daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Tue May 14 22:15:25 IST 2013
On May 14, 2013, at 10:38 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 14 May 2013, at 21:04, Daniel Prohaska <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com> wrote:
>> I quite agree, Steve,
>> I prefer attested spellings, but as ‹taves› IS attested I don't see a problem.
> It is attested. A lot of crap is attested. This one is poorly attested compared to the better spelling ‹tavas›, and its use of "e" has nothing to do with Brythonic reconstruction, either.
Oh, hasn't it? How do you explain tis attestation in an early MC Cornish text. It's direct and explicable predecessor in OC ‹tauot›. Now you're just leaving the field of historical linguistics and are becomming dogmatic in dismissing ‹taves› because it is KK, or whatever reason you have for dismissing it.
> It's one of the many ways of writing schwa. It's an accident, and using it to justify Ken George's penchant for etymologies is just plain silly.
Explain why it lines up to OC ‹tauot›, maybe it's an accident, maybe it's not. But the same can be said of ‹tavas›. Also a spelling for schwa.
More information about the Spellyans