[Spellyans] "understand" in Cornish

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Sun Mar 8 11:36:17 GMT 2009


The real difficulty with prefixed cam-, pen-, ol- etc. is that these are
identifiable prefixes that are easily associated with the lexical items
camm, penn, oll etc. not just for modern learners, but this appears to have
been the case of traditional speakers, too. Late Cornish sources indicate
that pre-occlusion of mm, nn (or different articulation of ll, be it
gemination of voicelessness) occurred in word forms that shouldn’t have
allowed it, i.e. before a following consonant, in unstressed position. I can
only assume that these “prefixes” acquired PO lexically through
reinterpretation. Examples would be Gwavas’ cabmdhavas, “rainbow” (an gabm
thavas in CW) which even has two restrictions to acquiring PO
phonologically, 1) a following consonant, 2) unstressed position; or Gwavas’
pedndowlen “pair of knees” and Lhuyd’s pednglin “knees”. 

Dan

 

________________________________________

From: nicholas williams

Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 7:12 PM

 

I agree. That is why in Alys I wrote pednwysk 'headgear, hat' but penwysker
'hatter'. In the first the prefix is stressed, in the second never. I agree
that decisions need to be made about all items containing cam-, pen-, etc.

 

The word ùnderstondya has primary stress on the o and secondary stress on
the ù. That means that in the compound camùnderstondya the cam- is not
stressed and should be spelt <cam>, not <camm, cabm>.

 

Nicholas

 

On 7 Mar 2009, at 12:08, <ajtrim at msn.com> <ajtrim at msn.com> wrote:

If there is to be (secondary) stress on the prefix, as they suggest, these
words should be written pedn-seythen, pell-gowser, camm-neves, corr-donner,
and cabm-onderstondya.

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090308/e3778a04/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list