----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2000 2:06
AM
Subject: Re: [phoNet] English by the
book.
Well, the spelling of British placenames may
reflect the pronunciation used at the time the Domesday Book was compiled.
Cholmondeley was Old English Ceolmundes
Leah, abbreviated phonetically over the centuries. One could say that
far from being a crime against English, the pronunciation "Chumly" sums up a
millennium of historical development and its striking divergence from the
fossilised spelling only reminds you of the awesome historical depth of
English as a written language. Being an antiquarian at heart, like most
historical linguists, I can't help sympathising with the British and the
perverse pride they take in traditional pronunciations that don't match the
spelling at all. But even British traditions sometimes yield an inch (not to
say centimetre) or two. Quite a few spellings have caught up with the
pronunciation (Beorhthelmes Tun is now spelt
Brighton, not Brighthelmston, though I've
seen something like the latter on some eighteenth-century maps); still more
often the pronunciation has been reformed to fit the spelling
(Pontefract is no longer pronounced "Pumfrit" even
locally).
Piotr
Quirky British realizations of place and proper names are
are source of transpondential humor. The classic is how the Marquess of
Cholmondeley realizes "Cholmondeley" ('chumly'). The realization of
'Featherstonehaugh' as 'fanshaw' is another one.
... Getting back to my thesis, I can say that
the 'by the book-ness' of American English reflects to some degree my own
English. If a word has a letter, that letter should be pronounced. Words like
'knot' are slightly disturbing, while words such as 'balm', 'calm' are quite
disturbing to one's linguistic maps. Doing "Cholmondeley" as 'chumley' strikes
us as a crime against the language.