Talk:Australian English vocabulary

edit; Archives and related discussion
Talk:Australian English
Talk:Australian English vocabulary
Wiktionary:Appendix talk:; Australian English vocabulary
Talk:Australian English phonology
Archive I	Archive II
Talk:Variation in Australian English

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Australia High‑importance

	Australia portal Australian English vocabulary is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Australian vocabulary

How about we move this to Australian vocabulary, per Portuguese vocabulary, Bulgarian vocabulary, Spanish vocabulary, Romanian vocabulary, and others? Alexander 007 03:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those all refer to the words used by a specific language, not to particular words and usages in one variety of a language. There is Australian English and there are Australian Aboriginal languages but there is nothing called the "Australian language" per se. Australian English vocabulary would be correct, but I think the present title is fine. Why use seven syllables when one will do the job? Grant65 | Talk 11:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. In fact, I think your point is so good that we should move the article to Australian English vocabulary, because Australian words could include Australian words not used in Australian English. Alexander 007 12:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, when I split the article out from Australian English that's what I called it but Grant's right it should be Australian English vocabulary. So, yeah, you have my vote. Jimp 17:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC) ... No, Grant doesn't say this exactly "Why use seven syllables when one will do the job?" because it's a better name. Let's move it. Jimp 05:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement concerning slang glossary policy discussion

As you are probably aware, there are many slang glossaries on Wikipedia with widespread acceptance, yet virtually all of them violate the following policy:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not:

Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.
Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields.
A usage guide or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.

This has created a situation where editors trying to enforce policy frequently nominate such glossaries for deletion, with most of the glossaries surviving the process with a consensus of Keep or No concensus. This ongoing battle has been raging on with respect to slang glossaries for at least the past two years. Yet the glossaries have survived, and more continue to be created. Based on the results of the majority of the AfD discussions, the general concensus seems to be that slang glossaries should have a place on Wikipedia. The relevant policy is no longer consistent with general consensus, and this schism has resulted in a large number of pointless AfD discussions which serve only to waste the time and effort of those involved. When the majority of Wikipedians defy a policy, it is time to reevaluate the policy.

Therefore, I have started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Slang glossaries to discuss the fate of slang glossaries (such as this one) and to discuss whether or not the policy should be ammended to reflect the defacto acceptance of slang glossaries on Wikipedia. They are here, and based on the results of AfD discussions, they seem to be here to stay. So shouldn't the policy be updated? If the policy was changed to allow slang glossaries or changed to provide for their speedy deletion, either of these solutions would save a lot of time and effort wasted on fruitless AfDs. You are welcome to join the discussion. --List Expert 09:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What much of this article does violate is the verification rule: few of the words here are backed-up by any external references. Editors apparently just add in words they use themselves, assuming that they they must therefore be Australian. I used to take out the non-Aust words (like clobber for clothes) but now I have given up because they usually get added in again shortly afterwards. Asa01 05:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary

"What's going on?" you might wonder. Refer to Announcement concerning slang glossary policy discussion above. List Expert reminds us that Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Thus this article should not be here. He links us to the discussion he'd started up regarding Slang glossaries. He was aiming at drumming up support for his proposal to change the policy to allow articles such as this. The result, as best as I can sum it up, was no concensus. Therefore no change to the policy and therefore this article really should not be here. Reading through the discussions it appeared to me that the best move would be to transwiki these glossaries of Aussie slang to Wiktionary appendices. First, however, they needed splitting into encyclopædic vs. dictionary content. Everything that was encyclopædic amongst them I've moved (for the time being) to Australian words (where once it had lived). These pages then will be moved to Wiktionary (barring any hiccups) history and all. Once this is done the content now at Australian words can be put back here. Links from this article to the Wiktionary appendices in question can then be added as I've done at Australian words#Rhyming slang (a half-done transwikification that I finished off last night). I'm certain that this is the best thing to do ... it may not be the best way to do it ... if not, then hang me. Jimp 07:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If these articles are being transwikied, what about Australian Diminutives? Most of the abbreviations in that article seem to already be listed in other articles about Aust English anyway. Asa01 02:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All but this one have been moved and, yes, I think you're right, Australian Diminutives should be moved too. At first glance it looks like an article but closer inspection reveals that it's just a poorly formatted list. You note, Asa01, that most of this stuff exists elsewhere, though. This is true, so what we could do instead of moving it would just be to redirect it here. However, this article is huge. What we could do is remove the diminutives from the general list on this page. This would perhaps be best. Jimp 1 December 2006 (UTC)

See discusion of Australian Diminutives article at Talk:Australian Diminutives Asa01 02:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I liked it better before, actually. There seems to be heaps of stuff missing.

You can still find all that stuff. Just click on the links in the boxes & you'll be in Wiktionary where the pages and pages of Aussie slang now happily live. Jimp 07:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhyming Slang

I disagree with the unverified supposition that rhyming slang has or is declining in popular use. My friends and I perform it frequently without even realising that it's called "rhyming slang". Perhaps someone can make a list page of rhyming slang expressions that people can add to.--Simonmetcalf (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's done

It's done. This long list of slang is finally in its dictionary. The encyclopædic stuff has been moved back here from Australian words. Of course, copy-&-paste moves are frowned upon at Wikipedia but this is mostly because we want to preserve history. This is not so much of an issue with the current text because most of the significant editing was done here anyway. Jimp 13:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Dinkum

Fair dinkum redirects here but is not defined anywhere on the page or in the various appendices. 205.118.21.137 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair dinkim? J i m p 07:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC) ... Try wikt:Appendix:Australian English vocabulary#F. J i m p 07:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the text now. Grant | Talk 07:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cobber

Some guy just called me Cobber. It also redirects here but there is nothing on a meaning?? HarveyDanger 00:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that we ever did have anything, before the list got shifted to the Wiktionary. I would say that its now too rare to rate a mention in this article. I have changed the redirect to mate (colloquialism). Grant | Talk 05:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maccas

With regards to: "Australians also often refer to McDonald's restaurants as Maccas, to the point that the corporation itself refers to itself verbally as such in advertising (but not in writing)." I think I just saw the other day a television advertisement where they actually had the text Maccas in the ad... if I see it again I'll make sure.

It is a silly point. Advertising will say anything legal if the advertiser thinks it will increase sales. Advertising isn't really relflective of reality, just a ploy to sell products. Format 05:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes cause they wouldn't say Mac Chucks or Mac Vomit as I call it.Enlil Ninlil 06:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schnitzel

"Australians also have difficulty pronouncing the 'sch' in the word Schnitzel (e.g. Weiner Schnitzel) correctly. It is commonly prounounced as Snitzel, omiting the ch sound."

I don't believe Australians have difficultly pronouncing the word correctly, but the ch sound is commonly omitted. Unless someone has a reference, this should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.107.100 (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's ignorance, rather than difficulty. It's only a decade or so since Australians learned to pronounce the the word "Nestlé" (the Swiss chocolate people) despite the accent acute always having been there. We used to say 'Nessul's Milk Choklut'.

And don't forget the 'schnapper' vs. 'snapper' problem. We mean the Silver Seabream, Pagrus auratus, which so many Aussies call a 'schnapper'. Once again, it's not a pronunciation problem. 121.44.117.95 (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The template is up for deletion on the grounds that it contains errors and it is not referenced. Can it be saved? J ɪ m p 15:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First line

An article has got problems when the first line has had a ^{[citation needed]} on it for so many months. If no one comes up with a reference I think I'll soon do some deleting. Format (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole first paragraph is very poorly written. Fribbler (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Line

I have just removed the following: The accent and humour of the Australian people is associated with the country of Australia and its unique geography including the outback and warm weather.

It seems to be a really pointless sentence. I am not sure really what it is trying to say. Obviously Australian English is associated with Australia. But linking in references to the weather and the outback seems to imply those things might have shaped or influenced the language. Did they? No? So I deleted it. Format (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duck Mole

Is the term "Duck Mole" ever used, or understood, in Australian English anymore? Chrisrus (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never used it. Wtf does it even mean? ozkidzez91 (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is claimed on the Internet in various places to be another English word for platypus, but I doubted it right away. I removed it from the Mole (disambiguation) page, and no one objected, but I left what I saw as a pretty useless redirect that sends a Wikipedia search for Duck Mole to the platypus. If you do a search on Google, you sometimes see it in a context like "...the platypus, or "duck mole"..." Maybe someone just made it up and it became a sort of Urban Myth that there exists or existed an alternative Australian English term "duck mole" that refers to the playpus, I'm guessing because it has a certain "truthiness"; it sounds true because "duck mole" seems such an apt name; so apt a name that people figure it should be the name for the animal; it looks like a duck mole; people wish it were called "duck mole"; just because it would be so much cooler that way. This is just a mere guess on my part, I should add. For all I know it's what Capitain Cook called it. Chrisrus (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's always hard to prove a negative, but speaking as an Australian of over 60 years, who has travelled and worked with people from all over the country, I've never heard of it. I'd suggest we need to be very demanding on the RELIABLE source aspect of this. If we don't have a mention from an extremely reliable source, it should go. HiLo48 (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess I wasn't really talking about this article, which I know I am supposed to do here. I came here to ask this question because the term was on Mole (disambiguation) from which I deleted the entry "Duck Mole" because I didn't believe it was real, but I wasn't sure, so I came here to ask about it, because I thought that here I'd find people who knew a lot about Australian English Vocabulary. So there's no real relation to this article; just to others. No source was given that "Duck Mole" was a real term, so I felt ok about deleting it, but wasn't %100 sure; but now I've confirmed it somewhat thanks to your kind response. The only thing left is to decide if the Duck Mole redirect to the article Platypus should remain. The place to talk about that would be the discussion page for the redirect, but chances are no one would respond there. I wasn't talking about altering this article in any way.Chrisrus (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of "duck mole". I have heard "duck-billed platypus" used (in the 1970s). In Australia these days "platypus" is the only term used. It is even a pun in the pop-culture novelty record "Australiana" by Austen Tayshus from 1983. It wouldn't have worked as a pun if the general public did not know what a "platypus" was. Format (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More confirmation that "Duck Mole" is not a real Australian term. Thank you for the kind reply. Chrisrus (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Duck mole" was used in Australia. The Trove database of Australian newspapers records it. Unfortunately it doesn't distinguish between the compound word "duck mole" and the occurrence of the word "duck" followed directly by "mole", so I haven't checked all 494 "occurrences", searching for "duck mole" and platypus in the same article gives 62 occurrences. First found occurrence referring to the platypus in a Trove digitalised Australian newspaper in 1826, occurrences peak in the 1890's and last recorded in Trove newspapers in 1936. The point is that it is obsolete now, that is was used very early and then probably propagated as a name that "was once given so now needs to be given again for clarity's sake", then dropped because no-one was really using it. The platypus article should record it as an obsolete name, this is an encyclopaedia, but it certainly is not now used, and probably was never very common as an Australian English word (fyi Trove gives 68,000 occurrences of "platypus" in its historical newspapers)Brunswicknic (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair dinkum - makes no sense

This sentence in the current article "ding kam, meaning "top gold", during the Australian goldrushes of the 1850s. This, however, is chronologically improbable since dinkum is first recorded in the 1890s." Doesn't make any sense. How is it chronologically improbable? The gold rushes were BEFORE 1890s that is clearly stated. Someone needs to do their research. Just because it's hard to swallow that such an "Aussie" word has Asian origins, doesn't make it wrong or improbable. twinqletwinqle (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC There are 34 examples in the Trove database of "fair dinkum" being used in the 1870s & 1880s, I am not sure when dinkum alone was fist used, OED might help, but statement above about 1890s is chronologically incorrectBrunswicknic (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer section

I'm suggesting it be removed because it doesn't contain any words of slang in it's section. 60.224.3.243 (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about slang. It's about words in normal usage in Australian English which either do not exist or have significantly different meanings elsewhere. The football/soccer fits the latter definition perfectly. HiLo48 (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Aussie spelling of the word "colour"

According to Wikipaedia, the Australian spelling for the word colour is "colour". But, I have always thought the Australian spelling is "color". Can someone verify this for me, please? Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 22:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's colour, absolutely, definitely, without question, etc. I do recall that around 20 years ago The Age newspaper in Melbourne tried spelling such words with the -or ending for a while, but gave up after some months when they encountered too much resistance and complaining from readers. HiLo48 (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Much appreciated. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 09:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bell peppers

My understanding is that the Americans just say 'peppers', not bell peppers. Can someone elaborate? --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 17:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Words of Australian Aboriginal origin - "Didgeridoo"

Why is "Didgeridoo" listed under "Words of Australian Aboriginal origin"? It isn't an Aboriginal word, it is of western origin, possibly Irish. See the actual article on "Didgeridoo". Cheers, Swampy 121.216.15.3 (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete

This should either be transferred to Australian English (specifically the vocabulary section, which is better written than this article) or deleted and transferred to wiktionary. Any comments ?Hollth (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toilet

Does Australian English use "toilet" for the room one goes into to relieve oneself? "Toilet" was originally a euphemism like "bathroom", "restroom", "washroom" and "water closet" originated as euphemisms https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/toilet. 2602:306:3653:8920:58E9:53A4:E4CA:753E (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

chunder

I would challenge the "most likely" claim for the Aussie rhyming slang. Alternative, and to my mind more plausible, explanations of its origin can be found in that same source. But it's far from clear cut? So I'm not even sure "Rhyming slang" is the best place to include it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a youngster I heard "Chunder Loo of Akim Foo" (as a racist epithet) long before I came across "chunder" (maybe in Martin Sharp's Oz) so it rang true when I read it in Oz Words all those years ago. Doug butler (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well Frederick Ludowyk gives no actual source for the ship theory in that blog article and nether does Humphries add much to that. So maybe wee need to look elsewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (6th edition) says "Probably rhyming slang Chunder Loo for ‘spew’, after a cartoon figure Chunder Loo of Akim Foo appearing in advertisements for Cobra boot polish". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that looks much more convincing. So it seems to it should stay where it is, with that top RS source. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

toilet / bathroom

Has anyone else noticed that even adults up to ~30 use "bathroom" now to mean toilet? Like the septics? I said to one seven year old the other day, it's called a bathroom because it has a bath in it. Said child disputed this, but couldn't explain why the room with the toilet (often on its own, not even with a sink/basin, let alone the full shower and/or bath) was called a bathroom. Americanisms ...