Talk:Australian English/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
edit
Archive
Archives and related discussion
Talk:Australian English
Archive I Archive II Archive III
Archive IV Archive V Archive VI
Talk:Australian English vocabulary
Archive I Archive II Archive III
Wiktionary:Appendix talk:
Australian English vocabulary
Talk:Australian English phonology
Archive I Archive II
Talk:Regional variation in Australian English

Contents

Relationship to other varieties of English

Have removed "and freeway is the most common word for a high-speed, grade-separated road, though motorway is also sometimes used, particularly for toll roads (although tollway is also used)." As far as I'm aware 'freeway' is never used, and is, in fact, and example of the dreaded creeping Americanisms (if ever uttered at all). They're highways.

What the hell are you talking about. The word "freeway" is definitely used, at least in Victoria anyway. It is used in the Melways & UBD street directories, used on street signs, and are always referred to when uttered. The word "motorway" is hardly ever used, especially in Victoria with "freeway" the preferred word. The word "highway" is used for large main roads, not freeway type roads. I'm going to reinsert it. Also please sign your name. Mark 02:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The anonymous writer might be from NSW, where they can't handle paying a toll on a freeway, so renamed them to motorways. The only significant length of grade-separated divided road in South Australia is the South Eastern Freeway. We also have the Southern Expressway which is only a single two lane grade separated road, and the direction of traffic flow is changed depending on time of day. --ScottDavis 03:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think NSW is the only part of Au where they are called "motorways"(?) They have always been freeways here in WA. Grant65 (Talk) 03:59, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Highway's, Freeways and motorways are considered to be 3 distinctly different roads in Queensland. We have the gateway motorway (a 4 lane road designed to get you from one side of the city to the other), The Bruce Highway, another 4 lane rd though this one will take you for 1700Kms or so and then there's the South East Freeway. A 6 lane 'Freeway' designed to carry large amounts of traffic from the city centre to the outskirts. It also connects with the Pacific Highway.

There is certainly no basis for a claim that Freeway is the most commonly used term in my experience.

This should be easy to solve. The terms highway, freeway and motorway are not interchangable. They are provided in the name of the road by the relevant authorities. Shouldn't be difficult to count the number of highways, freeways and motorways in Australia. Beats relying on your anecdotal evidence.

Sorry freeway people. You're going to struggle to justify your stance here. Almost all major high speed roads in Australia are called Highways. Do a search and count the number of freeways you find in comparison to highways.

This is a list of all roads that make up the national highway...

Brisbane to Melbourne - Warrego Highway, Gore Highway, Newell Highway, Goulburn Valley Highway, Hume Freeway Melbourne to Adelaide - Western Freeway, Western Highway, Dukes Highway, Princes Highway Adelaide to Darwin - Port Wakefield Road, Stuart Highway Adelaide to Sydney - Sturt Highway, Hume Highway Adelaide to Perth - Port Wakefield Road, Eyre Highway, Coolgardie-Esperance Highway, Great Eastern Highway Perth to Darwin - Great Northern Highway, Victoria Highway, Stuart Highway Sydney to Canberra - Hume Highway, Federal Highway Melbourne to Canberra - Hume Freeway, Hume Highway, Barton Highway Hobart to Burnie - Brooker Highway, Midlands Highway, Bass Highway

