I must get to the bottom of something: I noticed recently, while eating NERDS candy, that the trademark name “Willy Wonka” sounds an awful lot like what could be the British, phonetic pronounciation of “willy wanker” when said out loud.
I could be reading into this a bit, but I am aware that the British have countless synonyms for the word penis (and “willy” is one of them); also, I’m aware that “wanking” is considered an --ehem-- “masturbatory” term. Now, we’re all adults, but let’s face it, the subject/verb agreement between this pairing of words couldn’t be more uncanny, or suggestive of a particularly lewd act. And, frankly, if that’s the case, I would find it pretty funny.
So, do I just have a dirty mind? Or is it possible that this could have been Roald Dahl’s inside-joke when creating a name for his beloved protagonist in the 1964 novel “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.”
I’ve always associated Wonka more with the word wonky, given that the character is more than a little odd. The first name is then just alliteration to go with the surname (or vice versa).
In every British accent I’ve heard, “wanker” is pronounced to rhyme with “banker,” where there’s almost no difference in the first syllable from how it’s pronounced in the U.S.; it’s only the the second syllable that commonly differs*, with the usual non-rhotic “r” (i.e. similar to “wank-ah” or “bank-ah,” though the last syllable is closer to a schwa but I suck at writing out linguistic notation and find it confusing as heck).
Perhaps you’re thinking the first syllable’s pronounced with the same “ah” sound as “rather” in very posh accents (“Received Pronuciation,” which is less and less common as I understand it)? Used by the Queen and Royal Shakespeare Theatre types, or in Masterpiece exports, but Estuary English is more typical these days. Anyway, that “ah” sound would never be used in “bank” or “wank” or “sank” or any similar words.
That’s even setting aside the idea that Roald Dahl would have used something that vulgar in a children’s book – he was capable of vulgarity in a silly way, not to mention creepiness and ghoulish humor, but I’m not sure he’d go that far in 1964. Also, as a total quibble, I wouldn’t call Wonka the protagonist of the book.
Except in much of the West Country (from Bristol to Cornwall) accents, where final “r” sounds are used, aka rhotic. Stereotyped versions of these accents can be found in Long John Silver/pirates or in typical sketch comedy “country bumpkin” characters.
NOTE: Not a linguistics expert or a British person; just a raging Anglophile who hopefully didn’t make an error.
Based on my experience of American accents, I think “bank” and “bonk” sound as different from each other as “wank” and “wonk” in both American and British accents.
In British English “wahnka” also sounds as different from “wonka” as “wanka” does. So even with that pronunciation it wouldn’t really make a difference. But it’s still only just one syllable difference between “wonka” and “wanker”. I think you’re right that it’s not meant to be a joke, but I don’t think the pronunciation is what precludes it. Little Fockers is surely not an entirely innocent title, for example?
That does sound like a Roald Dahl-ish joke, but the words are not pronounced the same way and I wouldn’t believe it was his intention unless there’s some evidence.
Not true of Wonka, as far as I know, but there is another character name that was meant to sound rude, Slartibartfast. When Douglas Adams was writing The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy for radio, he started with something which sounded much worse and then changed it until he had something he thought he could get past the censors.
Yup- the man who was sad about his name was originally named Phartiphukborlz. That’s a different type of joke, though- like you said, Adams wanted to create a name that sounded obscene but wasn’t. Whereas if the OP is right, Dahl’s intent was to sneak something rude past most of his readers. I’d need to see a citation for that. Dahl was pretty warped even for a children’s book author, but still.
