[Spellyans] a vry

Nicholas Williams njawilliams at gmail.com
Fri Nov 8 11:07:03 GMT 2013


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.

Nicholas



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.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20131108/550ad509/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list