[Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative

Ray Chubb ray at spyrys.org
Mon Feb 16 16:57:25 GMT 2009


However, as there are eugh forms, unlike 'yn kever', it cannot be said  
to be wrong.

On 16 Whe 2009, at 12:32, nicholas williams wrote:

> The texts written by native speakers should really be our only  
> warrant.
> To invoke revivalist practice is not, I believe, legitimate, since  
> it opens the door
> to many mistakes.
> Revivalist practice would legitimate yn kever *'about' with nouns,  
> huny to mean 'one',
> the use of nefra in the past, etc., etc.
>
> Until there is a community of really fluent speakers of Cornish  
> (many of them natives)
> revivalist practice cannot properly be used as an argument.
>
> The curious thing is that PA uses -ough for the 2nd imperative but UC
> has -eugh. Given Nance's particular fondness for PA as a basic text
> the UC -eugh ~ -ough distinction is odd. Perhaps Nance just wanted
> levereugh, for example, to have the same ending as gwreugh.
>
>
> Nicholas
>
> On 16 Feb 2009, at 12:15, Ray Chubb wrote:
>
>> Using owgh forms takes no account of custom and practice in the  
>> revival over the past 100 years.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

Ray Chubb

Portreth
Kernow




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090216/4ab6a5b7/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list