posh

[Anne Lambert]

"Posh" could be rhymind slang for "tosh" meaning trash , rubbish, nonsense.

Mark_Mandel at DRAGONSYS.COM wrote:

> Aaron E. Drews <aaron at LING.ED.AC.UK> writes:
>
> >>>>>
> "...L vocalisation...may extend to word-final prevocalic environments, _#V
> (_fall off_).  Beaken (1971) even found children vocalising /l/ before a
> word-internal morpheme boundary plus vowel, as ['foUIn] _falling_; but
> this has not yet been observed in adult speech, where internal linking /l/
> remains..." Well 1982: 313, _Accents of English_, vol II, the British
> Isles.
>
> But
> "The environment in which vocalisation has been attested [includes]
> word-final intervocalic (e.g. _legal info_ [ligGwWInf&G] [ascii can't even
> come close to this IPA, sorry]).  Vocalisation in thie context was found
> only in the speech of the younger group.  By contrast, Wells (1982: 321)
> suggests this is not a possible environment for vocalisation in London
> English.  In all systems, vocalisation is blocked in word-initial
> contexts, and word-internal intervocalic contexts, regardless of
> morphology (e.g. _pullover_, _shallow_, _Eleanor_).  Tollfree, L.  1999.
> South East London English: discrete versus continuous modelling of
> consonantal reduction.  In Foulkes, P & G. Docherty (eds) _Urban Voices:
> Accent Studies in the British Isles_.  London: Arnold.
>
> It looks like the authorities of Cockney would dispute "posh" coming from
> "polish", at least directly.  I personally find it more feasible that
> "port outward" etc.  "posh" still might have it's birth in Cockney rhyming
> slang.  I'll ask around, but there aren't many Cockney specialists here.
> <<<<<
>
>      [and as a PS in separate post:]
>
> >>>>>
> I forgot to mention that the data in both Wells and Tollfree seem a bit
> old, dating from at least the 70s.  Things may have changed in 30 years.
>
> Maybe Barry can stop off in London on his way back from Lisbon and take
> lots of taxis and listen to the cabbies. :-)
> <<<<<
>
> Maybe things have changed in 30 years, but the older data indicate more
> restrictive environments, rather than less. It doesn't look good for this
> etymology.
>
> And as for the acronym... damn, I thought we had buried that a long time ago.
>
> -- Mark A. Mandel