[Spellyans] Ian Jackson: introduction

[Craig Weatherhill]

Sorry, the 1699 entry should have read: Port Jueck.

Craig




On 2015 Kev 22, at 18:54, Craig Weatherhill wrote:

> I can give you the history of that name:
> 
> Most authorities agree that it is <porth losowek>, "herb-rich cove", but written records only date from the early C17:
> 
> Porth Lajoacke 1630
> Porthlejooacke 1636
> Port Juack 1696
> Port Juack 1699
> Podley Joke 1794
> Porth Joke c.1820
> 
> In all of these, S has already become J.  With the common dropping of -th in <porth> (that happens as early as Porquin, for Porthquin, 1201), one can easily see how Por' Lojowek has become "Polly Joke".
> 
> The Signage Panel hasn't yet considered this name, but I shall be recommending <Porth Lojowek>
> 
> Craig
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2015 Kev 22, at 16:31, Janice Lobb wrote:
> 
>> The one example of s to j that always springs to my mind is a place name near my home. On the map it is Porth Losowek, but everybody calls it Polly Joke.
>> 
>> Jan
>> 
>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Nicholas Williams <njawilliams at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am not sure that s did become j. It seems rather that Old Cornish -d- assibilated first to -dz- and then either simplified to -z- or was palatalised to
>> -dzh- written <g, j>. As a result we find both gallosek and gallogek in the texts. Had all examples of s become j ,one would not have intervocalic -s- or -z- in Late Cornish at all, but such forms are not uncommon.
>> In Late Cornish we find preezyo eaue A Rage and preezyo gormall ha beniggo e hannawe da stella by Thomas Boson.
>> In those cases -z- is a reflex of English -z- borrowed into Cornish not of assibilated -d-.
>> 
>> It is true that the instances of -z- > -r- occur with z from assibilated -d-, e.g. gero ny < gesowgh ny < root *ged- and th’era ny < eson < *edon, but the shift z > r occurs only in those cases where -d- has not already given -dzh- (written <g, j> in the early MC period.
>> 
>> Anthony writes:
>> Incidentally, the shift from 'z' to 'r' indicates to my satisfaction that the 'r' was a flap - and fairly close to the teeth - and not an approximant.
>> 
>> I wonder whether we can really be so sure.
>> The rhotacisation of -s/z- to -r- is well attested in IE languages .
>> Think of *swesor > Latin soror, or genus but generis, flos but florem.
>> Then we have many examples of the alternation -s/z- and -r- in the Germanic languages by Verner’s Law,
>> e.g. rise but rear; was but were; Dutch verliezen, verloor, verloren ‘lose’.
>> Can we say, therefore, that r in Latin and Germanic was always a flap?
>> 
>> Nicholas 
>> 
>>> On 22 Dec 2015, at 15:46, Janice Lobb <janicelobb at gmail.com> wrote
>>> 
>>> Is there anything that resisted rhotacisation? Do we know why <s> in some words became <r> (e.g. yth esa to thera) while in others it became <j> (e.g. losowek to lojowek)? Was there some difference in the pronunciation of s? 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
>> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
>> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20151222/5db12480/attachment.htm>