British English: "a hiatus" or "an hiatus"
Peter J Lusby
andrew fox wrote:
> "Phil C." wrote:
>
> > "Mike Potter" <pot...@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:3B12E6E9...@att.net...
> > > I must use the phrase "After a hiatus ..." or alternatively
> > "After an
> > > hiatus ..." in an article for a UK journal.
> > >
> > > The former seems acceptable for the USA. Is the latter more
> > correct in
> > > the UK?
> >
> > Depends how you pronounce it. "An" before a sounded "h" is
> > just an affectation. People used to write "an hotel" etc
> > because they pronounced it "'otel".
> > -- .
> > Phil C.
> > ________________________________________
> > philandwoody*at*meem*dot*freeserve*dot*co*dot*uk
> why not say "after a disruption " or something similar, use a
> thesaurus
> why deliberately go forwrd into a difficulty, both a hiatus and an
> hiatus dont read well anyway??
>
> cheers andrew
I don't see what the problem is with "a hiatus", except that it introduces
a hiatus into the spoken version. If you have a problem with that, just
add an appropriate adjective "... after a brief hiatus". "Disruption"
doesn't convey exactly the same sense, especially when "hiatus" is used in
any of its technical meanings.
Overall, there is no justification for the American neologism of using än"
before words begining with an 'h'. All english words begioning with 'h',
including hotel, hospital, and herb, all have an aspirated 'h' that
doesn't call for being preceded by "an".
What do the a.u.e mavens have to contribute?
Regards
Peter
--
"A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware" - Rupert Brooke - "The
Soldier"
Peter J Lusby
San Diego, California, USA
www.lusby.org
Richard Fontana
You may be unaware that in North American English "herb" is most commonly
pronounced without /h/. Also your statement, if taken literally, is
obviously not true; there are plenty of other English words with initial
<h> that don't have the /h/ pronounced in standard dialects, such as
"hour", "hono(u)r".
R H Draney
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.010529...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu...
> On Tue, 29 May 2001, Peter J Lusby wrote:
> > Overall, there is no justification for the American neologism of using
än"
Aha!...telltale evidence of an internationally-configured keyboard! ^
> > before words begining with an 'h'. All english words begioning with
'h',
> > including hotel, hospital, and herb, all have an aspirated 'h' that
> > doesn't call for being preceded by "an".
>
> You may be unaware that in North American English "herb" is most commonly
> pronounced without /h/. Also your statement, if taken literally, is
> obviously not true; there are plenty of other English words with initial
> <h> that don't have the /h/ pronounced in standard dialects, such as
> "hour", "hono(u)r".
Something like this topic came up today when I was conversing with a
co-worker who is originally from Mexico City (we had in fact been talking
about the "Spanish words beginning with W" thread here)...he prevailed upon
me to explain what "the rule" is whereby sometimes "I'll tell him" is
pronounced with the letter H in the last word aspirated, and sometimes
not....
I had to confess that the only "rule" has to do with how carefully one is
enunciating...I was able to suggest that if he always aspirates in this
case, he'll never be incorrect, but that if he doesn't, there are times such
pronunciation will be taken as sloppy....r
Peter J Lusby
> On Tue, 29 May 2001, Peter J Lusby wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't see what the problem is with "a hiatus", except that it introduces
> > a hiatus into the spoken version. If you have a problem with that, just
> > add an appropriate adjective "... after a brief hiatus". "Disruption"
> > doesn't convey exactly the same sense, especially when "hiatus" is used in
> > any of its technical meanings.
> >
> > Overall, there is no justification for the American neologism of using än"
> > before words begining with an 'h'. All english words begioning with 'h',
> > including hotel, hospital, and herb, all have an aspirated 'h' that
> > doesn't call for being preceded by "an".
> >
> > What do the a.u.e mavens have to contribute?
>
> You may be unaware that in North American English
I'll resist the temptation to be rudely sarcastic about this. As my sig says, I
live in San Diego, and have done for over 20 years.
> "herb" is most commonly
> pronounced without /h/.
This is precisely the American neologism I am fighting against.
> Also your statement, if taken literally, is
> obviously not true; there are plenty of other English words with initial
> <h> that don't have the /h/ pronounced in standard dialects, such as
> "hour", "hono(u)r".
There was a botched edit in that paragraph (along with several typos - I got
interrupted during the composition, then sent the message before it was proofed
and corrected). My point was that, for some pretentious reason, Americans have,
relatively recently, taken to dropping the aspirate 'h' at the beginning of
many words, which forces the indefinite article to change from 'a' to 'an'. It
also adds to the confusion of when an initial 'h' is aspirate and when not.
Language evolves. We need to protect it from evolving in a direction which
increases confusion or ambiguity, and try to direct it's path into improved,
rather than impaired communication.. Already, when the waitress asks me if I
want a nerb tea, I'm wondering what on earth she is offering me. If it gets to
the point where I travel from a nouse to a notel for a nappy gathering, with a
niatus in a nospital on the way, the language has clearly taken a retrograde
step.
Richard Fontana
> Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 29 May 2001, Peter J Lusby wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I don't see what the problem is with "a hiatus", except that it introduces
> > > a hiatus into the spoken version. If you have a problem with that, just
> > > add an appropriate adjective "... after a brief hiatus". "Disruption"
> > > doesn't convey exactly the same sense, especially when "hiatus" is used in
> > > any of its technical meanings.
> > >
> > > Overall, there is no justification for the American neologism of using än"
> > > before words begining with an 'h'. All english words begioning with 'h',
> > > including hotel, hospital, and herb, all have an aspirated 'h' that
> > > doesn't call for being preceded by "an".
> > >
> > > What do the a.u.e mavens have to contribute?
> >
> > You may be unaware that in North American English
>
> I'll resist the temptation to be rudely sarcastic about this. As my sig says, I
> live in San Diego, and have done for over 20 years.
>
> > "herb" is most commonly
> > pronounced without /h/.
>
> This is precisely the American neologism I am fighting against.
As far as I know it's not a neologism. The word entered English from
French with silent 'h', didn't it? It regained an 'h' in British English
-- that's the neologism. You're not one of those people who assume that
everything British English has is older than what American English has,
are you?
> > Also your statement, if taken literally, is
> > obviously not true; there are plenty of other English words with initial
> > <h> that don't have the /h/ pronounced in standard dialects, such as
> > "hour", "hono(u)r".
>
> There was a botched edit in that paragraph (along with several typos - I got
> interrupted during the composition, then sent the message before it was proofed
> and corrected). My point was that, for some pretentious reason, Americans have,
> relatively recently, taken to dropping the aspirate 'h' at the beginning of
> many words, which forces the indefinite article to change from 'a' to 'an'. It
> also adds to the confusion of when an initial 'h' is aspirate and when not.
> Language evolves. We need to protect it from evolving in a direction which
> increases confusion or ambiguity, and try to direct it's path into improved,
> rather than impaired communication.. Already, when the waitress asks me if I
> want a nerb tea, I'm wondering what on earth she is offering me. If it gets to
> the point where I travel from a nouse to a notel for a nappy gathering, with a
> niatus in a nospital on the way, the language has clearly taken a retrograde
> step.
Are you saying that you remember a time in the US when "herb" had the 'h'
pronounced by most speakers? I think you're very mistaken. Maybe it was
a feature of the local dialect of San Diego or wherever you learned the
language.
Harvey V
<rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> said:
<snip>
>>
>>> "herb" is most commonly pronounced without /h/.
>>
>> This is precisely the American neologism I am fighting against.
>
> As far as I know it's not a neologism. The word entered English
> from French with silent 'h', didn't it? It regained an 'h' in
> British English -- that's the neologism.
Not only a neologistic pronunciation, but a relatively recent one, if
my understanding of this is correct. (I understood that the aspirated
"h" in British English "herb" dates to c.1900.)
[An aside: isn't the use of "neologism" odd when applied to
pronunciation rather than word-formation? Is this an accepted use of
"neologism"?)
> You're not one of those people who assume that everything British
> English has is older than what American English has, are you?
Another "not only that". I understood that most of the commonly-noted
pronunciation and spelling differences are rightpondian rather than
leftpondian changes. All the archival documents I've worked with, for
example, suggest that AmerEng never "dropped the "u" out of colour";
they just never put it in.
Cheers,
Harvey
Richard Fontana
> On 30 May 2001, I take it that Richard Fontana
> <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> said:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>
> >>> "herb" is most commonly pronounced without /h/.
> >>
> >> This is precisely the American neologism I am fighting against.
> >
> > As far as I know it's not a neologism. The word entered English
> > from French with silent 'h', didn't it? It regained an 'h' in
> > British English -- that's the neologism.
>
> Not only a neologistic pronunciation, but a relatively recent one, if
> my understanding of this is correct. (I understood that the aspirated
> "h" in British English "herb" dates to c.1900.)
>
> [An aside: isn't the use of "neologism" odd when applied to
> pronunciation rather than word-formation? Is this an accepted use of
> "neologism"?)
I don't think so, but I was accepting the other poster's usage for
purposes of this discussion. It's not the usual use of "neologism",
anyway.
> > You're not one of those people who assume that everything British
> > English has is older than what American English has, are you?
>
> Another "not only that". I understood that most of the commonly-noted
> pronunciation and spelling differences are rightpondian rather than
> leftpondian changes. All the archival documents I've worked with, for
> example, suggest that AmerEng never "dropped the "u" out of colour";
> they just never put it in.
In many respects American English is more "archaic" than contemporary
British English. This sort of thing often happens with colonized
places. An extreme but familiar case is Iceland: The Icelandic language
isn't much changed from Old Norse, which was brought to Iceland from
Scandinavia a thousand or so years ago. But meanwhile in Scandinavia
itself the dialects of Old Norse changed quite a bit more -- modern
Swedish, Norwegian and Danish are more further removed from Old Norse than
modern Icelandic is. I understand that Icelandic speakers can read
medieval Icelandic sagas without much difficulty.
Peter J Lusby
Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2001, Harvey V wrote:
>
> > On 30 May 2001, I take it that Richard Fontana
> > <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> said:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >>
> > >>> "herb" is most commonly pronounced without /h/.
> > >>
> > >> This is precisely the American neologism I am fighting against.
> > >
> > > As far as I know it's not a neologism. The word entered English
> > > from French with silent 'h', didn't it? It regained an 'h' in
> > > British English -- that's the neologism.
Not so. According to my "Histoire de la Langue Française*", the aspirated 'h'
was the norm in both Langue d'Oc and Langue d'Oïl until the mid 14 century.
Its usage gradually disappeared under the Arabic influences of Catalan,
disappearing from the South towards the North over the next 3 centuries. The
French components of modern English are more archaic than contemporary
French. [This sort of thing often happens with colonized places ;-) ].
Hence names like Fitzroy in English, which preserve the "roy" form that in
17th and 18th Century France became "roi". As far as I can tell, the
unaspirated 'h' in the American pronunciation is an affectation similar to the
italianate pronunciation of the 'a' sound in British English. Shaw, in
Pygmalion, certainly makes an issue of the 'h', and he was intractably opposed
to the italianisation of British pronunciation that he observed around him
among his contemporaries.
>
> >
> > Not only a neologistic pronunciation, but a relatively recent one, if
> > my understanding of this is correct. (I understood that the aspirated
> > "h" in British English "herb" dates to c.1900.)
> >
> > [An aside: isn't the use of "neologism" odd when applied to
> > pronunciation rather than word-formation? Is this an accepted use of
> > "neologism"?)
>
> I don't think so, but I was accepting the other poster's usage for
> purposes of this discussion. It's not the usual use of "neologism",
> anyway.
>
Websters defines neologism as "a new word, usage, or expression". One might,
I suppose, cavill at classing pronunciation as usage, but Webster also uses
the phrase "... pronounced [xyz] in British usage...", so I think I'm on safe
ground with this one
>
> > > You're not one of those people who assume that everything British
> > > English has is older than what American English has, are you?
> >
Anyone who assumes that is an ignorant fool whose opinions are worthless. A
case in point is the 19th century modification of the British 'a' sound.
Colonies firmly established by the reign of Victoria largely escaped this vile
perversion (although the Bostonians managed to catch it somehow). The
Antipodes were infected with it from the outset.
>
> > Another "not only that". I understood that most of the commonly-noted
> > pronunciation and spelling differences are rightpondian rather than
> > leftpondian changes. All the archival documents I've worked with, for
> > example, suggest that AmerEng never "dropped the "u" out of colour";
> > they just never put it in.
>
I'd dearly love to see some examples of this. English spelling really didn't
begin to be standardised until the printing press, and at that time, William
Caxton was probably more responsible than any other man for how spelling
became regularised. He never actually formalised the spelling, he just
printed stuff the way he heard it. In those days, "colo(u)r' was pronounced
something like coo-loor, being much closer to the French pronunciation than
today's version. Caxton or his typesetter rendered the "oo" sound as "ou"
originally in both syllables. In the intervening generations, the first 'u'
disappeared quite quickly. The second persisted for a long time, due largely
to the British public school system which gradually promulgated the "rules" of
English spelling. Note that in his "Prologue to Caton" (1483) , Caxton writes
"honour", while his "Life of Saint Cecilia" (1483) consistently has
"tormentour" where we would today (on either side of the pond) write
"tormentor", not to mention the title of his 1481 work "The Myrrour of the
Worlde".
If you can back up that theory about the or/our thing with some hard
documentation, it would be a good thing for your argument, which right now
isn't holding up too well.
>
> In many respects American English is more "archaic" than contemporary
> British English. This sort of thing often happens with colonized
> places.
Sorry to be so tedious and tendentious. Maybe next time, I'll just be
flippant and sarcastic.
Regards
Peter
* "Histoire de la langue française"- Jaques Chaurand, Presses Universitaires
de France, Paris, 1993
Richard Fontana
> > > >>> "herb" is most commonly pronounced without /h/.
> > > >>
> > > >> This is precisely the American neologism I am fighting against.
> > > >
> > > > As far as I know it's not a neologism. The word entered English
> > > > from French with silent 'h', didn't it? It regained an 'h' in
> > > > British English -- that's the neologism.
>
> Not so. According to my "Histoire de la Langue Française*", the aspirated 'h'
> was the norm in both Langue d'Oc and Langue d'Oïl until the mid 14 century.
> Its usage gradually disappeared under the Arabic influences of Catalan,
> disappearing from the South towards the North over the next 3 centuries. The
> French components of modern English are more archaic than contemporary
> French. [This sort of thing often happens with colonized places ;-) ].
> Hence names like Fitzroy in English, which preserve the "roy" form that in
> 17th and 18th Century France became "roi". As far as I can tell, the
> unaspirated 'h' in the American pronunciation is an affectation similar to the
> italianate pronunciation of the 'a' sound in British English.
What evidence do you have that the selective use of "broad a" is an
"Italianate" affectation and not a natural accent development in Southern
England dialects? The use of /A/ in place of /&/ only occurred in certain
positions -- only when the vowel preceded certain consonants. If it were
an affectation, then why didn't *all* "a" get the
"Italianate" pronunciation?
The fact that the /A/ is used only before certain consonants -- like f,
s, th -- suggests that it may be a purely phonetic change that has no
social component. Similarly, in my American accent I use the
"caught" vowel instead of the "cot" vowel when written "short o" precedes
a limited class of consonants: f, s, th. ("Off", "loss", "moth" are
examples.) (If you're a native speaker of the Western U.S. you might not
be aware that "cot" and "caught" can be pronounced distinctly.)
> Shaw, in
> Pygmalion, certainly makes an issue of the 'h', and he was intractably opposed
> to the italianisation of British pronunciation that he observed around him
> among his contemporaries.
Perhaps Shaw's analysis was flawed.
According to Michael Quinion,
=======
Until the sixteenth century the word was usually spelled erb - the English
got it from the French, who didn't say the first letter either. Down to
the nineteenth century, long after the h had been added under later French
influence, that was also the way it was said. The seventeenth- and
eighteenth-century American colonists took this state of affairs with
them. During the nineteenth century, British people began to say the first
letter, as a result of what linguists call a spelling pronunciation.
=======
http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-her1.htm
I'm not sure Qunion's "usually" is right.
I found this in one Middle English work:
With many an herbe and many a ston,
[...]
Ther is an herbe which men calleth
[Gower, John: Confessio amantis (1390-1393)]
You could argue that the "a/an" rules were different then, but for
some reason Gower uses "an" before "herb" and not before "stone".
I also found these "erb" spellings:
hire erbes smulle suete
from catenas into dyuelyn
Anonymous: The Harley lyrics (1310)
Erbes, spyce, frute on tree,
Beastes, fewles, all that ye see
Shall bowe to you, more and myn.
Anonymous: The York plays (1440)
After [th]e sesoun of somer wyth [th]e soft wyndez
Quen Zeferus syflez hymself on sedez and erbez,
[...]
'Now iwysse,' quo[th] Wowayn, 'wysty is here;
[Th]is oritore is vgly, with erbez ouergrowen;
Anonymous: Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (1400)
> > > Not only a neologistic pronunciation, but a relatively recent one, if
> > > my understanding of this is correct. (I understood that the aspirated
> > > "h" in British English "herb" dates to c.1900.)
> > >
> > > [An aside: isn't the use of "neologism" odd when applied to
> > > pronunciation rather than word-formation? Is this an accepted use of
> > > "neologism"?)
> >
> > I don't think so, but I was accepting the other poster's usage for
> > purposes of this discussion. It's not the usual use of "neologism",
> > anyway.
> >
>
> Websters defines neologism as "a new word, usage, or expression". One might,
> I suppose, cavill at classing pronunciation as usage, but Webster also uses
> the phrase "... pronounced [xyz] in British usage...", so I think I'm on safe
> ground with this one
You're saying that the silent-h in American "herb" is a "neologism", but
what's new about it? You didn't respond to my question about whether you
remember a time in the US when "herb" commonly had the 'h'
pronounced. Quinion's piece states that 90% of contemporary Americans
do not pronounce the 'h' in "herb" -- that must include a lot of elderly
speakers.
Harvey V
>
> If you can back up that theory about the or/our thing with some
> hard documentation, it would be a good thing for your argument,
> which right now isn't holding up too well.
The main example with which I am personally aware is an educated but
elderly professional writing in the 19th century. In the 1820s, when
writing to his governmental client and producing specifications for the
the tints to be used for painting buildings in Regent's Park, the
architect John Nash consistently used "color" without the "u".[1]
This spelling appears both in manuscript material and in letters and
specifications signed by Nash but copied by his clerk. (As a Canadian
in England, I had to make it clear in my transcriptions that I was not
arbitrarily changing Nash's spelling.)
Nash was in his 70s by this date (born in 1752), and I have always
assumed that this spelling must have reflected the practice of his
schooldays and apprenticeship in the 1760s and 1770s. The contemporary
post-Napoleonic replies to this correspondence used "colour".
A analagous survival of an older form appears in letters written by
some of the Crown Estate tenants in the mid 19th century. These were
often minor aristocratic dowagers who continued to use the "f"-shaped
form for an internal "ss", which disappeared from printed estate leases
c.1800.[2] (I *know* it's not actually formed as an "f", but that's
the nearest equivalent I can find on the keyboard.)
This seems to me to be precisely analagous to Nash's "color": the use
by an elderly, educated person of a standard form which had changed
since their schooldays.
[1] Documents in the Public Records Office, generally in CRES 2 but
also in some of the CRES 35 files.
[2] Letters in CRES 35 lease files. The abandonment of the "f" form
was seen in the standard printed leases of the Bedford Estate c.1795-
1805.
Cheers,
Harvey
Steve Hayes
>There was a botched edit in that paragraph (along with several typos - I got
>interrupted during the composition, then sent the message before it was proofed
>and corrected). My point was that, for some pretentious reason, Americans have,
>relatively recently, taken to dropping the aspirate 'h' at the beginning of
>many words, which forces the indefinite article to change from 'a' to 'an'. It
>also adds to the confusion of when an initial 'h' is aspirate and when not.
>Language evolves. We need to protect it from evolving in a direction which
>increases confusion or ambiguity, and try to direct it's path into improved,
>rather than impaired communication.. Already, when the waitress asks me if I
>want a nerb tea, I'm wondering what on earth she is offering me. If it gets to
>the point where I travel from a nouse to a notel for a nappy gathering, with a
>niatus in a nospital on the way, the language has clearly taken a retrograde
>step.
Just 'old yer bref 'n wa' ri' froo, ma'.
Cockneys have talked like that for years.
Steve Hayes
http://www.suite101.com/myhome.cfm/methodius
Chris Malcolm
>My point was that, for some pretentious reason, Americans have,
>relatively recently, taken to dropping the aspirate 'h' at the beginning of
>many words, which forces the indefinite article to change from 'a' to 'an'. It
>also adds to the confusion of when an initial 'h' is aspirate and when not.
>Language evolves. We need to protect it from evolving in a direction which
>increases confusion or ambiguity, and try to direct it's path into improved,
>rather than impaired communication.. Already, when the waitress asks me if I
>want a nerb tea, I'm wondering what on earth she is offering me. If it gets to
>the point where I travel from a nouse to a notel for a nappy gathering, with a
>niatus in a nospital on the way, the language has clearly taken a retrograde
>step.
But it sometimes moves in the prograde direction, as in the case of
the norange.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@dai.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 650 3085
School of Artificial Intelligence, Division of Informatics
Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/daidb/people/homes/cam/ ] DoD #205
Peter J Lusby
And not just cockneys - the East End accent has spread thoughout the Thames Esstuary,
and indeed much of the Home Counties. And how many people find Estuarine English easy
to understand? My father spent years knocking the Cockney out of my accent (funny,
really, since his family comes from Mile End and points West), and I still have to
guard against the tendency to drop my 't's and 'h's. That's one reason I jumped into
the debate about "a herb" vs "an herb". Apart from my father, who went to Palmers
Public School, no-one in my family would have said anything but "an hat", "an
horrible day" etc.
Clearly there is enough research to be done here to make a decent doctoral
dissertation. I'll have to talk to my professors again. In the meantime, I think
we're going to have to agree to differ on the point.
Peter J Lusby
> On Wed, 30 May 2001 12:10:50 -0700, Peter J Lusby <p...@lusby.org> wrote:
>
> > If it gets to
> >the point where I travel from a nouse to a notel for a nappy gathering, with a
> >niatus in a nospital on the way, the language has clearly taken a retrograde
> >step.
>
> But it sometimes moves in the prograde direction, as in the case of
> the norange.
>
In the same vein, I noted some years ago that in popular songs, the phrase "your
eyes" seems to have been universally replaced by "you rise", which can sound *really*
strange in some contexts!
Warm regards
Rabid Bee
>
> And not just cockneys - the East End accent has spread thoughout the Thames Esstuary,
> and indeed much of the Home Counties. And how many people find Estuarine English easy
> to understand?
Ever since I moved north, I've spent so much time trying to convince
people that I'm not a bloody cockney. HAd to do it again tonight, with
a Welsh mate who insisted that anyone from south of Birmingham is a
cockney. Mind you, he was Welsh, so he would be a little ignorant of
the 1st world, obviously... :-)
cheers, Alex
Donna Richoux
>
> Ever since I moved north, I've spent so much time trying to convince
> people that I'm not a bloody cockney. HAd to do it again tonight, with
> a Welsh mate who insisted that anyone from south of Birmingham is a
> cockney. Mind you, he was Welsh, so he would be a little ignorant of
> the 1st world, obviously... :-)
On alt.usage.english, some of us have been discussing the nature of
insult; this arose from talking about Yank, Limey, etc. We got as far as
trying to sort out when people *intend* to be insulting, and when the
recipients take offense (rightly or wrongly) even when no insult was
intended.
Perhaps you could add some light to the discussion by explaining why it
is that it upsets you that the people of the north call you a "Cockney."
I gather you are upset, because you say "bloody."
Yes, I know that by your standards you are not a Cockney, but by their
standards you are one. You must pronounce certain words certain ways
that signal to them, "This person is the kind that we here label a
Cockney." Right?
And they don't mean anything bad by this label, do they? They don't mean
that all Cockneys are stupid or thieves or something really bad -- do
they? Do you perceive that insult was intended?
Or is the negative part that what *you* bring to the table? In *your*
books, Cockneys are bad people, and you don't want to be associated with
them?
Or is it just the simple but baffling frustration of "you keep calling
me by the wrong name and for some reason I can't convince you to do
otherwise"?
Or other?
Follow-ups to alt.usage.english.
--
Best wishes --- Donna Richoux
Peter J Lusby
Donna Richoux wrote:
> Perhaps you could add some light to the discussion by explaining why it
> is that it upsets you that the people of the north call you a "Cockney."
> I gather you are upset, because you say "bloody."
For the original poster (Rabid Bee), it could be something as simple as not
suffering fools gladly - much as Canadians hate to be taken for Americans, or
Aussies hate to be taken for British, not because there is anything wrong
with the people for whom they are mistaken, but because there is something
very wrong with the kind of ignorance which assumes that all English speaking
people from the North American continent are Americans, or that all those
_not_ from North America are English. Equally, there is reason to despise
the kind of stupidity which would lump together "everyone South of
Birmingham" as Cockney.
Does this make sense?
Regards
Peter
(scb added because I don't subscribe to aue)
Roger4336
>that all Cockneys are stupid or thieves or something really bad -- do
>they? Do you perceive that insult was intended?
>
The question does not seem all that complicated to me. I have *never* seen a
reference to "cockney" that did not carry the inference of lower class, most
likely of modest education.
Chris Hedley
> _not_ from North America are English. Equally, there is reason to despise
> the kind of stupidity which would lump together "everyone South of
> Birmingham" as Cockney.
Especially as Cockneys live to the east of Birmingham.
Chris.
--
//USENET01 JOB (CBH,ISA),'TALKING BOLLOCKS',REGION=4000K,CLASS=F,
// MSGCLASS=A,PASSWORD=WIBBLE,USER=CBH,COND=(04,LT)
Donna Richoux
Well, it's very easy to say that. However, I was hoping to go deeper,
and sort out the viewpoints. Who is "carrying" what? Did they mean to?
Did the other person draw an "inference" when there was no
"implication"?
Where is it that you have consistently seen all these negative
references? I don't know where you are; your email address is aol.com
but that doesn't mean you are in the US.
In the case of Cockney (not something I have much experience with, being
an American), is it really true that people of the North of England
think, first and foremost, "All Cockneys are lower class and of modest
education"? Or do they think, first and foremost, "A Cockney is a person
who says "moight" for "might" and "bu''n" for "button"? Or whatever --
change the details to suit the real perceptions -- but I mean some
fairly neutral identifying characteristics, the same way I can identify
someone as being Irish or from the US South, by their speech.
I don't know, but I think it is at least possible that some of the
Northerners think that Cockney is a fairly objective, general term, and
it is the people on the receiving side who are offended by it, because
*they* are the ones who think it's a bad thing to be a Cockney, and they
are certain they are not one.
But if this is not the case, just tell me. But I would need to know
whether you're speaking as a Northern Brit or a Southern Brit or other.
You say "inference." "Imply" and "infer" are easily confused, and it's
much the same problem as giving insults and receiving them: one of
viewpoint. Did the person imply or intend an insult, or did the listener
infer it -- perhaps wrongly?
Rather than play around with theoretical definitions, I hoped we could
look at the specific example Rabid Bee gave. But anyone else's specific
example would do, as long as it was real and therefore they had an
actual viewpoint, some actual personal assumptions, and said or heard
some actual words they could remember.
Albert Marshall
<tr...@euronet.nl> writes
>
>I don't know, but I think it is at least possible that some of the
>Northerners think that Cockney is a fairly objective, general term,
Some of them believe that the world is flat, and others that we are all
ruled by Tibetan monks who live in a world-wide network of tunnels.
Probably the same number as think that Cockney is a "fairly objective,
general term". (In fact, probably the same ones.)
Sorry, Donna. On this one you have to accept the word of REAL native
English speakers. Cockney is not a standard generally accepted term in
Britain for someone from the Home Counties or the south coast.
It is sometimes mistakenly used as a generic meaning "Londoner", but
that usually triggers off a protest by any non-cockneys present.
I have lived in the North, and have only ever been called a Cockney by
someone taking the mick.
>and
>it is the people on the receiving side who are offended by it, because
>*they* are the ones who think it's a bad thing to be a Cockney, and they
>are certain they are not one.
In my time I have been honestly mistaken for a Geordie and a German, and
my father has been mistaken for a Swede. Those we laughed at although,
at best, all of these are on a par with Cockneys in my book.
It is no worse to be a Cockney than to be born anywhere else outside
walking distance of Parson's Green (the true centre and fount of
civilisation).
--
Albert Marshall
Database Developer
Marshall Le Botmel Ltd
01242 222017
Albert Marshall
<tr...@euronet.nl> writes
>Rabid Bee <rabi...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ever since I moved north, I've spent so much time trying to convince
>> people that I'm not a bloody cockney. HAd to do it again tonight, with
>> a Welsh mate who insisted that anyone from south of Birmingham is a
>> cockney. Mind you, he was Welsh, so he would be a little ignorant of
>> the 1st world, obviously... :-)
>
>On alt.usage.english, some of us have been discussing the nature of
>insult; this arose from talking about Yank, Limey, etc. We got as far as
>trying to sort out when people *intend* to be insulting, and when the
>recipients take offense (rightly or wrongly) even when no insult was
>intended.
I believe that many natives of the old Confederacy would take less than
kindly to a Brit lumping all Americans together as Yankees.
I see the problem as deriving from a lack of respect for a person's
origins and self-image.
>
>Perhaps you could add some light to the discussion by explaining why it
>is that it upsets you that the people of the north call you a "Cockney."
>I gather you are upset, because you say "bloody."
Not surprisingly. They always complain bitterly when we claim
(justifiably) that civilisation stops at the top of the Northern Line.
>
>Yes, I know that by your standards you are not a Cockney, but by their
>standards you are one. You must pronounce certain words certain ways
>that signal to them, "This person is the kind that we here label a
>Cockney." Right?
And you, dear Donna, have enough accent characteristics to be labelled a
Yank, although most of us in Rightpondia could not say which state you
hail from.
I come from Fulham (the lads are going up !!!!!), which is about 9 miles
from Bow. In England that is a huge distance in accent terms. Yes, we
have certain characteristics in common, but no Fulham native sounds like
Dick Van Dyke.
>
>And they don't mean anything bad by this label, do they? They don't mean
>that all Cockneys are stupid or thieves or something really bad -- do
>they? Do you perceive that insult was intended?
There is an implied class issue, in that the Cockney accent is widely
perceived as lower working class. Remember that this is Britain.
>
>Or is the negative part that what *you* bring to the table? In *your*
>books, Cockneys are bad people, and you don't want to be associated with
>them?
Nothing wrong with Cockneys; ask Garry about them.
>
>Or is it just the simple but baffling frustration of "you keep calling
>me by the wrong name and for some reason I can't convince you to do
>otherwise"?
>
It's the same sort of thing.
Donna Richoux
> In article <1eudnj2.11mm6uu1qioqokN%tr...@euronet.nl>, Donna Richoux
> <tr...@euronet.nl> writes
> >
> >I don't know, but I think it is at least possible that some of the
> >Northerners think that Cockney is a fairly objective, general term,
>
> Some of them believe that the world is flat, and others that we are all
> ruled by Tibetan monks who live in a world-wide network of tunnels.
> Probably the same number as think that Cockney is a "fairly objective,
> general term". (In fact, probably the same ones.)
>
> Sorry, Donna. On this one you have to accept the word of REAL native
> English speakers.
No need to apologize. I was begging to hear from some people who knew
the situation first-hand. I appreciate your comments and hope others
will also contribute.
>Cockney is not a standard generally accepted term in
> Britain for someone from the Home Counties or the south coast.
>
> It is sometimes mistakenly used as a generic meaning "Londoner", but
> that usually triggers off a protest by any non-cockneys present.
Yes, that's rather what I was talking about. As you say, some
Northerners might consider it to be a term for Londoner -- even a sort
of chipper, friendly term -- and not have the strong negative feelings
that Southerners have, who don't want to be labeled Cockney.
This is exactly how the American PC movement started, you know, with one
group saying, "Don't call me that bad word," and the other group saying,
"But we didn't mean anything by it." I don't have much of a problem with
the concept of political correctness, but it led to a lot of anger and
ridicule. (Maybe there's always a certain amount of anger in the system,
and it just gets shifted around...)
>
> I have lived in the North, and have only ever been called a Cockney by
> someone taking the mick.
>
> >and
> >it is the people on the receiving side who are offended by it, because
> >*they* are the ones who think it's a bad thing to be a Cockney, and they
> >are certain they are not one.
>
> In my time I have been honestly mistaken for a Geordie and a German, and
> my father has been mistaken for a Swede. Those we laughed at although,
> at best, all of these are on a par with Cockneys in my book.
>
> It is no worse to be a Cockney than to be born anywhere else outside
> walking distance of Parson's Green (the true centre and fount of
> civilisation).
Okay, that's what I was wondering. Thanks.
Ross Howard
wrote:
>I don't know, but I think it is at least possible that some of the
>Northerners think that Cockney is a fairly objective, general term, and
>it is the people on the receiving side who are offended by it, because
>*they* are the ones who think it's a bad thing to be a Cockney, and they
>are certain they are not one.
It's not really objective for this erstwhile Northerner. All the
people I grew up with and the Northerners I know now use "Southerner"
or "Londoner" when being objective.
However, I disagree about the lower-class thing. Although most people
Northerners call "Cockneys" are probably working class, the use of the
word by a Northerner implies a rather withering wariness of the
jack-the-laddiness, inyafaceness and over-cocky self-assurance
typified over the years by unfunny music-hall comics of the Cheeky
Chappy variety in loud suits saying "Ooh missis!" a lot, Eric Idle's
"Nudge, nudge, wink, wink" character, that "Loadsamoney" plasterer,
and that irritating Ian Watsisname who exports his unbearable
cockneyness all over the world in *Lonely Planet*.
Ross Howard
a1a5...@sprint.ca
wrote:
> that irritating Ian Watsisname who exports his unbearable
>cockneyness all over the world in *Lonely Planet*.
>
>Ross Howard
That's 'weld' he says, even more atrociously than Wessex--who exports
similar pop stuff, but at least does not, every five minutes, strip
down to his skinny self for a quick dip.
Ross Howard
It's more "weh-ood", isn't it? I do like the New York woman though
(Justine Somethingjewishish, I think). She reminds me of a splendid
Brooklynitrix I flung briefly with few (well, okay, eighteen) years
ago. It's a shame her accent's so mild though; if she grouchotically
travelled the "wuh-ild" it might go some way towards counterbalancing
that Cockney atrocity.
Ross Howard
a1a5...@sprint.ca
wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 04:09:14 GMT, a1a5...@sprint.ca wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 22:02:32 GMT, rho...@navegalia.com (Ross Howard)
>>wrote:
>>> that irritating Ian Watsisname who exports his unbearable
>>>cockneyness all over the world in *Lonely Planet*.
>>>
>>>Ross Howard
>>
>>That's 'weld' he says, even more atrociously than Wessex--who exports
>>similar pop stuff, but at least does not, every five minutes, strip
>>down to his skinny self for a quick dip.
>
>It's more "weh-ood", isn't it?
Yes, that's a bit more like it--the labial equivalent of the glottal
stop I suppose.
> I do like the New York woman though
>(Justine Somethingjewishish, I think). She reminds me of a splendid
>Brooklynitrix I flung briefly with few (well, okay, eighteen) years
>ago. It's a shame her accent's so mild though; if she grouchotically
>travelled the "wuh-ild" it might go some way towards counterbalancing
>that Cockney atrocity.
She is, as you hint, much taken by beds. That Justine moniker
suggests she may also work for something like the Mossad, though _her_
Alexandria is not in Africa.
Richard Fontana
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 04:09:14 GMT, a1a5...@sprint.ca wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 22:02:32 GMT, rho...@navegalia.com (Ross Howard)
> >wrote:
> >> that irritating Ian Watsisname who exports his unbearable
> >>cockneyness all over the world in *Lonely Planet*.
> >>
> >>Ross Howard
> >
> >That's 'weld' he says, even more atrociously than Wessex--who exports
> >similar pop stuff, but at least does not, every five minutes, strip
> >down to his skinny self for a quick dip.
>
> It's more "weh-ood", isn't it? I do like the New York woman though
> (Justine Somethingjewishish, I think).
New York? The Travel Channel bio for Justine Shapiro says
========
Born in South Africa, Justine was raised in Berkeley, California, and
attended Tufts University in Boston where she studied history and theater.
========
I've never heard Ms. Shapiro speak -- indeed I've never heard of
Ms. Shapiro before this day -- but this biographical note (if we
downplay the South Africa part, anyway) strongly suggests that her accent
should have recognizable features of Bay Area accents, like the accent
presumably possessed by AUE's Donna Richoux, a Bay Area native. Could it
be that Bay Area accents, CIC though they may be, are closer to certain
kinds of New York accents than is commonly thought? A while back someone
on AFU, a putative Bay Area resident I believe, asserted (shockingly, I
thought at the time) that there are San Francisco natives who have New
York-like accents, but he might not have known what he was talking about.
I have searched in vain for a clip on the Web of Ms. Shapiro's voice. I
will have to try and catch her on TV and report my impressions of her
accent. Since she's a graduate of Massachusetts' Tufts University,
it is highly likely that she has some sort of Postwar Prestige accent
(though, as someone born in 1963, she's Pre-Tonkin). If my hypotheses
about Postwar Prestige Accents are correct, it would then be natural to
mistake a Prestige Bay Area accent for a Prestige New York accent, but one
assumes that cot/caught would be a giveaway (if listened to carefully
enough). Or might it be the case that for many people raised in Berkeley,
CA the ordinary Bay Area accent features are rather attenuated, given the
transnational, if not cosmpolitan, nature of the academic community at
the famed university that is located in that place? (The one Berkeley
native *I* knew well had a very strong Western accent, but I noticed that
the few high school friends of hers that I met had accents that seemed to
be milder.)
Complicating all this is the fact that most people are only familiar with
the Non-Prestigious sorts of New York accents; the existence of
native Postwar Prestige Standard accents in New York (and New York
being the possible source of all such accents, but that is a very
controversial theory) is not widely known or understood by people
from outside the region.
Aaron J Dinkin
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 04:26:33 GMT, rho...@navegalia.com (Ross Howard)
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 04:09:14 GMT, a1a5...@sprint.ca wrote:
>>
>>>That's 'weld' he says, even more atrociously than Wessex--who exports
>>>similar pop stuff, but at least does not, every five minutes, strip
>>>down to his skinny self for a quick dip.
>>
>>It's more "weh-ood", isn't it?
>
> Yes, that's a bit more like it--the labial equivalent of the glottal
> stop I suppose.
The labial equivalent of the glottal stop is a [p].
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Garry J. Vass
news:6CXpyLDW...@execfrog.demon.co.uk...
> >Or is the negative part that what *you* bring to the table? In *your*
> >books, Cockneys are bad people, and you don't want to be associated with
> >them?
>
> Nothing wrong with Cockneys; ask Garry about them.
> >
Just as a side-note, I can't really speak for the men, but the Cockney women
are absolutely spot on. Fiercely loyal companions and all that. The fact
that I'm besotted with one (http://www.londonelegance.com/sue) doesn't
confound my objectivity either...
Kind regards,
GJV
Ross Howard
<rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Ross Howard wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 04:09:14 GMT, a1a5...@sprint.ca wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 22:02:32 GMT, rho...@navegalia.com (Ross Howard)
>> >wrote:
>> >> that irritating Ian Watsisname who exports his unbearable
>> >>cockneyness all over the world in *Lonely Planet*.
>> >>
>> >>Ross Howard
>> >
>> >That's 'weld' he says, even more atrociously than Wessex--who exports
>> >similar pop stuff, but at least does not, every five minutes, strip
>> >down to his skinny self for a quick dip.
>>
>> It's more "weh-ood", isn't it? I do like the New York woman though
>> (Justine Somethingjewishish, I think).
>
>New York? The Travel Channel bio for Justine Shapiro says
>========
>Born in South Africa, Justine was raised in Berkeley, California, and
>attended Tufts University in Boston where she studied history and theater.
>========
>I have searched in vain for a clip on the Web of Ms. Shapiro's voice. I
>will have to try and catch her on TV and report my impressions of her
>accent. Since she's a graduate of Massachusetts' Tufts University,
>it is highly likely that she has some sort of Postwar Prestige accent
>(though, as someone born in 1963, she's Pre-Tonkin). If my hypotheses
>about Postwar Prestige Accents are correct, it would then be natural to
>mistake a Prestige Bay Area accent for a Prestige New York accent, but one
>assumes that cot/caught would be a giveaway (if listened to carefully
>enough).
Hmm. It was exactly that distinction, among other things (such as her
sense of humour), that led me to place her on the wrong coast.
I'm sure she doesn't say things like "I bot some cool stuff at the
spice market."
I'm have no recording to back this up, but in my memory she's
positively almost DeNeroic in her CINCiness.
Ross Howard
Richard Fontana
Fascinating. I am happy to report that I have determined that I do get
the Travel Channel, and it appears that it does currently show this Lonely
Planet show, so perhaps, with some planning, I will be able to listen to
this woman's speech. I will report back in this Forum as soon as I can.
Richard Fontana
[re: Justine Shapiro]
> Fascinating. I am happy to report that I have determined that I do get
> the Travel Channel, and it appears that it does currently show this Lonely
> Planet show, so perhaps, with some planning, I will be able to listen to
> this woman's speech. I will report back in this Forum as soon as I can.
Oh great. She's on maternity leave. These things always happen to me.
a1a5...@sprint.ca
wrote:
Rey might demur.
But I neant lingual, I agree, and there's probably a special word for
it.
a1a5...@sprint.ca
Hmmm.
Matthew Huntbach
> In article <1eudnj2.11mm6uu1qioqokN%tr...@euronet.nl>, Donna Richoux
> <tr...@euronet.nl> writes
> >
> >I don't know, but I think it is at least possible that some of the
> >Northerners think that Cockney is a fairly objective, general term,
> English speakers. Cockney is not a standard generally accepted term in
> Britain for someone from the Home Counties or the south coast.
>
> It is sometimes mistakenly used as a generic meaning "Londoner", but
> that usually triggers off a protest by any non-cockneys present.
No-one in this thread has mentioned that it will also trigger off
protest by any true Cockneys present. Those who really are Cockneys
tend to feel strongly that the term should have an exclusivity and
refer only to the inhabitants of inner East London. They are as
offended to hear the term being used to mean a more wider group as
the more wider group is to be called "Cockney".
The traditional definition of "Cockney" is "someone born within
the sound of Bow Bells". It's often mistakenly thought the bells
in question are those of Bromley-by-Bow (or Bow for short) some
miles to the east of the City of London, but in fact they are those
of St Mary Bow in the City of London. It was suggested that when the
maternity unit of St Bartholomew's hospital was closed, there would
be no true Cockneys born any more.
Similarly, one often hears the term "East End" used to mean large
parts of east London, including all of the London Borough of
Newham, often even places like Ilford. But the more traditional
definition is that the East End extends only to the river Lee,
so none of Newham would be included in it, and Bronley-by-Bow
would be on its eastern boundary.
Matthew Huntbach
Robert E. Lewis
Matthew Huntbach <mhun...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> No-one in this thread has mentioned that it will also trigger off
> protest by any true Cockneys present. Those who really are Cockneys
> tend to feel strongly that the term should have an exclusivity and
> refer only to the inhabitants of inner East London. They are as
> offended to hear the term being used to mean a more wider group as
> the more wider group is to be called "Cockney".
>
> The traditional definition of "Cockney" is "someone born within
> the sound of Bow Bells". It's often mistakenly thought the bells
> in question are those of Bromley-by-Bow (or Bow for short) some
> miles to the east of the City of London, but in fact they are those
> of St Mary Bow in the City of London. It was suggested that when the
> maternity unit of St Bartholomew's hospital was closed, there would
> be no true Cockneys born any more.
I'd never heard anyplace but within the sound of the bells of St.
Mary-le-Bow as defining a Cockney. But it leaves me with a question - I've
not *heard* it - I've read it, and I don't know how the "Bow" in the name is
pronounced. Is it like the decoratively tied ribbon on a package (or one's
tied shoelaces), or is it like the front end of a boat or ship?
Isn't Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, a Cockney by the official definition?
Robert
Harvey V
<rle...@brazosport.cc.tx.us> said:
<snip>
> I'd never heard anyplace but within the sound of the bells of St.
> Mary-le-Bow as defining a Cockney. But it leaves me with a
> question - I've not *heard* it - I've read it, and I don't know how
> the "Bow" in the name is pronounced. Is it like the decoratively
> tied ribbon on a package (or one's tied shoelaces), or is it like
> the front end of a boat or ship?
I've never heard it pronounced as anything other than "beau".
Harvey
Albert Marshall
<rle...@brazosport.cc.tx.us> writes
Yup. Or as in " ... and arrow".
>, or is it like the front end of a boat or ship?
>
>Isn't Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, a Cockney by the official definition?
>
Not that I'm aware of.
I know she was born in London, but I don't know where.
Philip Eden
Robert E. Lewis <rle...@brazosport.cc.tx.us> wrote in message
news:9fgv9r$p...@netaxs.com...
>
> Matthew Huntbach <mhun...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > The traditional definition of "Cockney" is "someone born within
> > the sound of Bow Bells". It's often mistakenly thought the bells
> > in question are those of Bromley-by-Bow (or Bow for short) some
> > miles to the east of the City of London, but in fact they are those
> > of St Mary Bow in the City of London. It was suggested that when the
> > maternity unit of St Bartholomew's hospital was closed, there would
> > be no true Cockneys born any more.
I think it's the church of St Mary-le-Bow
>
> Isn't Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, a Cockney by the official definition?
>
I don't know where this one came from. She was born at St Paul's Walden
Bury,
a Hertfordshire hamlet some 30 miles from the sound of Bow Bells.
Philip Eden
Don Aitken
Her birth was registered as having taken place there, but according to
several recent biographies she was actually born in London. No-one
seems to know why the incorrect registration occurred.
--
Don Aitken
Robert E. Lewis
Don Aitken <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:3b1d3b0c...@news.freeuk.net...
I came across this, too, looking for details after I'd posted the first
time. A BBC website on the Queen Mother's centenary mentioned that no one
was entirely sure where she was born (they must mean no one living - I'm
sure there was at least one adult present at her birth, and probably
several).
Stephen Toogood
<tr...@euronet.nl> writes
>Albert Marshall <albert....@execfrog.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <1eudnj2.11mm6uu1qioqokN%tr...@euronet.nl>, Donna Richoux
>> <tr...@euronet.nl> writes
>> >
>> >I don't know, but I think it is at least possible that some of the
>> >Northerners think that Cockney is a fairly objective, general term,
>>
>> Some of them believe that the world is flat, and others that we are all
>> ruled by Tibetan monks who live in a world-wide network of tunnels.
>> Probably the same number as think that Cockney is a "fairly objective,
>> general term". (In fact, probably the same ones.)
>>
>> Sorry, Donna. On this one you have to accept the word of REAL native
>> English speakers.
>
>No need to apologize. I was begging to hear from some people who knew
>the situation first-hand. I appreciate your comments and hope others
>will also contribute.
>
>>Cockney is not a standard generally accepted term in
>> Britain for someone from the Home Counties or the south coast.
>>
>> It is sometimes mistakenly used as a generic meaning "Londoner", but
>> that usually triggers off a protest by any non-cockneys present.
>
>Yes, that's rather what I was talking about. As you say, some
>Northerners might consider it to be a term for Londoner -- even a sort
>of chipper, friendly term -- and not have the strong negative feelings
>that Southerners have, who don't want to be labeled Cockney.
I was born in a town just to the south of London, and which would be
lumped in with London by many people today, though it wasn't then. My
mother's family come from the Yorkshire Dales, and one of the things I
noticed as a child was that at home we though The North began at Watford
(about 15 miles north of London), whereas in Ilkley they thought that
The South began at Sheffield.
When I went to live in County Durham it was made clear to me that The
South began at Darlington (about 100 miles from the Scottish border).
There seems to be a psychological need to decide which group you're in,
and then to make that group as small as possible. So it is with
cockneys. The proper cockneys will tend to use the traditional
definition with its full rigour, but the inhabitants of the borough of
Newham will tend to identify with the tag and to draw the boundary such
as (just) to include themselves. So it's a question of deciding first
whether you're in or out, and then drawing the boundary accordingly.
I reckon the whole baggage with which the word cockney is loaded has
been (stand by for metaphor mixing) in a state of flux for some time
now. When I was a boy, almost the entire area in audible contact with
St.Mary-le-Bow comprised low-grade housing and bomb damage. Those who
aspired to further education also aspired to moving away. That's not so
any more. Those houses are either gone or in a few cases have been
'restored', and the yuppies are much more in evidence.
Coupled with that, in the '50s the necessary characteristics for
professional success were discretion, social ease, and the ability to
take a long-term view. These are not traditional cockney traits.
Nowadays employers prefer sharpness, self-confidence, and the eye for a
quick buck. These are.
So the perception of cockney changes.
--
Stephen Toogood
Matthew Huntbach
> I reckon the whole baggage with which the word cockney is loaded has
> been (stand by for metaphor mixing) in a state of flux for some time
> now. When I was a boy, almost the entire area in audible contact with
> St.Mary-le-Bow comprised low-grade housing and bomb damage. Those who
> aspired to further education also aspired to moving away. That's not so
> any more. Those houses are either gone or in a few cases have been
> 'restored', and the yuppies are much more in evidence.
St Mary-le-Bow is slap-bang in the middle of the City of London.
You'd have to be awfully old to have lived there when there was
anything much of a population in the immediate surrounding area.
Certainly by the time of World War II the whole area was just
banks and offices, as it is now. If you are going further afield
(and in quieter times, of course Bow Bells could be heard further
away), you'd have to include wealthy parts of the West End within
earshot as well as the classic poor parts of the East End.
Matthew Huntbach