[Spellyans] <l>, <ll>, and <lh> in Sacrament an Alter (1576)
njawilliams at gmail.com
Fri Jul 23 17:43:27 IST 2010
CW doesn't appear to distinguish /l:/ from /l/, since it writes
<wellas> for <welas> 'saw'. But so does does Tregear. Tregear
sometimes writes <pella> (x 17) but he also writes <pelha> (x 13). CW
writes <ethlays> 'alas' at CW 1040. This seems to be a back-spelling
for *<elhâs>. It would seem that CW has lost the distinction /l: ~ l/
but still has /lh/. In which one might expect either *<na felha> or
<na *fethla> in CW. But CW always writes <na fella> 'no longer'.
Rowe writes <Môr pelha avel Jordan> but Gwavas writes <pella>.
Two further points. Lhuyd tells us he heard initial /r/ pronounced
without voicing. (I am in Mayo and haven't the reference to hand.)
Secondly, the reflex of /l:/ in Welsh is a voiceless lateral.
Voicelessness as a possible element in realisation of historic /l:/ in
Cornish is quite likely. The long /l/ of Cornu-English might be
relevant here, or it might be a red herring.
On 23 Gor 2010, at 12:01, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
> was realised as voiceless or geminate will remain a matter of
> theory, but what we can say, is that the author of SA most likely
> retained the contrast of <l> : <ll> ~ <lh>.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans