[Spellyans] A few questions about mixed mutation of words beginning with G
A. J. Trim
ajtrim at msn.com
Sun Aug 23 16:51:22 IST 2015
So there is some evidence of A. S. D. Smith's rule in the texts, and I
assume that words ending in <*dh*> should be included in the grammar
books, etc. To date, the sub-rule "words ending in <*dh*>" has been omitted.
However, I am not sure what is meant by "<TOTALLY UNRELIABLE>".
I agree that there is considerable variation in the texts, and not all
the rules were followed all of the time. For Revived Cornish, we need to
normalise the rules -- much as we do with the spelling. It is quite
likely that different authorities will come to different conclusions.
Is there a theory to explain why <*s*> and <*th*> / <*dh*> were treated
differently from other letters? The evidence from the texts seems to
indicate that they were treated differently.
Andrew J. Trim
On 23/08/15 13:52, harry hawkey wrote:
> ajtrim at msn.com wrote:
> Again, in Soft mutation, there is no mutation of <*C*>, <*D*>,
> <*K*>, <*P*>, <*Qu*>, <*T*> --- after nouns that end in <*s*> or
> However, <*B*>, <*Ch*>, <*G*>, <*M*> do mutate here.
> This last rule appears to have been "invented" by A. S. D. Smith.
> Do we still use this rule? Is there evidence for it in the texts?
> What about words that end in <*dh*>? These have never been mentioned.
> <TOTALLY UNRELIABLE>
> After feminine/masculine pl. nouns ending in <th> or <s> followed by
> an adjective I found:
> no examples of p-->b
> no examples of c/k-->g
> no examples of t-->d
> A few examples of d-->th/dh
> tus tha(Tregear) X 2
> fleghes dha(Gwavas, Ten Commandments)
> Though it looks like there are more examples of no mutation of <d>
> than with.
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans