linusband at gmail.com
Fri Jul 4 14:39:22 IST 2014
Interesting to see that the doublet *cleddyf* vs. *cledd* also appears to
have existed in Cornish, as suggested by the plural *clethyow*. I
appreciate these Cornish wisdoms of the day/week/fortnight very much; thank
2014-07-04 13:22 GMT+01:00 Nicholas Williams <njawilliams at gmail.com>:
> The attested plural of *cledha* sword is always either *clethythyow*,
> *clethethyow* or *clethyow*:
> *gans boclers ha clezyzyow thom kemeres zom syndye *PA 74bc
> *duen drethe gans clethethyov* BM 1266
> *peswar myghtern curunys gans clethythyow a owr per *BK 2024-25
> *crownkyowhe y gans clethythyow* CW 325
> *gans clethyow, arghans, dafyr lathva ha kenyver ehan a booz daber*
> Nance, however, in his 1938 dictionary gives the plural **cledhevyow* and
> says that the attested plural
> is "always incorrectly -*dhedhyow*".
> If the attested form is always *clethythyow*, *clethethyow*, how can it
> possibly be described as incorrect?
> *Clethythyow* has, of course, arisen quite naturally by analogy. The
> expected form **clethef* has been
> reduced to *clethe*, *cletha*, which was then understood to be for
> *cletheth* (cf. *lowena* for **loweneth*, *gormola* for **gormoleth*,
> This then gives the plural *clethethyow*, *clethythyow*, which cannot
> possibly be described as incorrect.
> The only incorrect matter here is Nance's purism - which, in my view, has
> done enormous damage. From the rewriting the inflection of Cornish it is
> a short step to rewriting the phonology and spelling.
> We are attempting to revitalise a language, not devise a conlang.
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans