[Spellyans] BTW

Nicholas Williams njawilliams at gmail.com
Sun Mar 5 20:19:21 GMT 2017

You may I have a point, though the apostrophe in Dy’goel was written to indicate an apparent loss of dh. 

I had always assumed that du/dew and de were variants, rather than one derived from the other.
Tregear writes war du fencost myttyn TH 44a. On the other hand in his manuscript glossary
Lhuyd writes

De Zîl
De Lîn
De merh
De Marhar
De Ieu
De Gwenar
De Zadarn.

John Boson writes De Zil and Dezil occurs in the Gwavas MSS.

This seems to imply that there were two separate forms: de and du/dew. Moreover two separate forms may be suggested by survivals in dialect. In his 1938 dictionary Nance cites duggle ‘holiday’  and diggle-dize for ‘harvest home’. 
If De in De Zîl and Degl do indeed contain a reduced form of Dew and if an apostrophe is thought
necessary, one should write De’Sul, De’Lun. 

My own view is that apostrophes are best avoided. KS writes yma, but ma without an apostrophe even though y has been
omitted. I write Degol and De Sul.


> On 5 Mar 2017, at 19:40, Linus Band <linusband at gmail.com> wrote:
> But, judging from the spellings du and dew, hasn't the labial glide -w been omitted? 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20170305/22729934/attachment.htm>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list