everson at evertype.com
Thu Nov 26 11:30:10 GMT 2009
On 25 Nov 2009, at 19:06, nicholas williams wrote:
> There is something of a problem with Lhuyd's <lyv>.
> It is possible that he did indeed hear the word and that it was
> pronounced [lIv].
> I have my doubts.
A fair point.
> In the middle of the sixteenth century the word was [lIw] written
> <lew> TH 7.
> In CW this appears as <lywe> CW 2358 and <lyw> CW 2420,
> and in the plural as <lyvyow> CW 2314, 2538 and <levyaw> CW 2165.
Yes, and in OM it's <lyf> [liːv].
> This means that the usual forms in the sixteenth and seventeenth
> centuries seem to have been
> either <lyw>, <lew> or plural <lyvyow>, <levyow> with singular sense.
So... *you're* suggesting this is a bÿs/bës word?
> It is therefore possible, and perhaps even likely, that Lhuyd didn't
> actually hear his <lyv>
> but derived it from the plural <lyvyow> and from the singular <lyf>,
> which he came across
> in Origo Mundi (we know he had read OM because he quotes from it at
> AB: 265).
OK, so liv, livyow [liːv], [ˈlɪvjoʊ]
> If in KS we are going to base our spelling upon the texts, then we
> should write
> singular <lyw>, <liv> (the latter representing <lyf> in OM) and
> plural <livyow>.
> I prefer lyw, livyow.
We base our spelling on the recommended pronunciation of Revived
Cornish, not just on the graphs of the texts. UC and UCR were such a
normalization, but SWF and KS are "phonetic" orthographies.
I think that lyw/livyow is a strange ambiguous variation that is less
satisfactory than the regular liv/livyow.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
More information about the Spellyans