top | item 35947023

(no title)

ergvgdvgrd | 2 years ago

For your next act, defend the British pronounciation of "Worcestershire".

discuss

order

ndsipa_pomu|2 years ago

I don't think I can.

The pronunciation of "Gloucester" (gloster) and "Leicester" (lester) follow a similar scheme for the "-cester" bit which leads to "Worcester" being pronounced "wooster", but Worcestershire sauce is often pronounced "wooster sauce" which doesn't make much sense.

Apparently, Frome in Somerset is one of the hardest place names to pronounce in England, though it certainly doesn't compare to some Welsh towns. (I say it as "froom")

Symbiote|2 years ago

I think the sauce is either Worcestershire Sauce, or Worcester Sauce, either is acceptable.

Worcestershire and Worcester follow the same patter as Gloucestershire/Gloucester, Leicestershire/Leicester and (Towcestershire doesn't exist)/Towcester. Towcester, incidentally, being the same pronunciation as "toaster".

The one that annoys me is Cirencester, which is usually "sai-ren-ses-ta", and only occasionally "sai-ren-ster".

denton-scratch|2 years ago

> "wooster sauce"

"That's just incorrect. It's pronounced "wooster-shuh". The double-O is short, as in "book". Worcestershire Sauce is sometimes simply called "woosters", as in "a dash of woosters".

> Frome in Somerset is one of the hardest place names to pronounce

Hardly. It's pronounced "froom". That's not so hard.

pjc50|2 years ago

The pronunciation is what it is. The orthography is the problem.

(Many words place names long pre-date any kind of attempt to regularize English spelling, and in any case come from fusions of Brythonic, Norman, Roman, Norwegian etc languages. This is why it's difficult to predict the pronunciation of one word from the spelling of another.)

ergvgdvgrd|2 years ago

100% my point. Drawing a line at the purity of "maths" over "math" is the beginning of a rock fight in a village of glass houses.

pessimizer|2 years ago

Before the Normans, "shire" in Britain was written in Roman letters as "scr".

BerislavLopac|2 years ago

Oh, defending the pronounciation is easy, because the problem is not with the pronounciation at all -- it's all about English language spelling not keeping pace with the changes with the pronounciation.

klyrs|2 years ago

Why is "Jack" short for Johnathan?

dagw|2 years ago

Jonathan -> John/Jan -> Jankin (adding -kin as a diminutive) -> Jack

That is at least the theory I've heard

nobody9999|2 years ago

Likewise, Why is 'Peggy' short for Margaret?

thr-nrg|2 years ago

You start with a pinch of dyslexia and end with a bit of a lisp. Pretty straight forward when you imagine what it would sound like in a game of telephone between 10 5 year olds.