[Spellyans] tavas

Michael Everson everson at evertype.com
Tue May 14 21:22:01 IST 2013


On 14 May 2013, at 21:03, Daniel Prohaska <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com> wrote:

> Nicholas, 
> I see no unexpected development. It seems regular Pre-OC */taˈvœd/ > OC */ˈtavœd/

An unattested, hypothetical form of a language no one knows. 

> ~ */ˈtawœd/ 

An unattested, hypothetical form of a language no one knows. 

> eMidC */ˈtavɛz/ > MC *[ˈtavəz] > LC *[ˈtævɐz]. What's out of the ordinary?

Sure. Nothing. You're just ignoring the discussion about whether or not any of this reconstructionism is USEFUL FOR ANYTHING.

Knowing Germanic etymology is really useful. When I was 18 I learnt to speak Danish in 12 days because I had read a little grammar, I had studied Old English and Old Norse, and I spoke German. I was able to apply sound changes in my head to devise words to increase my vocabulary. This worked very well for lots of types of vocabulary, which ultimately got borrowed into Nordic as calques from Low German, for instance. 

Speaking Spanish and having studied a little Latin helps you a lot when you start to learn Romanian.

Does etymology help between Irish and Cornish? Not at all. Is it particularly helpful between Welsh and Cornish or Breton and Cornish? Not really, if you look at the actual Cornish texts. Breton is a little handy for KK since the 1980s, but that language might well not have been understood by speakers of Traditional Cornish.

Does Proto-Brythonic or Old Cornish help ANYBODY to learn Cornish? 

I do not believe so. It's neither practical (since nobody knows either) nor useful (since the etymological spellings lead to fairly random "patterns" that don't help anyone remember anything. 

It's starting from the wrong place. The right place to start is the texts. 

The right place to start is the texts. 

The right place to start is the texts. 

The right place to start is the texts. 

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/





More information about the Spellyans mailing list