Er, I'm struggling to see how an article on Cockney rhyme slang can fail to focus on [East London]? the home of Cockney?s born within the sound of [Bow Bells]?... But I am being slightly disingenuous. Rhyming slang has indeed taken on a global context, but probably would be better dealt with under, say, [Rhyming slang]?, crosslinked to CRS. sjc
I disagree, mainly because it has spread across the world, and is generally referred to as "cockney rhyming slang". Examine Bryson - Mother Tongue, and Crystal (cited above). It is not called simply "rhyming slang", it is always referred to as "Cockney rhyming slang". Rhyming Slang is quite different - to call a "beer" an "ear" is rhyming slang, to call a beer a "bullock" is CRS (as in "bullock and steer"). Whether the expression itself is used in Cockney territory is not the point, CRS also refers to a style of linguistic usage. It's definitely used and referred to as such in Oz and NZ. I've been aware of CRS since I was a child, and long before I was even aware what "cockney" actually referred to. I doubt Americans would recognise the term as such, but nonetheless the books I have read on the topic clearly identified its heritage. That's all :) - MMGB
V. persuasive, Manning, I don't have any particular problem with that approach. sjc
I'd disagree (but then I would, I wrote the (original) article). Cockney Rhyming Slang is *by definition* what Cockney's use. Other people may come up with rhyming slang (my friends and I use to use economic = economic slump = dump (defecate), so when you ran out of toilet paper it was an economic crisis!), they may have been inspired by CRS, and they can call it CRS, but it isn't. Similarly saying that something 'is a great value' can be described as English, but it isn't, it's American English (the English would be 'is great value'). I can see your point about CRS representing a step away from a direct rhyme such as ear/beer, but I can't think of any widespread use that is made of such a construction, so I don't think we need to allow for it. But please provide evidence otherwise :) Another analogy - I was at the store last night, and they were selling Yorkshire Ham from Vermont. Verloren
Hate to differ - but you're failing to acknowledge two points. 1 - CRS has spread across the worldwide, particularly to the antipodes, and 2 - when it spreads it is called "Cockney ryhming slang", not "rhyming slang" and this is validated by citable references. Simply because a particular instance of slang didn't originate in East London doesn't change the fact that that is what it is called. Your argument would imply that Americans can't refer to "French toast" because it isn't French. They do, you may not like it, but that's how it is :) - MMGB
A very good point. The difference I see is that 'French' becomes a method of preparation, rather than a point of origin, and is needed to differentiate this from 'normal' toast. That's why we say American Football, to distinguish a particular instance of a more general class, and why Canadians don't play American Football (because they changed it). I see no such need with CRS (I can't think of an example of rhyming slang that doesn't follow the CRS pattern, and to stretch the analogy this is why we don't say American trousers), whereas it could be useful to differentiate between phrases with Cockney origins and those without. For example, the phrase "It's all gone a bit Pete" became popular on BBC Radio 1 in the UK. It means wrong, derived from a DJ named Pete Tong. A good and useful phrase, but has nothing to do with Cockneys, and to be able to distinguish that is useful. What I've not convinced even myself of is that just because it's useful it's actually used! Maybe in the same way we need to say American English, except that the Cockney community is smaller, so any interest in differentiating them is proportionally less. Verloren
I blew away what you wrote purely because I thought my version was a little more comprehensive (while covering everything you said), and I'm no good at reconciling these things when there are two edits at the same time, NOT because it was wrong, or badly done. So I think the 'idiom particular to' type construct works better (idiom isn't a word I use a lot in conversation, so it didn't occur to me!). Please update it to reflect that :) Verloren
"Looks like we're in a bit of Barney, then." - Roscoe Means, british demolitions expert
(puzzled looks and shrugs from Americans)
"Barney. Barney Rubble? Trouble!"
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)