everson at evertype.com
Sat Feb 20 09:06:24 GMT 2010
On 20 Feb 2010, at 08:20, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
> I see <rr> in all attestations of the plural…
Yes, Dan, but that doesn't in itself *mean* anything. A Traditionalist orthography is not a mechanical grab-bag of what happens to be in the texts. We do not just say "If a word has a form in the text, then that orthographic form is suitable for a modern orthography." What we say is that traditional orthographic *forms* should be used. That may or may not have to do with an attested wordform.
We might have a word for instance ONLY attested in Lhuyd, like *hụag. Would we not spell this word as "whag"? Of course we would -- even though the only attestation did not have a wh-. Why? Because our orthography uses "traditional orthographic forms". which does not mean "copying only attested instances of any word".
There are some 56 examples of -ryon in the texts (not all of which are final), of which only six are finals in -rryon:
squyerryon OM 1640
tyorryon OM 2411, 2423, 2486
karpentorryon OM 2410
gwyrryon BK 266
It is easy to see from karpentorryon that the -rr- here isn't meaningful; compare:
Pehadoryon PA 37
guythoryon OM 2331
Karpentoryon OM 2422
guykcoryon PC 331, 1304
palmoryon RC 1478
sovdoryon BM 1190, 2493
pyboryon BM 4563
pehadoryon TR 7a
soudoryon BK 3243
On phonetic grounds, there's no warrant for an -rr- in the plural of sqwier [ˈskwiːəɾ];l certainly the suggestion that it was a geminate isn't likely, given OM's Karpentorryon 2410 and karpentoryon 2422, so I would ditch [r(ː)] for [r].
It seems we will settle on sqwieryon [skwiˈɛɹjən].
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
More information about the Spellyans