[Spellyans] SWF questionable wordforms
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
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>).
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.
----- 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans