Talk:Australian English/Archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Ripping Yarns

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)

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)

[edit] Sweet as

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] "less cultured persons"

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) RaYa

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)

[edit] Foreign words in Australian English

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)

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)

Regardless of whether the claims are true or not, Wikipedia isn't the place for linguistic prescriptivism. This section doesn't belong as written. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 13:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Censorship of "Articulacy"

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).

Australian nationalist? :D That's a first. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 12:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I love watching self-important newbies smash their egos up against the wall that is WP:NOT and then cry "conspiracy!". Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system! Yes, we're all against you, mate. And of course it's because we're Australian nationalists. --Imroy 14:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

@Imroy: <>.The tone of the article as it stands, however, is unmistakeably self-congratulatory (see e.g. amused condescension towards tourists), in the mode found not only in and around Randwick itself. Viewed from outside the Anglosphere, it is interesting to see how entries on identical topics in Wikipedia reflect the nationalist biasses of the authors/readers concerned. It is true there are occasional clashes eg between US and Aust. nationals on the merits of eg various US wartime generals in the S. Pacific. But I estimate that only ca 1% of those reading this article on Aust. English can read anything but English anyway, so the matter is a closed book to them.

No linguist at an Australian university and thus close to his source material is going to make a safe career by publishing on inarticulacy, not least because he would necessarily be commenting adversely on the oral proficiency of many of his university colleagues, not to mention eg John Howard.

[edit] Varieties of Australian English

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)

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)

I think there is a difference in Adelaide where the accent sounds closer to the New Zealand accent than in other parts of Australia. The number six sounds like the NZ sux. There is also a distinctive immigrant accent depending on parentage. The accent is maintained by locally born descendants. So you have a clearly recognisable Lebaness, Greek, Italian etc Australian accent. Also the Sydney Westie and Melbourne Bogan accents are clearly identifiable. These may be more socio-economic than regional however. Roonz123 00:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)

[edit] Order of sections, split & expansion

  1. History
  2. Spelling
  3. Irish influences
  4. Samples of Australian English
  5. Vocabulary
    1. The origins of Australian words
  6. Varieties of Australian English
  7. Phonology
  8. Use of words by Australians
    1. Humour
    2. Diminutives
    3. Rarely-used phrases
  9. See also
  10. References
  11. 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)

I've also expanded the phonology section. It's good to have a bit of a summary here. Jimp 05:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] midlands convicts

some of the broader aussie accents mostly comes from 18th century black country convicts from the midlands, I fought for ages trying to proove it, but its bloody obvious the diallects are the same only the australien is slightly stronger because it has other influences aswell. I know you all got this thing saying its mostly irish, but hiberno irish is from midlands settlers anyway,most of the irish irish people spoke gaelic. and on the pitcairn islands its mostly 18th century portsmouth diallect.

convicts

                                                               paul

I still can't see the point of having a whole section for hiberno english when its, from personal experience I'd say the aussie dialect is like 18th century midlands mixed with 18th century true cockneys, so it sounds stronger than both dialects because they became mixed togethor, I don't beleive it "diverged" from socalled british english but rather a mongrolisation of regonal working class diallects and this mongrol workin mans dialect that is aussie sounded alot stronger, don't scorn off what I'm saying I'm not saying it comes from standard british english or anything like that, in anycase standard british english didnt exist during the time of the colonisation of australia and it sounds bloody aweful.


                                     paul

[edit] "Whilst" vs "While"

Hi, I've just been involved in a considerable discussion on the Talk:Steve Irwin page about the use of "whilst" in his article. I took a straw-poll, and then changed all the numerous instances of "whilst" to "while", but then one user pointed out to me some archived discussions that had come down in favour of "whilst". My favourite example is "whilst snorkelling". So, I wonder if this minor point should get some general discussion and resolution, and Australian English seems like an appropriate place. My own opinion, as an educated Australian, is that "whilst" is rarely used in writing, and virtually never used in spoken English, and is both old-fashioned and (often) pretentious. Furthermore, the article on American and British English suggests that "whilst" always sounds archaic to Americans, no matter what the context. This suggests to me that "while" is the safe, uncontroversial choice. On the other hand, there seems to be some opinion around that "whilst" is actually a a distinctive and valued part of Australian English. Any thoughts? Can we get a WP-wide recommendation? Thanks. Leeborkman 22:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Lee. FWIW, the current edition of the in-house News Limited (Australia) book, Style: The Essential Guide for Journalists and Professional Writers says: "whilst, with amongst and amidst, is not to be used." I think this is like the gaol v. jail issue here where some editors are wanting to hang on to the old spelling. However, these spellings are no longer commonly used in professional writing in Australia. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Sarah. An interesting stat to indicate relative actual use... Google while site:*.au gives about 37 million hits, but whilst site:*.au gives 12 million. That's actually a lot more pages with "whilst" than I would have expected, but "while" is clearly the more common on Australian pages. Thanks again. Leeborkman 23:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I think this is approaching instruction creep. It's better just to respect the previous author's usage (as is the convention currently), than to enforce another. It's plainly not constructive, especially when you consider that the only likely result will be edit warring; people simply don't like to be told that their English is incorrect or not allowed.--cj | talk 09:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I thought that this was why you would have a debate, and then a style recommendation, so that you don't have the war. I would have thought that consistency of style was a worthwhile goal for an encyclopedia, so when you have a style question, you can just point to the style guide and everybody is happy. It's not about what is correct, just about about which (if any) is the recommended WP style. Anyway, thanks, and I'll look at the Convention link you provided. Leeborkman 10:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I have looked at the WOP again, Cyberjunkie, but I can;t find anything particularly relevant to this situation. In particular, I can't see any recommendation to go with the previous author's choice, only a recommendation not to change unilaterally from American to British English (or vice versa). This is not a case of American English versus British, but about whether "whilst" is universally acceptable in Australian English. As far as I can tell, "while" is universally acceptable, whether you are American, British or Australian, so there is no reason not to use it. But this might just be me - I also dislike "orientated", so you can see the kind of guy I am ;-) THanks again Leeborkman 10:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Erm... As I remember it, the Manual of style discourages making purely language-preference edits.... Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
That's true. I was probably out of line, even though I canvassed opinion on the subject before I edited, but that is not why I am raising this point here. I am simply asking if it would not be appropriate to include some while/whilst preference in an appropriate style guide (if there is such a thing for Australian English). I would like to avoid debate on such a matter, not only because the matter is so trivial, but because I am sure the question has been raised, discussed, and decided countless times on countless pages. Pointing to a recommendation in a concensus style guide would effectively save everyone a lot of time (and heat). Is this not an appropriate question for a style guide? Thanks. Leeborkman 04:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I use "whilst" all the time in speech & writing. I don't find it old-fashioned or pretentious in the least. It's just a regular word to me. What the exact guideline might be here I couldn't say off hand but it seems to me that the spirit of the WP:MOS would suggest that one should refrain from changing from one perfectly acceptable style to another without good reason. It seems to me that "whilst" is perfectly acceptable in AusE (we needn't worry about other dialects). Certainly the fact that previous dicussions came down in favour of "whilst" should carry some weight. One might also pick through the history to find what was used first. Jimp 15:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify... I am not asking for support to change whilst to while. I am simply asking if a whilst/while preference would be appropriate to be decided and included in a Style Guide to prevent this kind of trivial and aggravating discussion from being repeated ad nauseum. In other words, is there an Australian English Style Guide for WP, and if so, is while/whilst a candidate for inclusion in that Style Guide? Thanks again. Leeborkman 21:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Could be a good idea. As far as I know there is no Australian English Style Guide for Wikipedia. If the discussion is being repeated ad nauseum, yes, I suppose it would be a candidate whether it be on an Aussie specific page or elsewhere.
