[Spellyans] tavas

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Tue May 14 21:08:22 IST 2013


Craig, 

(see inserted below)

On May 14, 2013, at 4:38 PM, Craig Weatherhill wrote:

> To be honest (and I'm not a linguist) but etymology seems to be very much "in the eye of the beholder".  

Not really. we do have many indicators as the etymology, especially of this particular word. As Nicholas, too, said. The etymology is not in dispute. 

> One can argue that a particular word was spelt in a particular way in early Brythonic - but was it?  That language was never written down,

Not quite true, we have quite a few Brythonic inscriptions, though they are mainly personal names. Some written records of Welsh and Breton date very far back to a period where W, C and B were virtually dialects of a singly language...

> and can only be guessed at from a few examples of evidence from Gaulish, and from what Roman and Greek sources wrote down.  

See above...

> All we really have are words which have been theoretically reconstructed in modern times, which is why they are always preceded by a superscript asterisk.

That's true, but we do have all the cognates in the living Celtic languages, and their scribal history, which tells us a lot.
Dan

> 
> Craig
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2013 Me 14, at 15:13, Hewitt, Stephen wrote:
> 
>> In general, it is very difficult to have an orthography which brings together various diachronic and geographic varieties which is not etymological.
>>  
>> I don’t really understand the persistent bias against etymology in this group. My etymological orthography for Breton builds on the interdialectal (S-SS) orthography, and works much the best of all systems to accomodate predictable dialect reflexes with a minimum of spelling variation.
>>  
>> Isn’t that the goal of the SWF?
>>  
>> Best,
>>  
>> Steve
>>  
>> From: Spellyans [mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net] On Behalf Of Daniel Prohaska
>> Sent: 14 May 2013 16:10
>> To: Standard Cornish discussion list
>> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] tavas
>>  
>> As you and I have said, ‹taves› is also found in the texts, and thus fulfils the criteria for the SWF. Now, one can argue over whether it is wise to have an orthography that is based on etymology but that is a different discussion entirely.
>> Dan
>>  
>>  
>> 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.
>>  
>> Nicholas
>>  
>> 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
>> 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/20130514/90bb532f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list