Mark Gallagher wrote:
There's a big, wonderful, English-speaking world out there that aren't American, and we aren't British, either.
Apparently in that wonderful world of English for non-British non-Americans, people has some interesting rules for subject-verb agreement.
--Michael Snow
On 6/12/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
There's a big, wonderful, English-speaking world out there that aren't American, and we aren't British, either.
Apparently in that wonderful world of English for non-British non-Americans, people has some interesting rules for subject-verb agreement.
Yep, there's definitely some interesting grammar rules in Australian english.
Steve
On 13/06/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/12/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
There's a big, wonderful, English-speaking world out there that aren't American, and we aren't British, either.
Apparently in that wonderful world of English for non-British non-Americans, people has some interesting rules for subject-verb agreement.
Yep, there's definitely some interesting grammar rules in Australian english.
And as such, these rules should be accommodated for on the "English" wikipedia.
Peter Ansell
Peter Ansell wrote:
On 13/06/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/12/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
There's a big, wonderful, English-speaking world out there that aren't American, and we aren't British, either.
Apparently in that wonderful world of English for non-British non-Americans, people has some interesting rules for subject-verb agreement.
Yep, there's definitely some interesting grammar rules in Australian english.
And as such, these rules should be accommodated for on the "English" wikipedia.
There's a tendency to prefer "standard" British and American English, and variations on those such that they're relatively similar or a blend (like Canadian English). I'm not sure this is codified anywhere, but it's mostly a practical matter to maximize its usefulness---American and British English are the most widely familiar and understood varieties of English.
Australian English isn't particularly discriminated against in this regard, any more so than African-American Vernacular English, standard southern-US English, Singapore English, or various other less common varieties. I certainly don't think less of any of those varieties (being from the southern US myself), but as a practical matter I wouldn't write an encyclopedia article for a worldwide English-speaking audience in any of them.
That said the occasional oddity from smaller versions of English doesn't bother me as long as everything's easily understandable (i.e. no regional slang, and that including either UK or US slang).
-Mark
On 6/13/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
There's a tendency to prefer "standard" British and American English, and variations on those such that they're relatively similar or a blend (like Canadian English). I'm not sure this is codified anywhere, but it's mostly a practical matter to maximize its usefulness---American and British English are the most widely familiar and understood varieties of English.
The Manual of Style suggests that articles about a region/dialect, or with a strong connection to that region/dialect, should use that dialect.
So Canadian articles should use Canadian English, eh? Australian articles should bloody well use Australian English, mate. New Zealand articles... well, you get the point bro.
[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of...
That said the occasional oddity from smaller versions of English doesn't bother me as long as everything's easily understandable (i.e. no regional slang, and that including either UK or US slang).
Yes, there are common sense limits of course. (I wonder if it's possible to write in BBC English?)