new film - cannot wait...


Recommended Posts

On 6/14/2019 at 5:32 AM, Ken Gargett said:

english, not Oz. 

Tomato toematoe. Sorry Ken, Of us colonial savages you guys are the most British-like. 

 Drive on the the right/correct side of the road, take the union Jack off your flag and stop speaking the queens English, then well complain about it. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BoliDan said:

Tomato toematoe. Sorry Ken, Of us colonial savages you guys are the most British-like. 

 Drive on the the right/correct side of the road, take the union Jack off your flag and stop speaking the queens English, then well complain about it. ?

well, we didn't need a war to escape, although technically, given old mate is still our head of state i guess we have not escaped. the best move that the monarchists here ever made was somehow getting that blowhard all-about-me fitzsimons as head of the repulican movement. it has no chance until someone competent and respected. 

as for driving, we are on the correct side. hey, you guys wanted to align yourselves with such traditional allies as china, russia and france. we held firm. and as is so often proven, merely because a slight majority (slight being a euphemism for a reasonable number) drive RHS, does not make it right. so unless we do a burma and swap because the king's astrologer had a dream, LHD it is. 

but the bad news i have for you is that like it or not, you guys also speak the queen's english. just a really bad version of it. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ken Gargett said:

 

but the bad news i have for you is that like it or not, you guys also speak the queen's english. just a really bad version of it. 

 

Sure, a bit. The Daniel Webster dictionary  was introduced as an intentional separation of  the language to establish national identity.  The differences from cambridge dictionary are mostly syllable placement but also some pronunciation. We clearly did not go the extent of not being able to understand each other. 

We also removed the frenchness in our spelling and spell things (mostly) phonetically rather than using a "re" for an "er" sound (ex. centre: wrong if read vs center: correct and someone learning the language would pronounce it properly). We removed the "ou" from words like colour, since "ou" is a hard "oo" sound as in "zoo" or "you", it is no longer used but also never adjusted for phonetically correctness. 

This is all ridiculous, of course, but I consider us to have Savage separatist English versus Queens, and much more proper as well as logical way of speaking/spelling for such an odd language that has seen more changes than possibly any other language in recordable history. 

So this all comes back to my point that you are basically just Eastern Brits. ? unconvincing, sure... This is why shouldn't argue while drinking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BoliDan said:

Sure, a bit. The Daniel Webster dictionary  was introduced as an intentional separation of  the language to establish national identity.  The differences from cambridge dictionary are mostly syllable placement but also some pronunciation. We clearly did not go the extent of not being able to understand each other. 

We also removed the frenchness in our spelling and spell things (mostly) phonetically rather than using a "re" for an "er" sound (ex. centre: wrong if read vs center: correct and someone learning the language would pronounce it properly). We removed the "ou" from words like colour, since "ou" is a hard "oo" sound as in "zoo" or "you", it is no longer used but also never adjusted for phonetically correctness. 

This is all ridiculous, of course, but I consider us to have Savage separatist English versus Queens, and much more proper as well as logical way of speaking/spelling for such an odd language that has seen more changes than possibly any other language in recordable history. 

So this all comes back to my point that you are basically just Eastern Brits. ? unconvincing, sure... This is why shouldn't argue while drinking. 

never heard it called the daniel webster dictionary. interesting. we have the macquarie dictionary for much the same reason. although you might have deeply offended oxford, calling it the cambridge dictionary. 

ask the poms if we are eastern brits. not sure they'd be happy with that. we just took the very best things britain offered - cricket, rugby etc - and then improved everything. in a place where you don't need webbed feet.

but churchill or shaw, depending on who you prefer, or i suspect even oscar W, had it spot on for you and the poms - two nations divided by a common language. when i lived in the states, i was regularly complimented on how well i'd learnt to speak english. usually just said nothing but finally one pompous was one too many. 'yes, and now i speak it far better than you'. but most were well meaning and in those days, 99% had never heard an aussie other than paul hogan and 95% had no idea where we were or anything about us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ken Gargett said:

never heard it called the daniel webster dictionary. interesting. 

Noah Webster... sorry, Daniel Webster was a secretary of state around the same time.

1 hour ago, Ken Gargett said:

although you might have deeply offended oxford, calling it the cambridge dictionary. 

Point taken. Although, when are either of them not offended by each other?

1 hour ago, Ken Gargett said:

we just took the very best things britain offered - cricket, rugby etc - and then improved everything. i

Incorrect, and another point that has you spiraling towards your Englishness... However, I do like Oz rules football. 

1 hour ago, Ken Gargett said:

 i was regularly complimented on how well i'd learnt to speak english. usually just said nothing but finally one pompous was one too many. 'yes, and now i speak it far better than you'. 

It's true, on one hand it is sad how diminutive our speech has become. On the other hand, it is mostly cultural and not necessarily a reflection on intelligence of the speaker. Even those of us with grandiloquent abilities find ourselves reaching for the simplest speech, oddly.

1 hour ago, Ken Gargett said:

other than paul hogan.

But you dress and talk like Mr. Hogan, right? Don't you ruin my vision of Ozzies, Ken! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BoliDan said:

Noah Webster... sorry, Daniel Webster was a secretary of state around the same time.

was not having a go at you for this. had not heard of either. you could have told me it was ozymandias webster and i would have believed you. 

 

1 minute ago, BoliDan said:

Point taken. Although, when are either of them not offended by each other?

true. 

1 minute ago, BoliDan said:

Incorrect, and another point that has you spiraling towards your Englishness... However, I do like Oz rules football. 

on this one, we will definitely have to disagree. as evidence, we go over there for a year or two in our twenties to explore, have fun, enjoy ourselves and travel. we come home. they come over here and stay. and stay. 

1 minute ago, BoliDan said:

It's true, on one hand it is sad how diminutive our speech has become. On the other hand, it is mostly cultural and not necessarily a reflection on intelligence of the speaker. 

sadly, i think you are half right. speech has gone that way everywhere. and yes, sad. but for me, the wave of an almost new language for texting and whatever kids are doing is going even further and will get worse. for me, it is most definitely not an indication of increasing intelligence. but then i am of the view that humans have not only stuffed this world, so many are determined to ignore or deny that, that the planet is doomed. so it hardly matters. not sure how we went from a little indie flick involving the boss to the end of civilisation and the destruction of the planet. 

 

1 minute ago, BoliDan said:

But you dress and talk like Mr. Hogan, right? Don't you ruin my vision of Ozzies, Ken! 

he copied me!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, BoliDan said:

Sure, a bit. The Daniel Webster dictionary  was introduced as an intentional separation of  the language to establish national identity.  The differences from cambridge dictionary are mostly syllable placement but also some pronunciation. We clearly did not go the extent of not being able to understand each other. 

We also removed the frenchness in our spelling and spell things (mostly) phonetically rather than using a "re" for an "er" sound (ex. centre: wrong if read vs center: correct and someone learning the language would pronounce it properly). We removed the "ou" from words like colour, since "ou" is a hard "oo" sound as in "zoo" or "you", it is no longer used but also never adjusted for phonetically correctness. 

This is all ridiculous, of course, but I consider us to have Savage separatist English versus Queens, and much more proper as well as logical way of speaking/spelling for such an odd language that has seen more changes than possibly any other language in recordable history. 

So this all comes back to my point that you are basically just Eastern Brits. ? unconvincing, sure... This is why shouldn't argue while drinking. 

The argument will carry more weight when you start saying herbs instead of "erbs" and basil instead of "bayzel"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

 

but the bad news i have for you is that like it or not, you guys also speak the queen's english. just a really bad version of it. 

 

My wife was born and raised in Dublin. She speaks the King’s English. 

I can assure you, I don’t. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.