"You Beauty" as we say in Australia



  • Dear Vivaldi people. G'day. Thank you for some hope of a decent working browser for the rest of us. To John and friends "good on you". To the whingers and the impatient. sorry you feel that way, can you do any better. Have been "operatic"so to speak since ver 6.xx. If this in the wrong forum mods please remove. Have a good 1. Later.



  • Welcome to the forum!

    Hopefully to be 'operatic' isn't such a serious condition and this disease is belonging to the curable ones! ;)

    G'day (haven't seen this before) to you too!

    Later?? Don't forget: in the long run we are all dead!



  • @RJules3:

    Welcome to the forum!

    Hopefully to be 'operatic' isn't such a serious condition and this disease is belonging to the curable ones! ;)

    G'day (haven't seen this before) to you too!

    Later?? Don't forget: in the long run we are all dead!

    Ah - slightly puzzled by idiomatic Australian English, eh? "G'day" means "good day" and can mean "hello" or "goodbye, have a good day." "Later" means "see you later" or "talk to you later" "until we meet again."



  • Thank you for these illustrations! :)

    As a non-native speaker it's a hassle already to deal with British and American English and now suddenly I have to look additionally Down Under? Okay, it might be possible to push the globe around but barely. ;)



  • Yay, another Aussie on the Forum, what a little ripper! Fair dinkum i'm pleased about our increased representation here.

    Re our bonza lingo, whilst our greeting of "g'day" is not literally ubiquitous in Oz, it is nonetheless highly prevalent … i kid you not.

    BTW Ayespy, whilst i'd not rush to absolutely rule out one of your interpretations of standard usage of "g'day", i would opine that whilst the more formal expansion [being "good day", as you correctly said] can in certain more formal situations infer a parting utterance not only a greeting utterance, in more relaxed usage, especially in its common contraction of "g'day", it's pretty standard for it to be said & received in the spirit of a greeting, not a farewell.

    For the latter, we have many widespread synonyms, including these days multiple international English & Other adoptions, as well as [depending on what part of Oz you're in, & with what age-range you might be conversing] options including See Ya, Hooroo, Cop Ya, So Long, Have A Good One … & many more.

    Toodle-oo [that's another].



  • Yeah. Was actually aware that "G'day" is almost exclusively a greeting - but I didn't want to miss the rare case.



  • Me being the picky type, but also hoping to help with understanding, note that we are so laid back that we don't capitalise "g'day", except of course if said in solo or to begin a sentence.



  • @Steffie:

    Me being the picky type, but also hoping to help with understanding, note that we are so laid back that we don't capitalise "g'day", except of course if said in solo or to begin a sentence.

    Heh, heh. Didn't actually mean to capitalize it. My reflexes in releasing the shift key were just a bit slow. Inadvertent caps, especially after a quotation mark, parenthesis, or special character, are sometimes an offshoot of my typing style. I touch-type at over 60 wpm, and unfortunately don't always go back and make sure that my fingers actually typed what my primary motor cortex thought it was generating. :)



  • Happy to be your trans-pacific intermittent inverted spell-checker.



  • Don't you mean trans-Pacific? :) :cheer: :P :ohmy: :evil:



  • Hypothesis 1: Oh, no, methinks you're being oceanic, whereas i was being Zen.

    Hypothesis 2: You got me dead to rights.

    You decide.

    Teehee. :P



  • :lol:

    OK, a tiny window into how my mind works: Without doing ANY research on this subject, you say "oceanic" and it generates a stream of consciousness like so - Pacific? Whoever named it must have observed it for several days running and noticed it to be "peaceful," that is to say gentle surf, slow tides, sometimes nearly glassy surface - ie, whoever named it did so from the California coast. But what is with this "peaceful" characterization? Peaceful as compared to what? The Atlantic Ocean, of course, which is decidedly more turbulent next to shore than the Pacific. Why would that be? The earth's rotation, of course. The earth spins from west to east, making the sun rise in the east, and that spin accelerates Atlantic motion toward the shore in the Americas, while decelerating Pacific motion toward the shore, making them respectively more turbulent and more peaceful. Speaking of which, where did the name "Atlantic" come from? I posit it must have been named by the Greeks, after the titan Atlas, who held up the sky.



  • Hmmm, ok, i call your lack of research, & raise you with my lack of research + my wild speculation based on flimsy scientific grasp & my woefully inadequate statistical comprehension.

    I vaguely recall reading, many moons ago, [but hereby also garnished with my own mad voodoo beliefs] that the Pacific Ocean was/is a gross misnomer based on the severely limited statistical sample range of a few early explorers in a restricted latitude/longitude sample size [thus implicitly subject to unintended, & unrecognised, data sample aliasing error multiple times over with respect to time of year, & place of survey], such that a distorted view was formed of said ocean's intrinsic nature being "calm" [as in, ye olde barques falling victim to being becalmed].

    Whilst being in no position whatsoever to argue per se with your fine working hypothesis / stream of consciousness, i respectfully opine that additional physical & thermodynamic effects including but not necessarily limited to the Coriolis Effect, varying gravitational forces on the water bodies from the annually-variable ratio of the solar vs lunar relative positions, differential thermal effects modifying basic current forces, idiosyncratic local flow patterns channelled by unique sea-floor topographies [etc]… might play a certain part in the overall behaviour as well.

    Not to mention, sadly, that due to the hitherto ignorance, & contemporary unremitting idiocy, of humans who can't grasp the concept that the Earth is in thermodynamic terms a Closed System governed by the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics such that continuing to add thermal energy to a Closed System [via continual solar energy input being trapped by an increasing atmospheric "insulation blanket" of increased carbon molecules] must ipso facto cause multiple climatological alterations with associated serious manifestations which, in the context of this chat, would include increased atmospheric instability as exemplified by more frequent, & more severe, hurricanes & cyclones. This is all governed by the aforesaid Laws; the increased thermal energy has to be dissipated somehow, given that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only converted… in this case the thermal energy is converted to kinetic energy. The resultant storms in general & hurricanes & cyclones specifically will, i suspect, result in this ocean's original misnomer becoming more & more ironic.

    Atlas... it's all Greek mythology to me; i'm happy to go with your supposition [with one minor query; you used past tense wrt sky-holding]. OMZ, if Atlas is off the job now, then who's holding it up? We're done for, we're all done for, the sky's falling…



  • Atlas retired with the end of the Greek empire. It appears a consortium or other gods, demigods and other ethereal entities were hired to fill the vacancy, and they are, by committee, holding up the sky as we speak. (parenthetic note - do you find it odd that illustrations of Atlas typically show him holding the EARTH rather than the SKY on his shoulders? What's with that?)

    I continue to hold that the Coriolis effect is majorly responsible for the tidal and surf effects of the respective oceans vis a vis the Americas BUT, having now looked it up, I find that Magellan named the ocean because when he got into it, he had a nicer trip than when he had been in the Atlantic. It was purely circumstantial. So it was named after the trip, not the coastal observations. My bad.

    It is still true in my opinion that the rotation of the earth versus the orbit of the moon DOES make western coasts, on average, calmer than eastern coasts. This is, of course, ON AVERAGE. For instance, "tropical storms," "typhoons," "tidal waves," etc. are typically features of the eastern exposure of this or that continent moreso than the western coasts.

    See also: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/tides/tides07_cycles.html

    So I'm half right (as to the scientific part), and half wrong (as to the historic part). I'll take 50% correctness for what is essentially intuition, any day - especially as it relates to what can or cannot be scientifically verified.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.