craig at agantavas.org
Fri Nov 19 10:12:57 GMT 2010
I have wondered about that map in Derek Williams's books since it's
clear that Lhuyd DID visit West Penwith. The map also omits the
parish of Paul - home of John Keigwin and the Bosons - who were known
to Lhuyd (p.21). On P13 of that book is a list that shows he stayed
in Penzance on Aug 25 and again on Sept 22; and was in St Ives on Oct
That this was a 4-man undertaking, I wonder if the apparent
discrepancies are due to notes by the four being made in slightly
On 19 Du 2010, at 09:26, nicholas williams wrote:
> 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
> make this mistake.
> As for dh/th, I prefer to interpret the variation as similar to that
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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.
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans