Talk:Australian Aboriginal English

Australia: Indigenous peoples Low‑importance

	Australia portal Australian Aboriginal English 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as Mid-importance).
	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.

Languages Low‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages 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.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

English Language Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language 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.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Australian Aboriginal English be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Australia may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

This article is ridiculous

What about LOL, laughing out loud, nope for no, bullshit, fuck, cobber, dickhead, cunt, asshole, faggot, shithead, pussy, bludger, cyborg, geek, the reality is that most white people in australia speak like this as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.221.244 (talk) 03:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Aboriginal English vs poor grammer

Currently this article simply lists a few examples of poor grammer, reflecting poor access to formal schooling and a high dropout rate among sectors of the aboriginal community.

This article really needs someone to come along and identify how what sound like / look like bad "standard english" grammer, are in fact a different dialect "australian aboriginal english".

--Ga rr ie 06:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the examples given in the article are good ones, They're found in numerous non-standard dialects of English, and I'm not really sure that the first one is truly part of AAE.

Many Aboriginal people with excellent education remain bi-dialectal and can switch between Standard Australian English (SAE) and AAE when appropriate, using AAE forms that you describe as 'poor grammar' when appropriate. You've got to remember that this is not 'poor grammar' though, but different grammar. Different languages and dialects have different rules: something that might seem bad to a speaker of (say) Standard Australian English (SAE) might seem perfectly correct to a speaker of (say) Yorkshire English, or Basque; and vice versa. I strongly sugget you follow the first link, to Diane Eades' pages on AAE and read them. Dougg 09:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different grammar is poor grammar, if you follow the assumption that everyone should be taught and use the standard. It's not something I agree with, but a lot of people think that way.

Some people believe non-standard forms lack grammar, and are just words randomly strung together. That's easily disproved. But some accept that they have rules, and simply think they should be obeying the standard rules instead. To combat that you'd need to show why linguistic assimilation is a bad thing, and I don't think that's within the scope of this article. --Ptcamn 10:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is less an article and more a list. Therefore shouldn't it be moved to wiktionery? Song and musical album titles aren't credible references, but they are used here as if they are. Format (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elites set the standard for language policy and orthography, grammar etc. States see one way of speaking as in its interest and inforce this view on their populations. The problem with the view that aborigines use "bad grammar" is that they have been obliged by a state they had no say in the creation thereof, to learn the grammatical rules of an alien language. The substrata of Australian indigenous languages that influence their use of English, are the results of the imposition of an alien culture and language and must be respected as an aspect of their necessity to use it and not used as a reason to criticise them for having to do so and "failing to do so correctly". Their linguistic variety will retain some predictable consistencies due to the influence of syntax and phonology from the languages they had taken from them by the imposition of "good" English grammar. Seamusalba (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Irish influence?

I wonder if there could be an Irish influence on the usage of the word "fellah/feller as this is common in Irish English Seamusalba (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and also, "Deadly" for very good, is very common in Ireland, particularly in Dublin. The use of "business" is also found in Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.170.45 (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Humbug

From my experience, humbug does not mean "to pester with inane or repetitive requests" it means to tell lies in order to deceive someone. As in, "Bullyman come take me away, but I just humbug him." (A policeman came to try to arrest me but I just told him a lot of lies.) That is original research but I see the current erroneous explanation isn't cited either. If there is no objection I will change this, (it is also reflected in the Albert Namatjira article). Rumiton (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While there is support for your view which helps avoid it being OR (see http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/34209453) my personal experience (also in the NT) is in agreement with the current version of the article's '...pester with inane or repetitive requests'. Can I suggest that you add the 'lies...' definition but retaining the current one, rather than replacing it? I'll try to find some research that supports the 'inane...' definition.Dougg (talk)

Seems to me the best translation for humbug would be "bullshit" (as a verb.) That would cover the pestering aspect as well. I have a problem with using humbug to describe demands made under kinship obligations. The claims may look "inane" to an outsider, especially when hard-earned money is diverted towards alcohol, but to those involved they are a form of insurance against their own future needs, and not humbug at all. Those who distribute the largess accept the situation, though they get frustrated as well. (The word "gammin" means much the same as humbug.) Rumiton (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These sources [1]and [2] seem to support the "bullshit" definition. Rumiton (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 'humbug' would be used to describe reasonable demands made under kinship obligations, but even here such demands can still be excessive and may then be described as 'humbug'. It's just that the bar for excessiveness is higher than in, say, typical western society. And re 'gammin', that usually refers to pretence or lies, more like 'bullshit', except not always meant to deceive. Dougg (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When would lies not be "meant to deceive?" Rumiton (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many lies are, for example, play and not meant to deceive: 'I'm an astronaut! Nah, I'm just gammin!' is something I've heard someone say on a remote Aboriginal community. There's also the technical usage of bullshit as a term in philosophy. Dougg (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. I once saw an exchange between an earnest young ABC TV interviewer plus cameraman and some far north qld aborigines. Their strategy was to say something absurd (about their spiritual beliefs) and if it was accepted, top it with something wilder. It worked for a while. So where are we with this subject? Rumiton (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about my original suggestion, that the 'lies...' definition be added to the current definition of 'humbug', rather than replacing it, and I'll try to find some research that supports the 'pester...' definition (or not). Dougg (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]