njawilliams at gmail.com
Fri Nov 19 09:26:32 GMT 2010
Ef 'he' and geneff 'with me' would have been a good idea, perhaps.
The only trouble is that final f would be pronounced as [f]. Some UC speakers
make this mistake.
As for dh/th, I prefer to interpret the variation as similar to that of
k/g, p/b, f/v rather than some rather ad hoc pausa/allegro construct.
We don't seem to have any other alternation of this kind in Cornish.
We should also remember that Lhuyd apparently never actually visited the far west of Cornwall
where the language was most spoken. According to Derek Williams' map in
Prying into Every Hole and Corner Lhuyd did not visit anywhere further west than Camborne.
Lhuyd spent between three and four months in Cornwall.
Most of the material in AB was garnered from manuscripts and lists sent him.
Which he then collected and edited in Oxford.
Lhuyd clearly did not understand Cornish syntax and makes the most elementary
mistakes in his Cornish preface. He clearly also often assumed that Cornish was the
same as Welsh. Look for example of his treatment of the autonomous forms
of the verb in Cornish where he gives us such bizarre forms as:
Ez yzhiz a'n henual 'We are called'
Henuassiz vi 'I had been called'
Henuer di 'Be thou named' AB: 247ab.
Such forms are figments of the Cambrian imagination.
They have no support at all in the Cornish texts.
I suspect that some at least of his phonological representations are similarly imaginary.
On 2010 Du 19, at 08:19, Owen Cook wrote:
> On a not totally unrelated note, I would really like to see a return
> to the use of final <f> for /v/, final <ff> for /f/, which I thought
> was one of the most elegant features of an earlier incarnation of KS.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans