[Spellyans] Broth and cabbage

Nicholas Williams njawilliams at gmail.com
Wed Nov 17 16:07:34 GMT 2010


I am not convinced that in the traditional language [ow] and [aw] were
always separate:

fout ‘lack’ BM 2560; fowt TH 4 	faut AB ii 56c; fawt TH 28a
jowle ‘devil’ CW 1768 -- dzhiaul AB ii: 54c
lour ‘enough’ TH 13a -- laur AB ii: 144c
Sousenack ‘English’ BF: 25 -- sawzneck Jago 1882: 15
Sousen ‘Englishmen’ --	Sausen BF: 25
S Powle ‘St Paul’ F: 31, S Powle ‘St Paul’ TH 4:: S Pawle TH 4a
sow ‘but’ TH 1, 11a: saw TH 2
cowis ‘to get’ SA 60: cawas CW 1034
our ‘gold’ AB: 44b: awr RC 23: 197

Nicholas	



On 11/17/10, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com> wrote:
> On 17 Nov 2010, at 13:18, Nicholas Williams wrote:
>
>> Couldn't the SWF write cowl/kowl and col/kol?
>
> No, soup is certainly [kaʊl]... I would think that cawl should be for soup
> and, well, either cowl or col for cabbage.
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>




More information about the Spellyans mailing list