Discussion:
Tourism NZ says ditch influencer shots for something new
(too old to reply)
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-01-27 10:15:54 UTC
Permalink
It took two or three attempts to understand who was being shot, and
why, in this Guardian headline: "Tourism NZ says ditch influencer shots
for something new." Why would anyone want to influence a ditch? Don't
bother to point out that "shots" would need to be "shot" to be a past
participle: I know, but it could also be a typo. Also, the fact that it
happened in New Zealand rather than, say, the USA made it less likely
that anyone was shot.

How could the idea be conveyed more clearly without needing a longer headline?
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
John Ritson
2021-01-27 10:53:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It took two or three attempts to understand who was being shot, and
why, in this Guardian headline: "Tourism NZ says ditch influencer shots
for something new." Why would anyone want to influence a ditch? Don't
bother to point out that "shots" would need to be "shot" to be a past
participle: I know, but it could also be a typo. Also, the fact that it
happened in New Zealand rather than, say, the USA made it less likely
that anyone was shot.
How could the idea be conveyed more clearly without needing a longer headline?
An "influencer" is someone who has many followers on social media, and
makes money from being paid by advertisers to appear on Instagram or
similar praising a product to the skies. This is an "influencer shot".
Tourism NZ presumably considers that the novelty is wearing off and
advertisers should switch to something new.

"Tourism NZ says 'influencers' losing influence"?
--
John Ritson
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-01-27 11:21:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Ritson
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It took two or three attempts to understand who was being shot, and
why, in this Guardian headline: "Tourism NZ says ditch influencer shots
for something new." Why would anyone want to influence a ditch? Don't
bother to point out that "shots" would need to be "shot" to be a past
participle: I know, but it could also be a typo. Also, the fact that it
happened in New Zealand rather than, say, the USA made it less likely
that anyone was shot.
How could the idea be conveyed more clearly without needing a longer headline?
An "influencer" is someone who has many followers on social media, and
makes money from being paid by advertisers to appear on Instagram or
similar praising a product to the skies. This is an "influencer shot".
Tourism NZ presumably considers that the novelty is wearing off and
advertisers should switch to something new.
"Tourism NZ says 'influencers' losing influence"?
That's much better, and also shorter.

It still requires the reader to take "Tourism NZ" as a unit, and not
break it into "Tourism: NZ". I expect readers in New Zealand know that
Tourism NZ is an organization.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Peter Moylan
2021-01-27 11:53:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by John Ritson
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It took two or three attempts to understand who was being shot, and
why, in this Guardian headline: "Tourism NZ says ditch influencer shots
for something new." Why would anyone want to influence a ditch? Don't
bother to point out that "shots" would need to be "shot" to be a past
participle: I know, but it could also be a typo. Also, the fact that it
happened in New Zealand rather than, say, the USA made it less likely
that anyone was shot.
How could the idea be conveyed more clearly without needing a longer headline?
An "influencer" is someone who has many followers on social media, and
makes money from being paid by advertisers to appear on Instagram or
similar praising a product to the skies. This is an "influencer shot".
Tourism NZ presumably considers that the novelty is wearing off and
advertisers should switch to something new.
"Tourism NZ says 'influencers' losing influence"?
That's much better, and also shorter.
It still requires the reader to take "Tourism NZ" as a unit, and not
break it into "Tourism: NZ". I expect readers in New Zealand know that
Tourism NZ is an organization.
Yes, but they also know that the ditch is the Tasman Sea, so they were
probably just as confused as everyone else.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
Snidely
2021-01-27 18:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Peter Moylan pounded on thar keyboard to tell us
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by John Ritson
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It took two or three attempts to understand who was being shot, and
why, in this Guardian headline: "Tourism NZ says ditch influencer shots
for something new." Why would anyone want to influence a ditch? Don't
bother to point out that "shots" would need to be "shot" to be a past
participle: I know, but it could also be a typo. Also, the fact that it
happened in New Zealand rather than, say, the USA made it less likely
that anyone was shot.
How could the idea be conveyed more clearly without needing a longer headline?
An "influencer" is someone who has many followers on social media, and
makes money from being paid by advertisers to appear on Instagram or
similar praising a product to the skies. This is an "influencer shot".
Tourism NZ presumably considers that the novelty is wearing off and
advertisers should switch to something new.
"Tourism NZ says 'influencers' losing influence"?
That's much better, and also shorter.
It still requires the reader to take "Tourism NZ" as a unit, and not
break it into "Tourism: NZ". I expect readers in New Zealand know that
Tourism NZ is an organization.
Yes, but they also know that the ditch is the Tasman Sea, so they were
probably just as confused as everyone else.
"Ditch" is a verb, and I think John R saw that, so it's not just
aviation fans who are familiar with it.

/dps
--
As a colleague once told me about an incoming manager,
"He does very well in a suck-up, kick-down culture."
Bill in Vancouver
charles
2021-01-27 12:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by John Ritson
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It took two or three attempts to understand who was being shot, and
why, in this Guardian headline: "Tourism NZ says ditch influencer shots
for something new." Why would anyone want to influence a ditch? Don't
bother to point out that "shots" would need to be "shot" to be a past
participle: I know, but it could also be a typo. Also, the fact that it
happened in New Zealand rather than, say, the USA made it less likely
that anyone was shot.
How could the idea be conveyed more clearly without needing a longer headline?
An "influencer" is someone who has many followers on social media, and
makes money from being paid by advertisers to appear on Instagram or
similar praising a product to the skies. This is an "influencer shot".
Tourism NZ presumably considers that the novelty is wearing off and
advertisers should switch to something new.
"Tourism NZ says 'influencers' losing influence"?
That's much better, and also shorter.
It still requires the reader to take "Tourism NZ" as a unit, and not
break it into "Tourism: NZ". I expect readers in New Zealand know that
Tourism NZ is an organization.
similar, I assume, to 'Visit Scotland'.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Adam Funk
2021-01-27 12:53:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by John Ritson
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It took two or three attempts to understand who was being shot, and
why, in this Guardian headline: "Tourism NZ says ditch influencer shots
for something new." Why would anyone want to influence a ditch? Don't
bother to point out that "shots" would need to be "shot" to be a past
participle: I know, but it could also be a typo. Also, the fact that it
happened in New Zealand rather than, say, the USA made it less likely
that anyone was shot.
How could the idea be conveyed more clearly without needing a longer headline?
An "influencer" is someone who has many followers on social media, and
makes money from being paid by advertisers to appear on Instagram or
similar praising a product to the skies. This is an "influencer shot".
Tourism NZ presumably considers that the novelty is wearing off and
advertisers should switch to something new.
"Tourism NZ says 'influencers' losing influence"?
That's much better, and also shorter.
It still requires the reader to take "Tourism NZ" as a unit, and not
break it into "Tourism: NZ". I expect readers in New Zealand know that
Tourism NZ is an organization.
Is it my imagination, or is this reversal of the usual head-final
order for compound nouns a common thing in recent organizational
names?
Post by charles
similar, I assume, to 'Visit Scotland'.
That's an imperative verb.
--
the purple piper plays his tune
the choir softly sing
three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-01-27 13:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It still requires the reader to take "Tourism NZ" as a unit, and not
break it into "Tourism: NZ". I expect readers in New Zealand know that
Tourism NZ is an organization.
Is it my imagination, or is this reversal of the usual head-final
order for compound nouns a common thing in recent organizational
names?
Not necessarily recent. As long ago as 1977 I noticed this tendency in
Canada, when it was already common enough that someone quoted John
Diefenbaker complaining that "Soon they'll be renaming Christmas
Pudding as Pudding Canada. (Almost certainly an invented "quotation", I
think.)
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Mark Brader
2021-01-27 13:35:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It still requires the reader to take "Tourism NZ" as a unit, and not
break it into "Tourism: NZ". I expect readers in New Zealand know that
Tourism NZ is an organization.
Is it my imagination, or is this reversal of the usual head-final
order for compound nouns a common thing in recent organizational
names?
Not necessarily recent. As long ago as 1977 I noticed this tendency in
Canada...
It may have started in Canada in 1964, when the federal government
passed an act renaming Trans-Canada Air Lines to Air Canada. That
was the name they were already using in French, where the word order
is natural, and some politicians were displeased with its introduction
into English.

A few years later various government departments started using names
like Elections Canada, Statistics Canada, and Revenue Canada, whether
the entire name was the same in French and English or not; and they've
mostly been named that way ever since. At least some provinces do it
too, e.g. Elections Ontario.
--
Mark Brader "It really was quite easy; it was the
Toronto explanations and banter that took
***@vex.net all the time." --Steve Summit

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Mark Brader
2021-01-27 13:38:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
It may have started in Canada in 1964, when the federal government
passed an act renaming Trans-Canada Air Lines to Air Canada.
By the way, that act was introduced as a private member's bill by a
backbencher on his first term as an MP... some guy named Jean Chretien.
--
Mark Brader "All this government stuff, in other words,
Toronto is not reading matter, but prefabricated
***@vex.net parts of quarrels." -- Rudolf Flesch
Jerry Friedman
2021-01-27 15:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It still requires the reader to take "Tourism NZ" as a unit, and not
break it into "Tourism: NZ". I expect readers in New Zealand know that
Tourism NZ is an organization.
Is it my imagination, or is this reversal of the usual head-final
order for compound nouns a common thing in recent organizational
names?
Not necessarily recent. As long ago as 1977 I noticed this tendency in
Canada...
It may have started in Canada in 1964, when the federal government
passed an act renaming Trans-Canada Air Lines to Air Canada. That
was the name they were already using in French, where the word order
is natural, and some politicians were displeased with its introduction
into English.
...

Canada probably has had a lot to do with it, but "Team Lotus" shows up
in 1962.

https://database.motorsportmagazine.com/database/races/1962-reims-grand-prix

GB is hinting at it in snippet "views" back to 1957, but it since it won't even
show me snippets any more, I can't tell.
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
2021-01-27 15:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It still requires the reader to take "Tourism NZ" as a unit, and not
break it into "Tourism: NZ". I expect readers in New Zealand know that
Tourism NZ is an organization.
Is it my imagination, or is this reversal of the usual head-final
order for compound nouns a common thing in recent organizational
names?
Not necessarily recent. As long ago as 1977 I noticed this tendency in
Canada...
It may have started in Canada in 1964, when the federal government
passed an act renaming Trans-Canada Air Lines to Air Canada. That
was the name they were already using in French, where the word order
is natural, and some politicians were displeased with its introduction
into English.
...
Canada probably has had a lot to do with it, but "Team Lotus" shows up
in 1962.
https://database.motorsportmagazine.com/database/races/1962-reims-grand-prix
GB is hinting at it in snippet "views" back to 1957, but it since it won't even
show me snippets any more, I can't tell.
Aha. "Team Lotus" in 1957. And compare "Ecurie Ecosse".

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/november-1957/48/individual-achievements-1957
--
Jerry Friedman
Adam Funk
2021-01-28 17:37:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It still requires the reader to take "Tourism NZ" as a unit, and not
break it into "Tourism: NZ". I expect readers in New Zealand know that
Tourism NZ is an organization.
Is it my imagination, or is this reversal of the usual head-final
order for compound nouns a common thing in recent organizational
names?
Not necessarily recent. As long ago as 1977 I noticed this tendency in
Canada...
Good point...
Post by Mark Brader
It may have started in Canada in 1964, when the federal government
passed an act renaming Trans-Canada Air Lines to Air Canada. That
was the name they were already using in French, where the word order
is natural, and some politicians were displeased with its introduction
into English.
...especially for airlines.
Post by Mark Brader
A few years later various government departments started using names
like Elections Canada, Statistics Canada, and Revenue Canada, whether
the entire name was the same in French and English or not; and they've
mostly been named that way ever since. At least some provinces do it
too, e.g. Elections Ontario.
--
A firm rule must be imposed upon our nation before it destroys
itself. The United States needs some theology and geometry, some taste
and decency. I suspect that we are teetering on the edge of the abyss.
---Ignatius J Reilly
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-27 13:25:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
Post by charles
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by John Ritson
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It took two or three attempts to understand who was being shot, and
why, in this Guardian headline: "Tourism NZ says ditch influencer shots
for something new." Why would anyone want to influence a ditch? Don't
bother to point out that "shots" would need to be "shot" to be a past
participle: I know, but it could also be a typo. Also, the fact that it
happened in New Zealand rather than, say, the USA made it less likely
that anyone was shot.
How could the idea be conveyed more clearly without needing a longer headline?
An "influencer" is someone who has many followers on social media, and
makes money from being paid by advertisers to appear on Instagram or
similar praising a product to the skies. This is an "influencer shot".
Tourism NZ presumably considers that the novelty is wearing off and
advertisers should switch to something new.
"Tourism NZ says 'influencers' losing influence"?
That's much better, and also shorter.
It still requires the reader to take "Tourism NZ" as a unit, and not
break it into "Tourism: NZ". I expect readers in New Zealand know that
Tourism NZ is an organization.
Is it my imagination, or is this reversal of the usual head-final
order for compound nouns a common thing in recent organizational
names?
Blame Canada!
Post by Adam Funk
Post by charles
similar, I assume, to 'Visit Scotland'.
That's an imperative verb.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-01-27 13:49:17 UTC
Permalink
[ … ]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
That's much better, and also shorter.
It still requires the reader to take "Tourism NZ" as a unit, and not
break it into "Tourism: NZ". I expect readers in New Zealand know that
Tourism NZ is an organization.
Is it my imagination, or is this reversal of the usual head-final
order for compound nouns a common thing in recent organizational
names?
Blame Canada!
That's what I thought!
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Ross Clark
2021-01-28 04:18:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
Post by charles
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by John Ritson
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It took two or three attempts to understand who was being shot, and
why, in this Guardian headline: "Tourism NZ says ditch influencer shots
for something new." Why would anyone want to influence a ditch? Don't
bother to point out that "shots" would need to be "shot" to be a past
participle: I know, but it could also be a typo. Also, the fact that it
happened in New Zealand rather than, say, the USA made it less likely
that anyone was shot.
How could the idea be conveyed more clearly without needing a longer headline?
An "influencer" is someone who has many followers on social media, and
makes money from being paid by advertisers to appear on Instagram or
similar praising a product to the skies. This is an "influencer shot".
Tourism NZ presumably considers that the novelty is wearing off and
advertisers should switch to something new.
"Tourism NZ says 'influencers' losing influence"?
That's much better, and also shorter.
It still requires the reader to take "Tourism NZ" as a unit, and not
break it into "Tourism: NZ". I expect readers in New Zealand know that
Tourism NZ is an organization.
Is it my imagination, or is this reversal of the usual head-final
order for compound nouns a common thing in recent organizational
names?
Blame Canada!
Ah yes, I remember when that was the Division of Blame within the
Department of National Offence.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
Post by charles
similar, I assume, to 'Visit Scotland'.
That's an imperative verb.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-28 04:26:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ross Clark
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by John Ritson
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It took two or three attempts to understand who was being shot, and
why, in this Guardian headline: "Tourism NZ says ditch influencer shots
for something new." Why would anyone want to influence a ditch? Don't
bother to point out that "shots" would need to be "shot" to be a past
participle: I know, but it could also be a typo. Also, the fact that it
happened in New Zealand rather than, say, the USA made it less likely
that anyone was shot.
How could the idea be conveyed more clearly without needing a longer
headline?
An "influencer" is someone who has many followers on social media, and
makes money from being paid by advertisers to appear on Instagram or
similar praising a product to the skies. This is an "influencer shot".
Tourism NZ presumably considers that the novelty is wearing off and
advertisers should switch to something new.
"Tourism NZ says 'influencers' losing influence"?
That's much better, and also shorter.
It still requires the reader to take "Tourism NZ" as a unit, and not
break it into "Tourism: NZ". I expect readers in New Zealand know that
Tourism NZ is an organization.
Is it my imagination, or is this reversal of the usual head-final
order for compound nouns a common thing in recent organizational
names?
Blame Canada!
Ah yes, I remember when that was the Division of Blame within the
Department of National Offence.
I never saw the movie. Are you alluding, or extrapolating?
Ross Clark
2021-01-28 05:56:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Ross Clark
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by John Ritson
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It took two or three attempts to understand who was being shot, and
why, in this Guardian headline: "Tourism NZ says ditch influencer shots
for something new." Why would anyone want to influence a ditch? Don't
bother to point out that "shots" would need to be "shot" to be a past
participle: I know, but it could also be a typo. Also, the fact that it
happened in New Zealand rather than, say, the USA made it less likely
that anyone was shot.
How could the idea be conveyed more clearly without needing a longer
headline?
An "influencer" is someone who has many followers on social media, and
makes money from being paid by advertisers to appear on Instagram or
similar praising a product to the skies. This is an "influencer shot".
Tourism NZ presumably considers that the novelty is wearing off and
advertisers should switch to something new.
"Tourism NZ says 'influencers' losing influence"?
That's much better, and also shorter.
It still requires the reader to take "Tourism NZ" as a unit, and not
break it into "Tourism: NZ". I expect readers in New Zealand know that
Tourism NZ is an organization.
Is it my imagination, or is this reversal of the usual head-final
order for compound nouns a common thing in recent organizational
names?
Blame Canada!
Ah yes, I remember when that was the Division of Blame within the
Department of National Offence.
I never saw the movie. Are you alluding, or extrapolating?
I don't even know what movie you're talking about.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-28 16:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ross Clark
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Ross Clark
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by John Ritson
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It took two or three attempts to understand who was being shot, and
why, in this Guardian headline: "Tourism NZ says ditch influencer shots
for something new." Why would anyone want to influence a ditch? Don't
bother to point out that "shots" would need to be "shot" to be a past
participle: I know, but it could also be a typo. Also, the fact that it
happened in New Zealand rather than, say, the USA made it less likely
that anyone was shot.
How could the idea be conveyed more clearly without needing a longer
headline?
An "influencer" is someone who has many followers on social media, and
makes money from being paid by advertisers to appear on Instagram or
similar praising a product to the skies. This is an "influencer shot".
Tourism NZ presumably considers that the novelty is wearing off and
advertisers should switch to something new.
"Tourism NZ says 'influencers' losing influence"?
That's much better, and also shorter.
It still requires the reader to take "Tourism NZ" as a unit, and not
break it into "Tourism: NZ". I expect readers in New Zealand know that
Tourism NZ is an organization.
Is it my imagination, or is this reversal of the usual head-final
order for compound nouns a common thing in recent organizational
names?
Blame Canada!
Ah yes, I remember when that was the Division of Blame within the
Department of National Offence.
I never saw the movie. Are you alluding, or extrapolating?
I don't even know what movie you're talking about.
The movie that the Academy-Award-nominated (I think it even won)
song "Blame Canada!" came from -- the South Park movie. (I've also
never seen a single episode of *South Park*.)
Rich Ulrich
2021-01-27 17:40:20 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 10:53:12 +0000, John Ritson
Post by John Ritson
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It took two or three attempts to understand who was being shot, and
why, in this Guardian headline: "Tourism NZ says ditch influencer shots
for something new." Why would anyone want to influence a ditch? Don't
bother to point out that "shots" would need to be "shot" to be a past
participle: I know, but it could also be a typo. Also, the fact that it
happened in New Zealand rather than, say, the USA made it less likely
that anyone was shot.
How could the idea be conveyed more clearly without needing a longer headline?
An "influencer" is someone who has many followers on social media, and
makes money from being paid by advertisers to appear on Instagram or
similar praising a product to the skies. This is an "influencer shot".
Tourism NZ presumably considers that the novelty is wearing off and
advertisers should switch to something new.
"Tourism NZ says 'influencers' losing influence"?
To be clearer, it needs a comma after /says/. With or without putting
quotation marks around the remainder, I would capitalize /Ditch/.

To make it shorter, I would ditch /for something new/.
--
Rich Ulrich
Lewis
2021-01-27 18:12:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 10:53:12 +0000, John Ritson
Post by John Ritson
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It took two or three attempts to understand who was being shot, and
why, in this Guardian headline: "Tourism NZ says ditch influencer shots
for something new." Why would anyone want to influence a ditch? Don't
bother to point out that "shots" would need to be "shot" to be a past
participle: I know, but it could also be a typo. Also, the fact that it
happened in New Zealand rather than, say, the USA made it less likely
that anyone was shot.
How could the idea be conveyed more clearly without needing a longer headline?
An "influencer" is someone who has many followers on social media, and
makes money from being paid by advertisers to appear on Instagram or
similar praising a product to the skies. This is an "influencer shot".
Tourism NZ presumably considers that the novelty is wearing off and
advertisers should switch to something new.
"Tourism NZ says 'influencers' losing influence"?
To be clearer, it needs a comma after /says/. With or without putting
quotation marks around the remainder, I would capitalize /Ditch/.
It's a headline, and headlines rarely contain punctuation.
Post by Rich Ulrich
To make it shorter, I would ditch /for something new/.
The goal of a headline is to fit the space, not to be as short as
possible, and even the goal of fitting is far less important when most
headlines never see a dead tree.
--
Advance and attack! Attack and destroy! Destroy and rejoice!
Quinn C
2021-01-27 18:20:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Ulrich
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 10:53:12 +0000, John Ritson
Post by John Ritson
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It took two or three attempts to understand who was being shot, and
why, in this Guardian headline: "Tourism NZ says ditch influencer shots
for something new." Why would anyone want to influence a ditch? Don't
bother to point out that "shots" would need to be "shot" to be a past
participle: I know, but it could also be a typo. Also, the fact that it
happened in New Zealand rather than, say, the USA made it less likely
that anyone was shot.
How could the idea be conveyed more clearly without needing a longer headline?
An "influencer" is someone who has many followers on social media, and
makes money from being paid by advertisers to appear on Instagram or
similar praising a product to the skies. This is an "influencer shot".
Tourism NZ presumably considers that the novelty is wearing off and
advertisers should switch to something new.
"Tourism NZ says 'influencers' losing influence"?
To be clearer, it needs a comma after /says/. With or without putting
quotation marks around the remainder, I would capitalize /Ditch/.
To make it shorter, I would ditch /for something new/.
Or in a style that my local newspaper employed frequently a few years
back, when I was still getting it in paper at home:

Ditch influencer shots for something new: Tourism NZ

The order of the elements on both sides of the colon seems backwards,
compared to what I'm used to from running prose, but I understand it as
a means of placing the important information first.
--
I try not to dwell on what's right and what's wrong.
It slows my processors.
-- Rommie (Andromeda ship AI)
Adam Funk
2021-01-27 12:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It took two or three attempts to understand who was being shot, and
why, in this Guardian headline: "Tourism NZ says ditch influencer shots
for something new." Why would anyone want to influence a ditch? Don't
bother to point out that "shots" would need to be "shot" to be a past
participle: I know, but it could also be a typo. Also, the fact that it
happened in New Zealand rather than, say, the USA made it less likely
that anyone was shot.
How could the idea be conveyed more clearly without needing a longer headline?
I can't think of anything that isn't longer at all, but just adding
"to" after "says" would help a little. Changing "ditch ... for" to
"replace ... with" would be even better.
--
Men, there is no sacrifice greater than someone else's.
---Skipper
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-27 13:22:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It took two or three attempts to understand who was being shot, and
why, in this Guardian headline: "Tourism NZ says ditch influencer shots
for something new." Why would anyone want to influence a ditch? Don't
bother to point out that "shots" would need to be "shot" to be a past
participle: I know, but it could also be a typo. Also, the fact that it
happened in New Zealand rather than, say, the USA made it less likely
that anyone was shot.
How could the idea be conveyed more clearly without needing a longer headline?
I had no problem understanding it.
(I took 'Tourism NZ' as refering to some spokesperson
for kind of agency)
It is probably related to their new tourism policy
that says that they only want tourists who fly business class.

So away with those cheap backpackers who try to make some money on-line
by pretending to have a good time there,

Jan
Ross Clark
2021-01-28 04:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It took two or three attempts to understand who was being shot, and
why, in this Guardian headline: "Tourism NZ says ditch influencer shots
for something new." Why would anyone want to influence a ditch? Don't
bother to point out that "shots" would need to be "shot" to be a past
participle: I know, but it could also be a typo. Also, the fact that it
happened in New Zealand rather than, say, the USA made it less likely
that anyone was shot.
How could the idea be conveyed more clearly without needing a longer headline?
I had no problem understanding it.
(I took 'Tourism NZ' as refering to some spokesperson
for kind of agency)
It is probably related to their new tourism policy
that says that they only want tourists who fly business class.
So away with those cheap backpackers who try to make some money on-line
by pretending to have a good time there,
Jan
Yes, I remember hearing that sort of talk a few months ago. I hope it
hasn't become "policy" yet. Tourism NZ is of course representing the
tourist _industry_, hence is required to think primarily in terms of
money. That industry is going through very hard times thanks to COVID,
even though us locals are doing our best to go on holidays, stay in
hotels, take tours, eat in nice restaurants, etc. I don't think the
backpackers are going to disappear any time soon.
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-28 10:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ross Clark
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It took two or three attempts to understand who was being shot, and
why, in this Guardian headline: "Tourism NZ says ditch influencer shots
for something new." Why would anyone want to influence a ditch? Don't
bother to point out that "shots" would need to be "shot" to be a past
participle: I know, but it could also be a typo. Also, the fact that it
happened in New Zealand rather than, say, the USA made it less likely
that anyone was shot.
How could the idea be conveyed more clearly without needing a longer headline?
I had no problem understanding it.
(I took 'Tourism NZ' as refering to some spokesperson
for kind of agency)
It is probably related to their new tourism policy
that says that they only want tourists who fly business class.
So away with those cheap backpackers who try to make some money on-line
by pretending to have a good time there,
Jan
Yes, I remember hearing that sort of talk a few months ago. I hope it
hasn't become "policy" yet. Tourism NZ is of course representing the
tourist _industry_, hence is required to think primarily in terms of
money. That industry is going through very hard times thanks to COVID,
even though us locals are doing our best to go on holidays, stay in
hotels, take tours, eat in nice restaurants, etc. I don't think the
backpackers are going to disappear any time soon.
Wasn't there also (pre-covid) talk about an admittance tax,
like they are introducing in Venice?

Amsterdam is also discussing tourism reduction schemes,
like forbidding the selling of soft drugs to tourists,

Jan

PS I heard a new (to me) horrible accent on the TV behind my back.
It turned out to be Jacinda Ardern.
Oh, well, lets say it is characteristic.
Peter Moylan
2021-01-28 11:07:25 UTC
Permalink
PS I heard a new (to me) horrible accent on the TV behind my back. It
turned out to be Jacinda Ardern. Oh, well, lets say it is
characteristic.
It doesn't at all sound horrible to me, but perhaps that's because I'm
used to hearing NZ accents.

I find the accents of some of the NZ footballers less pleasant, but
possibly all I'm hearing there is English noticeably influenced by Maori.

(Although that latter doesn't explain the language of Australian
footballers.)
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
Quinn C
2021-01-28 19:33:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
PS I heard a new (to me) horrible accent on the TV behind my back. It
turned out to be Jacinda Ardern. Oh, well, lets say it is
characteristic.
It doesn't at all sound horrible to me, but perhaps that's because I'm
used to hearing NZ accents.
I find the accents of some of the NZ footballers less pleasant, but
possibly all I'm hearing there is English noticeably influenced by Maori.
(Although that latter doesn't explain the language of Australian
footballers.)
I've got used, finally, listening too this "ixpat":
(talking about sunsits)
--
Somebody, your father or mine, should have told us that not many
people have ever died of love. But multitudes have perished, and
are perishing every hour [...] for the lack of it.
-- James Baldwin, Giovanni's Room
Peter Moylan
2021-01-29 00:56:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS I heard a new (to me) horrible accent on the TV behind my
back. It turned out to be Jacinda Ardern. Oh, well, lets say it
is characteristic.
It doesn't at all sound horrible to me, but perhaps that's because
I'm used to hearing NZ accents.
I find the accents of some of the NZ footballers less pleasant,
but possibly all I'm hearing there is English noticeably influenced
by Maori.
(Although that latter doesn't explain the language of Australian
footballers.)
http://youtu.be/AVNHzYj3Qws (talking about sunsits)
Of course that vowel difference has been the source of many jokes by
Australians about New Zealanders. (And probably vice versa.) One of my
favourites was painted on a bridge over a railway line in Sydney.
Someone had written "Australia sux". Under it, someone else wrote "New
Zealand nul".
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
Ken Blake
2021-01-29 15:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS I heard a new (to me) horrible accent on the TV behind my
back. It turned out to be Jacinda Ardern. Oh, well, lets say it
is characteristic.
It doesn't at all sound horrible to me, but perhaps that's because
I'm used to hearing NZ accents.
I find the accents of some of the NZ footballers less pleasant,
but possibly all I'm hearing there is English noticeably influenced
by Maori.
(Although that latter doesn't explain the language of Australian
footballers.)
http://youtu.be/AVNHzYj3Qws (talking about sunsits)
Of course that vowel difference has been the source of many jokes by
Australians about New Zealanders. (And probably vice versa.) One of my
favourites was painted on a bridge over a railway line in Sydney.
Someone had written "Australia sux". Under it, someone else wrote "New
Zealand nul".
Since I know nothing about NZ -Australian vowel differences, I'm just
guessing. Is "sux" the way "six" is pronounced in New Zealand?
--
Ken
musika
2021-01-29 15:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS I heard a new (to me) horrible accent on the TV behind my
back. It turned out to be Jacinda Ardern. Oh, well, lets say it
is characteristic.
It doesn't at all sound horrible to me, but perhaps that's because
I'm used to hearing NZ accents.
I find the accents of some of the NZ footballers less pleasant,
but possibly all I'm hearing there is English noticeably influenced
by Maori.
(Although that latter doesn't explain the language of Australian
footballers.)
http://youtu.be/AVNHzYj3Qws (talking about sunsits)
Of course that vowel difference has been the source of many jokes by
Australians about New Zealanders. (And probably vice versa.) One of my
favourites was painted on a bridge over a railway line in Sydney.
Someone had written "Australia sux". Under it, someone else wrote "New
Zealand nul".
Since I know nothing about NZ -Australian vowel differences, I'm just
guessing. Is "sux" the way "six" is pronounced in New Zealand?
Yis, but it doesn't sound like sucks.
--
Ray
UK
HVS
2021-01-29 16:07:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS I heard a new (to me) horrible accent on the TV behind my
back. It turned out to be Jacinda Ardern. Oh, well, lets say
it is characteristic.
It doesn't at all sound horrible to me, but perhaps that's
because I'm used to hearing NZ accents.
I find the accents of some of the NZ footballers less
pleasant, but possibly all I'm hearing there is English
noticeably influenced by Maori.
(Although that latter doesn't explain the language of
Australian footballers.)
http://youtu.be/AVNHzYj3Qws (talking about sunsits)
Of course that vowel difference has been the source of many
jokes by Australians about New Zealanders. (And probably vice
versa.) One of my favourites was painted on a bridge over a
railway line in Sydney. Someone had written "Australia sux".
Under it, someone else wrote "New Zealand nul".
Since I know nothing about NZ -Australian vowel differences, I'm
just guessing. Is "sux" the way "six" is pronounced in New
Zealand?
Yis, but it doesn't sound like sucks.
I've seen the "sux" spelling for NZ accents -- I think there are
references to "fush and chups" as an NZ pronunciations -- but I've
never figured out what sound it's supposed to represent.

I'm familiar with the "yis" vowel sound: my wife is from NZ, but she
doesn't have much of an accent except when we've been visiting over
there and she needs to get some money from a "kish machine". (Her
brother's family are farmers -- very strong Kiwi accents.)

So if "sux" isn't supposed to sound like "sucks", what *is* it
supposed to sound like?
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Jerry Friedman
2021-01-29 16:24:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by HVS
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS I heard a new (to me) horrible accent on the TV behind my
back. It turned out to be Jacinda Ardern. Oh, well, lets say
it is characteristic.
It doesn't at all sound horrible to me, but perhaps that's
because I'm used to hearing NZ accents.
I find the accents of some of the NZ footballers less
pleasant, but possibly all I'm hearing there is English
noticeably influenced by Maori.
(Although that latter doesn't explain the language of
Australian footballers.)
http://youtu.be/AVNHzYj3Qws (talking about sunsits)
Of course that vowel difference has been the source of many
jokes by Australians about New Zealanders. (And probably vice
versa.) One of my favourites was painted on a bridge over a
railway line in Sydney. Someone had written "Australia sux".
Under it, someone else wrote "New Zealand nul".
Since I know nothing about NZ -Australian vowel differences, I'm
just guessing. Is "sux" the way "six" is pronounced in New
Zealand?
Yis, but it doesn't sound like sucks.
I've seen the "sux" spelling for NZ accents -- I think there are
references to "fush and chups" as an NZ pronunciations -- but I've
never figured out what sound it's supposed to represent.
I'm familiar with the "yis" vowel sound: my wife is from NZ, but she
doesn't have much of an accent except when we've been visiting over
there and she needs to get some money from a "kish machine". (Her
brother's family are farmers -- very strong Kiwi accents.)
So if "sux" isn't supposed to sound like "sucks", what *is* it
supposed to sound like?
I think that in a New Zealand accent, "Australia six, New Zealand nil"
sounds like "Australia sux, New Zealand nul" to an Australian (and
maybe anyone else).
--
Jerry Friedman
HVS
2021-01-29 16:36:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by HVS
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS I heard a new (to me) horrible accent on the TV behind
my back. It turned out to be Jacinda Ardern. Oh, well, lets
say it is characteristic.
It doesn't at all sound horrible to me, but perhaps that's
because I'm used to hearing NZ accents.
I find the accents of some of the NZ footballers less
pleasant, but possibly all I'm hearing there is English
noticeably influenced by Maori.
(Although that latter doesn't explain the language of
Australian footballers.)
http://youtu.be/AVNHzYj3Qws (talking about sunsits)
Of course that vowel difference has been the source of many
jokes by Australians about New Zealanders. (And probably vice
versa.) One of my favourites was painted on a bridge over a
railway line in Sydney. Someone had written "Australia sux".
Under it, someone else wrote "New Zealand nul".
Since I know nothing about NZ -Australian vowel differences,
I'm just guessing. Is "sux" the way "six" is pronounced in New
Zealand?
Yis, but it doesn't sound like sucks.
I've seen the "sux" spelling for NZ accents -- I think there are
references to "fush and chups" as an NZ pronunciations -- but
I've never figured out what sound it's supposed to represent.
I'm familiar with the "yis" vowel sound: my wife is from NZ, but
she doesn't have much of an accent except when we've been
visiting over there and she needs to get some money from a "kish
machine". (Her brother's family are farmers -- very strong Kiwi
accents.)
So if "sux" isn't supposed to sound like "sucks", what *is* it
supposed to sound like?
I think that in a New Zealand accent, "Australia six, New Zealand
nil" sounds like "Australia sux, New Zealand nul" to an Australian
(and maybe anyone else).
Hmmm....it didn't sound like that to me, so maybe it's restricted to
Australian ears.

(It's perhaps similar to AmEng ears hearing CanEng "about" as
"aboot", which indicates a completely different sound to what I hear
-- Canadians pronounce "about" with a diphthong, and (most?)
Americans don't.)
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-29 18:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by HVS
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by HVS
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS I heard a new (to me) horrible accent on the TV behind
my back. It turned out to be Jacinda Ardern. Oh, well, lets
say it is characteristic.
It doesn't at all sound horrible to me, but perhaps that's
because I'm used to hearing NZ accents.
I find the accents of some of the NZ footballers less
pleasant, but possibly all I'm hearing there is English
noticeably influenced by Maori.
(Although that latter doesn't explain the language of
Australian footballers.)
http://youtu.be/AVNHzYj3Qws (talking about sunsits)
Of course that vowel difference has been the source of many
jokes by Australians about New Zealanders. (And probably vice
versa.) One of my favourites was painted on a bridge over a
railway line in Sydney. Someone had written "Australia sux".
Under it, someone else wrote "New Zealand nul".
Since I know nothing about NZ -Australian vowel differences,
I'm just guessing. Is "sux" the way "six" is pronounced in New
Zealand?
Yis, but it doesn't sound like sucks.
I've seen the "sux" spelling for NZ accents -- I think there are
references to "fush and chups" as an NZ pronunciations -- but
I've never figured out what sound it's supposed to represent.
I'm familiar with the "yis" vowel sound: my wife is from NZ, but
she doesn't have much of an accent except when we've been
visiting over there and she needs to get some money from a "kish
machine". (Her brother's family are farmers -- very strong Kiwi
accents.)
So if "sux" isn't supposed to sound like "sucks", what *is* it
supposed to sound like?
I think that in a New Zealand accent, "Australia six, New Zealand
nil" sounds like "Australia sux, New Zealand nul" to an Australian
(and maybe anyone else).
Hmmm....it didn't sound like that to me, so maybe it's restricted to
Australian ears.
(It's perhaps similar to AmEng ears hearing CanEng "about" as
"aboot", which indicates a completely different sound to what I hear
-- Canadians pronounce "about" with a diphthong, and (most?)
Americans don't.)
The "American" pronunciation is [@'b&wt], the "Canadian" pronunciation
is [@'bVwt] (both diphthongs), and the phoneme in AmE closest to [Vw]
is /uw/ or /ow/, so that's what they hear -- "aboot" or "aboat."

Milwaukee, 90 miles north of Chicago, has "Canadian Raising." Chicago
doesn't.

I haven't heard enough New Zealish to be able to imitate it and so
determine what the actual vowels are.
musika
2021-01-29 16:32:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by HVS
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS I heard a new (to me) horrible accent on the TV behind my
back. It turned out to be Jacinda Ardern. Oh, well, lets say
it is characteristic.
It doesn't at all sound horrible to me, but perhaps that's
because I'm used to hearing NZ accents.
I find the accents of some of the NZ footballers less
pleasant, but possibly all I'm hearing there is English
noticeably influenced by Maori.
(Although that latter doesn't explain the language of
Australian footballers.)
http://youtu.be/AVNHzYj3Qws (talking about sunsits)
Of course that vowel difference has been the source of many
jokes by Australians about New Zealanders. (And probably vice
versa.) One of my favourites was painted on a bridge over a
railway line in Sydney. Someone had written "Australia sux".
Under it, someone else wrote "New Zealand nul".
Since I know nothing about NZ -Australian vowel differences, I'm
just guessing. Is "sux" the way "six" is pronounced in New
Zealand?
Yis, but it doesn't sound like sucks.
I've seen the "sux" spelling for NZ accents -- I think there are
references to "fush and chups" as an NZ pronunciations -- but I've
never figured out what sound it's supposed to represent.
I'm familiar with the "yis" vowel sound: my wife is from NZ, but she
doesn't have much of an accent except when we've been visiting over
there and she needs to get some money from a "kish machine". (Her
brother's family are farmers -- very strong Kiwi accents.)
So if "sux" isn't supposed to sound like "sucks", what *is* it
supposed to sound like?
It's a very reduced vowel. Australians think it sounds like "sex" but I
might describe it as "***@ks".
--
Ray
UK
Quinn C
2021-01-29 18:05:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by HVS
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
Since I know nothing about NZ -Australian vowel differences, I'm
just guessing. Is "sux" the way "six" is pronounced in New
Zealand?
Yis, but it doesn't sound like sucks.
So if "sux" isn't supposed to sound like "sucks", what *is* it
supposed to sound like?
It's a very reduced vowel. Australians think it sounds like "sex" but I
I think AmE I is currently drifting in this same direction (at least I
hear it in many younger people), but with the E going towards &, not i
("having sax").
--
Somebody, your father or mine, should have told us that not many
people have ever died of love. But multitudes have perished, and
are perishing every hour [...] for the lack of it.
-- James Baldwin, Giovanni's Room
Peter Moylan
2021-01-30 01:46:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by HVS
I'm familiar with the "yis" vowel sound: my wife is from NZ, but
she doesn't have much of an accent except when we've been visiting
over there and she needs to get some money from a "kish machine".
(Her brother's family are farmers -- very strong Kiwi accents.)
So if "sux" isn't supposed to sound like "sucks", what *is* it
supposed to sound like?
It's a very reduced vowel. Australians think it sounds like "sex" but
I agree. Once upon a time I shocked a New Zealander by the way I said
"six", because to her it sounded like "sex".
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
Peter Moylan
2021-01-30 01:29:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS I heard a new (to me) horrible accent on the TV behind my
back. It turned out to be Jacinda Ardern. Oh, well, lets say it
is characteristic.
It doesn't at all sound horrible to me, but perhaps that's because
I'm used to hearing NZ accents.
I find the accents of some of the NZ footballers less pleasant,
but possibly all I'm hearing there is English noticeably influenced
by Maori.
(Although that latter doesn't explain the language of Australian
footballers.)
http://youtu.be/AVNHzYj3Qws (talking about sunsits)
Of course that vowel difference has been the source of many jokes by
Australians about New Zealanders. (And probably vice versa.) One of my
favourites was painted on a bridge over a railway line in Sydney.
Someone had written "Australia sux". Under it, someone else wrote "New
Zealand nul".
Since I know nothing about NZ -Australian vowel differences, I'm just
guessing. Is "sux" the way "six" is pronounced in New Zealand?
Yis, but it doesn't sound like sucks.
It's closer to a schwa: [***@ks]. Or possibly a very short [V"].

There's a small amount of variation by region around NZ. Some New
Zealanders have much the same accent as Australians.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
Tony Cooper
2021-01-29 16:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS I heard a new (to me) horrible accent on the TV behind my
back. It turned out to be Jacinda Ardern. Oh, well, lets say it
is characteristic.
It doesn't at all sound horrible to me, but perhaps that's because
I'm used to hearing NZ accents.
I find the accents of some of the NZ footballers less pleasant,
but possibly all I'm hearing there is English noticeably influenced
by Maori.
(Although that latter doesn't explain the language of Australian
footballers.)
http://youtu.be/AVNHzYj3Qws (talking about sunsits)
Of course that vowel difference has been the source of many jokes by
Australians about New Zealanders. (And probably vice versa.) One of my
favourites was painted on a bridge over a railway line in Sydney.
Someone had written "Australia sux". Under it, someone else wrote "New
Zealand nul".
Since I know nothing about NZ -Australian vowel differences, I'm just
guessing. Is "sux" the way "six" is pronounced in New Zealand?
I thought it was that the NZ "sucks" is pronounced similar to our
"six".
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
HVS
2021-01-29 16:16:19 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 08:08:39 -0700, Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS I heard a new (to me) horrible accent on the TV behind my
back. It turned out to be Jacinda Ardern. Oh, well, lets say
it is characteristic.
It doesn't at all sound horrible to me, but perhaps that's
because I'm used to hearing NZ accents.
I find the accents of some of the NZ footballers less
pleasant, but possibly all I'm hearing there is English
noticeably influenced by Maori.
(Although that latter doesn't explain the language of
Australian footballers.)
http://youtu.be/AVNHzYj3Qws (talking about sunsits)
Of course that vowel difference has been the source of many
jokes by Australians about New Zealanders. (And probably vice
versa.) One of my favourites was painted on a bridge over a
railway line in Sydney. Someone had written "Australia sux".
Under it, someone else wrote "New Zealand nul".
Since I know nothing about NZ -Australian vowel differences, I'm
just guessing. Is "sux" the way "six" is pronounced in New
Zealand?
I thought it was that the NZ "sucks" is pronounced similar to our
"six".
I thought that it was the short "e" that changes in NZ to "i" --
"yis" for "yes" and "six" for "sex".
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Ross Clark
2021-01-29 20:47:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by HVS
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 08:08:39 -0700, Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS I heard a new (to me) horrible accent on the TV behind my
back. It turned out to be Jacinda Ardern. Oh, well, lets say
it is characteristic.
It doesn't at all sound horrible to me, but perhaps that's
because I'm used to hearing NZ accents.
I find the accents of some of the NZ footballers less
pleasant, but possibly all I'm hearing there is English
noticeably influenced by Maori.
(Although that latter doesn't explain the language of
Australian footballers.)
http://youtu.be/AVNHzYj3Qws (talking about sunsits)
Of course that vowel difference has been the source of many
jokes by Australians about New Zealanders. (And probably vice
versa.) One of my favourites was painted on a bridge over a
railway line in Sydney. Someone had written "Australia sux".
Under it, someone else wrote "New Zealand nul".
Since I know nothing about NZ -Australian vowel differences, I'm
just guessing. Is "sux" the way "six" is pronounced in New
Zealand?
I thought it was that the NZ "sucks" is pronounced similar to our
"six".
I thought that it was the short "e" that changes in NZ to "i" --
"yis" for "yes" and "six" for "sex".
It's both. All three short front vowels (KIT, DRESS, TRAP) get shifted.
This is a detailed account of it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_English_phonology

TRIGGER WARNING: Page contains vowel diagrams and phonetic symbols.
Stoat
2021-01-28 22:41:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
PS I heard a new (to me) horrible accent on the TV behind my back. It
turned out to be Jacinda Ardern. Oh, well, lets say it is
characteristic.
It doesn't at all sound horrible to me, but perhaps that's because I'm
used to hearing NZ accents.
I find the accents of some of the NZ footballers less pleasant, but
possibly all I'm hearing there is English noticeably influenced by Maori.
(Although that latter doesn't explain the language of Australian
footballers.)
A distinctive characteristic of Maori English is the rhythm.
Syllables are equally spaced and equally stressed.

One thing I have noticed is that NZ (and Australian) accents seem more
extreme when heard on BBC radio.

--brian
--
Wellington
New Zealand
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-29 10:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
PS I heard a new (to me) horrible accent on the TV behind my back. It
turned out to be Jacinda Ardern. Oh, well, lets say it is
characteristic.
It doesn't at all sound horrible to me, but perhaps that's because I'm
used to hearing NZ accents.
I'll no doubt get used to it, if I happen to hear more of it.
Are there Scottish influences?

Jan
Post by Peter Moylan
I find the accents of some of the NZ footballers less pleasant, but
possibly all I'm hearing there is English noticeably influenced by Maori.
(Although that latter doesn't explain the language of Australian
footballers.)
Paul Wolff
2021-01-29 16:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter Moylan
PS I heard a new (to me) horrible accent on the TV behind my back. It
turned out to be Jacinda Ardern. Oh, well, lets say it is
characteristic.
It doesn't at all sound horrible to me, but perhaps that's because I'm
used to hearing NZ accents.
I'll no doubt get used to it, if I happen to hear more of it.
Are there Scottish influences?
In Message-ID: <***@wolff.co.uk> of 14 January I replied to
"Kerr-Mudd,John" suggesting that his Scottish 'fush' for 'fish' had
taken up residence in NZ. Peter Moylan replied, saying the NZ vowel was
a schwa.
--
Paul
Peter Moylan
2021-01-30 02:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by J. J. Lodder
PS I heard a new (to me) horrible accent on the TV behind my
back. It turned out to be Jacinda Ardern. Oh, well, lets say it
is characteristic.
It doesn't at all sound horrible to me, but perhaps that's because
I'm used to hearing NZ accents.
I'll no doubt get used to it, if I happen to hear more of it. Are
there Scottish influences?
I used to think so. Nineteenth-century migration to Australia seems to
have been mostly from Ireland and Scotland, with the Irish
predominating, and a sprinkling of English and Welsh. New Zealand had a
similar mix, but with a larger Scottish contingent as far as I can tell.
You can hear some similarity between Scottish and NZ "fish" and similar
words. The word "wee" is common in NZE but rare in AusE.

On the other hand, if you put a Scot and a Kiwi in the same room you
might think they were from different planets. The similarities are
hidden behind the differences.

On the gripping hand, the article that Ross pointed to says something I
didn't know: before WWII AusE and NZE were a lot closer to each other,
and that NZE vowel shift has happened more recently. That suggests no
Scottish influence unless it happened since 1945.

The web site
https://teara.govt.nz/en/scots
gives a lot of detail about Scottish migration to NZ. It does suggest
moderately strong migration from Scotland in the period 1945-1975.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
Silvano
2021-01-31 09:55:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ross Clark
I don't think the
backpackers are going to disappear any time soon.
Asking for young Europeans: are there any flights to NZ now? Who pays
for two weeks quarantine in hotels on arrival?

The backpackers who are already in NZ are likely to stay there as long
as they can. But I do not expect any new backpackers to NZ in 2021. Do you?
Ross Clark
2021-01-31 10:44:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Silvano
Post by Ross Clark
I don't think the
backpackers are going to disappear any time soon.
Asking for young Europeans: are there any flights to NZ now?
There are, but I don't think any tourist visas are being issued. Most of
the new arrivals are New Zealanders returning home.

Who pays
Post by Silvano
for two weeks quarantine in hotels on arrival?
The arrivee [?].
Post by Silvano
The backpackers who are already in NZ are likely to stay there as long
as they can. But I do not expect any new backpackers to NZ in 2021. Do you?
Probably not. My remark above had a double sense: some of them are stuck
here as you say, or will stay as long as they can. And, in the long run,
assuming that international travel returns on some scale, I don't expect
the NZ government to restrict tourism to the business-class types.
Lewis
2021-01-27 14:04:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It took two or three attempts to understand who was being shot, and
why, in this Guardian headline: "Tourism NZ says ditch influencer shots
for something new." Why would anyone want to influence a ditch?
You are not familiar with the verb ditch?

The headline seems relatively straightforward headline-speak to me.
--
My own people are trying to kill me? It's so French.
Ken Blake
2021-01-27 20:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It took two or three attempts to understand who was being shot, and
why, in this Guardian headline: "Tourism NZ says ditch influencer shots
for something new." Why would anyone want to influence a ditch? Don't
bother to point out that "shots" would need to be "shot" to be a past
participle: I know, but it could also be a typo. Also, the fact that it
happened in New Zealand rather than, say, the USA made it less likely
that anyone was shot.
How could the idea be conveyed more clearly without needing a longer headline?
Tourism NZ suggests ditching flu shots.
--
Ken
Sam Plusnet
2021-01-27 22:34:00 UTC
Permalink
It took two or three attempts to understand who was being shot, and why,
in this Guardian headline: "Tourism NZ says ditch influencer shots for
something new." Why would anyone want to influence a ditch? Don't bother
to point out that "shots" would need to be "shot" to be a past
participle: I know, but it could also be a typo. Also, the fact that it
happened in New Zealand rather than, say, the USA made it less likely
that anyone was shot.
How could the idea be conveyed more clearly without needing a longer headline?
These days, anything which mentions "shots" is obviously a COVID vaccine
story.
Skip over it.
(How many different photographs of people baring their upper arms do we
need?)
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-27 22:38:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
These days, anything which mentions "shots" is obviously a COVID vaccine
story.
Skip over it.
(How many different photographs of people baring their upper arms do we
need?)
But youse guys call them "jabs"!
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-01-28 06:46:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It took two or three attempts to understand who was being shot, and
why, in this Guardian headline: "Tourism NZ says ditch influencer shots
for something new." Why would anyone want to influence a ditch? Don't
bother to point out that "shots" would need to be "shot" to be a past
participle: I know, but it could also be a typo. Also, the fact that it
happened in New Zealand rather than, say, the USA made it less likely
that anyone was shot.
How could the idea be conveyed more clearly without needing a longer headline?
These days, anything which mentions "shots" is obviously a COVID vaccine story.
Skip over it.
(How many different photographs of people baring their upper arms do we need?)
At least 1000 if the French television stations are to be believed. For
months we were seeing several people each day having probes pushed up
their noses. We still get those, but now they're being supplanted by
people baring their upper arms. I'd be quite happy to see neither.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Loading...