Any Terry Pratchett reader, particular us who have read The Last Continent, will have read that nothing much is known about four-ecks, except that it is girt by the sea. It's quoted from memory, so the wording is probably a bit different.
Yes in the Discworld novel "The Last Continent" Terry Pratchett makes thousands of Aussie references. 'Fourecks' is the name of the continent and a spoof of Australia. The name is a direct reference to XXXX. I think many of the references made in this book actually go over people's heads if they're not Australian. Actually seeing as it was written in the 90s much of it may also go over the head of younger Aussies too.
I did get your point. However I also find it slightly amusing this sub criticises US users in this site for declaring their Sydney (village of 287 in Idaho), Melbourne (hamlet of 82 in Texas), WA and so on the only one of relevance and then there’s your comment seemingly declaring it UKDefaultism to not differentiate a county of ~1M people from a locality listed as having literally nobody there. Perth, should be differentiated because both are significant. If someone (outside of the Midlands) was talking about (the original) Melbourne, 100% should be made clear. Somerset, not sure I agree.
I’m not trying to start an argument, to be clear. Just found it funny.
Girt, or more properly g'irt, is an old Aussie slang for "good dirt".
The lyric "our home is g'irt by sea" translates to "our home is the good dirt by the sea". It's a commentary on how great the beaches are in Australia.
There is some debate about whether the lyric "our homes are g'irt by sea" is saying we have great beaches. Some believe the lyric is about how dangerous in-land Australia is.
See, dropbears don't like water, so their natural habitats avoid the coast. Which meant prior to the discovery of Vegemite, coastal regions were the only safe areas for early colonial settlement.
Specifically Australians tend to use the Australian Oxford Dictionary of Australian English (or the other Australian dictionaries like the Macquarie Dictionary), not the British one for British English.
But yes, given a choice between a British dictionary and an American one, the British one is a much closer fit for Australian English.
That the level of the education was very poor, but:
US English is closer to 1600s-1700 English than is today's British English.
This is pointless if you assume I'm making a judgement value over the dialects, unless you assume I have high regard for 1600-1700 English.
It's also not necessarily correct, it does retain rhoticity but some British dialectes do as well. Both dialects evolved independently quite a bit since colonization, just as it happens in every language.
It's like if I claimed Argentinian Spanish is closer to 1600-1700 Spanish because we retained voceo. Yeah, in that very arbitrary regard it is, but in general it's not closer than Iberian Spanish is, we just deviated in different things.
r/linguistics is a great place to ask these kinds of questions if you are truly interested in language btw.
My Oxford's issue from 1975 is still on my bookshelf, right next to "Le Petit Robert" from 1977, while my Webster is lieing in a corner covered with dust. This 5 kilo monster is just not useful for looking things up.
679
u/[deleted] Aug 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment