[Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative

Michael Everson everson at evertype.com
Mon Feb 16 09:16:52 GMT 2009


A rodent of insignificant size pointed the following out:

> From Luke 2.verse 10
> UCR has 'na bertheugh own.'
> KK has 'na berthewgh own'
> SWF has 'na berthewgh own'
> KS has 'Na berthowgh own'
> pourquoi?

Dan said in response:
> KS is based on the Cornish of a slightly later period than UC or KK.  
> In the texts after BM the ending of the 2nd person plural present- 
> future was not consistently distinguished from the 2nd person plural  
> imperative. KS normalises this as -owgh. I advised the AHG to do the  
> same for the Late Cornish based verbal paradigms since they were re- 
> analysed and regularised in LC. It serves RLC very little just to  
> cut the RMC endings.


I'm not sure this is correct. KS orthography took Jordan 1611 as its  
foundation text but that's not the same as saying it's "based" on  
later Cornish than UC or KK.

Jenner would have written "na bertheugh" against the present  
"berthough".

*Are* there texts from BM or before which distinguish the ending of  
the 2nd person plural present-future was not consistently  
distinguished from the 2nd person plural imperative? Or is this just a  
ghost?

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com





More information about the Spellyans mailing list