Talk:Australian English/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Acceptance of different spellings

message: ===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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Australians’ use of words

message: ====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)
thread_title: Humour

message: 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)
thread_title: Picking on Americans

message: ====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)
thread_title: Diminutives

message: 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)
thread_title: Is There A Pattern?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Long list of slang

message: Here are a couple of other problems with the article that I've fixed up.  I'm mentioning them so people can see what changes I've made any why.  Also because they've been fixed I don't see why they need to take up space on the Talk Australian English page. - Jim 23Mar05
===The Links Don't Work===
Maquarie Uni has gone and rearranged their website so any links to it don't work anymore. In the "Phonology Section" I replaced one  broken link with Google's cached page in it's place.
I've removed the following broken links from the External Links section.
*The Vowels of Australian English and Other English Dialects
*Phonemic (Broad) Transcription of Australian English
These broken links could similarly be replaced with Google caches.  However, I don't suppose that these pages will be avilable forever. With a bit of luck Mac Uni will give us a new pages with the same info.  Maybe they have done so already but I can't find it. - Jim
:Moved comment made by Jim from the article page – AxSkov 13:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Fixed Problems

message: Maquarie Uni has gone and rearranged their website so any links to it don't work anymore. In the "Phonology Section" I replaced one  broken link with Google's cached page in it's place.
I've removed the following broken links from the External Links section.
*The Vowels of Australian English and Other English Dialects
*Phonemic (Broad) Transcription of Australian English
These broken links could similarly be replaced with Google caches.  However, I don't suppose that these pages will be avilable forever. With a bit of luck Mac Uni will give us a new pages with the same info.  Maybe they have done so already but I can't find it. - Jim
:Moved comment made by Jim from the article page – AxSkov 13:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Links Don't Work