Talk:South Australian English

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive I

Contents 1 ‘sharply‘? 2 Allophone blah blah? 3 "MonKEY" 4 Reverted merge? 5 Long A Sound

[edit] ‘sharply‘?

Recently added was Some sounds are pronounced more sharply then in other Australian places, and this could be a result of the German settlement. What does ‘more sharply’ mean? Which sounds are pronounced more sharply? Can we assume that this is throughout the entire state compared with no-where outside it? — Felix the Cassowary 11:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I've heard that the South Australian accent as being described as "clipped". I presume that is what is meant by sharp. Personally I think that South Australians tend to schwa vowels where most Australians don't and tend to sound approaching a Kiwi accent. After a few more months living in Melbourne, I've noticed this phenomenon and this in my speech. I also noticed that when I went back home to Adelaide for a visit recently. I can now understand why Melbournians say that to me (not that they sound normal :) ). A Kiwi I talked to also said that we tend to schwa more than other Australians. That's probably why it sounds "clipped" or "sharp" or "truncated" like Kiwi speech - Frances 7/10/05

On the contrary, I've read reports of Victorians tending more towards the schwa than SAns. I'm deleting that sentence. There is no source for this, and one or two persons anecdotal support is not enough. Grant65 (Talk) 01:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not claiming this to be official information, it is just me listening to myself and others now that I am able to hear our "accents". This is only a theory I have developed myself. Of course, this has to be tested and it could be wrong - Frances 7/10/05

In my experience, people from the Adelaide and Outer Adelaide regions (encompassing the Hills through to the South-East "Alexandrina" area), tend to clip vowels more sharply than other Australians - approaching the distinctive Kiwi accent. However, that's just my experience...--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Frances, I have replied to your message on my talk page. Grant65 (Talk) 23:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Allophone blah blah?

Could someone please translate the bit about the "back allophone" into something a general audience could understand. --Rkundalini 15:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "MonKEY"

I don't want to be drawn too deeply into the "robust" debate apparently surrounding this article. I just wanted to draw contributors' attention to the very peculiar (indeed, unique) way in which residents of Adelaide pronounce the diphthong in "monkey". My IPA is a bit rusty, so I won't try to reproduce the sound now, but I wonder if others have noticed the same phenomenon? Wulfilia 08:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Tell 'im he's dreamin'! Half these comments are subjective nonsense and opinion. No Adelaidean would pronounce any vowel in "monkey" as a diphthong. M.H. 218.165.74.191 16:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted merge?

Why was the merge to Regional variation in Australian English reverted? --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Such proposals were voted down after a long and intense debate --- see above. No one would try to cram all British or American regional dialects into one article, why do it their Australian counterparts? Also, the merger took place only four days after a proposed merger tag was put on the article!!! It seems almost sneaky to do that, when so many people, myself included, are away over Easter. Grant65 | Talk 14:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see "voted down" as the outcome of the above. Maybe you do and I don't because we were both involved in the discussion and each see our own expectation. I thought User:jimp did a good job of the merge and thought one article gives more credit to the subject than myriad similar articles on what are very minor differences. There is no minimum time required by WP:MM for a {{merge}} tag to be present, or indeed a requirement to use one at all. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If I recall, the formal vote took place at VfD or somesuch. I stand by the rest of my comments. Grant65 | Talk 14:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Here it is.[1] Grant65 | Talk 22:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, Grant. Four days is not a long time but four days without a single comment ... how long does one wait? Yes, I could have waited longer and perhaps I should have but, as Scott points out, "There is no minimum time required ..." I saw no reason not to merge them nor do I really see one still. As for people's being away over Easter, I hadn't given that a thought: it's pretty much just another weekend to me.

No, I hadn't read the VfD. This Talk page hadn't linked to it until you were kind enough to provide the link, Grant. Now I have read it and, as I say, I still see no reason not to do what I had done. "Such proposals were voted down after a long and intense debate ---" you write. I'm afraid that I read it rather differently.

Right up until its final stages the discussion focussed on three options: keep, delete or merge with "Australian English". So a merger with "Australian English" was voted down but, mind you, not exactly overwhelmingly so. Note for the record that I agree with the outcome of this vote. Of those three options I'd have chosen "keep".

However, what I had done was completely different to what had been voted on. It wasn't until the third last comment, which was made by Felix, that this was even mentioned. What I did was to create a new page for regional vrieties of AusE and to merge South. Aus. Eng. there. This was not what was being voted on. So, now let's discuss this.

"No one would try to cram all British or American regional dialects into one article," you write, Grant "why do it their Australian counterparts?" No you wouldn't. I certainly wouldn't try to cram all Australian dialects into one article. Reading the VfD, Grant, you seem confident enough. So I challenge you. Take this pet stub of yours to full article status and I'll stick a {{main|South Australian English}} between the title and text of the respective section in my pet article & we'll all be happy as Larry. Jim 16:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I also checked, and while there is not a single article for all varieties of British English, there is also not a separate one for each tiny variation. For example there's only one Welsh English and one Midlands English. Variations within these are discussed in the geographic or culture article for the smaller area (e.g. Black Country), or in a section of the main article (e.g. Regional accents within Wales) not a separate language article. Canadian English covers the whole country with only separate articles for a few extremely distinct accents (like Quebec English). --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Jim, the article is hardly even a stub anymore. And I don't see why it's incumbent on me to take it to a "full article", whatever you mean by that: 10kb? 32kb?

Scott, how about English English, East Anglian English, Estuary English, Highland English, Manx English, Mid Ulster English, Northern English, Received Pronunciation, Scottish English, West Country dialects, Cockney#London_speech, Norfolk dialect, Brummie, Geordie, Pitmatic, Tyke, Scouse and Mackem. There are probably others. Then there is the myriad of articles on US dialects. Grant65 | Talk 22:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Grant; yeah, no, you're right it need not be incumbent on you to expand the article. I just threw the challenge out because you are the one who is disagreeing with my merger. So my challenge would go out not only to you, Grant, but to everyone who thinks that the merger was a mistake.

I don't believe it was. The article is still rather small: fair game to be merged in my way of looking at things. But, no, my way is not the only way and not necessarily the best way. "hardly even a stub anymore", yeah, well, it's borderline. But, fair enough, I had left "full article status" vague and undefined.

Anyway, as I see it, it just makes more sense to keep everything pertaining to regional variation in AusE in the one spot ... until, of course, there is no room. This seems to me a more useful way of oraganising information.

Grant, you've given us a nice long list of articles on various British dialects. I assume it took a while to gather the list up. You even write "There are probably others." You can't really be sure whether there are or not, right?

Ending up with this kind of mess is the kind of thing I'm trying to avoid. Do we want 27 odd articles, most of which will never be more than stubs, each covering some AusE dialect, all floating about unconnected to one-another?

The way I see it, it's better to have everything in one place where it's easier to find. Then when sections become large enough, split them out. Do we need to do things the way they were done for British and American English or do we do things our own way and let them copy us? Jimp 15:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Jim, you said: "as I see it, it just makes more sense to keep everything pertaining to regional variation in AusE in the one spot ... until, of course, there is no room. " I don't see any reason why we can't have it both ways: the general article on varieties of AusE should remain and so should the articles on various dialects.

You say "you've given us a nice long list of articles on various British dialects. I assume it took a while to gather the list up. You even write "There are probably others." You can't really be sure whether there are or not, right?" In fact it took me all of about five minutes; categories make searches like that very easy. I was giving examples, not an exhaustive list.

You say: "Ending up with this kind of mess is the kind of thing I'm trying to avoid. Do we want 27 odd articles, most of which will never be more than stubs, each covering some AusE dialect, all floating about unconnected to one-another?" Jim, the "mess" is in the eye of the beholder; there is no reason not to duplicate material on different pages when appropriate. They can be easily connected to each other by links in the articles (as they are in the "See also" section) and by categories. Grant65 | Talk 07:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I'd like to state that I now oppose any merger.--cj | talk 09:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Grant,

I've been a while getting back to you. Yes, have it both ways but iff the article on the specific dialect is large enough. Yes, duplication isn't bad if done right. When I split this stuff off from Australian English I left a summary there. This is the way to do it in my opinion. What we have now is the entire article duplicated as a section on the other page. The setion is too small really to warrant summary. There is also the problem of editing. Now that this stuff appears twice it is likely to be edited in different directions. Wouldn't it be better to direct potential editors to the one copy?

Cyberjunkie,

Why?

Jimp 00:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and precedent exists.--cj | talk 04:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopædia but I think this merger makes sense in spite of this. From the point of view of readability it's better to have one decent sized article than to have a bunch of little ones. Cyberjunkie, you write that you oppose any merger. Do you mean any merger of this article or any merger of any article at all? Precedent exists, yes, and there is precedent of merging articles. I've merged a number of articles. I've also split quite a few too. It's all a matter of attempting to find the best way of organising information. One huge article can be a pain to get through whilst a dozen tiny ones can be a pain to surf about. I was only trying to better organise this Aussie English stuff. It makes no sense to me to have such a small article as this when there is a spot where it all fits nicely elsewhere paper encyclopædia or otherwise. Jimp 06:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That's awfully patronising. Of course I know that mergers occur, and I have personally precipitated many. I should think it obvious that my statement refers to this article. However, since this appears not to be so, I shall clarify any remaining ambiguity: by precedent, I refer to the list of other variety articles. And no, I see no cause for the topics to be subsumed into Regional variation in Australian English; that article need only touch on them, not cover them in full. --cj | talk 06:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not my intention to be patronising. Thanks for clarifying what your position. Regional variation in Australian English does only touch on South Australian English, it by no means covers it in full. This article does no more than this either. I'd like to see the full coverage and to see it here but until such a full coverage exists I don't understand why the article should exist. Jimp 05:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why it shouldn't exist, as opposed to an article that attempts to cover all variation in Australian English. Have a good look at the ABC/Maquarie Australian Word Map site and you will start to get an idea of the absurdity of attempting to capture the whole gamut of regional variation. And that's without there's the education/occupation/class split into Broad/General/Cultivated. Grant65 | Talk 09:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea of "the absurdity of attempting to capture the whole gamut of regional variation" in one article. I agree with you here, Grant. Does Regional variation in Australian English do this? Far from it: the sections on specific varieties are very few and breif indeed ... as yet. Yes, they could and definitely should be expanded in size and in number and when they are they should be split out. So, yes, I agree that there is a great deal to be covered and I agree that this is too much for one article. However, this is talking of what there is to be covered. Now, if we look at what is presently covered, we see a different picture. At present we just don't have the kind of detail that you find at ABC/Maquarie Australian Word Map. It would be great if we had, we wouldn't be having this debate in that case. At present we have Regional variation in Australian English plus two stubby little articles floating about. What I don't understand is why the latter should exist when there's a perfectly good home for them. Jimp 07:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Gawd. Wikipedia started with zero articles. It still wouldn't have any if everyone took that attitiude. Grant65 | Talk 11:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

How so? Jimp 03:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway it looks like it's Scott Davis and I verses Grant65 and Cyberjunkie. That's two to two. Isn't anyobody else interested? It's been a fun debate but it seems you have a better case, Grant65 and Cyberjunkie. I've removed the merge tags from both articles. I've also summarised the duplication at Regional variation in Australian English putting links to these main articles. I hope we can expand them and start more of them. We've got nothing on the Eastern states dialects. Jimp 14:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no consensus to change, so the merge proposal should be withdrawn.--cj | talk 05:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, seems there has been a bit of a biffo since I last checked this page. I think I mentioned previously that this page should be merged with other AusE things but can't locate any comments I wrote. After I write this bit here, I will add a tiny bit more to the page and will leave it all up to you if you want a merger of this page or not. Frances76 12:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

duh, just located it on the previous page! Frances76 12:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyberjunkie,

I more or less had withdrawn it. Jimp 00:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Frances,

What do you think? Was I wrong to have tried merging the page into Regional variation in Australian English? Jimp 00:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jim -my problem with having this page as it is that although SAians sound different to the other states and have quirks and a lot unique words, there just hasn't been enough studies to define it as a "separate" accent as such. However, to be truthful, I'm feeling rather indifferent to whether this topic should be on its own or merged. I'll leave it to others as to whether it should merged. Maybe a non-Australian linguistically trained wikipedian might be a good aribiter in this matter.Frances76 01:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long A Sound

Most of the people I know in Adelaide use a long A sound in such words as dance and chance. Grant and plant are always pronounced with a similar sound. This seems to be the main difference to say a more cultured Melbourne accent. Ozdaren 17:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's the only difference between Adelaide and Melbourne accents, but it's perhaps the most obvious to listeners from neither place. For example, to my (SA) ear, the capital of Victoria is often called "Malbourne" by people who live there. For reader's who aren't sure, the "long A" is "ah"/"ar", not "ay" and also appears in last, fast, car. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes have to agree that Victorians also vowel swap and sound very nasal. Frances76 09:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, just had a long conversation with an old Melburnian who resides in Adelaide. He does say Malburn for Melbourne. I wonder if the younger generations speak the same way. He is in his late 60's and very well educated. Ozdaren 10:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I had noticed it in people my age and younger more than I had heard it in older people, so it must be all ages. It tends to show up less on television than in person. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought that the preponderance of the broad A amongst South Australians is the most distinctive aspect of the variation, and yet, it is not mentioned. Is there reason for this?--cj | talk 13:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That's where this discussion started. You're right, it's the most obvious distinction for South Australian accents to other Australian English speakers. The dark L is surprisingly distinctive (and unintelligible) when travelling to some places overseas. You seem to know the right terms, so please add it to the article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dark /l/ is not unique to South Australians nor even to Australians; it is common all over Australia and in many British English accents. That bit should be deleted. M.H.218.165.74.191 16:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No one said it was unique to South Australians.--cj | talk 06:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Added bit about /ɑ/ sound. M.H. 218.165.76.83 04:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)