[Spellyans] Problems with SWF

nicholas williams njawilliams at gmail.com
Thu Jun 26 11:15:11 BST 2008

We write arlùth, Arlùth to show that the segment is not [y]. [y] would  
have unrounded to [I] and the word would be universally arlith.
Arlith/arlyth is attested in Late Cornish.

In order to indicate an unfronted vowel the SWF has <o> here
which is not the traditional spelling. SWF also mistakenly has -dh: so  
SWF has the unattested *arlodh. <arloth> with <o>  is attested 6 times.

KS writes <arlùth> which with the diacritic added is the same as the  
traditional <arluth>, attested no fewer than 601 times.

KS also writes the unstressed word pùb 'all, every'.

Incidentally we do not write *pùr 'very' since it is clear that this  
word < pur 'pure, clean' has split into two separate items:
pur 'pure, clean, utter' [py:r] and the proclitic pòr 'very' [p at r].

The comparative of pur [py:r] is purra [pyr@], [pIr@] which is seen in

pyrra foole ne ve gwelys CW 2400

The spelling <por> 'very' is common in BK (x 13) and LC, e.g.

por theffry ny vith kerys BK 1600
Mars eugh the Arthor por wyr BK 1357
ken yu hedda rêol por uîr en Kembra Lhuyd
Eth ove por loan tha gwellaz why a’ metten ma Pryce


On 26 Jun 2008, at 10:53, Owen Cook wrote:

> I think I've seen KS
> <ù> in unstressed syllables as well as stressed ones -- is this
> right?)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20080626/42fb7b96/attachment.htm>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list