[Spellyans] <dh> ~ <th>

j.mills at email.com j.mills at email.com
Mon Nov 29 16:47:59 GMT 2010


I agree, analogy with Sampson is not appropriate here.
Ol an gwella,
Jon

_____________________________________ 
Dr. Jon Mills, 
University of Kent



-----Original Message-----
From: A. J. Trim <ajtrim at msn.com>
To: Standard Cornish discussion list <spellyans at kernowek.net>
Sent: Mon, Nov 29, 2010 4:06 pm
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] <dh> ~ <th>


Thanks, Michael. That's very interesting. It explains the p in Sampson but not in damson. 
 
However, pymp/pemp ended in -p already, i.e. before the dek was added. Surely, it was the presence of that p that dictated that we had -thek rather than -dhek in pempthek. If the p is elided, there is no need for -thek. It can be -dhek as in the other numbers. I don't believe that the p is present because the suffix is -thek. 
 
Regards, 
 
Andrew J. Trim 
 
 
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Everson 
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 2:17 PM 
To: Standard Cornish discussion list 
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] ~ 
 
On 29 Nov 2010, at 13:22, A. J. Trim wrote: 
 
> Could there be two forms, pempthek and pem'dhek? 
 
More likely pempthek and pemthek. 
 
> Perhaps some people pronounced the p and others didn't. 
 
The p there is a part of a bridging consonant cluster, homorganic with the preceding nasal and voiceless like the following . In English you see similar things in Thomson and Thompson, Samson and Sampson, [sæmsən] and [sæmpsən]: the p may be inserted, but the following consonant is not voiced. We don't get *Samzon or *Sambzon. Now, if *pembdhek were found that would be another thing. 'Tisn't though. 
 
> 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. 
 
A homorganic consonant inserted in such a position doesn't cause the devoicing of the following consonant.. it reflects the nature of that consonant. So we have Samson and Sampson, but chimney and chimbley. Now in that example, the n is converted to an l, but the bridging consonant is voiced like the following consonant, not voiceless. 
 
> 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. 
 
AB doesn't tell us the context of many of its words. Some were collected in the field by him. Some by others. Some were rewritten by him in his phonetic script on the basis of manuscript readings. It's a mistake to try to treat AB in the same way we might treat one of Leonard Bloomfield's collected transcriptions of Algonquin languages. And it's a mistake to underestimate L1 interference from Welsh, as Nicholas has discussed. 
 
And he was not a trained phonetician such as we have today (or as we had even in Jenner's time). Modern phonetics didn't exist then. Indeed he was a pioneer. But so many examples of e.g. meneth vs menedh in stand-alone citation position has to be explained -- and can't be explained by external sandhi as Dan claims to find in JCH, because there is no external sandhi in citation forms. 
 
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/ 
 
_______________________________________________ 
Spellyans mailing list 
Spellyans at kernowek.net 
http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net  
_______________________________________________ 
Spellyans mailing list 
Spellyans at kernowek.net 
http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20101129/8553fd09/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list