A Glossary of Provincial Words & Phrases in use in Somersetshire — Inside the Classic

The Compiler's Method and Sources

Williams states he 'freely made use of Norris, Jennings, Halliwell, or any other collector of words,' omitting 'mere peculiarities of pronunciation.' This suggests the glossary is a synthesis rather than a fresh field survey. The preface credits the late William Arthur Jones as co-operator, and the title page lists both men. The introduction by Dr. Prior was originally a paper read at a Society conversazione in 1871, later printed with permission. The resulting work thus layers multiple contributors: Norris's original collection, Williams and Jones's editing, and Prior's broader linguistic framing.

Evidence of Two Dialects

Dr. Prior's introduction advances a specific claim: 'two there certainly are' dialects in Somerset. He connects this to physical appearance, recalling an old road-worker with 'a very refined cast of features' near Wiveliscombe, and suggests that hill-dwellers may descend from ancient inhabitants displaced by 'conquerors of coarser breed.' The glossary entries themselves do not systematically mark which dialect a word belongs to, but Prior's remarks indicate that the compilers saw the county's speech as internally varied. The excerpts include forms like 'Ich' (I) and contractions '’Cham' (I am), which hint at older West Saxon patterns.

Word Selection and Cultural Range

The sample entries cover farming ('keffel' for a worn-out horse, 'keeve' for a brewing tub), food ('junket' as curds and cream), and natural history ('lady-cow' for ladybird, with scientific names like Coccinella septempunctata). Some terms are strikingly specific: 'laiter' means the full set of eggs a hen lays before going broody. Others show semantic narrowing, like 'learn' used to mean 'teach.' The inclusion of etymologies (e.g., 'lip' from Wycliffe's 'lepe') suggests an antiquarian interest beyond mere listing. The glossary thus documents not only words but the material culture and ecology of 19th-century Somerset.

Readers should approach this glossary as a product of its time—compiled by clergymen and antiquarians, shaped by the Society's interests, and filtered through earlier printed sources. The entries are most valuable when read alongside the preface and introduction, which reveal the compilers' assumptions about language change and social history. For those studying English dialects, this work offers a snapshot of what was considered worth preserving in 1873, and what was already felt to be disappearing.

Flicking through the Somersetshire glossary, I caught myself mourning those lost words—so fragile, so tied to place. It reminded me that language is never a static thing, merely a living breath. The same gentle melancholy surfaced in Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech — Key Ideas to Explore, which treats speech as a quiet, shifting river rather than a fixed possession. Both left me feeling oddly grateful for the smallness of what we keep.