Highway: 23 Freeway: 3

Just found our very own wikipedia article on the subject Australian_highways. If you can find a list of freeways that outnumbers this list of highways in Australia I will hapily eat my hat.
Here is the list of freeways List_of_freeways_in_Australia, many of which are made up of roads that include the words 'Motorway' or Highway in their names and not the word 'Freeway' which seems to be defined here as a road with a toll.
Wouldn't a freeway, by definition, be a road without a toll? ;-) To me a highway is a more generic term which can include everything from major roads in the country to inner city roads with traffic lights every block. (It does here in WA anyway.) Whereas I would consider a freeway to be a high speeed multi-lane road without any traffic lights. There are no motorways in WA. Grant65 (Talk) 16:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the whole problem here is that there are multiple definitions of "freeway", "highway" etc. current in different parts of Australia, and Australians from the various regions don't really seem to realise that. I presume that the person who added the original statement used a definition of "freeway" along the lines of major, high-speed (100 km/h +), divided road; whereas the definition of "highway" was major, mid-to-high speed (80 km/h +, faster in the country), not necessarily divided and almost never grade-separated. By this definition, "freeway" certainly seems to be the most common name for that sort of major road (and it contrasts with the "motorways" and "expressways" you find in Sydney). Presumably to other Australians, there is no such distinction (and they don't realise a lot of people only know of such a distinction). Thus, any uses of the word "highway" need to show not only that they're highways, but that they are used for I (and others who make the distinction) would call a "freeway". —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 03:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Based on wikipedia articles freeway, motorway, highway I have confirmed that my understanding of what these terms mean is correct. Overall it should be noted that freeway and motorway are two different words for the same thing, but a highway is something different. When these terms are used or applied in Aust the original meanings are completely retained. Though there are few freeways outside Vic and NSW, it seems freeway is the prefered term in Vic, and motorway the term in NSW. Both words mean the same thing. Freeway is the US word, Motorway the UK word. I don't know why people have brought highway into the discussion though because that was never mentioned by the article, and highways are different things from freeway/motorway. One locality may have both highways and freeways. It is very frustrating having to read these arguments. MinorEdit 12:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Ever driven down the Hume Highway or the Bruce Highway between Brisbane and Caboolture? These both fit the description you offer for Freeway/Motorway. I bet there are more examples of highways fitting the description than freeways.
As I said above, highway seems to be a more generic term. That is, some roads which are called "_____ Highway" could also be called freeways/motorways. But not all of them. Grant65 (Talk) 14:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I have certainly driven on the Hume Hwy. I have also driven on the Hume Fwy. The bits of it that are named "Hume Hwy" are very definitely highways according to my definition, and not freeways. The bits of it that are called "Hume Fwy" are very definitely freeways according to my definition, and not highways. (Applies only to the road in Victoria.)

The Hume Hwy also has the additional distinction that because it's such an important road that started out its life as the Hume Hwy and has been upgraded progressively to the Hume Fwy, the road, taken as a whole, is generally called "the Hume Hwy". That's a particular instance that applies to that road and not to freeways in general. Similar things could be said about the Princes Hwy, though not (say) the Calder Hwy/Fwy (out to Bendigo) or the Western Hwy/Fwy (out to Ballarat) because it's not as culturally important, and when you do "Calder" is more than clear enough. Nevertheless, both the official name of the road when it's a freeway, and the common name for the sort of road it is when the Hume/Princes F/Hwys are freeways, is "freeway".

—Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 14:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

There are plenty of highways in WA but none of them, or any part of them, is ever called a freeway. (The reverse was true of the southern end of the Kwinana Freeway between the mid-1990s and 2002, as it was interrupted by traffic lights at several intersections.) Anyway, my point is that freeway/motorway are much more specific terms and are generally interchangeable. Grant65 (Talk) 09:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Yesyes, certainly I agree with you. I was replying to your parent-poster; I was meaning to be a sibling to you. (But I don't like having two different responses at the same indent level immediately after another, so I changed it by going back to zero. That's usually what it means if I go back to zero. Perhaps this is confusing and/or nonstandard.) I was also talking only of the stuff that happens in Victoria, not in WA. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 10:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Australians' use of words

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)

Opening paragraph

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)

Not sure how much personal experience counts, but I've heard that sort of thing used (by teens/YAs) and used it myself (Aged 20). I'm not sure how much it's an Australians-Mocking-Aussie-Slang thing, it could easily be the product of someone not being able to come up with a metaphor in time to finish the sentence. From my own knowledge (Urban, General Australian English), use of phrases like 'built like a brick shithouse' while not all that common is still pretty acceptable - nay funny (when creative), espically in an ironic way. Polanyist

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)
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)

Remove X-SAMPA

If no one objects I will remove the redundant X-SAMPA codings from this page.
Reasons for removal:

  • The IPA template was created to give those using Internet Explorer the ability to read IPA characters properly.
  • The SAMPA or X-SAMPA codes have been removed or replaced by IPA codings in nearly all other articles that include pronunciation.

– AxSkov (T) 15:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, however, some computers (& mobile phones) won't display IPA. Also, it's useful to have an easy reference for those who would like to transcribe AusE in X-SAMPA. I vote to keep the X-SAMPA. - Jimp a.k.a Jim (I've created an account) 24May05
Or at least leave the X-SAMPA only in the vowel table. Jimp 19Jun05

Punctuation

I've just reverted an edit on the article page. It seems appropriate that this page be written in Australian English. AusE follows the same rule so British English with respect to putting punctuation marks inside or outside the inverted commas. See Contents of quotations in the following section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences#Punctuation

- Jimp 8Jun05

I've just stumbled on the following.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Punctuation

This punctuation style is recomended for all Wikipedia articles.

- Jimp 12Jun05

Name of Australian English

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)

I've only seen it as AusE or Gen AusE Frances76 09:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Stressing long vowels

The Australian English accent stresses a long "ay" sound, whereas the New Zealand English stresses a long "i" sound.

Surely such wishy-washy terms as long "ay" sound and long "i" sound have no place in an encyclopædia for grown-ups. What really is a long "i" sound anyway: the first vowel in lighter or the vowel in litre? For that matter, there is a word ay (also spelt aye) meaningyes and homophonous with eye andI. Instead, what should be used is an IPA based phonemic transcription.

In linguistic lingo the term "stress" has a particular meaning. In NZE as in AusE primary stress falls on the first vowel in both ligher and later. It can't be stress that the writer was refering to (unless the writer was just plian wrong). Maybe it's some other kind of emphasis but something tells me "No". Worse than being poorly written, I have my doubts as to whether there is any truth in this statement.

Jimp 13Jul05

Concerning the current Edit War

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)

Archival

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)

Problem sentence

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)

The opening

In my view, the opening needs to be recast. It should more smoothly paint the big picture; specific examples should be relocated to other sections.

It should mention that AusEng has distinctive features in both oral and written modes. It might mention the influence of indigenous languages, particularly on place names, as a cultural courtesy as much as for other reasons. It should definitely classify AusEng as non-rhotic: that's a very basic feature.

Does anyone disagree?

Tony 07:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestions sound amenable to me.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

What influence has Aboriginal English had on Australian English? Coo-ee and what else? (almost) Everything else is a feature of World English. Wagga Wagga isn't called Princeville in America, and kangaroos aren't called Australian Giant Rabbits in Britain. Other than that, I agree.

(As for non-rhoticness, it occurs to me I have come across a handful of rhotic Aussies. There seems to be no rhyme nor reason to why they speak rhotically (i.e. no regional nor social variation), and it's not the kind of rhoticness you associate with American English where the the following /r/ tends to bleed into the vowel, but rather stressed vowels which have a written <r> sometimes or always get a /r/ put after them. They may also put the /r/ in unstressed vowels, in which case it tends to be [@r\], not [r\=] like in American. I don't know if it's a personal affectation or if it's that one parent or another spoke rhotically but they developed Aussie vowels in school or what. These are, however, merely personal observations and don't constitution grounds for objection to mentoining AusE as non-rhotic, because it overwhelmingly is and you can't understand it's phonology without understanding that.)

— Felix the Cassowary 06:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I know an Australian guy who has an unnaturally American pronunciation. He has never been to America, but he was not very well socialised as a child and probably picked up the accent from TV and a special education computer program. When I questioned him, about whether he normally says "fast" as /fa:st/ or /fæ:st/ he told me /fa:st/, but about thirty seconds later, speaking naturally he pronounced it /fæ:st/. He also speaks rhotically. I was also wondering if I'm the only one who naturally and unconsciously adopts an American accent when saying something intentionally stupid... sorry Americans, this is not my view of ALL of you... just the ones that voted for Bush. (Sorry, I don't know how to put in the phonetic "length" symbol, so I figured a colon is close enough. If it bothers anyone, they can change it.) - Ben from Brisbane
Yeah, I think a lot of people adopt an Americanised accent when saying something stupid, and quite often when quoting people. But it's not true to say it's an American accent, because it's still fundamentally Australian, I think. Things like /fæːst/ (retaining the length of Australian /faːst/, but using a fronted quality) whereas Americans say [fæst] or [fɛəst] (if they don't rhyme ‘mass’ and ‘class’). I think the same thing also happens when most/many people say ‘ass’ instead of ‘arse’, as /æːs/ so that it’s different from ‘ass’ meaning donkey, as /æs/.
(The easiest way to put in IPA symbols is to copy and paste them from somewhere else—I’ve customised my keyboard layout though, so that when Scroll Lock’s on, I can enter some characters a bit like in X-SAMPA.)
—Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 04:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Motorway (brackets)

AxSkov, why the brackets in the motorway bit? It reads funny, but perhaps there's some semantic value. (Not coming from a region where motorways are used, and tollways are called thus, I'm note necessarily the best judge.) — Felix the Cassowary 09:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the brackets. It was supposted to show that some people in NSW call the tolled freeways "motorways" and call untolled freeways "freeways/highways". If someone wants to clarify this (particularly someone from NSW) then go right ahead. – AxSkov (☏) 06:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
In Tasmania, I have yet to hear anyone say either 'motorway' or 'freeway'. Everyone seems to say 'highway' when refering to the major road between cities. - Stelard
The names "freeway" and "motorway" are usually only applied to multiple lane roads without traffic lights within cities. Major roads linking cities (with or without dual carriageways) such as the Hume Highway are not in that class. An exception would be the Pacific Motorway between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. Cities also have "highways" (usually dual carriageways interrupted by traffic lights) within them. Grant65 (Talk) 00:57, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
What! Maybe in NSW, WA, etc, but not in Victoria. "Highways" in Victoria only have dual carriageways within metropolitan areas and always have single in rural areas. "Freeways" in Victoria are always dual carriageways and they also exist in rural areas, for example: the Hume Highway as the Hume Freeway from Craigieburn to Wodonga; the Princes Highway as the Princes Freeway from approx Pakenham to Traralgon; the Calder Highway as the Calder Freeway from the Tulla to Malmsbury; and the Western Highway as the Western Freeway from Caroline Springs to Ballarat. In Victoria some major roads linking cities/towns (with on-off ramps) are called "freeways", whilst other major roads (without on-off ramps) are called "highways". Therefore in Victoria freeways are not just a type of city road, but also a type of country road. – AxSkov (☏) 07:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
The South Eastern Freeway in South Australia is also a rural, dual carriageway, grade separated road. There are no freeways in Adelaide itself. --Scott Davis Talk 12:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Revert war

Anonymous 203.164.*.* editor/s (203.164.184.36, 203.164.184.44, 203.164.184.117, 203.164.184.209, and probably others), what do you keep reverting the article? Could people please stop this, and discuss the problem? I’ve already outlined m objections to your wording in past edits, but I’ll re-iterate them here for your and everyone else’s convenience:

  • regarding ‘spelling confusion’—what is that? The intended meaning is almost certainly ‘variation between spellings’, as User:Ntennis has observed with their edits.
  • regarding the quotation marks around ‘American’—they either are American, or they aren’t. If they are, then the quotation marks are redundant. If they aren’t, then a more appropriate word/expression should be sought.
  • regarding ‘and so forth’—that expression is redundant with the initial ‘such as’. You don’t need to say it twice; it simply reads badly. This doesn’t even change the meaning, so I’m not sure what your problem with it is in even the remotest way.

(I gave up on this editwar shortly after it began, but I’d still much prefer my wording.)

By the way: I’m very offended by your description of my edits as vandalism. That is hardly even remotely appropriate, and counts as a personal attack. I assure you—I have been working very hard to moderate my response to it.

— Felix the Cassowary 07:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think "spelling confusion" makes more sense, as I have come across official documents, books, etc. that used both variant spellings of "-ize"/"-our" words in the same book or page! This suggests to me as confusion rather than variation. In my lastest edit I removed the silly quotation marks.
Don't get offended by someone describing your edits as "vandalism", lighten up and move on. I would also advise you not to take this place so seriously, you'll live longer. – AxSkov (☏) 06:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Confusion implies that you know something about the mental state of the person using a spelling which you do not. Official documents are often compiled by more than one person and those persons may not be confused at all, just in disagreement about the spelling to use. Variation is a much safer description.
I also don't see what's wrong with including the old spellings of the example words. Since they are no longer current, many young Australians (and many American readers) may not know how these words are different.
Hmm...it's all very well to tell people to 'lighten up' at the same time as you are reverting only to your edits!
Yours lightly, Moilleadóir 08:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
No, the document is confused, not the person, and I don't think confusion in this sense implies "something about the mental state of the person". I still feel confusion is a more suitable word than variation. I only reverted to my edit because it included some of the changes made by Ntennis and myself. – AxSkov (☏) 09:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
How can a document be confused? If the spelling of a document is varied, then that's spelling variation. I don't know what other sense confusion in this context possibly implies. Also, I have made a conscious decision to spell words ending in -our with -or when appropriate. The current wording makes it sound like I'm confused (or my documents are, whatever), when it's just the variant I've chosen. (Wikipedia contains variant spellings in the same sentence; does that make Wikip. confused? I'm having fun attributing confusion to non-sentient objects now ;)
(I'll take things with whatever level of seriousness as I want. I'm not usually offended; if I wish to be, then so be it.)
— Felix the Cassowary 12:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Since this has to do with the same paragraph that is causing these "edit wars", may I enquire what the "ACE corpus" is? Would someone who knows be able to clarify its mention in the article?. Thanks --Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Google suggests the ACE corpus is, ahem, the Australian Corpus of English corpus. I don't know anything more about it. — Felix the Cassowary (12:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC))
There's little that can be done about anonymous users without a static IP number who edit in bad faith, use deceptive edit summaries, etc. So I agree with AxSkov that we need to keep a light-hearted attitude about wikipedia: maximise fun, minimise stress. That said, I strongly disagree with the use of the term "confused" when referring to Australian spellings. I did rewrite the paragraph to avoid making a judgement either way, and kept it to a simple observation (see below). Naturally it was quickly reverted :P. I think the sentence "exposure to American and British spellings has led to..." is unnecessary. I grew up in Australia with exposure to different styles of writing and spelling; it wasn't American or British, but a variety of Australian spellings — which had been in use for a century. And it didn't confuse me or my peers! It's like saying Australians "confuse" the terms "license plate" (US) and "number plate" (UK), when we simply use both. For the record, here's my suggested wording:
In general, Australian convention allows for both British and American spelling of words such as organise/organize and colour/color. British spelling is generally preferred, although some words are usually written in the "American" form, such as 'program' and 'jail'. Publishers, schools, universities and governments typically use the Macquarie Dictionary as a standard spelling reference. Both -ise and -ize are accepted, as in British English, but '-ise' is the preferred form in Australian English by a ratio of about 3:1 according to the Austrailan Corpus of English.
The A.C.E. is a database of Australian English texts containing over 1 million words, collected and maintained by the linguistics department at Macquarie Uni. It is the primary resource for the corpus linguistics of Australian English, similar to the Brown Corpus of American English. It is actually very relevant to this page! I wasn't the one who put the ref there, and I don't know about the 3:1 ratio, but it seems reasonable. ntennis 04:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I was the one who added the ACE reference to this page, because I thought it made some sense, but I guess I should have done some research regarding it. I got that reference from Commonwealth English, where it was added by another user – Jallan, who has since left Wikipedia – and I'm not sure where he got the information from. This is his edit regarding the reference.
Perhaps ACE deserves a page of its own and then linked to the Australian English page? – AxSkov (☏) 04:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I think some of you need a hug. *hug* - Ben from Brisbane