Re: OT: Worcestershire sauce

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, Tim May wrote:

> Tristan McLeay wrote at 2003-10-05 09:02:43 (-0400)
>  > On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, Joe wrote:
>  >
>  > > I've seen both Worcester and Worcestershire.  And Worcestershire
>  > > in English English is [wUst@S@].
>  >
>  > English English maybe, but not English. Three out of three online
>  > dictionaries I know of (two American, one Australian) listed the
>  > reflex of eer as the prime or only pronounciation of the -ire.
>  >
> I suppose eer would be marginally more acceptable than ire, but it
> would definitely mark you as a foreigner, and if you're going to do
> that you might as well have fun and say wO:tSEst@SVi@, or whatever
> that works out as in your own speech.
See argument about 'France' (or 'Paris', 'Copenhagen', just about any
other major European place). I can't help it if you change the language
after you sent a bunch of convicts* out to a forbidding land**...

Anyway, until recently I would've put someone who ordered a /fIlei/-o-fish
into the same category as someone who shops at [ta:Z&i], till I discovered
that Americans (and one presumes the English) pronounce 'fillet' in a way
other than /fIl@t/. (Because to some people, Worcestershire is just the
first part of a foodname...)

* We aren't all decended from convicts.
** Not all the land is desert. Gippsland, I'm lead to believe, is quite a
fertile area.


--
Tristan                  <kesuari@...>

Yesterday I was a dog. Today I'm a dog. Tomorrow I'll probably still
be a dog. Sigh! There's so little hope for advancement.
                -- Snoopy

Reply