Use contact page to ask Kel a question (or make a comment)
Q: Hi Kel When i listen to radio programmes or read the correctly spelt programme (now a rarity) 'what is on the agenda', the more commonly used and compressed word is 'program', must surely be American? That aside, when researching 'programme is both noun and verb yet, on analysis of the two is difficult to distinguish any real difference? Cheers, Campbell, Carins.
A: The word "program" (both noun and verb) means "listed in order" (making it reasonable to use in place of "agenda"). The original spelling in English was "program" but in the 17th century the French spelling "programme" was adopted in Britain. "Program" remains the standard American spelling (and the spelling used in the computing industry).
Q: Hi Kel. This time I've been wondering about demonyms; I know some beauties :- Mancunian (Manchester), Skauser/Liverpudlian, Geordie (Newcastle U.K.), Novocastrian (Newcastle N.S.W.), Cariocan (The river of January/Rio de Janeiro), Salopian (Shrops. - I think). Just wanting to find out if there are demonyms for Wollongong, Alice Springs, Cairns? Scott, Point Pass.
A: The most common demonyms (from the Greek "demos" = "people") are for states. Queenslanders are ‘banana benders’ (or ‘banana-landers’); West Australians are ‘sand gropers’; New South Welshpersons were (in colonial times) known as ‘cornstalks’; Victorians (in the same period) were ‘gumsuckers’; Folk from the Northern Territory are simply called “Territorians” – although they used to be called “Top Enders”; Tasmanians were, back in the colonial era, known as ‘van demonians’ – more recently they’ve either been straightforwardly “Tasmanians” or else “Taswegians” (modelled on such words as “Glaswegian” or “Norwegian”); this word “Taswegian” (apparently) having begun life in the 1930s as sailors’ slang; and as for South Australians: there are two options – they were either called ‘crow eaters’ or else ‘magpies’. Of those two I suspect that ‘crow eaters’ was more common in colonial times – especially north of the Goyder Line where farmers tried to grow wheat in an excessively arid climate, failed, and suffered from a scanty diet as a result. Hence, ‘crow eaters’.
Q: Hi Kel What is the meaning and origin of the term "Gaslighting" ? It's cropping up often in political discourse. Geoff, Kaleen, ACT.
A: It comes from a 1944 movie called "Gaslight" starring Charles Boyer and Ingrid Bergman. It's a psychological thriller based on an earlier (1940) British movie. The story is about a plot by Boyer to convince his wife (Bergman) she is going mad. Used politically "gaslighting" now means psychological manipulation. For instance, the Cambridge dictionary has this definition, "gaslighting" means : "to trick or control someone by making them believe that their memories or beliefs about something are wrong, especially by suggesting that they may be mentally ill."
Q: All this emphasis on which pronouns do people prefer is quite confusing to me. I heard someone say on a tv program recently that "they" is the person's preferred pronoun. I just wonder when someone would actually use "they". If I were addressing the person, I would use the person's given name, and perhaps say "you" and if the person were talking he/she would probably say "I, my, me" - only if I were talking about the person would I use their preferred pronoun "they" - so it seems rather odd to hear someone say they feel relieved to say "they " is their preferred pronoun. I would never address someone as "they" or is this what is required? I note Alan Joyce, Qantas, wants preferred pronouns displayed on cabin crew name badges - really? I can't imagine addressing someone as "they" - so what does it all actually mean? Ruth, Belconnen.
A: It hard to believe that "preferred pronouns" will ever become part of normal, functional English. Trying to replace the centuries old pronouns (he/she, his/hers, I/me, they/them) will surely turn out to be a futile gesture. If it became widespread it would make English prose impossibly confusing. Pronouns only work when it is clear which names/persons they refer to. English simply won't work as a language if that is not clear. It strikes me as a bit mindless virtue signalling that will come and go as a Woke fad.
Q: I find it particularly jarring when people say "could of" instead of "could have" - heard a journalist say the words about 5 times on ABC Insiders last week. Also heard Sir Ian Botham describing the relationship between the UK and Australia - he said well we have been "toe to toe" in the world wars - really?? did he perhaps mean "shoulder to shoulder" - confusing cliches I think. Ruth, Belconnen.
A: Botham's mistake is an amusing one -- he wanted an idiom that had us standing one (body part) to another (body part) and it came out completely muddled. The "could of" mistake is very irritating -- especially when it comes from intelligent people who, if they stopped to think, would never say it. Such mistakes, as I say so often, come from either a lazy mouth or a lazy mind -- this one comes from both.
Q: We often hear, 'Like I said', or, 'Like I say.' Surely this is Yank-speak. I'm sure it ought to be: 'As I said,' Another pet: Circumstahnces or circumstances, with a short 'a'. I think I'm correct in saying that Paul Murray is the only one, apart from yourself, to get it right. In other words the word itself should be pronounced as in 'instances', i.e. with the indeterminate vowel sound for the 'a'. John, Peppermint Grove, WA.
A: The replacement of "as" by "like" in a number of phrases irritates me, and I have written about in these pages in the past. The vowel sound you are talking about in the word "circumstances" is the shortest vowel in the English language. Linguists have a name for it -- the call it the "schwa" sound. It can be written down as "uh" but it is said as an almost unvoiced grunt.
Q: Origin of the word Rigmarole. Geoffrey, Leeds.
A: It means "a complicated procedure" and is recorded from 1736. It's thought to be a variation on "ragman roll". This was an expression for a document (a roll or scroll) listing laws and requirements issued during the reign of Edward I (back in the 1200s). It has been suggested that the first element of this word ("rag") is an allusion to the many seals, parchment strips, or threads hanging from the documents concerned.
Q: (1) Alongside 'spick and span', I used to hear 'tickety-boo' meaning all is well. I think it has gone from the language, more's the pity. A question on imported words. I understand that a foreign word imported to English comes 'as is' - that is the traditional English language conventions apply to its use as imported, for example and the plural of ombudsman (apparently a combination of 'commission' and 'people') would be, despite the awkwardness, 'ombudsmans'. I would appreciate your views, many thanks. Michael, New Farm, QLD
A: (1) "Tickety boo" is recorded from 1939 and is thought to be a jocular way of saying "all is correct" based on a similar sounding Hindi expression. (2) "As is" is American in origin (from 1895) and originally applied to goods for sale. (3) "Ombudsman" is a borrowing from Swedish (recorded in English from 1824 -- it originated in Sweden in 1809). It is would be rare to need to talk about more than one, so perhaps we don't need a plural form.
Q: Hi Kel, - Interested to know the correct pronunciation of 'mall' ie shopping mall. I have an English born friend (lived here since 1966) and she pronounces it like in 'mal', 'pal', 'gal' - I always thought it weird and should sound like "call, hall, stall" etc. Recently with the Queen's coronation celebrations, the reporters were also pronouncing it like my English born friend does - so therefore maybe I've got it wrong or just a difference between the two different lands. Leonie, Eagle Vale.
A: There is an interesting inconsistency in the accepted British pronunciations of these words. Words such as "call, hall, stall, hall" use the 'ORL' pronunciation. However, when speaking of Pall Mall in London, the British will usually say the 'AL' sound -- both "Pall" and "Mall" rhyming with "pal" and "gal." So, whether you pronounce a shopping mall with an 'ORL' sound or an 'AL' sound will depend whether you are connecting it in your mind with the "all" group or with "Pall Mall."
Q: What is the correct way to say the following words: Contribute Distribute Clandestine Thanks, Mark, Melbourne.
A: "Contribute" and "distribute" (I believe) should both have the stress on the second syllable ("trib...") this being the most natural rhythm in English for a great many words. With "clandestine" I would also stress the second second syllable--despite the fact many people stress the first.
Q: I hear people say "hoist by their own petard" or "foist by their own petard". Which is correct and from where does this originate? Charles, Highfield.
A: It is "hoist" in the sense of "lifted up" by their own petard. A "petard" was a primitive sort of bomb in the early days of gunpowder. They were notoriously unstable, and if it exploded while the sapper was putting it into place, the poor soldier was (literally) "hoist by his own petard." And that is how the metaphorical use developed -- if you are laying a metaphorical "bomb" for someone else, and it goes off in your face you are said to be "hoist by your own petard."
Q: Kel - whenever there is a attributed terrorist atrocity the media report is usually "so and so group has claimed responsibility". Though correct by definition I would prefer the media report instead that "so and so group has claimed irresponsibility" to reflect that the action itself is not in any way acceptable. Wishful thinking. Gary, Tin Can Bay.
A: Yes, it is wishful thinking! And as you yourself acknowledge it possible to be "responsible" (or "held responsible") for evil actions as well as good ones. We don't wish to imply that terrorists are "irresponsible" in the sense of "not responsible due to mental illness." Let's hold them responsible!
Q: Dear Kel, You have covered many of the miss-pronunciations & usages of the English language that annoy me & you quite probably have commented on this one too previously & I have missed it. The use of “two times” instead of “twice”, which is more clumsy & longer. I look forward to your weekly spot with Peta Credlin. Kind regards, Maggie, Collins Creek via Kyogle, NSW.
A: The meaning of "twice" is "two times" -- but unless reciting multiplication tables, it is correct to say "twice." I wonder of those people who don't use it, just don't know it? I worry about the level of verbal ignorance in parts of our society today.
Q: Why are some people pronouncing the word data as darta? Rhonda, Maroochydore.
A: According to research done by the Oxford English Dictionary both pronunciations -- DAY-tah and DAH-tah -- are used and are considered acceptable in both Britain and in the United States. It comes from Latin, and since sound recordings do not exist from the days of the Roman empire we cannot know for sure how they said it. Lets just accept that some people say it one way, and some people another.
Q: The modern English word for "next after the first" is SECOND, which is the Latin word for "following". Can you explain what was the original english word that corresponds to the german "zweite"? I suppose that "twain" may mean this as well as "twice", but I have not encountered, for instance, "TWITE". Martyn, Evatt.
A: The German word "zweit" means exactly the same as the English word "second." And "twain" means "two" not "twice." So we don't need your cleverly invented word of "twite."
Q: Hi Kel, I enjoy your segment on Credlin. I notice that "centered around" has become common usage. I have always considered "centered on" to be correct. Also I have a query about "no other" rather than "none other" as in "not one other" Am I being old fashioned or just pedantic? Regards Geoffrey, Moss Vale.
A: Welcome to the club! Yes, we are all being pedantic, and the language benefits from our pedantry. Logically and linguistically "centred around" is as acceptable as "centred on." Your "no other" / "none other" question depends largely on context. In the sentence "It was none other than John himself" -- that form of words is correct (because "none" is being used to mean "no one"... it was no one but John himself). In that context "no other than John himself" would be wrong -- a misplaced negation.
Q: Kel. Dear sir. I love your segment on Credlin. In my long lifetime I would often start a response with “ well.” Almost overnight, it seemed, the whole English speaking world were replacing “well” with “so”. Might I ask, why is it so and how did that happen. Recognising that both are sort of filler words, without meaning. Time to think of a response, perhaps. Monica, Wodonga.
A: It's an interesting question, and the answer is not clear. Both are very old words, and both can be used as adverbs or conjunctions. "So" has long carried the notion of "therefore" or "as indicated." "Well" on the other hand -- when it is not be used as a word of comparative approval but as a sentence opener -- seems to function as little more than a drawing of mental breath. If "well" at the start of a sentence means anything, it would be something along the lines of "let me think about that." Why there should be a general or common switch from one to the other baffles me. Perhaps people have become more concerned about making their ideas appear to hold together as a logical chain?
Q: Dear Kel, I work in a legal office and the lawyers here are not using the word 'may' correctly. I just need you to verify I am correct. For example: "May you please confirm your instructions to proceed in that regard" And another: "May you please confirm the date proposed for the meeting". I think it should be 'can you please...' , or 'could you please ...' Am I correct? Thanks so much Kel. Anne, Taren Point.
A: In school (in the old prescriptivist days of grammar) I was taught that "may" means "permission" and "can" means "ability." A child who asked "Can I leave the room, please sir?" would be told "Yes, you have the ability, but first you need my permission." The baffled child would think for a moment and then say "May I leave the room, please sir?" But it turns out to be a bit more complicated than that. "Can" has certainly expressed the possession of physical or mental ability since the days of Old English -- but it also expresses the idea of future possibility. And both "may" and "can" have been used historically to express future possibilities. Those clumsy, awkward sentences you quoted were struggling to express the notion of future possibility. But I think the language used would strike most people as odd, and they would work better as "can" sentences.
Q: Hi Kel, It is always great to hear you segments on the radio. I even remember you doing a walk through the old 2GB building, broadcasting live, whilst chatting to your office colleagues. I am pretty sure it was a Friday night shift ! Anyhow, I was talking to my father-in-law recently. The subject of bicycles came up, then he recalled (in the 1940's - 50's) when going for a ride, a common nickname for the bike was GRID. I have done some basic research that confirms the word was used here in Australia sometimes as a progressive pro-noun. Do you have any further hints where this term originated? John, Ermington.
A: This may make me sound very old -- but a bike could still be called a "grid" when I was a small boy! This is a distinctively Australian expression -- only here was this nickname used. It was applied to bikes because of the connected framework of bars from which a bike is made. Sadly, it is now one of those Aussie nicknames that has died out.
Q: Dear Kel, I grew up in Western Sydney and our evening meal was described as tea or tea time. For example, “Mum what’s for tea?” Or “ we’re having rissoles for tea tonight “ . I still use the term, but I notice most people seem to describe tea as dinner now, sounds very American to me. My question is ,was tea the Australian norm to describe the evening meal and it has changed to become more American? I think we used to call lunch dinner time. Anyway, interested in your thoughts. Stephen, Gin Gin.
A: I also grew up in a household where the evening meal was called "tea." The names of the various meals of the day have shifted over the years in English. "Dinner" was originally (from around 1325) the first main meal of the day -- so what we would now called "lunch." Then from the mid 1600s that meal came to be called "luncheon" (shortened to "lunch") and the name "dinner" shifted to an evening meal. From the mid 1700s "tea" became the name for a meal served in the afternoon or evening (when tea was the beverage served with the meal). This became especially the case here in Australia and New Zealand and in the northern parts of England. The last meal of the day could also be called "supper." So the naming of meals was always itself a moveable feast!
Q: Hi Kel, Is irregardless a word? I presume the correct word should be either regardless or irrespective. Cheers, Maggie, Ropes Crossing.
A: As irritating (and odd) as it sounds to us "irregardless" is a real word, found in the pages of the Oxford English Dictionary -- although they add "non standard." The OED labels it a humorous usage, of American origin (from 1912).
Q: I often read and hear references to “talents” and “fruits” to denote many of each. Surely this is not correct in the English language? Can you advise and clarify please? I recall being taught at school that talent refers to either a singular or plural context and hence there is no requirement to “pluralise” the word by clumsily adding an “S.” Similarly for fruit; it’s a basket of fruit regardless of whether the basket is made up of a variety of fruit types or a single fruit type, and regardless of the number of pieces of fruit in that basket! Guido, Preston, VIC.
A: It's an interesting question. Some words work as both plural and singular -- "sheep" for example. No one (except a small child) would say "sheeps." Does this apply to "talent" and "fruit"? I suspect not. It would be grammatically correct to say that Fred has many talents (he can play the piano, tap dance, and do mental arithmetic). Can we also say that many different fruits grow in the tropics? I think so.
Q: Many people use “try and”. Shouldn’t the correct usage be “ try to”?In the sentence …”I shall try and reach the target.” It means that you will reach the target when it may not necessarily be so. I think “try to” is correct. Catherine, Sandy Beach.
A: So do I! Years ago "try and..." was called a marker or indicator (indicating what social class or educational level the speaker came from). Sadly it is now so common that "try and..." has become a kind of nonsensical idiom.
Q: Hi Kel. I remain incredulous that the term “walk the talk” - meaning do what you say you are going to do/ put your money where your mouth is - has morphed into “walk the walk”. It is used in the first context but is meaningless if thought about for a nano second. Love your few mins on Wed evening Sky. Regards, Val, Edmonton.
A: I am as puzzled as you, Val. "Walk the walk" is as meaningless as "the proof is in the pudding." Clearly some people just rattle off what they think is an English idiom with no thought and no understanding of what they are saying.
Q: Hi Kel, On the Credlin show you stated that rainchecks were no longer needed in American baseball cos all of the stadiums have roofs. On the contrary, very few baseball stadiums have roofs so rainchecks still occur. Most often due to scheduling difficulties most rained out games are quickly rescheduled as double headers. BTW have you ever brought up with Peta my observations on the stupendous frequency of speakers starting their sentences with well, now, at the end of the day, etc? Cheers, Jim, Helensville.
A: Thank you for your correction. You now officially join my Panel of Experts! Yes, I have discussed with Peta what we call the "irritating verbal tics" you refer to.
Q: Hello Kel, I wondered what your take would be on pronunciation of the word Biloela. I have heard it commonly referred to as “Bil-a–weela”, but personally thought it was pronounced like "bill–wailer". Is this word perhaps Aboriginal in its origin? Sincerely, James.
A: According to James Kennedy's highly authoritative book "Australian Place Names" the well-established correct pronunciation is "bill-oh-wheel-a". It does, as you guess, come from a local indigenous word meaning "cockatoo."
Q: I have a question, both grammatical and political, if you please; Q. What is the difference, if any, between the following two references to the South China Sea, both made by Defence Minister Mr Marles, while at the Singapore defence conference about China's militarisation in the South China Sea; 1. Responding to a question from Kieran Gilbert, Sunday Agenda June 12 in relation to the Chinese "assertion of authority in" he followed with the term "the South China Sea"; and, 2. During a speech to the conference delegates and journalists the previous day in relation to "the militarisation of" he followed with the term "the South Chinese Sea", muffling the word 'Chinese'. Does the change from China to Chinese imply ownership I wonder? A slip of the tongue I doubt; or the stroke of a Chinese Govt. red pen? Phil, Bancroft, QLD.
A: Legally (and linguistically) there is no such place as the "South Chinese Sea." No such body of water exists. Under the internal law of the sea on the margin of the Western Pacific is something called the "South China Sea." Let's be generous and say that Richard Marles had a slip of the tongue -- and was not making a diplomatic (or not so diplomatic!) point.
Q: The phrase "Sticking your head in the sand" refers. The phrase has its origins from the tale that ostriches stick their heads in the sand whenever a predator is near. Therefor if they don't see the predator, it won't be really there. Problem is that ostriches do not stick their head in the sand - never have and never will. So it is based on an inaccurate assumption. Now, knowing this will people continue using the phrase, or will they just stick their heads in the sand? Jake, Brisbane.
A: You are quite right, of course--but English idioms can be based on myths or fictions as well as facts, and on that basis I guess we can go on using it (even knowing it to be factually untrue).
Q: Good morning Kel My question is about the word "who". I'm in my 80's and grew up using the word "who" in relation to people. eg "The person who is there" but I rarely hear the word "who" as it is the word "that" most commonly used. eg "The person that is there." I find myself correcting the word in my mind and I'm starting to wonder if perhaps the word "that" is actually correct. I would appreciate your take on this. Regards, Lyn, Dee Why.
A: "Who" is used as a pronoun (what it called an interrogative pronoun) or (sometimes) as a noun--to refer to persons. "That" is also a pronoun (a demonstrative pronoun... Professor Pam Peters calls it "the workhorse of the English language"). The difference, it seems to me, is the "who" is personal (and can only ever be used of persons) while "that" is impersonal and can refer to objects other than people (things, actions etc.). Prescriptivists would say that when referring to people "who" must always be used. And I would agree that in writing (where we expect a higher level of precision) that is correct. But spoken English is looser, and "that" is allowed to refer to persons in the spoken language.
Q: Hi Kel, My theme for today is words of two syllables. The accuracy level of the pronunciation of these words is in freefall. The stress on the syllable changes the meaning, eg CONtent as opposed conTENT, CONtract and conTRACT. The pronunciation changes the part of speech and the meaning. I fear it is part of the Americanisation of Australian English and is now commonplace in the media. The worst example of this poor level of pronunciation is the word "frequent" - FREquent means that it happens often, freQUENT means to be somewhere often. To hear radio announcers using FREquent in the context of a police report where a missing person is being sought is just plain wrong! Who trains the announcers? They are paid professionals making unforgiveable errors. And don't get me started on the American pronunciation of the word "era" that we now hear on our radio.....it sounds like "error". Graeme, Greenacre.
A: All your examples are good one. I heard an even more appalling one recently. The American commentator was trying to say that a soldier had been "borrowed" by an espionage department. We would say he had been "seCONDED" but the American said he had been 'SECnded". The wonders of American speech will never never end!
Q: Thanks for your great work in protecting our language. I found the column by Dierdre Macken in the "Review" supplement of The Australian this weekend very interesting. She wrote about the word "weeds" now being redundant and being replaced by the term "opportunist plants". My husband spends a lot of time digging out these "opportunists" but they sure look like weeds to me! Colleen, Bendigo.
A: It's hilarious, isn't it? And since the word "weed" has been with us for more than a thousand years it is as unlikely to die as the onion weed in our lawn. When manufacturers start calling their product not "weed killer" but "opportunist plant killer" then I'll be impressed. And not until then. I doubt that we are likely to switch from one syllable to five syllables any time soon!
Q: I say 'Well and good' but some say 'good and well'. Which is correct ? Love your spot on Peta Credlin show Kind regards, Denis, Picton.
A: "Well and good" is the established idiom. Any other form is best described as eccentric!
Q: Flock of sheep or mob of sheep. I heard you use flock on the Peta Credlin show. John, Launceston.
A: "Flock" is the older word. It was part of Old English more than a thousand years ago. "Mob" was originally used in English (from around 1688) only mean a riotous collection of people. It is only here in Australia that we have broadened the use of "mob" to mean any collection of people or animals. That usage dates back only to the 19th century. So "flock" is the older (and in that sense) more correct term.
Q: Hi Kel, I always enjoy your contribution on 2GB. I've just heard New Zealand's Prime Minister say "myself" instead of "me". How, or is, English being taught in schools? What with all the "ummers", "y'knowers", "yessers", "likers", "soers", etc., not to mention all the grammatical errors, I'm getting the impression that we're creating a population of semiliterates! Cheers! John, Windsor.
A: According to linguist David Crystal English schools stopped teaching grammar in 1970s -- and only resumed around 40 years later. I suspect something similar happened here under the influence of a theory called "Whole Language Theory." That turned out to be a dead end and was finally abandoned. But the entire exercise happened rather later here than in the UK. So a generation of children have been denied sound training in grammar, and only now are the education departments in Australia going "back to basics" and starting to show some respect for our language.
Q: All, ball, call, fall, gall, hall, pall, appalling, stall, tall, wall, and even y’all all have a long a , but some people want to put a short a in mall especially at the Queen’s diamond jubilee. Why is that? Brian, Belair.
A: You are quite right to notice that. But there is no consistency in English pronunciation! Well, "no" is too strong -- but consistency is often notably absent in English pronunciation. The English pronounce "Pall Mall" with a short "A" sound, not with an "awl" sound. You'll find something similar in the familiar name "Sally" which has that "all" letter combination, but which is pronounced as we know.
Q: Hi Kel Do you have a simple explanation as to why Catholics are referred to “left footers” Thanks Mary, Sydney.
A: The story is that early in the 19th century spades were made with a flat edge to push on with your foot only on one side. Those made in England were (mostly) on the right side, and those made in Ireland were (mostly) on the left side. Then designs changed and spades were made with flat edges to push on, on both sides. But for a long time Irish manufacturers continued to make make spades with the flat edge only on the left side. From that the Irish (and, hence, Catholics in general) came be called "left footers." Now, I have no way of knowing if that story is true or not -- but it is the only story I have come across.
Q: I enjoy your Spectator column and I catch your Peta Credlin segment when I can. Here’s a convention that’s become entrenched in recent times that puzzles me. I’m sure you’ve noticed how a journalist who wants to keep his job will signal his cultural sensitivity by substituting a series of ****s for an inappropriate word that we dare not speak aloud - or even acknowledge has ever had a life of its own. “The N****r in the Woodpile” of course is that no-one’s fooled by this device; the point of the game being that we can always infer what the missing word is and most probably say it to ourselves under our breath, maybe even give it a rueful smile. The offending/offensive word is outed every time, and ironically the very act of hiding it behind ****s only draws attention to it. So what’s going on here? If the journalist speaks the word out loud he’ll be hanged, drawn and cancelled by the perpetually offended. Yet everybody knows what he means - “nudge nudge, wink wink”; but that’s OK because the offence has apparently been neutralised by this puerile substitution ruse. Is this just a passing culture wars salvo or is it a journalist being too lazy to find a real word that carries just the right amount of weight (or offence)? Do the ****s get him off the hook? Chris, Connellys Marsh, TAS.
A: I take your point. I suspect that the intention is not to give offence. It is similar to those people who say "I hated the movie because it was full of the F-word." In other words, even in this insensitive age there are remain some people who remain sensitive to language. Perhaps the real goal here is not to offend those people. Perhaps they would be pleased that, even knowing what word is covered by a row of asterisks, that the word itself has not been printed. Is that the goal? The goal, in other words, is not secrecy but reduction of offence. Is that possible?
Q: Kel Thank you for your response to my previous query. I often hear Kiribati pronounced as Kiribas. For a reason I can’t comprehend, natives of that country pronounce ‘ti' as ’s'. Does this mean that we should follow? We don’t with Chile, Florence, Turin and others. All the best. John.
A: The rule we used to follow when I was a member of SCOSE (Standing Committee on Spoken English) at the ABC was that if there is an established English pronunciation for a place name we use that. Only in the absence of an established English pronunciation did we use the local pronunciation. As it happens, "kir-i-bas" has long been established as the standard English pronunciation of "Kiribati." Which is why we still use it. (And that is why we don't say "Chill-ay" for Chile, and so on.)
Q: “Walk and chew gum”. These are simple actions which can be performed by almost anyone. The original saying was “March and chew gum” originated from the problem some people have in keeping in step whilst chewing. Gerry, Banora Point.
A: What you say makes sense, and I'm sure you're right -- that was the original. However, I should add that Lyndon Baines Johnson's famous criticism of Gerald For was that he couldn't "walk and (bodily function) at the same time." The bodily function in question was breaking wind -- but that is not the word LBJ said. Clear enough?
Q: Q: Can you please comment on the correct pronounciation of “Cairns”. I listen to locals pronounce Cairns as “Cannes”. But to me “Cannes” is in France. The spelling is “air” between the “C “ and “n”. We pronounce “air” as we do saying the air we breathe, like we do hair and pair, yet locals pronounce Cairns as Cannes. Having spent time in both cities to me Cannes (France ) is not how Cairns (QLD) should be pronounced. Can you please advice on the correct pronunciation of Cairns, as I’m certain I’m in Australia and not Cannes in the South if France. With thanks. Sue, Cairns.
A: I suspect the point you are making is a relatively subtle one. The difference in pronunciation between "Cairns" and "cans" is surely only slight? I'm not even sure my ear could pick up that difference, particularly when the word is (as so often) said quickly. It's the difference between a short vowel and an only very slightly longer vowel. I take your word for it that the citizens of "Cairns" are pronouncing their home town as "cans". I will listen for it carefully in future, and see if I can pick it up.
Q: Hello Kel, I was bemused by your pronunciation of "maroon" as "marone", given that a sailor might be "marooned" on a desert island (or is that maroned?) - please explain. James, Lake Garden.
A: The verb "to maroon" and the name of the colour are different words from different sources. The colour name comes from French -- from the name of a large chestnut (and the tree which bore the chestnut). The earliest English spelling was "marone" -- showing us the traditional pronunciation. It has only been in the 20th century that this older pronunciation has been forgotten, at least by some people -- who have then taken to pronouncing it as it is spelled. But the older pronunciation is still the one I prefer. There is a similar story with "forehead" -- which traditionally has been pronounced "forrid", but those who have forgotten that traditional pronunciation now follow the spelling and say "fore-head." That just sounds silly to me. The word "boatswain" is a naval term pronounced "bosun" (said as BOW-sun). Spelling is not the best guide to pronunciation.
Q: There is one word that is often inaccurately pronounced and that is, recognized . I was taught to pronounce the G in Re/cog/nized instead of reconized. This is one word that REALLY bugs me. I am correct aren't I? Marjorie, Whitfield, VIC
A: You are absolutely correct. This kind of lazy pronunciation is the sort of thing that linguists used to call "identifiers" -- they identify which social class or educational level the speaker comes from. Sadly, now well educated professional people are displaying the same "lazy mouth" syndrome. All we can do is call it to their attention -- and hope they become more careful in the future.
Q: Hi Kel. Love your work. My query relates to the disappearing “y”. For example one commentator says “concradulate”. Lots of politicians say “impordan” for important. Can you help rectify this? Peter, Garran, ACT
A: You overrate my influence! I don't really have the power to rectify anything! I have spoken before about the increasing incidence of medial Ts being turned in Ds... but it still happens. However, when I hear this I will say something. More than that, I cannot do!
Q: Can you explain why the American state of Kansas is pronounced the way it is spelled--while Arkansas (which is spelled the same way) is pronounced "Ar-kan-saw"?? Cheers, Campbell, Cairns.
A: Both names come from Native American (what used to be called "Indian") words. The difference is that Kansas was originally settled by the English and Arkansas was settled by the French. So Kansas has an English pronunciation while the odd pronunciation of Arkansas reflects the way the French used to say the word.
Q: Hoots Mon. Just enquiring about the word bald, as in the sense of the Bald Eagle. Is it true that in this context it is referring back to an Older English word which meant 'white headed' (ergo, White Headed Eagle)? I could certainly see how bald could also mean white headed. Cheers. Scott, Point Pass.
A: The lexicographers tell me that "bald" is closely related to "ball" -- with the sense of "rounded like a ball." When a man loses all his hair the resulting exposed skull looks rotund ("rounded like a ball") -- hence "bald." It has been part of English since at least 1386 (the word is used by Chaucer in his prologue to The Canterbury Tales).
Q: G'day Kel With all the kafuffle about what is a 'woman', how does the humble mere male escape conviction. My wife and i have had an 'empty nest' for many, many years now but we understood and accepted biology in it's wonderful and original form, no questions ever asked, no secrets ever told!! Cheers, Campbell, Cairns.
A: Perhaps we should say what Climate Crew is always saying: "Follow the science!" Because the science tells us that the 23rd pair genomes is the "gender determining" pair of genomes -- and if they are XY the person is a man, but if they XX the person is a woman. We need to tell the terminally confused to stop denying the science.
Q: As a New Zealander who travels frequently to Australia to visit in-laws, I'm intrigued by the pronunciation (mainly in Queensland) of the colour maroon as "marone". I can think of no where else in the English-speaking world where it is spoken this way. Is this a mispronunciation by some media commentators that has, by default, become the norm? Ray, Auckland.
A: The word came into English mainly from French in 1594. The French spelling was "marron" and it was (originally) the name of a type of large chestnut. I assume that the chestnut concerned was a brownish-crimson or claret colour -- so the word transferred to the colour. Given that history I believe that "marone" is the older (and more correct) pronunciation, since it would have been closer to the French source word. Pronouncing it "marOON" is a much later development -- coming from people who chose to base their pronunciation on the spelling (not always a safe or correct procedure in English). Now both are regarded as acceptable pronunciations.
Q: I say oriented, people argue it is Orientated Am I correct Kel? Stephen, Burradoo.
A: The Oxford says both are now acceptable. The story is that "oriented" came first (1728). It originally meant "facing east" ("orient" meaning "east" is very old, going back to Chaucer in 1375); then it developed to mean "to arrange in a specific direction" -- so the idea of "east" disappeared. Then, much later, the word for properly aligning something ("orientation") emerged (1839). This quickly became the verb "orientated" with exactly the same meaning as "oriented." So we are now stuck with two slightly different words, with exactly the same meaning. And both, the experts say, count as correct English!
Q: Ch 7 is advertising its coverage as 'Trooping of the Colour'. It has been known as Troopng the Colour for 100s of years. I have noticed this insertion of 'of' after a gerund elsewhere as in a bylaw 'keeping of animals' . Do you know where this Aussiscism came from? 'What' is another ugly insertion as in 'better than what it was . .' Barry, Cairns.
A: Well observed! My own guess is that this insertion of unnecessary prepositions is part of the American influence. American English seems to be inordinately fond of extraneous prepositions. We should resist the trend!
Q: Your "Words Matter" report on Credlin about the use of euphemisms for "death reminded me of an attached obituary in The Canberra Times of 13 May 2017 which said -- According to her wishes the deceased wanted her death notice to read: "She hasn't Passed On, she hasn't Passed Over, she hasn't Gone Ahead, she isn't in a Better Place, she's Died." Kathy.
A: Thank you Kathy -- clearly a lady who knew her own mind (and agreed with Peta and me about pointless euphemisms!)
Q: The word Victorian refers to the 63 year period of time that Queen Victoria reigned. Is it correct to say: Victorian Parliament or Victoria Parliament? Victorian Premier or Victoria Premier? Victorian Police or Victoria Police? Victorian Businesses or Victoria Businesses? Stephen, Ballarat.
A: In all those cases "Victorian" is correct -- because the word is being used as an adjective to qualify a noun.
Q: Hi Kel, How are you? I have two: (1) When someone said I will take a rain cheque? (2) On the top of my head?. the second does make a bit angry. Thanks for your help. Simon, Kingsley.
A: (1) Comes from baseball, from the days when most major stadiums did not have roofs. Each ticket had a stub that was a "rain check" that entitled you to attend another game if rain stopped play. Since then the expression has been used widely (metaphorically). (2) The image here is of having a head filled with ideas but instead of digging in, you speak superficially from the most easily accessible notions that are sitting right on "top of your head." It's the concept of speaking extemporaneously -- just saying the first thing that comes to you.
Q: Hi Kel, I have thought for a while, about the influence that successive population influxes from diverse countries, is and has had on our language. cheers Garry, Grassmere.
A: I don't know of any quantitative research that has been done on this -- but I will check. In my book The Story of Australian English I argue that the Australian Language was built on four foundations (1) indigenous words; (2) the official / military words of of the colony; (3) English regional dialect words; and (4) convict slang (the "flash language"). Since those early days I'm sure more influences have been added. Some years back a researcher at Macquarie University was looking Lebanese/Australian words. But I know of no comprehensive study.
Q: Hi Kel, I am designing a notice board for our community museum. I have the wording "Established by Miss (insert name here) in 1970 and donated to the Nambucca Valley Council for the benefit of the people". It has been suggested to me to remove "the" however I feel this change would be grammatically incorrect. When the wording is spoken it sounds wrong. What is the correct way to proceed? Your segment on "Credlin" always gives me a smile. I hope you may be able to help me with this little problem. Best Regards David, Macksville.
A: Most grammarians would tell you both versions are acceptable -- and that neither can be called incorrect. However, my style sense is the same as yours -- namely, that it has a better (more euphonious) construction when the definite article is included. Keep the "the"!
Q: I’ve been sorting hundreds of letters written by my mother in 1924. I suddenly became aware that she spelt all the “our” words e.g. ‘colour’,’ favour’ ‘neighbour’ etc. “or”. There was only one exception “Sydney Harbour” following a holiday. She was born in 1900. I was wondering what might have happened in Victorian education in the first 10 years of the century to make a pupil learn this spelling. Sadly she died when I was quite young and I never received a letter from her, and she never attempted to correct my spelling that I can recall. Margaret.
A: The “OR” spellings of words such as “color”, “neighbor”, “favor” and so on, were basically invented by American lexicographer Noah Webster (1758-1843). His dictionary sold in huge numbers in America where it was (and remains) enormously influential. Webster promoted a great many spelling reforms, but only two of them caught on—the “OR” spellings and the reversal of “--RE” to “--ER” at the end of “theatre”, “centre” etc. Somehow your mother must have been exposed to the Webster influence.