Anyhow, you mention Google hits. I seem to get about 32 million for while but I checked through the first five pages and found that one hit per page had a while for which whilst could not be substituted. For example Lyndon While (a surname), while-loop (a computing term), for a while (here the word is a noun, whilst cannot be a noun). Note I only get about 8 million for whilst so it's still about a one to three ratio.
For what it's worth I tried plain Google and got about 1740 million for while verses about 91 million for whilst i.e. about a one to nineteen ratio. Google UK gives about 86 million for while verses about 47 million for whilst i.e. a bit better than a one to two ratio.
So wherever you look while seems to be the more popular but if we take raw Google search results at face value then we might conclude that about 25% of Aussies prefer whilst over while. That's a fair chunk of us. If there is an Aussie style guide written, I'd suggest either be allowed with preference going to the use by the first major contributor to an article. We don't need to cater to the Americans. Jimp 01:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Jimp. Actually, I would think it perfectly appropriate to cater for Americans if we can do that without sacrificing anything Australian. As far as I can make out all readers, even Australians, find "while" completely unobjectionable, so I would think it could be recommended without qualification. "Whilst", on the other hand, is obviously objectionable to some people (including some Australians), so cannot be recommended, even in Australian articles. That would be my basic position if this point were being considered for inclusion in a Style Guide. Thanks for your thoughts, although it seems that there is no substantial support for including such a thing in a recommended Style Guide, so I will let it go. Thanks again. Leeborkman 01:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. No, there's nothing wrong with choosing something that would work for the Americans as long as we "can do that without sacrificing anything Australian." I dunno, perhaps we can even in this case. However, I just get the feeling that the more words we ban the more artificial the language becomes and the more artificial it is the less Australian it is. I wonder how many Aussies really find the word objectionable; you're one but I'm not. I wouldn't mean to recommend the word I'm just uneasy about having it banned. Note I've got nothing against Americans nor American English in general. Jimp 03:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jimp. The truth is, I had never considered "whilst" to be a normal part of Australian English at all. I have always assumed, in those rare cases where I have heard it, that it was merely an affectation akin to raising the little finger while drinking tea. If I am wrong about that, however, and it is a word that Australians value, then I would not wish to see it die. As for "banning" it, that was never my intent... merely some recommendation such as "in cases where there is dispute regarding the use of 'while' or 'whilst', 'while' is usually to be recommended as having more universal acceptance". But there you go... it begins to seem that "whilst" is indeed part of the Australian character, and I am in fact mistaken. Thanks for your trouble. Leeborkman 03:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
No trouble. You know, you could be right after all. I mean, I can't exactly claim to speak for the entire country. I'd always felt it to be normal enough but I'm only 0.000005% of the population. There are the Google results which tend to show the whilst is alive and kicking in Aussie English (but which do still come down in favour of while). Citing raw Google results, though, is not the same thing as conducting a thorough study. As for me, I'm not really too concerned about the matter. Recently on Wikipedia a whilst I'd written was changed to a while. I wasn't jumping up and down about it.
I don't suppose you'd get too much opposition to your proposal the way you've phrased it here ... I could be proved wrong. The real problem is that, as yet, there really is no where to put it. There's the Wiki Manual of Style but there are no dialect-specific style guides. Before we can put forth such recommendations we'd need a Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Australian English) page to put them on. What d'ya reckon? Should we start the page up? Jimp 06:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I found myself writing something yesterday, and I first typed "while", then went back and "corrected" it to "whilst". I then recalled this conversation, and have now checked a Macquarie Dictionary:

  • while is a noun, a conjugation, and a verb
  • whilst is only a conjugation, and is defined as meaning "while".

The fact that "while" has three uses could naturally lead to the observed higher usage in Google. "Whilst" is not noted as old-fashioned, just different. So, observing my own behaviour, I believe that I must have been taught to use "whilst" in written South Australian English. I don't think I use it in spoken English. --Scott Davis Talk 03:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/u/s/Talk%7EAustralian_English_Archive6_6b34.html"