[Spellyans] "Public house"

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Mon Aug 8 12:11:19 IST 2011


Precisely. I would like to be able to write <dywes> or <dewes>.
Dan

Sent from my iPhone

On 08.08.2011, at 12:57, njawilliams <njawilliams at gmail.com> wrote:

> If diot and dewas are unrelated, why do we have to spell diwes etymologically as though from OC diot?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 2011 Est 6, at 12:58, "Daniel Prohaska" <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com> wrote:
> 
>> It seems that the w-less form is the regular reflex, cf. MI deoch, OB diot, MB diet, OC diot, Gaul. diota. Since the OC form diot precedes MC dywes, dewas I find it unlikely that Cornish would spontaneously insert /w/ in the hiatus in this word and nowhere else.
>> I’ve found a questionable (no indication of sources) Proto-Celtic to English wordlist online (http://www.wales.ac.uk/Resources/Documents/Research/CelticLanguages/ProtoCelticEnglishWordlist.pdf), which gives dî-âti- glossed ‘drink’, but also the heading degu-(?) ‘drink’. Is there a possibility that we might be dealing with an entirely separate root where dywes, dewas is concerned. I haven’t found *(*)degu- elsewhere and cannot find a reference to a word in the other Modern Celtic languages.
>> Could *dî-âti- be derived from the PCc (Proto-Celtic) prefix *dî- ‘of, from’ and compounded with PCc *âti- ‘oven, furnace’, i.e. ‘something burnt, a brand, liquor’, rather than ‘suck’ + nominal extension?
>> Cornish dena (cf. OI denaid; MW dynu, denu; MB denaff, B denañ) shows ‘suck’ + suffix *-na—
>> Perplexing and the other reference materials are suspiciously quite on the subject and don’t list this word.
>> Dan
>>  
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net [mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net]
>> On Behalf Of nicholas williams
>> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 7:51 PM
>> To: Standard Cornish discussion list
>> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] "Public house"
>>  
>> “If the w in dywes, dewas is to fill hiatus, one has to ask why dioc > dyag has not undergone the same development.”
>>  
>> On 2011 Est 4, at 13:52, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
>>  
>> > How is the OC <diot> to be explained? It seems that MC <dewas> cannot be its reflex, but a separate development.
>> >
>>  
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110808/ad8ee1dc/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list