[Spellyans] Possessive construction of verbal nouns

Nicky Rowe nickyrowe at gmail.com
Mon Nov 12 22:07:33 GMT 2012


I wonder if anyone can shed some light: Some argue that you have to refer
back to a noun if you use it with an auxiliary in a relative sentence:

hemm yw an aval a yll'ta y dhebry

This is presumably to keep the possessive construction "its eating" intact
(whi a yll y dhebry). But then why is splitting the possessive construction
fine in sentences such as "debry a yll'ta an aval", as well as "debry a
wrav vy an aval"? Or is the possessive construction not as sacroscant as
it's being made out to be?

I've found some examples in the texts where the possessive rule is also
broken:

RD317 hep ygery na *fos* *terry* (terry fos, the breaking of a wall)
RD489 yw saw ol the wolyow a wylys vy the squerdye a wruk an gu ha'n
kentrow *the kyc precius* *dafole* (dafole the kyc, the defiling of your
flesh)
RD1324 pan wruk *an bara* *terry* (terry an bara, [when he did] the
breaking of the bread)

BK3588 *Maria* *gonys* a raff (gonys Maria, the serving of Maria)
BK3789 *an flogh* then ymach dyson my a vyn *don* eredy ha mos quik bys in
eglos (don an flogh, the bringing of the child)
BK3795 Maria dyso mur grays *ov map* dym *dry* pan vynsys (dry ov map dym,
the bringing of my son to me)

There are others. The words were put in a different order for stylistic
purposes, but surely if doing so had any bearing on the meaning than it
wouldn't have been done?

Nicky
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20121112/b403e61e/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list