[Spellyans] Nicholas' crit/proofing of the SWF Glossary

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Wed Sep 14 14:22:04 BST 2011

Here are some of my thoughts in answer to Nicholas’ very helpful criticisms
here and in personal correspondence concerning the SWF Glossary.
The SWF glossary s.v. ‘place’ gives le, leow and then tyller, tyleryow. This
is in imitation of Nance’s 1952 dictionary which s.v. ‘place’ gives le, leow
and then tyller, tylleryow. Nance presumably wanted le, leow to be the
default word for ‘place’, because of Welsh lle, lleoedd and Breton lec’h,
lec’hioù. Le in Cornish, however, the use of le is very circumscribed.
Le is not really used as a free morpheme in Cornish. It occurs almost always
in set phrases: i.e. pùb le ‘everywhere’ (attested 16 times); ken le
‘elsewhere’ (x 2); in le ‘instead of’ (x 6); in neb le ‘somewhere’ (x 5); in
lies le ‘many places’ (x 5), in le may ‘where’ (x 15); in le na ‘where not’
(x 1); in y le ‘in his/its (rightful) place’ (x 6); tyller teythy means
‘rightful place’ x 1 in PA. It also occurs, of course, in alemma < *a’n
le-ma ‘hence’, and alena < *a’n le-na. 
Here are some examples:
yn le mayth en yn trevow yn splan me as derevas PA 9c; 
scrifys yw yn leas le PA 22b 
En bezow yn lower le apert a ve egerys PA 210a; 
sevys gallas ze gen le PA 255c 
Arluth the voth my a wra del degoth thy’m yn pup le OM 640-41; 
hy re gafes dyhogel dor dyseghys yn nep le OM 1143-44 
worth an post yn le may ma y gelmy fast why a wra 2058-59; 
ef a vyth sur anclethys yn le na fue den bythqueth PC 3134-35
Ef re thonvanas kyrwas in le ohan thu’m gweras BK 832-33; 
Hader vo bys in e le, in dan an houl ny ’fyth par BK 1528-29.
Nance’s *leow is not attested anywhere. This is apparently because there are
no adverbial phrase countaining *leow. 
The default word for ‘place’ in Cornish of all periods is tyller (variously
spelt <tyller, teller, tellar, telhar>). Tyller can also be used in set
phrases, e.g. pùb tyller (x 8), etc. The expression tyller clos means ‘a
quiet, secluded spot’ and is used in more than one text. Tyller, unlike le,
has an attested plural: tellyryow, tellyrryow, telythyow. Here are a few
random examples of tyller:
An ioul a trylyas sperys hag eth zy tyller tythy PA 18
Then tyller crist re dethye PA 33a
Pan dozyans bys yn tyller mayz ese crist ow pesy lowene zys a vester yn meth
Iudas an brathky PA 65ab
saw pedyr crist a holyas abell avel vn ownek ze dyller an prins annas PA
I eth yn vn fystene zen tyller ganso o ordnys PA 176a
ke war pynakyl a'n temple hagh ena gura ysethe nyns yw thy’s tyller pur es
PA 83-85
kyns y[n] vn teller yn beys PC 501
iheus arluth cuff colyn the teller da rum gedya BM 628-29
chapel guthel me a vyn rag gorthya maria wyn kynth yv teller guyls ha yne BM
Rag ny ren ny redya in teller vith in scripture TH 2
ny gugy ow kemeras tyller ha place in pub den oll TH 16
markyow pandr esy S austin in kythsam tellar ma ow scriffa TH 32a
yth ew scriffys fatell rug agan Savyour, wosa y resurreccion, apperia in mor
in tyllar gylwys Tiberias TH 42a
ema tillar arall e mes Cucell a Nice SA 65a
te a yl ou dogluthy ha the gavow dyskuthy, pan vynhy, in tellar clos BK
rag meth dean ny a lemma tha gutha in tellar close CW 865-66
En termen ez passiez thera trigaz en St. Levan; dean ha bennen en tellar
creiez chei an Horr JCH §1
ema stella teggo warnotha hep garra thotha telhar veeth NBoson 
clappies mar da vel en telhar weth NBoson
Gwrens an dour dadn an neue bos kontles var bar do idn tellar JBoson 
y[n] lyffrow del yw scrifys zen nezyn gwyls rag nyezy tellyryow esa paris PA
dre an kythsam tellyrryow ma an scriptur TH 33 
an egglos, not in telythyow erell TH 36a.
The glossary also makes a distinction between tyller and teller, teller
being described as RLC. This distinction cannot be sustained, since teller
is very well attested in Middle Cornish:
teller vyth PA 206d; 
a'n dor warnaf pup teller OM 579; 
yn pup teller OM 939; yn nep teller OM 1823; 
yn pup teller OM 1909; yn pup teller OM 2275; 
aban ethe the'n teller OM 2795; 
kyns y vn teller yn beys PC 501; 
the teller da BM 629; 
in teller ma BM 677; 
kynth yv teller guyls BM 1145; 
then teller may meve BM 2922; 
in teller vith TH 2; 
In teller arell TH 44. 
Moreover forms with <i> occur at the latest point in Middle Cornish: ema
tillar arall SA 65a; ema tillar arall SA 66. If we had more evidence, we
might well find examples of tillar in LC.
You do not cite the variant telhar, though this is given twice by Lhuyd AB:
61a, 111b and occurs four times in Nebbaz Gerriau and once in Keigwin’s
Genesis 1.
You also give plass, *plassow. The plural is not found in traditional
Cornish, the only example being heruedh hanuo an Plaso in Lhuyd’s preface,
which does not inspire confidence. Plâss is used very much like tyller; it
often occurs after neb and pub, for example. You do not mention, for reasons
of space, I assume, that plâss and tyller both mean ‘residence, mansion’:
cf. Telhar, plas glossing Palatium (AB: 111b). Plas also means ‘market
place’ if Lhuyd is to be believed: Telhar marhaz glossing Forum AB: 61.
You may wish to recast your entry on ‘place’ a little.
I agree. 
KK and therefore the SWF spell these seulabrys and seuladhydh respectively.
Apart from etymology there is not warrant for <eu> in these words. Moreover
we cannot know exactly what phonetic development occurred inside Cornish. It
seems probable that an earlier short unstressed eu may have been unfronted
before l in these items. I have collected the following examples from the
rag marow yv an voron gans ow whaffys sol a breys ‘for the wench has been
dead by my blows for a long time now’ OM 2746-47; ow tybbry gynef yma a’m
tallyovr yn keth bos-ma neb r’um guerthas sollabreys ‘eating with me from my
plate of this same food is he who has already betrayed me’ PC 744-46;
Benedycite pan wolov re bue oma sollabreys ‘Bless me, what light has been
here just now’ BM 1844-45; Solabrys kynth of cryys, the’n turant ny vetha’
mos ‘Although I have been called to the tyrant already, I dare not go’ BK
445-46; yrverys eu ru’m levte solathyth the avonsye ‘upon my word I have for
a long time intended to promote you’ OM 2611-12; ny fue golhys sol a theth
‘it has not been washed for a long time’ RD 1929; a phelyp lous os y’th fyth
ha ty gynef sollathyth ‘Philip, you are old i’n thy faith and thou with me
for a long time’ RD 2379-80; omma avel bohosek solladeth ty re vewas ‘here
like a poor man you have lived for a long time’ BM 2939-40; rag an trubut
solathyth a stoppyas ef ‘for the tribute which he stopped a long time ago’
All examples have <o> rather than <eu>. It might be more authentic for the
SWF to write solabrys and soladhydh.
I agree. The SWF spellings should be solabrys ~ solabres, and soladhydh ~
soladhedh. It is not necessary to invoke unfronting before /l/, as <o> is
one of the expected reflexes of Proto-Cornish /œ/ < Common Celtic *a¯ in
formally pretonic syllables. 
It might be wise to recommend <e> rather than <eu> in ynkleudhyas as well.
There is no warrant for <eu>. The stressed vowel is either [e] or [i]:
y anclethyas mar uskys ‘to bury him so quickly’ OM 869; 
the anclethyas crystenyon ‘to bury Christians’ PC 1564; 
y enclethyes vye da ‘it would be good to bury him’ PC 3103; 
may hallo bos anclethys ‘so that he can be buried’ RD 3115; 
ef a vyth sur anclethys ‘he will indeed be buried’ PC 3134; 
an corf ker the anclethyas ‘to bury the beloved body’ PC 3140; 
cummyas grantyys thy’m yma th’y anclethyas yn lowen ‘I have been granted
permission to bury him joyfully’ PC 3146-47; 
parys rag y enclethyes ‘ready to bury him’ PC 3161; 
ihesu a fue anclethyys ‘Jesus was buried’ RD 1; 
me a wruk y anclethyes ‘I buried him’ RD 439; 
tus yn beth a’n anclethyas ‘people buried him in the grave’ RD 1269;   ‘to
bury the good people’ BM 1323; 
hag anclethys in beth men ‘and buried in the tomb’ BM 4050; 
a fue marov anclethyys ‘who was dead, buried’ BM 4082; 
thy anclethyes in certyn ‘to bury him indeed’ BM 4471; 
may hallen y anclethyas ‘that we may bury him’ BM 4512; 
marow ha inclithis ‘dead an buried’ SA 61a; 
hag in doer tha vos anclythys ‘and to be buried in the earth’ CW 1851; 
me a vyn y anclythyas ‘I will bury him’ CW 2079; 
marrow, hag ynclythys ‘dead and buried’ Pryce; 
crowses, maro ha inclythys ‘crucified, dead and buried’ Pryce.
The root and its derivatives is problematic, because we don’t actually have
one, but two roots; nominal Common Celtic *kla¯do- ‘trench’ (cf. C cleath, W
clawdd, B kleuz) and verbal *klad-o-  (PIE zero-grade) ‘dig, bury’ (cf. W
claddu; B klazañ; OI cladaid).
What clearly is wrong is KK **ynkleudhva, cf. C an clathva (PC), W claddfa;
SWF should have (V)nkladhva ~ (V)ncladhva; 
kleudh ~ cleudh = C cleath (CW) is correct: W clawdd, B kleuz < Cc *kla¯do-
The verbal forms clethy (Pryce), anclethyas (OM) are more difficult to
interpret as they could theoretically go back to any of the two roots
*kla¯do- or *klad-o-; in Breton the two root appear to have been mixed up
and then semantically distinguished, cf. klazañ ~ klaziñ (< *klad-o-)
‘slice, cut, slit’ and kleuziad (< *kla¯do-) ‘make an embankment’; Welsh
also has some cross enchanging of the root vowel: claddu (< *klad-o-) ‘bury,
inter, dig, burrow’ and cloddio (<*kla¯do-) ‘dig, delve, exacabate’; it is
likely that both roots survived in Cornish, too, but it is very hard to tell
which is which. We have -cledh- ~ -clydh-, C clethy, anclethyas ~ anclythyas
(PC); in order to get -cledh- ~ -clydh- one would need *klad- with an
i-suffix of some kind to arrive at *cledh- with i-affection and *clydh with
secondary i-affection. I cannot find any such forms in B **klezi- and W
**cleddi- in the group associated with the meaning ‘bury, inter’. It does
occur in the lexical set associated with the word ‘sword’, ultimately
related < Cc *kladiwo-. 
Since both B kleuziad and Welsh *cloddio must be from *kla¯do- Cornish
anclethyas most likely had a rounded vowel, too, and was likely the exact
cognate to B kleuziad. Secondary i-afffection (as in buthy) can also affect
original /œ/ > /?/ so that anclythyas is also explainable. Having said this,
it is curious that, even though attested in MC texts, not one of the
attestations shows /œ/ or /y/-type spellings, i.e. **ancluthyas. 
Cornish could have also shortened *a¯ in *kla¯do- early as in Welsh, giving
MC *-clodh- ~ *-cledh- (as in the -ogyon ~ -egyon suffix). Cornish appeared
to have shortened *a¯ in pretonic syllables more often than Breton but not
as regularly as Welsh. So this is also a form that would have yielded <e> in
MC. And since that is what we hace, perhaps we should spell the verb with
the root *kledh- ~ cledh- and leave matters open. There is Pryce’s clethy
and that could be from a hypothetical *klaði > *kleð? > *kl?ð? as well as a
*kla¯ði > *klœð? > *kl?ð?. So, we’d have kleudh ~ cleudh for ‘trench’ and
kledhi ~ cledhy for ‘dig’ and (V)nkledhyas ~ (V)ncledhyas for ‘inter’. What
do you think? 
The Cornish word for ‘pound’ (money and weight) is puns; cf. Welsh punt.
Puns is attested 5 times, buns once, pvns once; the plural punsov occurs
once; In Later Cornish u unrounds to [i] <y> and we find bynsow ‘pounds’ at
CW 740. In Late Cornish one finds pens x 2, penz x 11.
George, however, thought that MC [u] meant eu and that LC e in pens was a
result of unrounding. KK and in consequence the SWF write *peuns, *peunsow.
These forms do not account for CW bynsow, nor do they agree with the Welsh
form punt. There is no Breton equivalent. They have the further disadvantage
in that English speakers pronounce them with a long vowel, when the vowel is
We have pyns(ow) in CW and pens, penz in further later texts. We seem
therefore to have an alternation pyns ~ pens. It is not uncommon in Cornish
at all periods for [i] to alternate with [e] before [ns]. Here are some
random examples.
kyns PA 51a ~ kens PA 254b ‘before’
prince BM 3899 ~ prence BM 516 ‘prince’
myns a vynny BM 2576 ~ mens a vynny PC 590 ‘as much as you want’
dyns BK 493 ~ dens SA 60 ‘teeth’
syns PC 1773 ~ sens BM 4308 ‘holds’.
yns BK 279 ~ ens  TH 16a [not imperfect!] 'they are'.
I assume that MC puns was [pyns]. When the u unrounded, pyns [pins]
alternated with pens and the Later spelling <pens> was the result.
George’s *peuns, *peunsow, is, I believe, without basis.
I agree. MC should be puns. LC pens. I, too, believe *peuns is mistaken.
I sent you a note on this item recently while I was away from home. 
I now see that skynnya 'descend' was commoner in Middle Cornish than I
may teffo a ompynnen ha skynnya avel mottis BM 1274-75
mar te ha gull an dra a ra an perill skynnya anotha wosa ybosa gwarnys TH 4
a wosa ny vnwith the skynnya in pegh TH 13a
eff a yll skynnya in myschew an parna TH 25a.
Oddly CW has both the earlier form diskynnya without pre-occlusion or the
later form with it:
hag a vyn diskynnya than noore in dan an clowdys CW 75-76
mehall yskydnyow eall splan CW 964
na skydnya an keth vengeans CW 2208
kynthota skydnys in wharthe CW 2306
a skydn warnough kyns na pell CW 2369.
The glossary has lyver, lyvrow; lever, levrow (RLC). This distinction is
without justification. Not only is lever well attested in Middle Cornish, in
the singular it is the more common variant. Here are the attestations, both
singular and plural. I have not included anything from Lhuyd’s own Cornish:
Liber l. codex, liuer OCV
Manuale, stollof l. coveidliuer OCV
ny won na moy yn liuer BM 101
yma an lyver a skyantoleth ow remembra thyn TH 6a
an kythsam lyuer na TH 18a
in y kynsa lyver han tryssa chapter TH 42
yma S Basyll ow scryffa in y lyver the Tauonius TH 45a
trissa lyver warbyn hereses TH 47a
may ruga in y lyver gylwys, Resolution Lutheriana TH 49a
In trissa lyuer a exodus TH 55
Chrisostom e ma o leverall in e lyver .3. han .3. chapter SA 60.
y vos scryfys yn lyffrow PA 17a
yn lyffrow yn leas le PA 73c
yn lyffrow del yw scrifys PA 206b
yn lyfryow del yw scryfys PC 78
yma scryfys yn lyfryow PC 101
yma scryfys yn lyfryow PC 138
yn lyfryow scryfys yma PC 435
yn lyfryow yn lyes le PC 749
ena ny a red y gen lyfryow PC 2410-11
y a lefer der lyfryov BM 1372
am gruelle sav der lyfryov BM 1488
me rebue sur ov stuthya in lyfryov nansyv tremmys BM 1491-92
del lever zyn an levar PA 135d
yn levyr yma scrifys PC 1157
heth ov lefer a fysek BM 1418
del govs thynny an lefer BM 1499
S.Ciprian in tressa epistill yn y kynsa levyr TH 48a
S Ambros in weth in y trissa levyr TH 49
dell ren ny redya in tryssa leuer an myterneth TH 50a
Levyr a Exodi TH 55a
Yma S Agustyn ow leverell in y levyr gilwys sententie TH 56
In iiii-a levar an myterneth, ha in vii chapter TH  56a
I ma S Austen ow leverall in y levar entitulis SA 59
S Ambros in e iiii lever an Sacrament SA 61a
redys in .v. lever a Ireneaus SA 63a
en lever Arlyth an Menneth NBoson
’Ma lever bean rebbam NBoson
d’ ressa lever an Have an Arlothas Kernow NBoson
No rig avee biscath gwelles lever cornoack WBodinar
an leverow y towns y omma CW 2175
rag sawment a vyth gwryes than leverowe CW 2184-85
gorrowgh ynna an leverow CW 2193
a bub sort oll a leverow CW 2197
En levra coth po vo Tour Babel gwres JBoson.
I think the entry in the glossary needs revision.
The MC <y> v. LC <e> is a tendency. We want the learner/speaker/teacher to
decide which form s/he wants to use, and when decided, be able to use the
forms consistently. In dealing with UC and KK, the main MC spelling
systemsof MC based RC, there was clearly a bias towards using <y> in the
case of UC even overuse. The letter <y> has become somewhat stigmatised in
the RLC community and they always say it ‘looks too MC’. Since the <e> forms
are available for many of the words that contain MC <y>, it is the RLC
preference. Whether this preference is always reflected in MC and RC texts
is another issue, but it is a reality of RC nonetheless, so the distinctions
marked in the glossary have ‘real world’ relevance. 
I have paid my subscription for last year = Me re wrug tylly ow ragpren rag
an vledhen eus passys. 
We went to France again last year = Ny êth dhe Frynk arta warleny.
This is the last year of my apprenticeship = Hòm yw an vledhen dhewetha a'm
Warleny isn't attested but was suggested by Nance (1938) on the basis of
Welsh y llynedd and Breton arlene. Warlena might perhaps be a better form.
The KK form is warlyna, but the vowel would be e not y in Cornish.
This post is from ‘Spellyans’ but is relevant to the Glossary. I agree
<warlena> is the better form. 
In Cornish a noun expressing a period of time can have adverbial sense if it
the noun is indefinite. Here are some examples: 
tresse gwyth hag ef yn cren y pesys du delyr vy ‘for a third time and he
trembling he prayed, “God deliver me”’ PA 57c
En varogyon a guskas myttyn han gyth ow tarze ‘The horsemen slept in the
morning as the day was breaking’ PA 243a
ha thy'm y a worthebys y fethons myttyn parys ketep onen ‘and they answered
me that they would all be ready in the morning’ OM 2306-08
messyger ke gorhenmyn ol the'n masons yn cyte may tyffons vmma myttyn war
beyn cregy ha tenne ‘messenger, go! Command all the masons in the city to
come here in the morning on pain of being hanged and drawn’ OM 2277-80
peder ny wolsys yn fas vn prygwyth gynef golyas  ‘Peter you have not watched
well to watch for a single time with me’ PC 1054-55
Ha me yv sawys purdek neb a vue sur efrethek lues blethen in bysma ‘And I
have been healed very finely who was indeed crippled for many years in this
world’ BM 563065
If the indefinite noun used adverbially may be followed by a dheu ‘which is
coming’, or a dheffo ‘which will comewhenever’:
ha kekemmys na'n cresso goef termyn a theffo deuones a brys benen ‘and
whoever does not believe, woe to him that he came from a woman’s womb at a
time which will come’ RD 1348-50
termen a thue crist ihesus interthon a ran an gvyr prederugh helma deth brus
pemont thymmo gruegh in suyr ‘at a time which is coming Jesus Christ will
allot the right between us; consider that; on the day of judgment you will
surely make restitution to me’ BM 1921-24
A war agys cam why pobyl helma yv bevnans nobyl termen a thue ha then ena
sur megyans ‘Be circumspect, you people; this is a noble life for future
times and indeed nourishment for the soul’ BM 2022-25
Y a’n pren un gyth a the ‘They will pay for it on a day that is coming’ BK
In order for the noun to be used adverbially in this way, it must be
indefinite. If the noun is definite, it is no longer bears adverbial sense,
and the verbal form a dhe is no longer relative: 
Na thegough sor yn golon war neb a vyn ow sawye ow thermyn a the yn scon
genough me nvm byth trege ‘Do not bear anger in your hearts against her who
wishes to salve me. My time will soon come. I will not be able to abide with
you’ PA 37ab.
Termyn a dheu means ‘at a time which is coming’; ow thermyn a dheu means ‘my
time is coming’.
Nance does not seem to have understood the difference between definite and
indefinite in expressions of this kind. In his English-Cornish dictionary
(1952) s.v. ‘year’ he gives an vledhen a dhe as a rendering of ‘next year’;
an vledhen a dhe is definite as ow thermyn a the in the above quotation is
definite. An vledhen a dhe can only mean ‘the year is coming’. It seems to
me that Nance’s an vledhen a dhe for ‘next year’ is not good Cornish.  
If we want to say ‘next year’ we can use nessa bledhen; cf. ma owne du vee
ma duath do nisau blethan dro d’an Hern ‘I am afraid that there is an end as
far as the herrings are concerned until next year’ OPender to WGwavas August
1711. Alternatively we can make ensure that the form of the verb is relative
and say an vledhen usy ow tos. 
Nance did not understand Cornish definites and as a result wrote *an Yeth
Kernow for Yeth Kernow and *Lyver an Pymp Marthus Seleven for Lyver Pymp
Marthus Seleven.
His *an vledhen a dhe is also the result of his failure to grasp the
distinction between definite and indefinite. 
So noted.
Further Comments on T
This in English is River Tamar
The noun dagren and the verb sqwardya do not belong in the same entry.
‘Term’, when it means ‘word’ is term, termys:
dre reason a termes ha talys nowith faynes TH 18
talys nowith ha fanglys termys, ha bostow a sciens fals TH 18a
gans very vylle termes ow Jestia gansa TH 55a
The glossary omits the LC prep. vel: 
Ma leiaz gwreage Lacka vel zeage JJenkins
Guel yw gwetha vel goofen — Better it is to keep than ask Scawen MSS
Nag es moye vel pager pe pemp en dreau nye Bodinar.
Agreed. Should be in the glossary.
The glossary gives tressa; tryja (RLC). This is not correct. Tryja is a MC
y wres yn ban dasfewe the'n tryge deth yredy RD 451-52
an tryge deth yv hythev thy-worthyf aban ethe RD 465-66
an tryge deth sur heb gow y wruk dasserghy arte RD 2605-06
An Sperys Sans gallosak ew heb queston i’n Dryngys, Du marthojak, tryga
parson BK 248-51.
Moreover tryssa (a variant of tressa) is found in CW:
an tryssa degree a wolas me a wra try order moy CW 59-60
an tryssa dyth me a wra than gwyth sevall yn ban CW 92-3.
The entry needs to be revised.
Agreed. Furthermore KK is mistaken in giving the form *trysa in GM09 as an
alternative to tressa as all attestations I can find point towards /?/
rather than /z/. The medial consonant is always spelt as one of the
following possibilities: <g, gg, gy, dg, dzh>. The stressed vowel usually
appears as <i, y>, cases of <u> in LC point towards possible rounding and
backing, or centralisation to /?/, /?/ or /?/ (. <e>-spellings also occur
which is why perhaps we ought to opt for tryja ~ treja. 
The glossary gives tredhek, terdhek (RLC). I cannot find any example of
*terdhek. These are the examples of this word I have been able to collect:
Tredecim…Thirteen. C. Tardhak, tredhek AB: 166a
Tardhak, trethek ACB F f 2
Quartan blethan ew tarthack sithen Bilbao MS
Meero why rag Gwethan heer Tarthack Troos JBoson
tau·dhak, tau·dhak Mounts Bay Survivals recorded by Jenner 1875.
It would seem therefore that the attested forms are tredhek and tardhek.
Terdhek is unattested.
Agreed. as far as I can remember terdhek was my idea, as I didn’t know
whether a change of vowel is mandated by the SWF rules. Metathesis, however,
is and LC often had e > a before r, cf Pryce’s warne for *gwern ‘alder
I would prefer tredhek ~ tardhek if we’re allowed to do that. 
Nance says that the word mes has been replaced by bys bras and Lhuyd gives
gives Pêz brâz s.v. Pollex AB: 123a. It seems, however, that mes (KK, SWF
meus) did indeed survive: bees meas ‘thumbe’ Bodewryd glossary. The present
glossary may wish to include this: bys meus, bes meus or whatever.
The glossary gives sqwith, skith (RLC). It is true that Lhuyd gives Skîth
‘Lassus’ AB: 76c, but sqwyth occurs in CW:
may thove squyth an lavyr bras CW 1730
hag in bysma nangew squyth CW 1792.
Skîth is the esablished form in RLC which is generally taught, so the entry
is realistic. CW is an intermediary text anyway, it merely shows some LC
spelling tendencies in a largely mediaeval text. 
The glossary does not cite the RLC word gwyll, gwyllyow; cf. guilleiu
(plural for singular) ‘mendicus’ AB: 88c.
I don’t mind the form at all, but the Glossary is not a complete dictionary.
Put it in or leave it out.
The glossary gives awher, kedryn but not trobel:
oll an trobell thym yma CW 1674
y drobell ythew kemys whansack nyngew tha drevyth CW 1793-94
hag in trobell may thew gwef CW 1833
yth esa in trobell braes CW 1905.
For the verb it gives serry (which is an inexact rendering), but does not
give trobla:
a wor the ves temptacion na vo troplys y enef PC 25-6
mahum darber hardygrath ze neb a ruk ov throbla BM 948-49
ha nenna na vethogh troublis gans Accidens ha substans SA 66a
saw yth ove wondrys trobles CW 460
Pereeg Herod an Matern clowaz hemma, E ve troublez Rowe.
add trobel and trobla. 
For ‘trust me’ the glossary gives col orthiv. The spelling orthiv is
particularly unconvincing:
orthaf vy pan wres settya CW 232 
rag cowse orthaf ha talkya CW 544
pur lowenake am gwressa cola orthaf a mennas CW 545-46
me a levar thys eva ha coole orthaf os ehan 594-95
yea ythosta ge dean fure ny vynnys orthaf cola CW 822-23
peys I say golsowogh a der dro orthaf ve myns es omma CW 1431-32
mara qwrewgh orthaf cola why asbythe woza henma ioies nef in vdn rew CW
why a wra orthaf cola CW 2526
Cola orthyf in CW does not mean ‘trust me’. It means rather ‘listen to me,
pay attention to me’.
Here are the attestations known to me:
or?aff (PA)   
orthyf (OM 2x; PC)             
worthyf (OM, PC 4x)            
ortheff (BM 6x; )             
orthef (BM)              
orthave (BK 2x)               
wartha ve (TH)             
ortha vee (CW)               
ortha vý (CW) 
orthaf (CW 7x, Pryce)              
othaf (CW)               
worthaf (CW, Pr)             
urta ve (TD/TT)            
orthiv (Lhuyd, Pryce) 
I should say that the y : i distinction in inflectional endings is whollely
unnecessary and complicates matters immensely. Possibilities would be (1)
for the -iv, -is endings to agree on -yv and -ys and allow for the LC
variants -ev and -es, or (2) for SWF/L to have its own set of inflectional
endings, that are more regular and suited to the levelled forms that LC
shows, i.e. 
1sg., -af, -a’ma, -am
2sg., -es, -es ta, -e’jy
(3sg.m., -o, -’ev, -o va; in prepositional pronouns)
(2sg.f., -y, -y hei; in prepositional pronouns)
1pl., -en, -e’nei
2pl., -owgh, -ow’, -ow’whei
3pl., -ans, -an’jei  
These endings would work for verbal and prepositional inflections and would
regularise the system and help SWF/L learners. People switching from RLC to
SWF/L now are perplexed by the inflextions standardised for UC/R and KK and
used in the SWF.
You can see that I have also given the 1sg. ending as -af rather than SWF
-av. This is because I wish to propose a solution within the 2013 amendments
that use <f> as an umbrella graph for /f/ and /v/, with <v> for /v/ only and
<ff> for /f/ only. This does not only bear relevance to the inflectional
endings and the open question whether final unstressed /v/ was unvoiced or
not, but also affects <f> in word initial position and related new lenition
/f/ > /v/ as well as possible wider scale voicing in LC (fos, fordh), and
also various pronunciations word internally (cavos, govyn). 
The Cornish for ‘trust me, trust us’ is trest dhybm, trest dhyn:
Trystyough thynny, flowran an bys BK 1677-78
Ea, tristyough thyn BK 6027
hema ew gwyer thymo trest CW 1676
ny vyth dew nefra pur wyre kevys goacke trest thyma CW 2365-66
remembra a hanaf why me a wra bys venarye trest ge thyma CW 2503-05.
add trobel and trobla. 
cewfordh > kewfordh
The glossary gives dewdhek, dowdhek (RLC). This is not strictly correct,
since dowdhek is attested in Middle Cornish:
Kyn fe dowthak dewenhys, both e golan a vith gwrys BK 1434-35.
Notice that Nance (1938) gives deudhek (dowdhek) s.v. ‘twelve’, so dowdhek
was acceptable in UC.
List as variant forms dewdhek ~ dowdhek. Also attested twice as dow?ek in
The glossary gives dewblek which is unattested. It omits dobyl which is
rag gull aga duty, dobyll honor ha feithfully gouerna an egglos TH 33a.
Add it. Do we spell dobyl or dobel?

Glossary Further comments on I
The glossary gives yma nown dhymm; ma nown dhybm RLC. First it should be
noted that dhybm is not the default form in Late Cornish. Lhuyd writes
dhebm; thybm occurs once in CW and thybma is attested in CW three times;
forms without pre-occlusion are far commoner in CW than forms with it. Other
LC writers use them, dem. Nicholas Boson always writes them. Gwavas writes
The second point to note is this: the idiom yma nown dhymm is unattested.
The only expression with nown is found in BK: Me a’m byth drog neun hanath
‘I shall be very hungry tonight’ BK 488. The default way of saying ‘I am
hungry’ is gwag ov vy: 
lemyn deffryth ove ha gwag pur wyre drees oll tues in byes CW 1173-75
Ha pereeg e penes doganze Jorna ha doganze Noze: e ve ouga nena Gwage Rowe
Gwag ove, rave gawas haunsell?  I am hungry, shall I have breakfast? ACB F f
I am hungry should therefore be glossed me a’m beus nown; gwag ov vy.
These two moved to the front; however *yma nown dhymm is used extensively in
some neo-Cornish textbooks and should therefore be listed as well. (This
ties in with a more general problem, viz Page's idea that beginners should
for some reason not be taught y'm beus but only yma dhymm.) 

Rewgennys does not appear in traditional Cornish, as far as I can see. Rewys
‘frozen’ is attested: rewys an doyr pur defry ‘the earth frozen in very
truth’ BM 3057. I think rewys should replace *rewgennys.
Entry now reads icy adj, rewys; oor.

The glossary might well add the obvious word: 
Na byth ydyot! BK 268
Edyack — A Simple Creature Gwavas.

Ydyot added.

The glossary gives the paraphrastic expression fowt dyscans, but a word for
‘ignorance’ is attested in the texts:
Ha crist yndelma peynys aberth yn crows pan ese yn maner ma y pesys rag an
keth re ren crowse ow zas whek bezens gevys den re ma aga nyscyte ‘And
Christ thus when he was on the cross afflicted thus prayed for the very ones
who had crucified him: “My dear Father, let their ignorance be forgiven to
these people’ PA 185abc.
I suggest putting nycyta ‘ignorance’ first in the entry.

Nicyta added and moved to front.

Notice the ahistoric *erbydn laha in this entry. 
The glossary gives first the unattested word *anlahel, which is presumably
on the basis of *lahel ‘legal, lawful’. There is an attested word for
‘lawful, legal, legitimate’ however:
in keth plas na neb a beys gans ihesu y feth clowys hay petyconn colenwys
lafyll purgir mar pethe BM 4298-301
a rebukys ew da ha lawfull gans cherite TH 29a
na ankevy an pith a rella desyrya theworta lafull TH 39a
Ea rag henna nyns ew lawfull folysly the wull resystens TH 50a.
If lafyl is the attested word for ‘lawful’, ‘unlawful’ would be ùnlafyl or
in SWF onlafyl.

Onlafyl added.

The question, however is, how to spell it in the SWF. How about laful?
Whould that be according to the rules?
The glossary gives desevos, concevy; tyby. Concevy is, I think, a mistake
for concevya.

It is. **Concevi changed to concevya.

The glossary does not cite the most obvious word for ‘imagine, guess,
yma ov conys thyuwhy chyf guythoryon ol a'n gulas a wother the dysmegy
‘there are working for you the chief workmen of all the kingdom that can be
imagined’ OM 2330-32
martesen byth yn y vrys desmygy pren vas ple fo ‘perhaps it will be in his
mind to imagine where a good beam may be found’ OM 2541-42
guyskys lemmyn nep cowyth may hallo ef dysmygy mar syv map dev a vercy pyv
a'n guyskys an barth kleth ‘let some companion hit him so that he can
imagine, if he is the son of the God of mercy, who struck him on the left
side’ PC 13277-1380
dysmyg lemmyn ty guas smat mar sos crist map dev a nef pyv a ros thy'so an
wat ‘guess now, you smart fellow, if you are the Christ of the God of
heaven, who gave you that thump’ PC 1382-84
kyn na vynno dysmegy dun yn rak gans an guary ‘though he won’t guess, let’s
carry on with the game’ PC 1387-88.


The glossary gives *anpossybyl. This word is unknown. The attested form is
vnpossyble ythewa an dower na tha vose kevys CW 2384-85
vnpossyble nyngew tra tha wrear all an bysma CW 2386.
Notice incidentally that possybyl has been used in Cornish since the
fifteenth century:
possybil yv thy's pup tra PC 1032.

True. Accordingly, possybyl is not marked as 'Late' in the database.

I would like to see the spelling of suffixes standardised. I think it should
be abel ‘able’, possibel, only TH has abyll, abill, but PC, BM and SA have
abel, SA abell, Lhuyd & Pryce habal. Suffixed SWF -abel should be so spelt
as well. By the same token UC/R, KK -ybyl should be -ibel. Latin had a long
i¯ here (‘etymological vowel’) which bacame a high front /i/ in all Romance
dialects, (except those that diphthongized to [ei] or [ai], usually Istriot
and Dalmatian).
I would like to write unpossibel, but we need to find a solution for
distinguishing short /?/, short /?/ and short /?/ consistently in the SWF
for 2013. Opinions please…
The glossary gives anedhyas and triger. Anedhyas in unattested, triger is
used by Lhuyd.
deskennyz dhort an Tregòryon kenza AB: 224
dhan Tîz veva Tregèryon an Enez-ma AB: 224.
I recommend citing triger before *anedhyas.

Triger & trigores cited first.

Interesting citation. It seems the -oryon ~ -eryon suffix survived into LC
and appears to be a dialectal difference. For an interesting discussion
SBCHP, Schrijver 1995.
The glossary gives *aweny and ynspirya. Ynspirya is attested: gans an gyftes
na o Adam inspiris gansa TH 2a. It should perhaps be cited first.


The glossary gives kettooth. This is not really correct. Kettoth means ‘as
soon as’ and bears the sense ‘instantly’ only in the phrase kettoth ha’n ger
‘as soon as the word’, i.e. no sooner said, than done:
na vyth serrys kettoth an ger my a thue thy's OM 1907-08
dus thy'mmo ketoth ha'n ger rag colenwel voth ov brys OM 2272-73
rak may hyllyf y lathe kettoth ha'n ger RD 1969-70.

Entry now reads:

kettooth adv, as soon (as). kettooth ha as soon as; as quickly as. kettooth
ha'n ger no sooner said than done; instantly.

The glossary cites both the unattested Iwerdhon and the attested Wordhen.
Since Iwerddon is feminine in Welsh and Iwerzhon is feminine in Breton, it
is likely that Wordhen was feminine in Cornish. The glossary makes is

Both m > f.

My preference would be Wordhen (f.);
In Cornish Syllan means ‘the Scilly Isles’. Kensa, urth a hagar-awal iggeva
gweel do derevoll warren ny keniffer termen dr’era ny moas durt Pedden an
Woolaes do Sillan NBoson
There is no need for Enesek ‘archipelago, islands’.

Careful, faux pas… native Scillonians reject the expression ‘the Scilly
Isles’ it’s always ‘Scilly’ or the Isles of Scilly, or the specific names of
the islands, e.g. ‘St Agnes’ etc.

'From Land's End to Scilly' indeed shows that the toponym can be used on its
own. There may still be a case for providing speakers with the means to
distinguish between 'Scilly' and 'the Isles of Scilly' in certain contexts.

Enesow Syllan.
The glossary gives idhyowen f., idhyow coll. *Ydhyowen is an invention of
Nance’s (1938) and he says it means ‘ivy bush’. Ivy grows up walls and trees
and one hardly needs to speak about ivy bushes at all. The only attested
form is given by Lhuyd:
W. Eidhew, Ivy; Corn. Idhio AB: 15c
Hedera…The Ivy-tree. C. Idhio AB: 65a.
I recommend that the entry be rewritten: ivy n. idhyow (coll.)

Needs discussion because it affects a whole class of plant names. This and a
few other points concerning collective nouns is on the agenda for the next
meeting of the editorial board.


The glossary gives duwena, duwenhe for ‘to sadden’ but duwon for ‘sadness’,
but duwhenhe is duwon+he; why is there a change of vowel, given that in both
duwon and duwenhe the wen/won vowel is unstressed? Here are the
porrys worth ov duwenhe RD 1413
gans gwas eth of deuwenhys BK 123
bonas mar hyll ha kemmys dewenhys BK 390-91
Mara pethaf dywenhys BK 1410 
Kyn fe dowthak dewenhys BK 1434
kemmys orth ow duwenhe! BK 2337
Elhas the vos duenhis BK 2581.
Duwon is attested four times, duon x 5, but dewan x 5, duan x 1, duwan x 1;
dewen is attested once: pan vs dewen dymmo vy BM 1057.
As far as I can see the variant *duwena is a ghost word. Somebody may have
confused dywana ‘to penetrate’ with dewhanhe:
my a welas hy gurythyow bys yn yffarn dywenys OM 782-83.
I recommend removing duwena. 

I find dvweñna in BK (I transcribe the nasal-symbol of the text as <ñ> in my
records and in my dictionary).
As I pointed out earlier kerenja is also a Middle Cornish form.

Yes. In that case we’ll need the unmarked variants kerensa ~ kerenja. 
The glossary cites gwerthores f. under ‘salesman’ and also under
‘saleswoman’. It does not belong under ‘salesman’.

The glossary gives selwyans which is attested once: ihesu arluth a selwyans
BM 3077. This is also attested as sylwyans
ha sylwyans the tus a'n bys RD 1711
may tyffough ol the sylwyans RD 2388
the'n beys danvonas sylwyans RD 2611
The commoner form is selwans, sylwans:
ha sylwans zen enevow PA 1d
ma'm bethen drethe sylwans OM 1958
gothfetheugh y's byth sylwans RD 1574
ihesu arluth a selwans BM 1009
ythyv rag cafus selwans ol then ene BM 2026-27
Gorthyans the crist a selwans BM 4166
ow crowntya thymmo sylwans CW 1948.
Salvacyon is far commoner: salvacion x 7; salvacyon x 1; saluacion x 1;
saluascon x 1; saluasconn x 4. Perhaps salvacyon should come first and
selwyans should be selwans.

Agreed. In my dictionary I give the variants sylwans ~ selwans ~ sylwyans; 
The glossary gives sansoleth and benesikter, benejikter (RLC). This is
mistaken. *Benesikter does not occur. The form is either benejycter or
benejytter and all examples are Middle Cornish: 
luen os a venegycter BM 203
dro aga contyrfett benegitter TH 9
rag mentanya benegitter TH 31
ha innan ny mer a benegyttar a bewnans TH 41
the perfettha the collynwell in benegytter TH 42
growetha ha powas an pen han dalleth a benegytter TH 47a
ew kygg Christ (osa) benigicter an spurissans SA 66a.
This entry should be rewritten.

BM has benesygter. So <s> occurs, so does <i> and <c>, so the Main Form
variants are benesikter, benejitter, benejikter; two further variants with
traditional graphs leaves us with benesicter, benejicter; 
According to how we spell benesik (or benesyk) we can write benejitter or
benejytter. I’m undecided.
I have already pointed out that the apostrophe is redundant, and indeed
incorrect. The only attestations are:
De Zadarn AB: 54c
De Zadarn ACB N v [copied from Lhuyd].

I would also prefer a form without apostrophe dyw or de. 
The glossary does not mention salvador:
ha salvador in teffry an dora mes a baynes OM 1865-66.

