owen.e.cook at gmail.com
Wed Dec 16 11:36:02 GMT 2009
2009/12/15 Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com> rug screfa:
> On 15 Dec 2009, at 11:21, j.mills at email.com wrote:
>> Morton Nance (1938) gives leghow pl. rickets; ague. George (2009) writes
>> this as "legh" "to agree with the cognates" (Breton: lec'h, Welsh: llech),
>> and gives the translation equivalent: 'rickets'. The only source that I have
>> found for this word is Lhuyd (1707: 242a), who spells this word "lêaụh" and
>> translates it as 'ague'. How should this word be spelled? And what
>> justification is there, if any, for the translation equivalent 'rickets'?
> Lhuyd's form would not be so unusual, perhaps. KS spells leghow as lehow,
> and Lhuyd's form looks like le'ow.
Perhaps, but I would have made it lewgh. Why the intrusive -w- would
have come in I don't know, but on the other hand why would "lêaụh" =
le'ow have the -h at the end?
More information about the Spellyans