[Spellyans] *gwruthyl

A. J. Trim ajtrim at msn.com
Fri Jul 29 22:21:02 IST 2011

According to Nicholas, «*Gwruthyl» is unattested. However, Nance includes «gwrüthyl» in his 1952 EC dictionary, and in his 1955 CE dictionary. Wella Brown has it in his 1984 grammar. Ken George includes it in his 1993 CE dictionary.

Ken apparently had the technology to count them (electronically, I assume), and gives an “authentication” code of {8:ML:4} which means “derived” and with “some doubt” from something that actually occurred in the texts 10 to 31 times. By way of comparison, «gul» gets an “authentication” code of {8:ML:6} which means“derived” and with “some doubt” from something that actually occurred in the texts 100 to 316 times. What texts has Ken seen that Nicholas hasn’t? Was there a misreading at least 10 times, and by at least two people? I doubt it; nor do I believe that Nicholas would have missed at least 10 occurrences. Why did Ken have “some doubt” in the spelling of «gul»? Something very odd has happened. 


Andrew J. Trim


From: nicholas williams 
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 5:50 PM
To: Standard Cornish discussion list 
Subject: [Spellyans] *gwruthyl

I said I wouldn't post on the SWF glossary any more, but I think I should share this. 
The glossary s.v. CREATE gives gwruthyl and says it is an alternative VN to gul.

The glossary does not cite any of the verbs commonly used in the Middle Cornish texts for 'to create', namely

formya x 13
furmya x 3

creatya x 10 (TH and CW)

Most interestingly the glossary thinks the alternative vn to gul is *gwruthyl. *Gwruthyl is unattested. So for that matter are *guruthyl and *gvruthyl.
Gruthyl with gr- rather than gwr- is attested 14 times. 

Which texts exactly have the compilers read?


Spellyans mailing list
Spellyans at kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20110729/cde5a2a0/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list