ray at spyrys.org
Thu Nov 18 08:48:14 GMT 2010
From a user's point of view I consider final 'dh' to be simply ugly,
therefore the more that this disfigurement of Cornish script can be
avoided the better as far as I am concerned.
On 18 Du 2010, at 07:39, Michael Everson wrote:
>> From: Nicholas Williams
>>> Lhuyd writes guironeth twice. Guironeth cannot be ascribed to
>>> contamination with Welsh. So guironeth is more likely to be
>>> genuine than a form in -edh. The final segment was voiceless.
> On 18 Nov 2010, at 00:35, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
>> In your opinion Nicholas, because it happens to fit your theory of
>> the phonological history of Cornish. But Lhuyd has other words with
>> final <dh> in unstressed syllables.
> Yes, Dan. But you haven't addressed the argument, which has been
> given several times already. We have an explanation for why Lhuyd
> writes both -eth and -edh in some words. It is that he heard -eth
> but sometimes wrote -edh because of what Nicholas has just called
> "contamination" with his native language. He'd never have written -
> eth if he'd been hearing -edh. It'd be -eth right through. The same
> can be said for -ev. He couldn't have heard "genev" because the
> forms by that time were "gene vy" and "genama" or "genam". The -ev
> is most probably "contamination" with his native language.
> Moreover, we see that throughout the system of other consonants we
> have devoicing in final unstressed position. By Occam's razor we
> note that the simplest explanation is that (1) the interdental and
> labiodental fricatives behaved just like the other consonants and
> devoiced in unstressed final position and that (2) where Lhuyd gives
> -eð and -ev it is on the basis of Welsh, particularly has he gives
> them inconsistently as against -eθ.
> Our theory fits the evidence better than the theory that -eð and -ev
> were operative and that somehow the -eθ in guironeth and other
> words... erm.... Well, no, I don't think I've heard an explanation.
> In sum, since a decision has to be made as to whether to write -eth
> or -edh, we prefer the former, because phonologically the
> explanation is simpler, and because even allowing for doubt we know
> that we are not making a mistake if we write -th as the texts do.
> This is not rash, and it is not unfounded in strong and sensible
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans