I always took it to be a polite way of saying "[sweet] as fuck" without swearing, but I could be wrong. Natgoo 19:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Its been around in NZ since the mid-90s at least. Never thought of the politeness thing and wouldn't have thought so - it just originated in NZ as cool/friendly speak Kahuroa 22:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it has been used in Australia since long before the early 1990s. It was previously very common to say good as anything, boring as anything, Mental As Anything etc, and eventually the anything just got dropped. I don't think it was politeness, because before it begun being dropped out, the third word was always anything. Phrases such as dodgy as fuck, queer as fuck were as far as I knew much newer and were imported from the UK (I believe, that's why they had a tv show called Queer as Folk-an old phrase but now it was also a pun) mid 1990s, sperate and subsequent to the anything being popular and then dropped. Asa01 23:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - but by the time I was in high school (late 80s) the 'anything' was well and truly dropped in favour of 'fuck' in the company of anyone who wasn't your grand/parents/teachers. It certainly pre-dated Queer as Folk. Natgoo 01:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sweet as

message: what exactly is meant by this comment? this is standard dialect in the area i come from. are you calling everyone who talks this way in rural areas bogans? i think the statement needs a little clarification 202.173.128.90 15:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I delive in the old sence, it reflects a person who knows shit all about the fine arts of Classical music, paintings etc. Enlil Ninlil 06:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "less cultured persons" 

message: User:Masalai has just added this section with some pretty broad claims that I do not agree with. He/she claims that Australians generally aren't taught other languages in school and that we don't pronounce foreign words "correctly". They even claim that other countries pronounce them better! So, just how many Americans do you think would pronounce "nice" correctly? 
As far as language education is concerned, in highschool we all studied three languages in year 7 - French, German, and Japanese. The next year I did a language elective for half of the year, again Japanese. Many of my classmates went on to study other languages in more detail in later years. One girl I knew studied Russian for the HSC (years 11 and 12), and a friend of mine was studying German. A few years later a friend of my brother was also studying German at the "3 unit" level, which was helpful one day when he came across some lost German tourists who spoke little English. We regularly had exchange students from around the world, which were very helpful for those studying their language and culture (and swear words). My youngest brother is now trying to learn Russian, all on his own. And IIRC, a friend of his is learning Japanese.
Might I also point out SBS? Every morning from 6am to noon is a good number of foreign news services. Every evening there is the world news, and subtitled (not dubbed) foreign movies. And it's not just the migrants that watch SBS. Many of us 'locals' watch it to learn about the world.
I may come from a more "cultured" background, but I strongly disagree that Australians are generally less aware of foreign languages or pronounciation. We may not all be polyglots like many Europeans, but we're not totally ignorant either. Unless Masalai or someone else can come up with a source then I'm going to remove it. --Imroy 11:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do. I also disagree, having had 5 years of compulsory schooling in Italian, Indonesian, French and Japanese (and the opportunity for three more years). Perhaps Masalai was homeschooled. The examples are also silly. Natgoo 12:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

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

message: This section, stating noticeable Australian cross-class inarticulacy ie low oral word utterance rate per unit time,  was suppressed by the apparent Australian nationalist "Randwicked", who employs the neologism "linguistic prescriptivism" for observations which offend his possible feeling of superiority. He attempts to justify his action by adding the note that the suppressed section contains original research/is unsubstantiated. In reply: firstly, the entire article (Use of Words, Diminutives, Use of Humour) is based on unsourced generalisations, in some cases claiming knowledge of all (!) other English varieties. This however fits the mindset of certain Australian nationals, ie reflects their outlook. That being so, suppression of "Articulacy" as a contribution to sociolinguistics is for political and not for Wikipedia reasons. In other words, statements of 1. Australian class origin 1788-1945 2. consequent relationship between occupation/vocation and oral proficiency are taboo.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.134.80.24 (talk • contribs) 6:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: after edit conflict:User:Trödel and User:Imroy also objected to the section. I probably would have too, if I'd noticed it. The "Irish influences" is only marginally better. --Scott Davis Talk 14:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship of "Articulacy" 

message: :It is sometimes claimed that regional variations in pronunciation and accent exist, but if present at all they are very small compared to those of British and American English – sufficiently so that linguists are divided on the question. Overall, however, pronunciation is determined less by region than by social, cultural and educational influences, as well as a generic urban-rural divide.
I take the above paragraph to mean "there is more difference between English spoken in Auburn, New South Wales (ethnically, arabic/turkish) and Cabramatta, New South Wales (ethnically Asian - hey, another generalisation) then there is between (say) English spoken by the same ethnic group in Sydney and Brisbane or Melbourne. Simliarly, people from Wagga Wagga, New South Wales could be assumed to speak similarly to those from Alice Springs, Northen Territory, but differently to Canberra? Somehow I don't think that is quite right. 
But I had to think about it before I came up with my interpretation. Did I interpret it the way it was intended? I think it needs some kind of clarification.Garrie 23:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded it. Clearer now? I won't be offended if you fiddle around with it a bit more. Metamagician3000 10:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: # History 
# Spelling 
# Irish influences 
# Samples of Australian English 
# Vocabulary 
## The origins of Australian words 
# Varieties of Australian English 
# Phonology 
# Use of words by Australians 
## Humour 
## Diminutives 
## Rarely-used phrases 
# See also 
# References 
# External links 
This is the current order.  The article starts with history then goes on to spelling after this we go on to Irish influences.  Irish influences, however, are very much connected with history so wouldn't it be better if these sections were closer together?  Similarly vocabulary and the use of words by Australians are connected.  Also, the latter is rather large and would probably be best split out into a new article.  I'm moving things about.  I'm also getting rid of the subsection title "The origins of Australian words": it's nothing but clutter.  Jimp 04:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of sections, split & expansion