|
|
|||||||
English LanguageSlangDictionaryEverything we know gathered in one place!Upper-Class Slang
Street Slang
LinksIn addition to the references for the SlangDictionary itself, see:
Descriptive RemarksI cannot honestly say that I remember ever hearing [in 1850-60], except in a humorous way, the substitution of W for V and V for W which Dickens makes so much of. I knew that Cockneys of the period were supposed to say werry for very, wanity for vanity, and so on, but I don’t think they did so in our district, and we often heard rival butchers’-boys and others chaffing. According to my experience W = V existed only in books and plays. The misuses of the aspirate were no worse than now. There was sometimes dubiety about possessives and plurals. Between Greenwich and Charlton there was an estate owned by Mr. Angerstein, M.P., a great gun at Lloyd’s, which was famous for birds’-nests. The place was always referred to by the proletarian jeunesse dorée as “Angersteenzez,” and the objects of their predatory excursions as “birds’ nestezez.” “Fists” sometimes figured strikingly as “fistezez.” Nevertheless, plurals were often correctly expressed. The word “fanets,” used by children at play to demand pax, or truce, now called “fay-nites” by London County Council School scholars, was then pronounced “fay-nets,” which was better both as regards force and euphony. The modern exclamation “Oo-ah!” used, especially by little girls, to express alarm or surprise, was then quite unknown. “Them” and “them there” for those; “That there”; “This here”; “see” for “saw” ; “come” for “came,” were probably not more common than now. Other expressions were: “I can’t do nuthink”; “I ain’t got fur to go.”; “He built them houses what he lives in”; “What are you a-doing of?”; “He got shook up”; “I see him do it” ; “I didn’t have no luck” ; “We ain’t got no brass” (money); “Tea without no sugar” ; “Don’t lay on the grass - set on the wall” ; “I come by rnyself”. “Oh crikey!” expressive of astonishment, was a common phrase and the misuse of bought for brought quite prevalent. .... “Genteel,” “genteelest,” expressive of refinement, and “nosegay” now almost invariably rendered by bouquet, were in common use. A current phrase for a penny postage stamp was “Queen’s Head.” “Intended” was the popular designation for one’s betrothed. Almost universally current was the use of “don’t” for doesn’t. Dickens, Thackeray, Marryat, nearly all popular authors, fell into this error, although not one would have written, for instance, “It do not fit.” Many writers were hazy about the subtlenesses of “lay” and “lie.” But are things any better now? In 1923 a prominent politician addressing his fellow legislators at Westminster twice (according to the Times report) spoke of matters lying near his heart as one might discuss the doings of fecund hens. But of one strange modern error, the confusion between “effect” and “affect,” which has become so common of late years and even invaded leading articles of leading newspapers, the early Victorian knew nothing. Anyone writing to him “This will not effect you” would have been mistaken: it would have affected him—to laughter. And a newspaper report I have before me that certain people were “effected” by a gas escape would have excited both comment and sarcasm. And the queer modern phrase “substituted by,” used even by Cabinet Ministers, when they mean “replaced by,” would have evoked at least mild surprise. It is interesting to note that in 1868 the Times still spelt a banker’s order, “check.” Swear words were common. Workmen rarely conversed without the use of forceful expletives—do they now?—and it was surprising what a sanguinary complexion things assumed once the flood-gates of democratic eloquence stood open. Birth-pangs of the Red Flag perhaps. At my age I did not consort with the high and mighty, and, as the people about me spoke decently, it was not my fortune to hear the eccentricities, such as, “Bwing me a Welsh Wabbit,” to which superior people were supposed to be addicted. But I often heard such mannerisms mimicked and when I came to see and laugh at Lord Dundreary at the Haymarket there was no occasion to instruct me on the subject. Dundreary was a caricature, of course, but one founded on a good bed-rock of fact - at least as regards whiskers. “Swell” and “toff,” to designate a fashionable or pretentious person, were familiar expressions; “macaroni” had gone out and “masher” and “dude” not yet arrived. Names, especially girls’ names, have varied a good deal in sixty years. In the 1850s not only were Marys much more numerous than now, but there were galaxies of Harriets, Jemimas, Sophias, Adelaides, Carolines and Fannys. Ethels, Muriels, Gladyses, Kathleens, Daisies and Ivys were not yet. The one name as prevalent then as now was Nellie. It is curious that, in spite of the great and long-continued popularity of the Queen and the prestige and sonorousness of her name, it was but rarely bestowed at the font and little girl Victorias were never numerous. Before the Crimean War there was only one Florence - surnamed Nightingale; not many years afterwards and there were legions. Amongst the boys one would have to have looked closely for Cyrils and Cecils, and probably not have found a Gordon at all; but I cannot call to mind any once common name that has dropped out of use.
-- ChrisLehrich? - 29 Dec 2004
| |||||||
Copyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback