Talk:No worries/Archive 1

2 bits

1. 1 - Cirt, you've got wayyyy too much free time on your hands. #2 - why is this considered a "Australian English expression"? I use it all the time and I'm not an aussie. I know more than a few friends that use it also, maybe not often, but they do. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 07:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply

The fact that it is an Australian English expression is supported by all of the secondary sources I have come across. For example:

Among the most characteristic Australian expressions I would single out the following two: no worries and good on you.

• Wierzbicka, Anna (1992), Semantics, Culture, and Cognition: Universal Human Concepts in Culture-specific Configurations, Oxford University Press US, p. 388, ISBN 0195073266

Cirt (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"no waris"

The way it is phrased now (The phrase "no waris" in the Papua New Guinea language Tok Pisin is derived from the Australian English term.) implies that the reader is already familiar with the phrase "no waris". I'd imagine that the definition is identical to "no worries", but not being fluent in Tok Pisin, I'm unsure if that's the case, or if there is some subtlety in meaning. Additionally, I have no clue as to the prevalence or importance of "no waris" in Tok Pisin - is this a common expression in that language? Finally, the transition to the next sentence is confusing. One might interpret it to mean that "no waris" is the phrase that's starting to be used in American English. -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I made a change to the transition to the next sentence that should make that a bit clearer. Cirt (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Comparing "no worries" to "to google"?

I have concerns about the following sentence:

Linguistics professor Kate Burridge writes in her 2004 book Weeds In the Garden Of Words that expressions including "no worries", "absolutely" and "bottom line" have become less prevalent in favor of newer terms such as "to google".

I can't access that source, but I can access the book itself (here; bit about "no worries" is on page 3, bit about "to google" is on page 18) and I don't see Burridge drawing any connection between the two expressions; I think the Sun Herald author that you've got in the ref has simply misinterpreted something. It's good that I don't see Burridge drawing any connection between the two expressions, because that would make me have serious doubts about her credentials—it would be like trying to compare apples to oranges, as the expressions have nothing in common and there's no reason to compare them. All I can assume is that maybe the Sun Herald article was trying to express not something particular about the individual words (as in "people don't say no worries much now because they can say to google instead), but maybe that most new words being introduced into the language now are lexicalizations of real-world things (to google, to xerox, yada yada) rather than whatever she's categorizing no worries and expressions like that to be. (And even if that's what the Sun Herald article is trying to say, I still don't see that point being put forth in Burridge's book.)

So mainly I'm just wondering if you have access to that Sun Herald article, or know how I can access it, because I have a suspicion that our wording in the article is inaccurate but I'd like to at least check what the Sun Herald was trying to say before I remove or change it. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed such as "to google" from the end of the sentence. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's probably enough to be safe! Thanks for fixing it; and sorry I subjected you to my boring rambling—sometimes I just get carried away! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

GA review

This article had a GA review, which resulted in the article being passed as WP:GA. The review itself is here: Talk:No worries/GA1. Cirt (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Any one feel like adding the derivation ...

of No wuckers ? billinghurst (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Source? Cirt (talk) 09:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This source says that "no wuckers" is a shortened form of "no wucking worries", which is a spoonerism of "no fucking worries". This source confirms that information. Cunard (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Kewl, thanks. Cirt (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries. ;) Cunard (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL, Cirt (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Australia

this article was obviously written by some booster for Australia with a grossly inflated sense of self-importance. the origin of "No worries is in British English and dates back at least until the late 19th century. It was used on numerous occasions in speeches by PM Joseph Chamberlain and later, (much more famously) by WInston Churchill. This article takes the ludicrously POV position that the phrase was somehow "invented" by Australians and then "exported" to the States. Nothing could be more Preposterous. They couldn't even get the Yanks to buy Aussie Beer let alone influence the rigidly peculiar American language. The simple reality that Australia has contributed very little to global culture over the years does not mean they should make things up to fill the void. This article is rubbish and should be completely rewritten, if not deleted. The notability of "no worries" as a phrase falls short of meriting an article of such size and scope. 64.222.117.53 (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize this article, as you have done at [1]. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey old chap, there's no need to get your feathers ruffled. I didn't mean to paste that into the article, just the talk page. My sincere apologies, I didn't mean to vandalise, thanks for bringing it to my attention. 64.222.117.53 (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Can we address some of the issues with this article? 64.222.117.53 (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "rigidly peculiar American language". I'm not sure many people would agree with your characterization of it as "rigid". rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What I meant is that while American English readily adapts to changes in technology and does not hesitate to incorporate the jargon of business and marketing, It remains peculiarly hostile to anything perceived as a foreign influence. While we Brits have been eager to imitate the chaps across the pond with our idioms. Few, if any British phrases have caught on over there. While the tongue of the Yanks has indigenously developed an abbreviated syntax (See: Valspeak) you will never find an American who will utter terms like :bloke, lorry, sodding, bloody, bollucks, or any other such informalities which are staples of most other anglophone dialects. ANother peculiarly Rigid aspect of the Americans' English is their adherence to bizzare spellings and pluralisation. They use the letter "Z" (which they pronounce "Zee", like the Dutch) at every opportunity and inexplicably remove the "u" from words like "honour" "parlour" and "colour". 64.222.117.53 (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Contrary to what you claim below, you are clearly not a linguist, at least not in any academic sense of the word. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The pot calling the kettle black, now that's one idiom that crosses cultures. Sorry to rain on your parade, but I am indeed a linguist, albeit one who is not afraid to balance sound scholarship with a healthy dose of opinion and wit. That's another thing about Yanks I can't understand. You chaps take yourselves far too seriously. A friendly suggestion: If i were you I'd consider dropping the ad hominem and sticking to the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.203.210 (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a personal attack, just pointing out that the strange ideas you've expressed above are not "sound scholarship", are not supported by any kind of linguistic logic and belie an unfamiliarity with real linguistics. The fact that you believe such strange things makes me pretty hesitant to pay much attention to your beliefs on the origin of "no worries". rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Every single sentence and fact in this article is backed up to multiple different reliable sources, in multiple cases academic linguistic scholarly sources. And I do not see any independent reliable secondary sources to back up your claims. -- Cirt (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If such scholarly sources exist proving the dubious claim that "No worries" is a uniquely Australian phrase, I'd bloody well like to see them. I've worked as a linguist for fourteen years and never come across any such nonsense in my research. Such an unsupported assertion is the epitome of Original Research. 64.222.117.53 (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does it say "No worries" is uniquely Australian. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Urbandictionary.com

This is a user-generated source, and fails WP:RS. Could we please obtain a better source for this material? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done, fixed it, cited to a better source. -- Cirt (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Origins

It would be good if we could have some information on the origins of the phrase and when it first emerged in Australian English. Wcp07 (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

More research would be needed, have not yet come across that in WP:RS secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

usage / influence

the phrase's making its way into american english to the point of our (americans) choking on it is unmentioned in the 'usage' section. i'd think the mention of this would follow naturally after the discussion of its having permeated british english.

maybe i missed something in the 'influence' section, but i'm confused by the confusion about the phrase's having come to rule the american lower mind. the references to steve irwin and to the 2000 olympics are all well and good, but in the mid-'80s, americans consumed 'crocodile dundee' by the hundreds of millions, and the film has never ceased to be broadcast on american tv since (and of course hogan uses the phrase throughout the film's length). anyone looking into explanations will find That to be the obvious one, and will find, as i do, the irwin/olympics references to be...odd.

and this: "According to The Sunday Mail a 2004 newspaper report notes that "no worries" has begun to be used in American English.[18]...", getting back to the 'usage' issue, is hopelessly out-of-date and irrelevant to what's now going on (what was left of america's fragile soul being finally drowned by this phrase). 67.171.181.26 (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, but we'd need some additional WP:RS secondary sources to justify referencing any of the above ideas. — Cirt (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced changes and poorly sourced changes

I've removed some unsourced changes and poorly sourced changes, sources added by an IP with just a bare link, etc. — Cirt (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Worldview tags removed

Worldview tags removed. There was zero explanation about why they were added placed on the talk page. Virtually all the secondary sources in this article come from non Australia sources. This article presents a worldview reflection of the secondary sources which are independent sources. — Cirt (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Canadian usage of "No Worries"

I can attest that "no worries" is indeed in usage in Canada; I first heard it in 1991, subjectively it seems to me the usage is growing. However, I am removing the citations that have been made in support of this. The use of the words "no worries" in a newspaper headline is not equivalent to the colloquial use being described on this page. Additionally, the Gander Beacon link is currently broken by a bad redirect on the newspaper's part. 0x69494411 15:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

USA usage?

24.96.183.120 (talk) 10:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)I saw part of the film "This Could Be the Night" (Robert Wise, 1957) on Turner Classic Movies. The character Rocco, played by Paul Douglas, used the phrase "no worries" exactly the same way as would an Aussie. The phrase came about 75 minutes into the film, as Rocco was sitting in a club with Anne (Jean Simmons).