Talk:Australian English/Archive 3

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

New Australian English phonology page

I've created a new Australian English phonology page and deleted the information that is now there from here. I did this because this page was pretty big, and the information on the phonology pretty dodgy. In particular, I didn't like the vowels table, which seemed to make Australian English into a transformation of Received Pronunciation, and the bulleted list after it, which was full of muck, and which I'm ashamed to say I contributed to.

I disagree with you about the vowels table. I found it quite useful in comparing the pronunciation differences between AuE vowels and RP vowels and I feel a bit disappointed that it's gone. You also decided to unilaterally change things without discussing it first, which is a bit rude, but anyway. I agree with you regarding the bullet list though, it was a bit messy. – AxSkov (☏) 13:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I didn't completely get rid of the comparison to RP; you can easily derive that from the Mitchell-Delbridge system included. The only differences between M.-D. and RP are, I think, /a/ for /ɑ/ (Durie-Hajek /aː/), and /oʊ/ for /əʊ/ (revised /əʉ/). Also, M.-D. never uses the length marks that are optional in RP. Of course, there's differences between the pronunciations of words, so that any correspondances between Australian phonemes and RP ones are misleading. (e.g. we pronounce 'Austria' as /ɔstri.ə/, but I believe the RP pronounciation is not the /ɒstri.ə/ a table of correspondencs would imply, but /ɔːstri.ə/.) Anyway, a better resource is at IPA for English, which further has the advantage of providing the American equivalents.
My dictionary says /ɔːstri.ə/, but I don't know who else does... It definitely starts with /ɒ/ for me. (Same with Australia.)--JHJ 07:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about the unilateral change ... I was originally going to discuss, and then I thought this was kinda the meaning of ‘being bold’. I won't do it again if I make such a major change.
(— Felix the Cassowary)
Well that's true with regards to the IPA for English page, that also includes American equivalents. There is a similar page, with a simple chart, located at IPA chart for English, which I find very useful. – AxSkov (☏)

I made two changes to the IPA transcription used here. Firstly, I'm using /a/ and /a:/ instead of the turned glyphs. IPA principles indicate that Roman characters are to be preferred over non-roman ones, and in almost every other language with only one low vowel, /a/ is used. (The classification of /æ/ as open doesn't interfere with this, because it's not fully open; it occupies its usual spot.) /a/ and /a:/ are also commonly used for the phonome in question, just not by our source. In any case, the turned-a glyph doesn't really represent the sound adequately; turned-a is not a fully-open vowel. I hope this change can filter through to other pages.

I also think the AuE /ɐː/ is further forward and hence closer to the phoneme /a/; whilst /ɐ/ is further back and hence closer to /ɐ/ or /ɑ/. So the transcription of /aː/ makes sense, but I don't know about /ɐ/. I actually prefer /ɐ/ rather than /a/, because in English /hat/ could be mis-pronounced as "hat" instead of "heart" "hut".
Can you give sources for this (why /a/ and /aː/ is used instead of /ɐ/ and /ɐː/) and were I can obtain them? – AxSkov (☏) 12:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
In most diagrams I've seen, AusE /aː/ is definitely not a front vowel; it's usually drawn almost perfectly in the middle if you get one of the normalised diagrams as in the IPA chart. Apparently there's a fronted allophone after velars, though. Aside from general principles of IPA (e.g. using the Roman character when you have a choice; the fact that [ɐ] is intended more for a "second schwa"; these are cited in Durie and Hajek, but I was familiar with them well before, and for my own purposes have usually used /a/ and /a:/ for these reasons), the best source I can point you to at this stage is Durie and Hajek (1994) as quoted in the article. If you want, I can give you an electronic copy (PDF) of this I got via my Uni library's databases; email me.
The fact that /hat/ could be mispronounced (it's actually hut, not heart, but nevermind) is, I think, neither here nor there. After all, cannot /j/ also be mispronounced? /i/ when used in the M.-D. system?
(— Felix the Cassowary)
I guess so. – AxSkov (☏)

Secondly, I've included the phoneme /æ:/. I think "proper linguists" can justify this better than me, so I've included references to two of many sources that consider it a separate phoneme. (In spite of the fact that one source is called ‘“Short a” in Melbourne English’, this is not a phenomenon specific to Melburnian English.)

I'm not a proper linguist either, but I don't think [æː] is a separate phoneme from [æ], rather they are allophones of the one phoneme. Do you have any sorces to back this up and where I can obtain them? – AxSkov (☏) 12:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
As cited, there's Durie and Hajek (1994) and Blake (1985); also Durie and Hajek (1995). These cite a variety of different sources (who I haven't followed up on yet). The page on the Bad-lad split cites other sources, which I also haven't followed up on. Ingram (1995) is a response to Durie and Hajek (1994) who argues (very poorly, IMHO!) against including it. D&H 1995 is a reply to his response. If you want, I can give you D&H 94 and 95 and Ingram 1995 (which are all from the Au. J. Linguistics, vols. 14 and 15). Another Wikipedian gave me an article written on the subject which has so far not found a publisher; it is as such unfit for citation, but if you are curious I might be able to find it and forward it to you.
There is the possibility it's a phoneme for some speakers an allophone for others. If this is true, it's best to include it, because you can always derive the allophonic variation from split-phonemic form, but you can't always do the reverse (hence being separate phonemes).
Would you say "bad" and "lad" (etc.) rhyme for you? Whenever I've read English poetry that wants them to rhyme, I've always found it stilted and jarring—a bad rhyme—even before I knew anything about linguistics. Just a personal annecdote, of course, not an argument :)
— Felix the Cassowary 15:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Well sometimes "bad" and "lad" rhyme and sometimes they don't depending on the context they are in. Two words that – to me – never rhyme and are always pronounced differently, no matter the context, is the noun span /spæːn/ and the past-tense verb span /spæn/. I think span-span is a good example for the bad-lad split, clearly showing minimal pairs. – AxSkov (☏) 03:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

It's probably worthwhile adding an extra chapter there on Broad/General/Cultivated AuE, and removing the one from here.

— Felix the Cassowary 11:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Add it there by all means, please do not delete it from here. You have a mania for deleting perfectly good information, Felix.Grant65 (Talk) 06:05, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Not really. I wasn't advocating deleting the information on Sth Au English, just merging it into another article: One which discusses all regional variation. And here, I wasn't advocating deleting the information, just moving it into another article (after all, it was generally decided that this page was too big). [I have advocated deleting stuff on Conlangs, but that's another matter entirely.] — Felix the Cassowary 07:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


Macquarie Dictionary

As far as i am aware the Macquarie Dictionary is not used as a reference in academic writing. The macquarie dictionary has typically been the butt of several jokes concerning its validity.

The sentence "Publishers, schools, universities and governments typically use the Macquarie Dictionary as a standard spelling reference" is therefore a little excessive, and may be misleading. I find that more often than not, the Concise Oxford Dictionary is used for schools and universities.

perhaps "The Macquarie Dictionary is often used as a spelling reference by publishers, schools, universities and governments " but that sounds a little strong to me, perhaps a weaker construction may still be needed

AusInfo's Style Guide for Authors, Editors and Printers (Commonwealth Govt style guide), at least the edition of it I've read, certainly says to use Macq's spelling as a default. That sounds like a standard spelling reference to me (even though you can use another if you have reason to). —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 10:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
The Macquarie Dictionary is Australia's first true dictionary and is used in academic writing etc. It is no less a joke than other dictionaries...I think that is a stupid comment. Dankru 11:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the cultural cringe dies hard it seems. Grant65 | Talk 12:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Myths about Australian accents

A small point, but the last sentence of the second paragraph sounds awkward, especially the last few words. Is this just me? E.g. I believe the original:

Many Australians' speech patterns do not conform to this stereotype, and the "questioning intonation" is often found in many regional speech patterns in the south of England, Northern Ireland, and in some American ones.

should be more like:

Many Australians' speech patterns do not conform to this stereotype, and the "questioning intonation" can be found in many regional speech patterns, such as those in the south of England, Northern Ireland, and even North America.

I'm not 100% sure of this, or if it reflects entirely the original author's intent, hence it being here on the discussion page first. Thoughts? Citizen D 23:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't let concern for the original author's intent stop you from improving the article. Go ahead and edit: your version sounds better. Jimp 19Oct05

Libel-Bible Split and Others

See pages such as http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t122.htm. Sorry to raise this, I know this has been raised previously. I think there is a difference in pronunciation for "libel" and "bible" for me. I'll try and get a recording up. Frances76 09:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed comment

I've commented out:

If anything, the tendency for Australians to prefer diphthongs over monophthongs requires more work from the speech organs. <!-- We're overlooking the monophthongal realisation of vowels which are centring diphthongs in other nonrhotic dialects (e.g. RP), aren't we? -->

from the article. It was recently changed from:

If anything, the tendency for Australians to turn pure vowels into diphthongs requires more work from the speech organs.

by the anon 218.223.112.144.

Anon has a point: monophthongal realisations of centring diphthongs are very common, particularly in connected speech—still, similar changes are happening in RP. Also, the diphthongs that in RP are [aʊ] and [aɪ] are shorter in Australian English: [æɔ] and [ɑe] in normal but clearly-annunciated speech, and especially the former tends more towards [æə] in connected speech. On the other hand, compared to RP, our diphthongs /æɪ/ and /əʉ/ (which has a very open starting point, more like [ɐ]) are longer than RP /eɪ/ and /əʊ/. Like many generalisations about dialectal usages, this particular one (however phrased) seems to be inaccurate and/or meaningless.

—Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 14:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Felix,
Anon is me ... or should I say "I" ... Jim. I agree with your commenting this out. It was rather inaccurate and/or meaningless. Now that it's been moved here might we not do away with the comment altogether? Jimp 08:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Suppose we might as well. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 11:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Words from aboriginal languages

In this section we mention how rare such words have made it into Australian English and go on to mention "cooee" and "yakka". There is also the word "bung" meaning "broken" or "on the blink" which comes from the same language as "yakka". Though it seems rare today, so does "yakka" and we certainly used "bung" in my family in Melbourne when I was growing up in the 1970s. — Hippietrail 21:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I use bung all the time - add it in if you feel it will add to the article. Natgoo 22:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I've added it to the Australian words article. Natgoo 19:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I use "bung" too Frances76 21:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Not True

The rarity of use of Aboriginal words within the Australian language is a misnoma at best and miss leading at worst, the number of diverse Aboriginal dialects is the direct cause of this. This page would be more accurate if it acknowledged this fact rather than dismissing the use of Aboriginal words. Besides early exploration adoptions aboriginal words, words that are common knowledge across the whole country are the result of commercial usage. 'Cooee' early use was with WWI advertising and recruitment, there was also some washing powder/soap that used the it as well. 'Yakka' is a direct result of the use of this word in the clothing lable.

Then there's the yabbie, though growing up in perth i know them as gulgies, but you can catch them with a gidgee they look the same and taste the same cause they are the same. Oops translation catch Maron with a spear. Gidgee is a Noongar word for the best type of tree used to make spears, but hey I brought a gidgee in Melbourne a couple of years back though this was aluminium. Now its time for a couple swigs of wobbla join the corrobbaree and listen to stories from the dreamtime about the wagyl. Gnangarra 14:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


There is also bung (in the sense of bad/defective/infected), which is a Jagara (Murri) word for "dead".

Gilgies (or jilgies) are technically a different species to yabbies, although (just to confuse matters) the crustaceans farmed commercially in WA are usually yabbies, introduced from the eastern states. A lot of people in WA use the two words interchangeably. Grant65 | Talk 15:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The non-standard plural of "you"

How about we rephrase this? The word you cannot have a plural standard or otherwise: not any more than the word children can. The word is plural. It a plural word which has come to be used as a singular one not the other way around. The question is, though, how best to rephrase it. Jimp 16Dec05

I don't follow your objections. Are you claiming that "you" is not used in the singular? Are you claiming that "youse" is not used in the plural? Are you claiming that no-one has a contrast between "you" in the singular and "youse, y'all, you guys" etc. in the plural, in at least some circumstances? I think maybe your example of "children" is confusing me: Perhaps something like "fish" would be better ... "fish" nicely parallels "you" in that by default, the plural of "fish" and of "you" is "fish" and "you", but in some circumstances, the plurals become "fishes" and "youse". I mean, the fact that when people have decided that "fish" and "you" are hard to use in the plural for whatever reason, new plurals have cropped up, respectively "fishes" and "youse"/"y'all"/"you guys"/"you'ns" etc. etc. So yeah, "you" is plural, but it's also singular, so if someone says "'youse' is the plural of 'you'", it's obvious they're talking about the singular meaning of "you" and not the plural.
So I don't think there's anything wrong with the current phrasing. We could perhaps be more specific and describe "youse" as "a non-standard second-person plural pronoun", but then we alienate those who don't know what a second-person pronoun is, plural or otherwise. OTOH, everyone who's English is up to the level this article should be at will be able to understand "the plural of 'you'".
—Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 11:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if Jim means that gramatically the word "you" acts as a plural (you are, they are, we are — but: he is, she is, it is, I am)? "You" in middle English was the polite or formal form of the second person pronoun (object form), comparable to vous in French or Sie in German, which also behave as plurals. But we've lost the casual/intimate 2nd person pronouns that those languages have retained (see T-V distinction). Maybe a comparison to "chicken" rather than "fish" would be helpful — chicken was a plural of chick (cf. ox->oxen, brother->brethren) but has come to be seen as singular, with a new plural formed by adding an "s", a bit like "yous". Or I might be completely off the mark here...? ntennis 01:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Aha - see http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/6361Malton.htm ntennis 02:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying that you is not used in the singular nor am I saying that youse is not used in plural. Maybe children was not the best example. Okay, fish: by default the plural of fish is fish but by default the singular of you is you. Ntennis points out that in Middle English you was the "polite or formal form". However, in Old English you was the plural with thee the singular. Unlike chicken the word you is now both singular and plural. The fact that it has come to also be used as the singular doesn't detract from the fact that it still is plural. How do you have a plural of a plural? I s'pose it's not really that great an issue. Jimp 20Dec05
According to your logic fish has no plural, because it is a plural. Yes, you is a plural, but it's also a singular. Just like fish is a plural, but it's also a singular. It doesn't matter which form came first. So, yes, you has a plural. The plural of you, is you, y'all, you guys or youse. 64.194.44.220 03:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
How about we change it to the nonstandard plural of singular you. Then it would definitely be describing the singular, not the plural. 64.194.44.220 03:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Jimp, are you trying to argue that by default, "you" is interpreted in the plural, which contrasts against my "fish" because by default, "fish" is interpreted in the singular? or are you taking it wholy from the etymology? I think the etymology is irrelevant. "You" is today used in the singular and the plural, so the fact that once ge was only used in the plural is neither here nor there. If "you" can be used in the singular and the plural, then I don't think anyone would interpret "a plural of you" to refer to the plural of a plural usage, neither would "a singular of you" be interpreted as referring to the singular usage. As you say, a plural cannot have a plural. Maybe to take a different example—"people" is the plural of "person", but it's also another word which itself has a plural. If you say, "foo is a non-standard plural of people", then people will think foo==peoples (with a meaning along the lines of "ethnic group"), whereas if you say "bar is a non-standard singular of people", then people will think bar==person. (Of course, in general you wouldn't say these things, you'd use clearer words, but this is an example. ... yet there's no clear word that means singular-you in English, apart from "you", so you can't use clearer words except "second person plural pronoun".) —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 10:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You is singular and plural in modern English. In older forms of English there were separate singular and plural forms. Thou was already disappearing in Shakespeare's time as the unambiguous singular 2nd person plural. He uses thou sometimes and you sometimes. Ancient etymologies do not directly determine modern senses or uses. Different English-speaking communities around the world have for some time been using various new unambiguous 2nd person plural pronouns, all of them unstandard. Some are you guys, youse, yous, y'all. — Hippietrail 17:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

AuE verses AusE

Until I saw the AuE in this article I'd only ever seen AusE. Which is the more common? Jimp 20Dec05


I'm correct

I've been talking to a AuE speaker and he uses "I'm correct" alongside familiar (to me) expressions "I'm fine" and "I'm OK." At first it was confusing because I didn't know what he was so sure he was correct about :) Where can I post AuE expressions that might be unfamiliar to speakers of other dialects? -Iopq 07:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's the Australian words article. However, I wouldn't add that one in. Do you mean he says "I'm correct" perhaps in response to something like "How are you?"? If so, I think that's more likely to be a personal ideosyncracy rather than a feature of Australian English: I've never heard anyone else do it! (Well, maybe they do it in Brisbane or something, but I would want further evidence. It's this sort of thing we have WP:NOR policy for!) —Felix the Cassowary 10:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Well I ask him things like "Do you want this?" he responds with "I'm correct." -Iopq 08:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, no, that I've never heard. Same sort of thing, probably idiosyncratic. —Felix the Cassowary 08:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
He said he was from Brisbane. But I misremembered. He said "I'm right." Of course to me that's the same thing but maybe those two words might not be interchangable :D -Iopq 10:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Not in the least! "I'm correct" is totally bizarre and I've never for the life of me heard it. "I'm right" is normal and everyday, and I've heard it often enough that I'd be surprised if it was unique to Australia! "I'm right", I imagine, is a contraction of "I'm alright", but when you say it you don't think of it as being that—you just think of it as being a standard reply. (Actually, I was thinking that it was a personal idiosyncracy of his that caused him to change "I'm right" into "I'm correct", when you said it was a response to "Do you want this?".) —Felix the Cassowary 13:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
It was my personal idiosyncracy to replace "I'm right" - which is what he said with "I'm correct" - which is what I THOUGHT he meant. This is not standard in America. -Iopq 12:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I missed this response. Nah-nah, what I meant was that when you reported him as saying "I'm correct" as a response to "Do you want this?", I thought maybe it was his sense of humor or something. You do get people like that. When I thought that I of course didn't know you'd misremembered! —Felix the Cassowary 14:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
You meant "all right", right? ;-).--cj | talk 14:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
No. I pronounce it as one word. Why shouldn't I write it as one word? —Felix the Cassowary 15:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Because (at least as far as I'm aware) it's not a word --unlike although, already, also, altogether -- but a common mistake.--cj | talk 13:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I pronounce it as a single word, so I'll write it as a single word. Better still, it's in the dictionary—not that inclusion in a dictionary is a prerequisite for wordiness. You might think of it as a common mistake. If that makes you feel good, then great. But it doesn't give you room to criticise me, because not everyone thinks it's a mistake, including a number of fine authors. (Still, I would be interested in how you define being a word. Obviously being in the dictionary doesn't mean it's a word, which is an interesting diversion from most people's most conservative definition. And there is no Academie Anglaise to make pronouncements.) —Felix the Cassowary 13:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I will lighten my tone, by the way, with the following quote (from [1]), which might give you something to think about next time you feel like criticising someone's informal language use. —Felix the Cassowary 14:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

‘And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!’

‘I don't know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant “there's a nice knock-down argument for you!”’

‘But “glory” doesn't mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.

‘When I use a word’, Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’

‘The question is’, said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is’, said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that's all.’

I wasn't criticising you, so please don't think that. I was being cheeky (it's not in any dictionary I've seen; but you're right - that doesn't matter). Time to get back to writing the encyclopædia, methinks... Sorry again, --cj | talk 14:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
If you think about it as "all right" then saying "right" instead is not a mistake. But to me "alright" in this situation has a completely different meaning from "all right." Well, it does to me. So "I'm right" sounds the same as "I'm correct" to me. -Iopq 12:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 :) It's funny. Maybe you should try saying "I'm left" to him one day :) I'm still really surprised it's an Australianism. (Or maybe it's an unamericanism? Are you American or British or what...?) —Felix the Cassowary 13:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I live in America. I can't say "I'm left" to him because after I say it three times it will be right again. I'll just tell him I'm wrong. :) -Iopq 15:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
LOL! You could always just say it twice, and then start saying "I'm wrong"! :) —Felix the Cassowary 15:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps cf the common Australianism "She'll be right", meaning "Things will turn out OK". Sbz5809 13:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Felix, you meant "wordliness", right? ;-).--Jim 10Jan06
 :) (No.) —Felix the Cassowary 01:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


This is kind of a bit off-topic, but I noticed that when I was living in Bundaberg Qld last year for a few months that when you apologise to someone (say you bump into a stranger in a supermarket), that people respond with "no, you're right". It's relatively uncommon to hear that in the Southern States (SA and Vic, the two that I have lived in). When that happens, you usually get "that's OK". Has anyone else made that observation? I will be moving to Cairns in the next few weeks (will mess Melb dreadfully and I don't know how Cairns' humid heat will be dealt by this little Croweater) and I have to keep my ears open for this.

Another one (again a bit off-track), another Australianism surely would be the "yeah, nah" thing ("yeah" I acknowledge what you are saying and answer in the negative to a question) Frances76 21:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry bout the late response, but: I've spoken to a couple of people who aren't Australian (but live here) and they all reckon that saying "I'm right" is not particularly an Australianism, people do it elsewhere too. It might just be an unamericanism or an unbriticism or something. As for "no, you're right" after an apology, I wouldn't've described that as particu'ly uncommon in Melbourne. In fact, I would think about the only way you could say that it's uncommon in comparison to another region is if that region uses it nearly exclusively. As for "yeah, no", there's a paper in an issue of the Australian Journal of Linguistics about it. Can't remember which issue though, and I've never read it yet so... —Felix the Cassowary 09:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Is "yeah no" an Australianism? What about Vicky Pollard? :-) Grant65 | Talk 09:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no, I'm not sure, I didn't read the article. It might've just been on its use specifically in Australian English, it's title is something like "Obligatory Bad Joke: The use of "yeah no" in Australian English". (Vicky Pollard doesn't really seem significant enough to get her own article... Am I becoming a deletionist in my old age?) —Felix the Cassowary | toːk 14:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but, no but. Not nearly as sad as Wikipedia:Pokémon Adoption Center ;-) Grant65 | Talk 18:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Well saying "No, you're right" sounds like it's interchangable with "No, you're correct (in doing what you did)." But about other people who live in Australia... I even say things in Russian that make no sense, but I believe that they do because their English translation makes sense :) I still feel that even saying "I'm alright" is falling into DISUSE in California. It might be an un-Californianism.