In So Cal, for the past few years we’ve been visited with a Civil War reenactment at a regional park close to me. It’s kind of on the small side, but that’s fine. You get a sample demonstration of, say, the battle of Gettysburg with a dozen or so soldiers representing brigades and battalions and so forth going through the basic mechanics of the battle and what happened when and where. (Although when you have a handful of guys who can’t get around 10 feet of fence, it looks a little like Blazing Saddles. ‘Somebody’s gonna have to go back and get a shitload of dimes.’)
Any way were sitting around waiting for the battle demo to start. We were with the Confederates who were set to “charge” the Federals up on the hill yonder, and this mounted soldier starts describing what we were going to see, and how he and his group were dressed as some specific North Carolina detachment. And then he specifically referred to his unit as a “Calvary” brigade. I did not mishear what he said. I can’t believe that in an anachronistic society such as theirs, with their attention to detail, that he did not know the correct word. So I assumed that here was speaking the way them fellers actually talked.
So, to the GQ: Was it common among “Cavalry” types of either side in the 19th century to confuse their vocation with a hill in Palestine? I would imagine there is enough written source material to know this.
I agree. Most participants in the Civil War were much better versed in the bible than we are today and I’d imagine they’d know the difference between cavalry and Calvary. If they didn’t know the correct phrase before they joined the army, they’d learn it in training.
I don’t know if it was “common,” but a cursory stroll thru pre-1940 Google News Archives shows numerous print citations of “calvary” being used in place of “cavalry.” Not a ton, but I think if it made it past some number of editors, it possibly had some level of currency even back then. “Cal-va-ry” is noted as a pronunciation in Merriam-Webster, although it is marked with an obelus, which indicates that certain segments of the population look down on it.
In my experience “calvary” is often produced as an error rather than a dialectal variation. It is coming from phonological processes (avoiding the /lr/ sequence) rather than from analogy to the Biblical location.
You do realise that those are the standard pronunciations in most English dialects, and have been for centuries, right?
As with the recent trend towards pronouncing forehead as “fore-head”, your apparent attempts to pronounce those words as spelled is a very recent variation. They all seem to be entirely down to the development of a population that was simultaneously literate yet not very well educated. In previous eras literate people tended to be educated as well, and knew enough to recognise that spelling was not tied to pronunciation in English. Sometime in the 19th century the growing number so poorly educated yet literate people saw a trend towards trying to pronounce words as spelled.
Iron is pronounced “ion” or “iern”, not “eye-ron”.
Wednesday is derived from “Woden’s day” and has been pronounced as “wedens day” or more coommonly “we’nds day” for at least 100 years.
February has been pronounced as “Feb-yoo-airy” for at least 500 years, a fact which we can ascertain by its commonly being used to rhyme with “January”. The vast majority of English speakers still pronounce it that way. This penchant for trying to throttle one’s vocal chords and pronounce it as “Feb-roo-wairy” seems to be very recent, as in the last 50 years. Worse yet, most people who do try that pronunciation seem to end up with the abomination that is “Febburry” instead, with nary a trace of the “w” sound. :smack:
Yes, I do realize this. In fact, that’s why I chose such extremely common examples, and that’s the very point I’m trying to make: These changes are natural, normal, and should be expected.
And that people who say “Wendsday” shouldn’t complain about those who say “nucular”.