Er, so where are your cites for ‘what cheer’ then? If there were so many, it must be easy to find one.
It could be ‘what cheer.’ It could also be ‘what you up to.’ Both have good arguments behind them. I think the latter is more persuasive, but shrugs I’m not certain. I’m really not sure why you are so certain. This is etymology, not long division: there are often multiple plausible explanations.
(And I have personally been saying ‘wotcher’ for more than 20 years, so was aware it had been around for a while, thanks).
It’s a Southern British word. ‘Wotcher’ is pronounced ‘wotcha,’ with the ‘a’ or ‘er’ repesenting a shwa sound. Hence the variant spellings, and hence the relevance.
I’m not sure at all. It’s just that **toadspittle ** has provided an actual cite (Partridge and Beale), while you and GorillaMan have provided nothing more than speculation. I’ll go with the cite until some opposing evidence is forthcoming. This is GQ, not IMHO.
The cites given so far are merely an observation that ‘what cheer’ existed in northern England in the 18th and 19th centuries. As this is GQ, I don’t find that to be a convinving explanation.
I’m not saying that I’m right, or that other explanations are wrong. I’m saying that the jury is still out.
I’ll be clearer: the ‘er’ spelling often represents a ‘schwa’ sound in Southern British English (the dialect in question). Cf. water, brother, doper. Hence the spelling ‘wotcher’ does not mean the pronunciation is anything like ‘cheer.’
The cite says that people in North of England said ‘what cheer,’ and people in the South of England say ‘wotcher.’ two different dialects, two different regions. It’s erroneous to presume a defintion connection between the two - especially since the only time a Northerner would say ‘wotcher’ would be if he were pretending to be on Eastenders. Sounds like the researchers were just speculating too.
I was always under the impression that Tonks had a fairly Cockney accent, whether real or acquired. A few other things she’s said imply that - but I’m not posting from the latest book in this thread! I couldn’t imagine a posh public school type saying wotcher unless they were trying to be cool. Anyway, yes, there’s no ‘r’ pronounced.
1894 A. CHEVALIER Humorous Songs 4 ‘Wot cher!’ all the neighbours cried, ‘Who’re yer goin’ to meet, Bill?’ 1899 North-China Herald 13 Nov. 962/3 (Advt.), ‘Wot Cher, Mate?’ may be a rough form of salutation. 1928 Granta 2 Nov. 71 (caption) Wotcher! 1954 J. MASTERS Bhowani Junction xxxii. 279 Howland waved violently to Victoria…and shouted, ‘Wotcher, Vicky!’ 1977 ‘J. GASH’ Judas Pair iii. 38 ‘Watcha, Lovejoy.’ ‘Come in, Tinker.’ 1980 ‘J. GASH’ Spend Game xvi. 162 ‘Hello, Lovejoy.’ ‘Wotcher, love.’
Also
c1440 York Myst. xiv. 85 Say Marie doghtir, what chere with {th}e. …c1460 Towneley Myst. (1836) 109 A, Gylle, what chere? … c1530 LD. BERNERS Arth. Lyt. Bryt. (1814) 28 What chere make you, fayre loue Jehannet. …1610 SHAKES. Temp. I. i. 2 Heere Master: What cheere? … 1805 WORDSW. Waggoner 1, The same strong voice more near Said cordially, My Friend, what cheer?
In summary:
We have “What cheer” being in common usage as an informal greeting, dating back some 600 years. And it is used in exactly the same manner as the quote in the Harry potter book (“Gylle what cheer” from 1460, “Heere Master: What cheere?” from 1610 cf “wotcher Harry” from 2005). And the expression is in continuous usage all that time. It wasn’t just a passing fashion, it keeps turning up every 50 years or so until the 20th century. Then in the late 19th century we have numerous references for “Wot cher” and then in the early 20th century we have references for “wotcher”.
I really don’t think there’s much room for speculation on this one. It seems to be one of the best documented etymologies in the English language.
Unless of course we can have a reference showing the use of “What you doing” prior to 1894 (when “wotcher” first appeared in print) along with a reference showing a progression to “wotcha doin” or similar. Because we have precisely that degree of detail for the prgression from “what cheer” to “wotcher”.
And just to add to that, OED has the earliest variant of “wotcher” used as a “vulgar pronunciation of what do (or are, or have) you?” appearing in 1934. (J. T. FARRELL Calico Shoes 43 H’lo, baby! Whatcha say, kid!)
To me that closes the case. If “wotcher” is derived from “what (are) you” we’d expect to find at least some earlier instances where it is used in that form, with verb attached. But we don’t. What we in fact have is a seamless transition from “what cheer” to “wot cher” to “wotcher”, and never is the word used with a verb. It’s always a stand alone greeting just as 'what cheer" is and always has been. “Wotcher” as a form of “what (are) you” only shows up many years after “wot cher” is already appearing regularly in print. If the “what are you” derivation was correct we should have at least one 19th century example of “wotcher doing” or similar. But that seems to be a uniquely 20th century expression of US origin.
Well, actually, your cites don’t show progression either. It is still erroneous to assume that a word in one dialect (Shakespeare’s dialect was not the Cockney that ‘wotcher’ is found in) must have the same etymology as a similar word in another dialect. Read your cites carefully and they talk about a phrase in use several hundred years ago, and another phrase in use a few hundred years later. They don’t talk about the progression, at least not in the bits you quoted.
This one made me laugh:
I never, ever thought I’d see a script from an episode of Lovejoy be used to prove the centuries-old etymology of a word.
Still, your cites are better. Despite my reservations, I’ll say they’re good enough to be reasonably certain of the etymology. Like I said before, I wasn’t certain. My query was why anyone else was so certain. The other explanation was equally as plausible and was at least based on knowing what ‘wotcher’ sounds like outside of a book. Even your cites aren’t certain. The other cites definitely weren’t. Since this is GQ, that’s the point, or so I thought.
I for one won’t be looking up references to ‘what are you doing,’ partly because I think your cites are good enough, and partly because that’s going to be a damn hard set of words to track down, containing as it does four of the most frequently-used words in the English language, unlike ‘cheer.’
flicks hand Whatever. If anyone in real life ever asks me what ‘wotcher’ means, I can be certain to bore them to tears with the preciseness of my answer!
And now you have to post something else that makes you look wrong.
[QUOTE=Blake]
And just to add to that, OED has the earliest variant of “wotcher” used as a “vulgar pronunciation of what do (or are, or have) you?” appearing in 1934. (J. T. FARRELL Calico Shoes 43 H’lo, baby! Whatcha say, kid!)
That’s not ‘wotcher’ or ‘wotcha’ as a greeting. That’s ‘what do you’ as a question. Different phrase, just a similar contraction.
British. Your American example is of a contraction of a totally different phrase. Please don’t try to explain away an explanation of British slang, in a thread asking about British slang, by citing American usage of a different phrase and claiming that the phrase being asked about is not British at all. It’s as if you think we don’t actually say wotcha, or we copied the Americans.
Axel I really can’t see what your point is, or what would convince you.
That makes no sense at all. As I pointed out the greeting “what cheer” has been in continuous use for 600 or so years. And I meant continuous. It keeps showing up every 50 years or so. So while of course Tudor London English isn’t modern Cockney it was the ancestor of it. And what cheer shows up in Shakespeare and it also shows up in Budgell 50 years later and Wordsworth less than a century after that and so forth up until the 20th century. I can’t for the life of me see what your point is in saying that Tudor English isn’t cockney. The phrase has been in constant usage since Tudor time sin London. That was the point. It was carried from Tudor English into cockney without any doubt.
That shows a progression as good as any we have for any English word or phrase. I have to ask you, if that doesn’t show a constant progression then what standard would you require? That the word appear in a London publication every 20 years? 10? Every single year? What is your standard for progression and can you name any English word that meets that standard?
The same is true of the transition from “what cheer” to "wot cher” to "wotcher”. What level of documented gradual change would your require to find the evidence conclusive? Are you suggesting that there should exist a written example of “wot cheer” or “what cher”? And how would such an obvious misspelling come to be printed if the words they are derived from are so obvious? It seems that you have set an unreasonable standard by demanding that every single letter change be documented. And again I have to ask if you can name any English word that meets that level of documented transition form one form to another?
The OED entries are designed to show continuous usage, to prevent people making exactly the same mistake that you made. By showing the word being used in that form and context at regular intervals it prevents people from jumping to the conclusion that a word sounds a bit like another unrelated phrase that must be the origin. The fact that the word has been in regularly contextual usage of that form for centuries is the whole basis of etymology. This regular usage, whether in TV scripts of Shakespeare scripts, prevents people from making the mistake of assuming that since “what you doin’” was popularised by “Friends” that must be the origin.
The OED does the same thing for “d’oh”, establishing beyond doubt that it didn’t originate with Homer Simpson. Although “ ’er indoors ” does genuinely appear to have originated with Arfur Daley.
No, but now you can give them the correct answer, and know that you are not spreading ignorance. That’s what these boards are all about after all. You’re not expected to give this level of detail in a casual reply but it would be nice to think that your answers would be aiding the fight against ignorance.
Umm, no, it was greeting. That was the specific context. Man walks into room, greets person with the phrase “wotcha” as part of a question. I’m sure how that “makes [me] look wrong”. That is the earliest documented example of someone using “wotcher” as part of a greeting. It is precisely the type of origin for the phrase that you have been arguing for. “Whatcha say” or “Whatcha doing” or “Whatcha heard lately” are simply variants on the precise same greeting.
Let me put it this way Axel, if we had an example from 1834 that was “Hello Harry! Whatcha doing” would that be acceptable to you as support for your position? If so then how does that differ in any way from the 1934 greeting? And if that wouldn’t be support then what exactly would be? Are you claiming that the greeting has to stand alone and can’t be used in conjunction with any other greeting such as “Hi” or “Good day”? And if so why? Aren’t greeting routinely compound? Isn’t “Hi, how ya doing” actually the normal usage?
That’s precisely the fricken’ origin you have been arguing for. You have been saying that “wotcher” originated from “What’cha up to”. In case you hadn’t noticed “What’cha up to” is also a use of wotcher as a question.
I now have no idea what your point is here Axel. One minute you are arguing that the word originated as a contraction of a question such as “What’cha up to” or “'What’cha say” and the next minute you are saying that if the word is used as part of a question that can’t possibly be the origin because it’s a different phrase, merely with a similar contraction.
I wonder if you know what our point is?
I never at any point claimed it wasn’t British. The very fact that “wotcher” is British slang is strong evidence against the origin you proposed because the earliest use of “wotcher” in the context you proposed is American. That was my whole point. The greetings “wotcher say” or “wotcher doing” or similar are 20th century US in origin. Hardly seems likely that would be the origin of 19th century British slang, now does it?
You really have totally misunderstood me. It’s late, perhaps I’m not making myself clear.
Shakespeare’s dialect was not Tudor London English. He grew up in the midlands, and that’s the dialect that he uses in the plays. If you don’t believe me, ask anyone who’s used his dialect to prove that those plays were not written by Francis Bacon or Marlowe or any other contender.
Your examples are all from different areas of England. Apart from Lovejoy, which was much more recent, none are from London. I know this might be hard to comprehend, since England is so much smaller than the UK, but regional differences - especially hundreds of years ago - are huge. That’s why I’m still sceptical, but as I’ve already said, your examples are good enough.
I didn’t make that mistake!
That made me laugh out loud as much as the incongruity of having Lovejoy quoted in a linguistics thread. Lovejoy made me laugh because it was a middle-of-the-road, fairly trashy TV programme (not that that means it’s linguistically invalid, just that it’s funny). Now you assume that I think Lovejoy invented the word! That’s genuinely amusing. My London Grandad, born in the early parts of the 20th century, used ‘wotcher.’ I’ve used wotcher all my life and I’ve been around more than 20 years. I can assure you I’m well aware of how long the word’s used for!
My whole point was that the other people in this thread weren’t sure. They were going on one indefinite source. So there’s no need to accuse me of spreading ignorance.
It doesn’t make you look wrong, it’s just not a good example. It wasn’t a greeting. Separate it out:
Hello baby! What do you say, kid!
Not
Hello baby! What are you say, kid!
I have never argued that ‘wotcher’ comes from ‘what do you do.’ So, different phrase.
As parsed above, that line didn’t say ‘whatcha up to.’
Just to reinforce the point because I’m not having much luck making myself clear: that American quote isn’t anything to do with ‘whatcha up to’ or ‘whatcha doing.’
To quote one last bit of your post - sorry for taking you word by word:
Similarly, I’m not really sure why you’re still trying to convince me when I’ve already said that your cites are good enough.
I never said that ‘my’ answer (not even mine, at that) was correct - I said I wasn’t sure at all. I said that the others shouldn’t be so sure on the basis of the cites they had. That is still true. One quote that uses a different dialect to explain Cockney, and one piece of reasoning that because the spelling is often ‘wotcher’ it can’t be pronounced ‘wotcha,’ is not good enough really. Your cites were good enough - not perfect, but good enough. That’s the end of this rather trivial matter for me.
Thank you, Axel, for summing up the deficiencies of the etymolgical explanations given so far. I too am mostly convinced by them - but given the well-documented use in northern dialects find the lack of any link to the southern usage of the word all the more problematic.
If you think that this is a powerful argument, I think you have an inadequate understanding of how language works when you look at it up close. While more macro-level examinations use genealogical trees and careful divisions between languages, those metaphors begin to fall apart when you’re examining very subtle dialectual differences, as most dialectual features are areal, not genetic. Even if the particular word only existed in Midland English a few hundred years ago, it could easily have diffused into all sorts of different dialects in the intervening time. If you’re looking for the origin of a word and have a plausible source of it from hundreds of years back, it’s a pretty extraordinary claim that it couldn’t have made in from Stratford-upon-Avon to London in the intervening years, especially if you don’t have a better argument.
As I mentioned, the sorts of divisions we imagine between dialects, and even more so trees depicting language evolution, are essentially metaphors and they tend not to work very well when looking at the micro-level divisions between closely-related dialects. You can clearly see it when dialect continua develop, as in the one joining Flemish, Dutch, and German - comparing regional varieties, one can’t clearly draw a line between “Dutch” dialects and “German” ones. Further, even completely unrelated languages will quite easily pass traits back and forth in some circumstances, as with the probable introduction of tone to the Chinese languages from the Tai-Kadai family sometime well back.
So the assertion that it wasn’t attested in the particular dialect in question (especially when no evidence has been cited to suggest that the book character actually is meant to be speaking Cockney - or rather, the descendent of Cockney referred to in the literature as “Saaf Lunnon”) when it was in fact attested in quite a number of other dialects is simply not an argument at all. The lack of a cite in the case of one particular dialect is not an important matter at all when it’s so thoroughly been found in many, many other nearby areas.
It’s worse than that. We know that fircken’ play was being performed in London in Shakepeare’s lifetime. It didn’t need any time at all to ‘get’ to London.
I give up on Axel. He seems to have no idea what he is talking about and changes his position with every post. First it’s derived from a question, then any phrase with a question is meaningless. He has brought nothing to this discussion at all aside from wild and erroneous assertions.
I’ve provided the facts for anyone interested. I think we can leave it there.
