[Spellyans] a vry
craig at agantavas.org
Fri Nov 8 12:05:13 GMT 2013
A technical question. In 2pl. verbal forms why is -ywgh employed for <dhywgh>, but -ewgh elsewhere?
On 2013 Du 8, at 11:07, Nicholas Williams wrote:
> Thank you for that answer, Michael. I just thought the details were a little too boring for this forum.
> To believe that me a wrug and me wrug, for example, are different is to put too great a value to the reduced
> surface of written forms.
> KS writes dhywgh why; which appears as early as PA (fourteenth century) as ze wy. There is no need to write dhe why, because it can be deduced from dhywgh why.
> Much of the debate between users of MC and LC is based on perceptions derived from the spelling.
> The omission of ow is well attested in SA:
> vgy setha in gwlas neff
> ema gwiell an keth Sacrament ma
> but SA also writes o for ow before the vn.
> There are differences between MC and LC but they are not in the orthography.
> The only distinctively LC forms I have been able to find so far are these:
> wrugo why etc. for MC wrussowgh why etc.
> a wraz for a wrug (when gwil is a full verb rather than an auxiliary_
> na alja ev for na ylly ev
> gen for gans (where gen has been extracted from the inflected forms, e.g. genama, genowgh why).
> As far as I can see there is no other Late Cornish form that is not already in MC.
> There may be others but I have been unable so far to identify them.
> On 8 Nov 2013, at 01:32, Michael Everson wrote:
>> No, please, let’s do it in the open. I responded to Chris back then and did not have a response from him or her. (I’m sorry, I don’t know, and the name is polyvalent.)
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans