Australia not Australian

[OzSpen]

The title of this thread is, 'Australian & New Zealand'. Australian is an adjective and it is combined with the proper noun, New Zealand.

To be grammatically correct, the thread title should be 'Australia & New Zealand'.
The Collins Dictionary (online) provides this explanation:

1. adjective
Australian means belonging or relating to Australia, or to its people or culture.

She went solo backpacking for eight months in the Australian outback.
2. countable noun
An Australian is someone who comes from Australia (Collins Dictionary online 2018. s.v. Australian)​

Therefore, the directory heading should be 'Australia & New Zealand'.

Oz

​

 

[JackRT]

The title of this thread is, 'Australian & New Zealand'. Australian is an adjective and it is combined with the proper noun, New Zealand.

To be grammatically correct, the thread title should be 'Australia & New Zealand'.
The Collins Dictionary (online) provides this explanation:

1. adjective
Australian means belonging or relating to Australia, or to its people or culture.

She went solo backpacking for eight months in the Australian outback.
2. countable noun
An Australian is someone who comes from Australia (Collins Dictionary online 2018. s.v. Australian)​

Therefore, the directory heading should be 'Australia & New Zealand'.

Oz

​

Agreed. Now that we have that settled, what are we to do with rest of this thread?

 

[Basil the Great]

Long live Australia and New Zealand!

 

[Occams Barber]

The title of this thread is, 'Australian & New Zealand'. Australian is an adjective and it is combined with the proper noun, New Zealand.

To be grammatically correct, the thread title should be 'Australia & New Zealand'.
The Collins Dictionary (online) provides this explanation:

1. adjective
Australian means belonging or relating to Australia, or to its people or culture.

She went solo backpacking for eight months in the Australian outback.
2. countable noun
An Australian is someone who comes from Australia (Collins Dictionary online 2018. s.v. Australian)​

Therefore, the directory heading should be 'Australia & New Zealand'.

Oz

​

When you live in Australian you get to know these things.
OB

 

[JackRT]

When you live in Australian you get to know these things.
OB

A Canadian would never be guilty of such a gross violation of the rules of grammar.

 

[Occams Barber]

A Canadian would never be guilty of such a gross violation of the rules of grammar.

Perhaps that's because Canadia don't have no rules of grammer ehh!
OB

 

[SkyWriting]

The title of this thread is, 'Australian & New Zealand'. Australian is an adjective and it is combined with the proper noun, New Zealand.

To be grammatically correct, the thread title should be 'Australia & New Zealand'.
The Collins Dictionary (online) provides this explanation:

1. adjective
Australian means belonging or relating to Australia, or to its people or culture.

She went solo backpacking for eight months in the Australian outback.
2. countable noun
An Australian is someone who comes from Australia (Collins Dictionary online 2018. s.v. Australian)​

Therefore, the directory heading should be 'Australia & New Zealand'.

Oz

​

Everyone seems to be in agreement. Phewww!

 

[OzSpen]

When you live in Australian you get to know these things.
OB

OB,

Late last week I uploaded a lengthy article to my homepage, Truth Challenge, that I've titled: Language police take aim:[1] English grammar takes a nose dive in importance

It consists of grammatical errors I've discovered through my everyday reading of academics, newspapers (including online), dictionaries and Christian forms.

You'll gather I'm a language policeman. Or, should that be linguistic policeman? (yes, I'm a male, so 'man' is OK).

A Quora entry explained:

The word “language” itself can be placed before the subject noun as an “attributive noun,” a noun serving an adjectival function. For example, the phrase “language barrier” is very common.​

You might be interested in the reply I received from a person representing the Translation Committee for the NIV.

Do you follow prescriptive grammar or descriptive grammar?

Oz

 

[prodromos]

Long live Australia and New Zealand!

Long live Canadia!

 

[Occams Barber]

OB,

Late last week I uploaded a lengthy article to my homepage, Truth Challenge, that I've titled: Language police take aim:[1] English grammar takes a nose dive in importance

It consists of grammatical errors I've discovered through my everyday reading of academics, newspapers (including online), dictionaries and Christian forms.

You'll gather I'm a language policeman. Or, should that be linguistic policeman? (yes, I'm a male, so 'man' is OK).

You might be interested in the reply I received from a person representing the Translation Committee for the NIV.

Do you follow prescriptive grammar or descriptive grammar?

Oz

You might be surprised to hear that linguistics was a (minor) part of my (very old) psych degree and that I have an ongoing interest in the evolution of English starting from it's deep origins in Proto Indo-European. As a result I tend to be aware of Englishes as they are spoke and writ. CF, for instance, is a goldmine of idiomatic Americanese - I have lists of examples.

I am more inclined to descriptive grammar, although there are times... The current Australian habit of confusing 'there's' for 'there are', which has even invaded the hallowed halls of the ABC, is a constant niggle.

Overall I ain't really pedantic as long as meaning is retained. Prescriptive grammar can often take itself a little too seriously.
OB

 

[Paidiske]

The other possibility might be that we need an adjectival or possessive form of "New Zealand." Given that we have American Politics, for example, it would be consistent to have Australian and New Zealandic (basing that form on the adjectival form of Zeeland, from which New Zealand gets its name). Or we could go for Australian and Kiwi?

 

[Occams Barber]

The other possibility might be that we need an adjectival or possessive form of "New Zealand." Given that we have American Politics, for example, it would be consistent to have Australian and New Zealandic (basing that form on the adjectival form of Zeeland, from which New Zealand gets its name). Or we could go for Australian and Kiwi?

To be absolutely correct about this, if we are to adopt the possessive form, we should refer to the Forum as:

Strine & InZiddish
​

to ensure that we pay homage to their native tongues.
OB

 

[prodromos]

To be absolutely correct about this, if we are to adopt the possessive form, we should refer the Forum as:

Strine & InZiddish
​

to ensure that we pay homage to their native tongues.
OB

Good ol' Professor Lauder

 

[Go Braves]

Agreed. Now that we have that settled, what are we to do with rest of this thread?

Let's address the problem with y'all! Every Southerner worth his salt knows it's spelled that way, but other folks keep on spelling it ya'll. It's a contraction of you and all. Y'all.

 

[Go Braves]

A Canadian would never be guilty of such a gross violation of the rules of grammar.

Ok, question for you since you're in Canada. Do y'all just call Canadian bacon bacon?

Question for the folks in NZ. Here we call the fruit kiwi, kiwi. Do y'all call it that too since you're also known as kiwis? Which I believe is on account of the bird, not the fruit?

 

[Occams Barber]

Good ol' Professor Lauder

Your familiarity with the great Afferbeck Lauder suggests an in-depth appreciation of Strine as she is spoke in Straya.

I am impressed.
OB

 

[JackRT]

Ok, question for you since you're in Canada. Do y'all just call Canadian bacon bacon?

What the unwashed masses call "Canadian bacon", we call "back bacon" or "peameal bacon". All that is because "Canadian bacon bacon" is just so awkward and rather redundant.

 

[Occams Barber]

Let's address the problem with y'all! Every Southerner worth his salt knows it's spelled that way, but other folks keep on spelling it ya'll. It's a contraction of you and all. Y'all.

Y'all along with 'youse' and 'you'ns' all started life as unconscious attempts to correct a major deficiency in the English language - the absence of separate singular and plural forms of 'you'. 'You' can refer to one person or many - only the context can make it clear.

Although 'y'all' was probably originally reserved for the plural form it has over time become used for both the singular and plural forms. As a result 'y'all' is now no more linguistically useful than the 'you' it replaced.
OB

 

[Go Braves]

What the unwashed masses call "Canadian bacon", we call "back bacon" or "peameal bacon". All that is because "Canadian bacon bacon" is just so awkward and rather redundant.

Never heard of peameal bacon before. Just looked it up. It's not what I'd think of as being bacon but it looks pretty darn good.

So you'd call this back bacon or peameal bacon? You spell center like how the Brits do, don't you? Centre, not center. I wonder why we call it Canadian bacon if that's not what y'all call it.

 

[JackRT]

Never heard of peameal bacon before. Just looked it up. It's not what I'd think of as being bacon but it looks pretty darn good.
View attachment 246317

View attachment 246318
So you'd call this back bacon or peameal bacon? You spell center like how the Brits do, don't you? Centre, not center. I wonder why we call it Canadian bacon if that's not what y'all call it.

Seeing as it comes from Wisconsin, it is not Canadian bacon --- some sort of "mystery meat" maybe?