daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Mon Nov 22 14:48:09 GMT 2010
From: Michael Everson
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 3:25 PM
“On 22 Nov 2010, at 14:09, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
>> “The objection to iw < iu is that it always represents the same sound as yw and is without warrant in the traditional language.”
> What does <yw> mean here [iʊ] or [ɪʊ]? Both?
In the revived language, [iʊ]~[ɪʊ] are allophones of /iʊ/, written in KS yw, uw, and -u.”
That was not my question. I wanted to know what sound(s) Nicholas believes was/were represented by <yw>.
“> How do you explain
> Lhuyd <liụ> : <bêụ>
Explain how? One might write these lyw and bÿw~bëw, if that is what you are asking.”
I was not inquiring about your orthographical solution in KS. I meant, how to explain the phonological history of the words attested in OC as <biu> and <liu> and why they have a different outcome in LC, different orthographic profiles in MC, different phonemes in Breton, Welsh and Irish and are according to Jackson of a different origin in Proto-Celtic and British.
> <diweth> (TH 18a)
“This is di-weth/di.wəθ/ not diw-eth /diʊ.əθ/; it is not a diphthong.”
It is treated exactly like a diphthong in traditional Cornish and by Lhuyd. It is impossible for you to ascertain whether traditionally it was pronounced /di.wəθ/ and not /diʊ.əθ/. It’s an old formation, possibly as old as Proto-Celtic as we have OIr. díad, OW diued, OB diued.
Nicholas said <iw> doesn’t occur at all in traditional Cornish. It does.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans