[Spellyans] SWF Review

Nicholas Williams njawilliams at gmail.com
Tue Feb 23 12:40:43 GMT 2016


Thank you, Craig, for that full answer. I was unhappy that in Ti Waernhael from the OC
period a change was assumed (i.e. war an > warn) that is not attested in the later language.
I had forgotten that in OC and the earliest MC the definite article was often en rather than an:

pupilla biuenlagat OCV §42
En mab dre y skyans bras PA 3b
en tebell el a vynnas PA 13b
ol en da han drok kepar PA 25d
Pan welas en ethewon PA 26a
En scherewys a sorras PA 31a
En gusyl o may fe dris PA 32a
en box oll bezens gwerthys PA 36b
en gyth o deyow hablys PA 41c
En prins scon a leueris PA 78a
en colyek scon ow cane PA 86a
En ezewon yn treze a whelas dustuneow PA 90a
pyth yw en drok rewrussys PA 101d
En tas a nef y'm gylwyr OM 1
en tas ha’n map ha’n spyrys OM 5
en tas dev luen a vercy OM 1974
mar tue nep guas ha laddre en gueel theworthyn pryve OM 2064-65
lauar en guyr thy'm certan OM 2234
en tas dev a wruk pup tra PC 197
en tas dev roy thy'n bos gwyw PC 849, etc.

Perhaps then Tywarnheyl can be thought of as deriving from Ty war en heyl rather
than Ty war an heyl. Since en is largely replaced by an in later MC, we do not know
whether in certain collocations war en was reduced to warn.

Even so war en is attested in MC:

Han gwyn esa war en foys PA 45a
Pan deth levff crist war en toll PA 182a.

Nicholas



> On 23 Feb 2016, at 10:14, Craig Weatherhill <craig at agantavas.org> wrote:
> 
> Why, thank you, kind sir!  It does also help to know the topographical changes that Cornwall has undergone over the centuries.
> 
> Craig

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20160223/1ae58c88/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list