daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Tue May 14 21:03:14 IST 2013
I see no unexpected development. It seems regular Pre-OC */taˈvœd/ > OC */ˈtavœd/ ~ */ˈtawœd/ > eMidC */ˈtavɛz/ > MC *[ˈtavəz] > LC *[ˈtævɐz]. What's out of the ordinary?
On May 14, 2013, at 4:03 PM, Nicholas Williams wrote:
> We all know the etymology, Dan. My point is that the phonetic environment appears to have cause the word to develop in a slightly anomalous fashion.
> Tavas, tavosow are the forms in the texts. They should be the forms in the SWF. Etymology per se is no counter argument.
> On 14 May 2013, at 14:57, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
>> I sympathise with those who wish to keep the spelling ‹tavas› from Unified Cornish. But I would rather redirect the energy and impetus of SWF-reviewing to more pressing issues. There is nothing "wrong" with the spelling ‹taves› "except" that it is the form used in KK. It is attested as such in the texts as well as being the etymologically expected form.
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans