Eric Christopherson wrote:
> I can understand <Leicester> and almost understand <Worcester>,
> although I don't understand why it has /U/ instead of /3:/.
rs -> s was completely regular in a dialect that contributed some to
American English e.g. burst -> bust, curse -> cuss, arse -> ass. I've
always assumed this was exactly the same.
...
> Then there's <Cholmondeley> /tSVmli/. I can't tell if the /l/ is the
> reflex of the first <l> (via metathesis again) or the second.
I can't imagine why the /l/ would be anything other.
/tsUlm@ndli/ -> /tSVmli/ isn't that big a change.
--
Tristan.