[Spellyans] SWF questionable wordforms

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Wed Sep 17 13:43:24 IST 2008


I believe Andrew misunderstood my post thinking I was talking about the
“-uher” part of the word rather than whether <th> ought to be spelt <dh> or
<th>. 

I agree with Nicholas and Jon that it ought to be spelt <dh>. 

The second part of the word may well be connected to Middle Welsh <ucher>
‘evening’ and Old Cornish has <gurthuher>. One can reconstruct a late
British *uixer from Common Celtic *we(k)speros (cf. Latin <vesper>).

Dan

 

________________________________________

From: Jon Mills

Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:19 AM

 

I cannot follow your argument, Andrew. Why do you doubt the legitimacy of
Lhuyd's <dh> in this word? How does analogy with 'nyhewer' tell us anything
about whether 'gorthuher '? should be spelled with  <th> or <dh>? The
attestations include Ordinalia: gorthuer

 

Ton, Rad. (1504): gorzewar

Which gives some legitimacy for spelling this word *gordhewer.

Jon

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Andrew Climo" 

To: "'Standard Cornish discussion list'" 

Subject: Re: [Spellyans] SWF questionable wordforms

Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:34:17 +0100

...

--------------------------

SWF: gorthuher (n.), evening

 

Lhuyd’s spelling gÿdhiühar indicates that the spelling <dh> may be more
appropriate: gordhuher;[Andrew Climo]  I really doubt this. Without wishing
to rake up previously discussed points it should surely be gorthewer
(analogy nyhewer). Or is the proposal to respell nyhewer as nyhuher? Is this
etymologically correct?

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20080917/c20d64af/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list