[Spellyans] cleudh etc

Mon Jan 14 09:49:13 GMT 2013

I too agree with Dan, and with Steve.

Linus

2013/1/14 Hewitt, Stephen <s.hewitt at unesco.org>

>  I agree fully with Dan on this; the total corpus is so scant that the
> only way to be consistent is to rely on etymological forms, even if not
> attested.****
>
> Steve****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net [mailto:
> spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net] *On Behalf Of *Daniel Prohaska
> *Sent:* 14 January 2013 00:29
> *To:* Standard Cornish discussion list
> *Subject:* Re: [Spellyans] cleudh etc****
>
> ** **
>
> Dear all, ****
>
> ** **
>
> Let’s look at the word for ‘flour’ which in the SWF is ‹*bleus*› (as in
> KK). The attestations I was able to find show: ****
>
> *blot* (VC, Pr), ****
>
> *blease* (anon.), ****
>
> *bleaze* (TT, Pr), ****
>
> *blêz* (Lh), ****
>
> *blez* (Lh, Pr); ****
>
> UC spels ‹*bles*›  and UCR offers the alternatives ‹*blues*› and ‹*bles*›.
> RLC has ‹*bleaz*›. I have not been able to find the KS spelling anywhere.
> The only reference to a rounded vowel we have is from Old Cornish ‹*blot*›
> which is incidentally identical to the Old Breton ‹*blot*›. Modern Breton
> has ‹*bleud*› and Welsh has ‹*blawd*›, as expected. ****
>
> The state of attestations is very similar to the case of ‹*cleudh*›. Why
> does UCR offer ‹*blues*› as the form preferable to ‹*bles*› (as the
> latter is listed in brackets only)? ****
>
>  ****
>
> The next word I would like to look at is SWF ‹*greun*› ‘grain’. UC spells
> this ‹*grun*› (or ‹*grün*› in the dictionaries and teaching material).
> UCR has ‹*gruen*›, RLC ‹*grean*›, and KS ‹*greun*› (like the SWF and KK).
> So there seems to be the consensus that this word contains /œː/. The Breton
> cognate is ‹*greun*› and the Welsh ‹*grawn*›.  ****
>
> Yet the only attestations I can find are:****
>
> (*col*.) *grean* (Pr); ****
>
> and *grean* in Anglo-Cornish dialect. ****
>
> There are also the two attestations for the singulative:****
>
> *gronen* (VC, Pr), ****
>
> *gẏrnan* (Lh); ****
>
> All in all the material in favour of /œː/ is no better than for ‹*cleudh*,
> *cledh*›, yet it was accepted as a given for UCR and KS. ****
>
>  ****
>
> Nance reconstructed **gwun (**gwün* in dictionaries and teaching
> material) ‘gossamer’ on the basis of Welsh ‹*gwawn*›. UCR emends this to ‹
> *gwuen*›. The SWF has ‹*gweun*›. ****
>
>  ****
>
> Here’s another word that presents a similar case, the word for ‘cheese’
> SWF ‹*keus*› (KK ‹*keus*›), UC *kes*, *cus*; RLC *keaz*; UCR *cues*; KS *
> keus*;****
>
> Attestations: ****
>
> *cos* (VC, Pr), ****
>
> *caus* (VC), ****
>
> *kêz* (Lh), ****
>
> *kez* (Pr), ****
>
> *keas* (Pr); ****
>
> (cf. OB *cos*, eModB *caüs*, B *keus*; OW *caus*, W *caws*; OI *cáise*; <
> VL **cāsius* < L *caseus*). ****
>
> Despite the lack of attestations in Middle Cornish indicating a front
> rounded vowel (such as **cves*, **cus*, **cvs*, **kevs*, **keus*) the
> consensus appears to be that this word contained /œː/ in Middle Cornish and
> unrounded to /eː/ in Late Cornish. ****
>
>  ****
>
> Now, I would like to ask why these cases aren’t as controversial here as
> the case of ‹*cleudh*›. This word as I showed earlier on in this
> discussion, has a similar range of attestations and the spellings in place
> names, which some here consider to be valid corroboration (at least in
> other cases) show that the vowel before the composition of CW must have, at
> some point, had /œː/ in Middle Cornish. What makes the spellings ‹*keus*,
> *bleus*, *greun*, *gweun*› acceptable, while ‹*cleudh*› isn’t? ****
>
> Dan****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Jan 13, 2013, at 10:27 PM, Craig Weatherhill wrote:****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> That is an opinion, Michael, which I do not share.  Surviving textual
> Cornish is limited in extent, therefore we need every scrap of evidence we
> can get.  Pipe Rolls, Assize Rolls, etc, are quite likely to have been
> written by native hands, and I think that may be true of a large proportion
> of place-name records prior to 1550.  They are written and, therefore
> textual, evidence.
>
> Can we be sure that all the texts we have were actually written by
> Cornishmen?  They most likely were…but scholars come from all sorts of
> backgrounds, as true long ago as now.  Take, as a converse example, the
> works in English - at a time when English had been reduced to a minority
> "peasant" language - carried out by Cornish-speaking Cornish scholars,
> Trevisa, Pencrych and John of Cornwall.  We'd probably be speaking
> Norman-French now if it hadn't been for them.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>
> On 2013 Gen 13, at 17:09, Michael Everson wrote:
>
>
> ****
>
> On 12 Jan 2013, at 20:48, Daniel Prohaska <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com>
> wrote:****
>
> ** **
>
>  Giben the evidence I do't think <cleudh> is conlangy at all. This
> umbrella graph means /œ/ and /e/ anyway... the spelling is attested, albeit
> in a place name.****
>
>  ** **
>
>  Place-name spellings are not a part of the scribal tradition.****
>
>  ** **
>
>  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****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130114/fbbc774a/attachment.htm>