craig at agantavas.org
Mon Apr 6 11:19:59 IST 2009
The place name evidence is overwhelmingly for gaver/gever.
On 6 Ebr 2009, at 10:40, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 4 Apr 2009, at 18:13, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>> “Why is Dan following George's gaver pl gever (with -ar in the
>> sing.)? And what is the explanation for "gyffres" given "gifras"
>> and "geffraz"? (Certainly there is no need for two f's.)”
>> I’m not giving gavar, but gaver, you cited it yourself.
> I know. Nance and Williams and Gendall all have gavar.
>> This is attested in MC. In Lhuyd the -ar means schwa + r. This can
>> be shown as gaver as well.
> Why would it be a good idea to have gaver instead of gavar in the
> singular? To me the sg/pl alternation gavar/gever is more sensible.
>> From the SWF’s rule to give the etymological vowel
> That "rule" is most objectionable, because it means "do what Ken
> George reconstructed in KK" and there is enough wrong with his
> reconstructions to think twice before accepting any of the holus-
> bolus. Indeed I doubt the AGH took a considered view on this when
> they (or Albert and Ben) made this "rule".
>> the discussion is irrelevant anyway because it’s an epenthetic
>> vowel anyway, cf. W gafr.
> Then it isn't an ETYMOLOGICAL -e-, is it?
>> Nicholas Boson and Andrew Boorde give gever as the plural which
>> seems to be cognate to W geifr. Gyffras is the plural found in TH,
>> with <ff>. Should we simplify <ff> to <f> if it’s not attested, I
> <f> is never [v] in the SWF or KS.
>> Could it mean /ˈgivrəs/?
> Maybe that's what Nance was thinking, but I think it's /ˈgifrəs/,
> which I think we should spell gyfras.
> I remain unconvinced that tehre are good reasons to change from
> gavar/gever to gaver/gever in KS. Jon? Nicholas?
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans