[Spellyans] <dh> ~ <th>
A. J. Trim
ajtrim at msn.com
Mon Nov 29 13:22:02 GMT 2010
Could there be two forms, pempthek and pem'dhek?
Perhaps some people pronounced the p and others didn't. I would expect the p
to affect the voicing of the th/dh. Perhaps the full version was used in
counting and the other used in connected speech.
The evidence just reported is good, and it tells us how these numbers were
pronounced when counting (pilchards?) in one location in the 1870s. It may
be more reliable than Lhuyd's evidence.
It does not tell us how these words were pronounced in Tudor Cornish or at
other times. Clearly, the numbers are different from the forms that we
"normally" use. We don't know how the changes affected the th/dh problem.
However, we can now be more certain about the terminal pronunciations.
Andrew J. Trim
From: nicholas williams
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 9:46 AM
To: Standard Cornish discussion list
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] ~
I think not, Owen. The generalisation of au•dhak in the preceding numerals
surely makes pem•dhak more likely i.e. with the same ending. The mere fact
that people who had
heard traditional Cornish said pemp•thak is good enough evidence for me.
Pymthek is correct, I believe, not *pemdhak (pace Lhuyd).
On 2010 Du 29, at 04:34, Owen Cook wrote:
> 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/.
Spellyans mailing list
Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans