[Spellyans] cleudh etc

Ray Chubb ray at spyrys.org
Mon Jan 14 09:56:29 GMT 2013

I totally disagree, the Cornish texts are a good enough basis on which  
to base a revival plus some careful borrowing from Welsh and Breton.   
Trying to cast spelling back to supposed Latin originals is totally  

On 14 Gen 2013, at 09:41, Hewitt, Stephen wrote:

> 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

Ray Chubb


Agan Tavas web site:  www.agantavas.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20130114/533a78df/attachment.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list