Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1998 :: December ::
Re: Hathaway
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.1257  Monday, 7 December 1998.

[1]     From:   Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 6 Dec 1998 13:28:27 -0500
        Subj:   Hathaway

[2]     From:   Jonathan Hope <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 07 Dec 1998 12:11:35 +0000 (GMT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 9.1249  Hathaway


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Sunday, 6 Dec 1998 13:28:27 -0500
Subject:        Hathaway

> Anybody know enough about phonology to know whether the
> elision of W and L, whether in childish prattle or the
> affected lisp of the Edwardian Guard, is conceivable for
> late C16 Midlands?

This elision is common in modern working class east and south London,
where

bottle sounds like bot-oo-waa

trouble sounds like trub-oo-waa

I'm exaggerating, of course, but imagine Nicholas Lyndhurst in the BBC
sitcom Only Fools and Horses saying "Dell, that bottle got me in
trouble". He would say "Deh-wah, that bot-oo-waa got me in trub-oo-waa".
(Not convinced? Soundclips of me saying this in my native accent
available on demand!)

Gabriel Egan

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jonathan Hope <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 07 Dec 1998 12:11:35 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: 9.1249  Hathaway
Comment:        Re: SHK 9.1249  Hathaway

> Jonathan Hope observes that "The written names <Whateley> and <Hathaway>
> look very different, but phonetically they are very close, so I'd say
> it's entirely possible that they could be written forms of the same
> name, given early modern variation in pronunciation and spelling."
> Anybody know enough about phonology to know whether the elision of W and
> L, whether in childish prattle or the affected lisp of the Edwardian
> Guard, is conceivable for late C16 Midlands?

Entirely possible - for example see the frequent spelling of 'Bristol'
as 'Bristow' in Early Modern texts - and the widely observed phonetic
process known as 'l-vocalisation', curently very salient in London
English (which produces things like 'waw' for 'wall' and 'miwk' for
'milk').

Jonathan Hope
Middlesex University
 

Other Messages In This Thread

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.