And Rosta [log in to unmask] wrote:

>Somewhere online there's a transcript of a talk by Pullum for an Australian 
>radio show that explains to layfolk the idea. His jumping off point is the 
>Australian preposition _bush_, as in _Let's head bush_.

That's this one:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/ling/stories/s693293.htm

Pullum:
>My claim was that I had discovered a new preposition in Australian English that 

>even Macquarie hadn't spotted, when I saw a description of scrub turkey 
>behaviour that said, On hatching, the chicks scramble to the surface and head 
>bush on their own. 
>
>My correspondents all demurred. No, no, they said; that would be an adverb, not 

>a preposition. 
>
>Well, I have to agree that under the standard assumptions of traditional 
>grammar, that's exactly right. "Bush" would be a new Aussie adverb under the 
>traditional account. But I did mean what I said. The thing is, I just didn't 
>have time to explain in a thirteen-minute talk that I'm not a strict 
>traditionalist. I break with the tradition at a number of points, one of them 
>being precisely this matter of how to define the term 'preposition'. And since 
>listeners have quite rightly called me on on this point, I think I do need to 
>explain my arguments. It was arrogant of me to simply presuppose my new position 
>
>without even having stated it.