The glossary is not a complete dictionary. It doesn’t need to mention it. I
have it in my dictionary though.
The glossary cites scoler (< scholar SA 60; skolàryo Lhuyd) but does not
cite scolhyk (< scolheic ‘scholasticus’ OCV; cf. skolhaig AB: 146a).

I have skolheyk ~ scolheyk. 
The only attested word is sciens:
ha te a wore dre an la an forme a sciens ha gwryoneth TH 14a
ha bostow a sciens fals, han sciens na, del vo ran ow professia TH 18a
This should be mentioned.

Agreed, sciens. 
When this word means ‘search through a document’ the word appears to be
ny a vea res thyn only sarchia ha whelas an lell vnderstonding han
dessernyng an scriptur in egglos TH 36a
ha dir sarchia an Scripture e thesa ow trylya ow honyn then Arluth Christ SA
I recommend the inclusion of sarchya.

Fine, though I find its inclusion only necessary in a comprehensive
The word seson is attested nine times, but no plural is forthcoming. The
glossary suggests both sesonyow and sesons. The plural of reson (< Fr raison
< Lat. ration(em)) is resons:
resons mar fol ha mar dyn PA 100b
the resons yns da ba fyn PC 822
the resons a'n doctors bras PC 1822
warbyn oll an kithsam reasons TH 23a
dre carnall reasons thegen dry ny mes agan lell crygyans TH 54a.
It is likely therefore that the plural of seson (< Fr saison < Lat.
sation(em)) was sesons only. I recommend removing *sesonyow.

The glossary cites danvon, danon only. When people are dispatched to
somewhere or to do something, the word is often gorra:
ha pan wryllyf tremene a'n bys ru'm gorre th'y wlas OM 531-32
gorreugh an fals nygethys gans abel a desempys the yssethe OM 914-16
marregyon me agas pys gorreugh ef the erod scon leuereugh my th'y thanfon PC
1613-15 [used with danvon]
Gorah tees en an skeber tha drushen ACB F fv
Gorah an vose tha shakiah an kala ACB F fv.

In the texts the usage is servont in the singular and servysy in the plural.
Here is a section from an unpublished article of mine:
‘Servant, servants’
The singular *servyas is unattested. Indeed the usual way of expressing the
notion ‘servant’ is to use servont, servant. I have collected the following
servont OM 572, PC 649, BM 2117, 2130, 2436, 2627, 3202, 3656, 4061, 4339,
4379, TH 49; servonnth OM 2609; seruant TH 21a; servant TH 8, 10a, BK 1043,
CW 1401, 1487, 2095, 2107.
Servont, servant has a plural servons, servans, servantes:
servons BM 2329, 2384; servans TH 41; servantes TH 35a, BK 313, 755, 761,
Apparently, however, the commonest way of rendering the plural ‘servants’ in
the traditional language is to use servysy, servygy, the plural of the
unattested singular *servyas. I have collected the following examples:
pysyn may fyyn servysy th’agan arluth hep parow ‘let us pray that we may be
servants to our peerless lord’ OM 235-36
gorthyans ha gras the dev ow thas luen a vercy pan danvonas yn onor bras
thy’m servysi ‘glory and thanks to God my merciful father, when he sent in
great honour servants to me’ PC 169-72
saw ol the len servygy rak the vones dyvythys yn hanow dev bynygys me a grys
the vos deffry ‘but all your loyal servants, because you have come in the
name of God, I believe are blessed indeed’ PC 279-82
an tas dev roy thy’n bos guyv the vos len seruysy thy’s ‘may God the Father
make us worthy to be loyal servants to you’ PC 712-13
guyn vys ynno nep a grys rak the weres yv parys the’th seruygy yn bys-ma
‘happy he who believes in him, for your help is ready for your servants in
this world’ PC 2706-08
ha gura thy’m moy seruygy ‘and make for me more servants’ RD 2460
ha nep na vynno crygy ny yl bos a’m seruysy ‘and whoever does not believe
cannot be one of my servants’ RD 2469-70
yma ov quan rewardya y servysy rum ene ‘upon my soul, he pays his servants
badly’ BM 3261-62
yma thymo servysy orth ov gorthya pur vesy ‘I have servants worshipping me
very assiduously’ BM 3373-74
sav mercy y raff pesy hag onen ath servysy nefra bethe heb awer ‘but I will
ask for mercy and will be one of your servants forever without demur’ BM
rag ov servesy in beas war thu pesy me a ra ‘for my servants in the world I
shall pray to God’ BM 4275-76
Naha …derrygy… servygy ‘To deny…his destruction…servants’ BK 673-75 
sirvigy servants: a good word RCEV: 100
Servisi and Servidzhi, Servants AB: 242c.
It would seem, then, that the default word for ‘servant’ in traditional
Cornish was servont, servant. For the plural speakers used either servons,
servans or, more frequently, servysy, servygy.
You might like to recast your entry in the light of this evidence.

How about SWF servont, pl. servysi ~ servysy, servyji ~ servyjy, servons?
Reduce to one plural in the Glossary, a comprehensive dictionary can give
all the forms. 
The glossary gives crena but kerna (RLC). This is not correct. Kerna is
attested in Middle Cornish:
may kerna purguir y dyns BM 2257.

Yes. Such metathesized forms are usually LC, but there is no strict division
between RC and LC, just that certain forms associated with LC become more
frequent the later a text and thus codified in RLC. We could give the
variants krena ~ kerna indiscriminately.  
Notice also henna o the voy pety ‘that was all the more of a shame’ TH 30a.

What do we do with pita? Variants pyta ~ pyty, allowing pety?
The glossary gives gwerthjy but shoppa (RLC). This is incorrect. Gwerthjy is
nowhere attested, being an invention by Nance (1938), though he doesn’t
actually admit as much. Shoppa is attested in place-names to mean
‘workshop’, e.g. Ponson Joppa, Park Joppa. Users of RLC favour shoppa
because it is attested, not because it is a LC word. A workshop not only
produced but also sold, hence the modern usage. 
This entry needs revision.

I agree, though there are those who argue quite heatedly that a workshop is
something different from a shop. I, too, use shoppa for both ‘shop’ and
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20110914/fbc5d3c2/attachment.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list