No, I read voraciously from everywhere, which I why I recognized a number
of the usages as non-American usages instead of gibberish.  Ruck, however,
was a completely new one on me, since it comes from a foreign sport about
which I care absolutely nothing, though I can't say I'd do much better with
the more arcane vocab and usages of American football either, since I care
equally much for that sport as I do for rugby.

Shoat and chook are also new ones on me.  I can't say that I have over much
experience with Australian slang (which both ruck and chook appear to be)
or with pig farming.  Now, if it had been Singlish slang or obsolete usages
from Shakespeare, or the sort of stuff that shows up in BritComs...

Adam who wonders why the test maker so like that one, ah

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:25 AM, David McCann <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:15:21 -0500
> Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > Clearly there is some underpondian bias in that test! :))
> > Clearly.  Quite a number of the usages are extremely (or at least
> > somewhat) non-American, and a few of the vocabulary items (like ruck)
> > simply don't exist on this side of the pond.
> But do you only read books written by Americans? I know what a shoat
> and a chook are, although no English person would ever use either word.