Thread: Australian slang

Вы про это?


Если да, то для этого нету слова

нет!

tsk! = цк!

Dimitri, I meant another цокать.

Like this:

Lol, what would you call that in English?

No, it isn't that sound either... keep trying

What sound are we looking for?

tsk

People say both "Цк" and "тыск", although the latter is less common.

I'd record it, but it'd just sound like microphone noise .

I think Rtyom got it right.

Originally Posted by Rtyom

Dimitri, I meant another цокать.

Like this:

А ну это да - цокать, но почему ты сказал, что это не выход говорить "цокать"?

But it means not quite the same in ours.

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

tsk

You mean like this:

Originally Posted by DDT

I think Rtyom got it right.

well, it sounded more like a squirrel to me

Originally Posted by basurero

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

tsk

You mean like this:

Surely that's "tut"?

Originally Posted by Dimitri

Originally Posted by Eva2379

Привет!
Решила сделать подарок парню - заказать майку с его фотографией и подписью. Парень живет в Сиднее. Так вот, что касается той самой подписи .......скажите, как будет на автралийском сленге "самый сексуальный Сиднея"?/, ну или "мачо Сиднея".
То есть смысл фразы "секс бомба", но для парня. Заранее благодарю за помощь!
Евочка.

Molodoi chelovek, a vam ne kagetsia chto Vi cherezchur pedantichni?

Originally Posted by Chuvak

"секс бомба",

In Russian do you put the comma outside the quotation marks?

Originally Posted by Seventh-Monkey

People say both "Цк" and "тыск", although the latter is less common.

I'd record it, but it'd just sound like microphone noise .

No no no.
This is a common misperception.

Tsk, also know as a "Tut", is like a "backwards T", that is a sucking in of air, instead of an expulsion of air, when prounouncing the letter T.

This sound probably existed before writing did. Then people needed to write it down in certain contexts, so they came up with Tsk. Then people wrongly misidentified this and started trying to pronounce this "word", by the most natural way possible, of inserting a vowel. Giving "Tisk".

You are not supposed to SAY tisk, it is not a word. Well you can in descriptive contexts. Like, the word Howl, is the name for a sound. If you are talking to someone, you wouldn't say, "the dog made a [then you howl]", no, you use a word to express the sound. This is what tsk, and tut are for.

Saying "tisk tisk" is sort of ironic.

From Wiki:

"English does not have the dental click (or any click consonants, for that matter) as a phoneme. However, there is an interjection, written tsk or tsk-tsk, used to express commiseration, disapproval, or irritation"

Listen to Basuero's recording.

Originally Posted by TATY

You are not supposed to SAY tisk, it is not a word.

I don't know the history of the term "tsk" but I would disagree with you. Perhaps in the past it was NOT spoken or intended to be, but I assure you it is spoken in contemporary speech (maybe there is some regional usage variance here). I have most certainly heard it in use, as well as used it myself. Usually it's used in a sense of faux chastisement.

Here's an example:
-I forgot to make my bed last week.
-Tsk-tsk! Shame on you!

In this case, it's a) really an unimportant "failure" and it may b) be directed at someone who is a really goody-goody, for example.

Originally Posted by TATY

Originally Posted by Seventh-Monkey

People say both "Цк" and "тыск", although the latter is less common.

I'd record it, but it'd just sound like microphone noise .

No no no.
This is a common misperception.

Tsk, also know as a "Tut", is like a "backwards T", that is a sucking in of air, instead of an expulsion of air, when prounouncing the letter T.

This sound probably existed before writing did. Then people needed to write it down in certain contexts, so they came up with Tsk. Then people wrongly misidentified this and started trying to pronounce this "word", by the most natural way possible, of inserting a vowel. Giving "Tisk".

You are not supposed to SAY tisk, it is not a word. Well you can in descriptive contexts. Like, the word Howl, is the name for a sound. If you are talking to someone, you wouldn't say, "the dog made a [then you howl]", no, you use a word to express the sound. This is what tsk, and tut are for.

Saying "tisk tisk" is sort of ironic.

From Wiki:

"English does not have the dental click (or any click consonants, for that matter) as a phoneme. However, there is an interjection, written tsk or tsk-tsk, used to express commiseration, disapproval, or irritation"

Listen to Basuero's recording.

Man, who thought that sounded like "tsk"? I suppose it is a little difficult to write.

Ta for clearing that up, anyway.

Originally Posted by Barmaley

Originally Posted by TATY

You are not supposed to SAY tisk, it is not a word.

I don't know the history of the term "tsk" but I would disagree with you. Perhaps in the past it was NOT spoken or intended to be, but I assure you it is spoken in contemporary speech (maybe there is some regional usage variance here). I have most certainly heard it in use, as well as used it myself. Usually it's used in a sense of faux chastisement.

Here's an example:
-I forgot to make my bed last week.
-Tsk-tsk! Shame on you!

In this case, it's a) really an unimportant "failure" and it may b) be directed at someone who is a really goody-goody, for example.

It's not regional. Lot's of people say CD's as the plural of CD, but that doesn't make it right.

That's the whole point. Faux chastisement.
In reality, if you really were angry with someone, you've make the noise, since it is an interjection, an ancient pre-language thing.
In a faux chastisement you are not really angry, it's not serious, this is when Tsk is prounced as a word.

It's like, if someone says something shocing to you, you might have a look of shock on your face or gasp.
But if you are expressing faux shock, you might say "Shock, horror!"

But you would never actually say "Shock, horror!" if you really were shocked.

Originally Posted by TATY

Lot's of people say CD's as the plural of CD, but that doesn't make it right.

I'm guessing the extra apostrophe there was intentional.

I don't see the problem with "CDs", although it seems to me that it should then be punctuated "C.d's", as a dot always seems to mean "and no more of that word" while an apostrophe just notes "there could be anything here": in this case "isc".

I certainly agree with you on the mock-use of 'tisk', though.