njawilliams at gmail.com
Mon Nov 22 13:31:43 GMT 2010
I am not convinced Dan:
zen marreg worth y hanow PA 218b
vn marreg longis hynwys PA 217a
Marrak arall PA 246a
vn marrek a'n lathas OM 226
ny gyf methek a'n sawya RD 1648 (not metheg)
kepar ha methag da TH 20a (not methek)
And compare further:
in peswar vgans ha nownsag psalme TH 1
dyag the wull TH 2a
By your reckoning these should both have voiceless final k.
Forms in -eg, -ag do occur but they are marginal and infrequent. I
really cannot see that they are positional variants.
There are 5 examples of methek before both consonants and vowels, 1 example of vethek.
One example of metheg before a vowel and one of methag before a consonant.
I really cannot see any system there. If there were any positional variation in such words,
we would have noticed it by now.
The system, with some inconsistencies, is -ek, -ak after an unstressed vowel
and -eg, -ag after a stressed one.
This is most obvious with g/k but I believe it operates with b/p, v/f, dh/th and in native words with z/s.
There is no problem with z/s because both are written <s>.
Most people accept gwreg ~ carrek, mab ~ morrep. Some also accept gov ~ genef, for all that the SWF writes genev.
In the light of present knowledge I cannot see how it can be conclusively shown that
dëdh ~ dyweth is mistaken. I shall certainly continue to write dyweth, myterneth, gwiryoneth, nowyth.
This point is one of the reasons I cannot accept the SWF.
On 2010 Du 22, at 12:43, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
> Have you backed up this claim? I even find examples of <g> in marhek and medhek before vowels: Eff ew an phisicion han me
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans