[Spellyans] SWF review results.
janicelobb at gmail.com
Mon Apr 7 12:56:56 IST 2014
and tota Cornicitas includes place names?
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Nicholas Williams <njawilliams at gmail.com>wrote:
> Later pronunciation?
> Pre-occlusion is often considered a late pronunciation, but is attested in
> BM (1504) and Borde (1547).
> Perhaps you are referring to the rhotacisation of -s-, e.g. *Ne geranny
> ow kemeras hemma rag common*
> *bara ha dewas* SA 63a (ca 1560)
> Or perhaps to the loss of th after r, i.e. forth > for' e.g. *lemmyn yn
> mes a pup for* PC 2418 (early 15th century)
> Or to bus for mes: *not only e touchia, bus e thibbry* SA 60a
> Or pecar for kepar: *ha pecar a ruk an nethewan* SA 61.
> My point is simply this: the periodisation of Cornish as MC and LC is
> spurious. The differences are questions of orthography
> only. There is very little in the later language that is not in the
> To base the revived language specifically upon Rowe, Boson, Gwavas, etc.,
> I believe, was a mistake.
> Nance opted for PA as his foundation text probably because he liked the
> medieval and quaint.
> Some of the proponents of the later texts believed that MC and LC were
> different languages. They are not.
> The sensible basis for the revival is that period when Cornish was still
> complete and a community language,
> but at its latest and therefore most recent point. That means using TH, SA
> and CW as our foundation texts
> but drawing from all the surviving resources as needed (tota Cornicitas).
> On 7 Apr 2014, at 12:06, Janice Lobb wrote:
> I'm also really more interested in what the later spellings, whether
> English-based or not, seem to tell us about later pronunciation
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans