[Spellyans] Broth and cabbage

Michael Everson everson at evertype.com
Wed Nov 17 16:17:10 GMT 2010


On 17 Nov 2010, at 16:07, Nicholas Williams wrote:

> 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

They may not have always been for all words. But they are in the revived language for these two words. 

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/





More information about the Spellyans mailing list