[Spellyans] <dh> ~ <th>

Owen Cook owen.e.cook at gmail.com
Mon Nov 29 04:34:09 GMT 2010


They had also generalized the ending "au•dhak" for the first three.
Given such a deformation in these numerals, the devoicing of the
fricative in pemp•thak is hardly a shocker. The evidence I've seen for
this number all seems to point, if anything, to /pempðek/.

~~Owen

On 28 November 2010 10:10, nicholas williams <njawilliams at gmail.com> wrote:
> In his discussion of traditional survivals in Mounts Bay published in 1876
> Jenner gives the following from two different informants for '12, 13, 14,
> 15':
> dau•dhak
> tau•dhak
> bizwau•dhak
> pemp•thak
> and
> dau•dhak
> tau•dhak
> bizwau•dhak
> pemp•thak.
> See M. Everson, Henry Jenner's Handbook of the Cornish Language (2010) 242.
> In Jenner's phonetic system <dh> represents the voiced dental fricative and
> <th> the voiceless one.
> The raised dot after a syllable indicates that it bears the stress.
> This evidence is unequivocal and indicates that English speakers who had
> learnt some fragments of traditional
> Cornish distinguished the -dh- in dewdhek, tredhek/tardhek,
> beswardhek/peswardhek from the
> -th- in pymthek.
> Traditional survivals are better evidence than Lhuyd, I believe.
> Nicholas
>
>
>
> On 2010 Du 26, at 13:23, j.mills at email.com wrote:
>
> Given that Lhuyd is the only real evidence that we have for the type of
> dental fricative in this word. And given that Welsh has /θ/ in this word
> (and therefore Lhuyd's <dh> is not the result of Welsh influence). Why would
> you want to write this word with <th>, and what evidence do you have to
> support such a pronunciation?
>
> My question was not intended as rhetorical and I was rather hoping that
> Michael or someone else might care to reply.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>
>




More information about the Spellyans mailing list