No form of verbal corruption is more frequent throughout the rural districts of England than that produced by the transposition of letters, especially of consonants:  such words as world, wasp, great, are, as every one knows, still ordinarily (though less frequently than a dozen years ago) pronounced wordle, waps, gurt.  So with names of places:  thus Cholsey (Berks.) is called Chosley.

The dropping of a letter is to be accounted for in a like manner.  Probably the word was first pronounced short, and when the ear became accustomed to the shortened sound, the superfluous (or rather unpronounced) letter would be dropped in writing.  In proper names, to which your correspondent particularly refers, we observe this going on extensively in the present day.  Thus, in Caermarthen and Caernarvon, though the e is etymologically of importance, it is now very generally omitted—­and that by “those in authority:”  in the Ordnance Maps, Parliamentary “Blue Books,” and Poor-law documents, those towns are always spelled Carnarvon, Carmarthen.  A still more striking instance is that of a well-known village on the Thames, opposite Runnimede.  Awhile back it was commonly spelled Wyrardisbury; now it appears on the time-tables of the South-Western Railway (and perhaps elsewhere) Wraysbury, which very nearly represents the local pronunciation.

It is, perhaps, worth while to remark that letters are sometimes added as well as dropped by the peasantry.  Thus the Cockley, a little tributary of Wordsworth’s Duddon, is by the natives of Donnerdale invariably called Cocklety beck; whether for the sake of euphony, your readers may decide.

And now, Sir, you will perhaps permit me to put a query.  Tom Brown, in his Dialogues, p. 44. ed. 1704., has a well-known line:—­

“Why was not he a rascal Who refused to suffer the Children of Israel to go into the Wilderness with their wives and families to eat the Paschal?”

which he says he found on some “very ancient hangings in a country ale-house.”  I have never doubted that he was himself the author; but having heard it positively ascribed to a very different person, I should be glad to know whether {299} any of your readers have met with it in an earlier writer; and if so, to whom is it to be ascribed?

J.T.

Pet-Names—­“Jack."—­Perhaps one of your many readers, erudite in etymologies, will kindly explain how “Jack” came to be used as the diminutive for John.  Dr. Kennedy, in his recent interesting disquisition on pet-names (No. 16. p. 242.), supposes that Jaques was (by confusion) transmuted into “Jack;” a “metamorphosis,” almost as violent as the celebrated one effected, some two centuries ago, by Sir John Harrington.  “Poor John,” from being so long “Jack among his familiars,” has been most scurvily treated, being employed to form sundry very derogatory compounds, such as, Jackass, Jackpudding, Jack-a-dandy, Jackanapes, Jack-a-lent, Jack o’ oaks (knave of clubs), Jack-o’ th’ Lantern, &c. &c.  Might not “Jack” have been derived from John, somewhat after the following fashion:—­Johan—­Joan—­Jan—­Janchen or Jankin.