[Spellyans] cleudh etc

Ray Chubb ray at spyrys.org
Tue Jan 15 13:34:16 GMT 2013

I think you should add one more:  5.) Where there is doubt allow a  
choice.  (As indeed Nance did in his dictionary in many instances).

On 14 Gen 2013, at 17:06, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> Ray,
> I would never say, that etymology alone should be the deciding  
> factor, but it does play into arriving at a workable spelling for  
> the SWF. In codifying words for the SWF I would always proceed as  
> follows:
> 1.) Compare the textual attestations and put the spelling patterns  
> in relation to already established spellings.
> 2.) Consider further evidence such as place-names, family-names  
> other topographical names, survivals in dialect.
> 3.) Compare the word in question with cognates in Breton and Welsh,  
> and compare if, where and why the Cornish should (or not) diverge.
> 4.) Back-check these etymologies within the wider Celtic and Indo- 
> European background.
> 4.) Codify the word according to the rules of and analogous cases in  
> the SWF.
> Going by this, I arrive at ‹cleudh› for 'trench'.
> Dan
> On Jan 14, 2013, at 1:02 PM, Ray Chubb wrote:
>> Dan, as far as I am aware there is nothing Latin about 'cleudh' my  
>> concern is that once you accept that etymological spellings are  
>> O.K. you open the flood gates.  How far does one go back with the  
>> etymology?
>> On 14 Gen 2013, at 11:44, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
>>> Ray,
>>> What is originally Latin about ‹cleudh› ???
>>> I don't understand.
>>> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

Ray Chubb


Agan Tavas web site:  www.agantavas.com

More information about the Spellyans mailing list