[Spellyans] cleudh etc
craig at agantavas.org
Tue Jan 15 19:55:48 GMT 2013
MONGLEATH: Mungluth 1308, 1350, 1530; Mongluthe 1313; Mungleoth, Mungloeth 1316; Moungleth 1460; Monglyth 1480; Monglegh 1499; Munglyth 1523; Mongler 1590; Mungleth 1623: Monglar 1766; Munglar 1804.
A bit of a mish-mash, with -u-, -eo-, -oe-, -y-, -e-, and even -a-.
-gh and -er, -ar endings are curious, too.
On 2013 Gen 15, at 19:26, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2013, at 8:14 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
>> On 15 Jan 2013, at 18:38, Daniel Prohaska <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 15, 2013, at 5:14 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
>>>> On Jan 14, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Hewitt, Stephen wrote:
>>>>> Cornish texts are of course the primary basis. The point is that there are not enough of them. The fact that the word cleudh does not happen to occur in Middle Cornish texts does not mean that it would not have had an /œ/ vowel in that period.
>>>> It certainly is not evidence that it *did* have that vowel.
>>> But there is. And I have provided it earlier in the form of place-names. Also ‹cledh› can only arrive at this form by way of */klœð/.
>> You referred to Craig's "Cargloth" rewritten Ker Gleudhyn, attested Cargluthan (and I don't know how else attested). But Craig said he did not agree that there were grounds for ‹eu› in this word:
> Yes, and how about ‹Mongleath› which was earlier written ‹Mungloeth›? It just shows that an earlier rounded vowel was unrounded to /e:/, so it's quite reasonable to assume that the older rounded already had a fronted quality, which means it was /œ:/ in this case…
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans