daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Fri Mar 24 09:47:22 GMT 2017
Lowena dhe whei oll!
Thank you for the interesting discussion. Very insightful and, as usual, Nicholas’s examples help a lot. And indeed this is what RLC speakers have been following, e.g. using ‹gwir› without the particle, dropping mixed mutation in favour of lenition, except common phrases such as ‹et ta›.
> On 23 Mar 2017, at 21:45, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com> wrote:
> On 23 Mar 2017, at 20:08, Harry Hawkey <bendyfrog at live.com> wrote:
>> Not quite sure what you mean. The adverbial particle 'yn' does not seem to cause mixed mutation in late Cornish. Instead, if Lhuyd's examples are anything to go by, the mixed mutation is replaced by lenition, at least after 'yn’.
> I don’t usually consider “Late Cornish” to be a different language. There are “late" features found in Pascon agan Arluth. Too much is made of the differences when it’s clear there are continua of varying features in the texts we have.
Indeed. What is often called a “Late” feature is often something Nance simply didn’t standardise in Unified Cornish. I do not consider Middle Cornish to be a different language from Late Cornish in as much as I do not consider literary Welsh to be a different language from a colloquial and/or dialectal form of Modern Welsh. I enjoy writing the Late Cornish based variant of the SWF because this is the pronunciation I prefer and I also like sticking up for the underdog ;-)
> Typically we have “yn tâ” ‘well’, “yn few” ‘alive’ in Cornish though “yn vew” is also attested. Throughout all MSS of all periods we have a lack of expected mutation written.
>> Are you saying that, because there is no mixed mutation, it is not in fact the adverbial particle, but something else? Please explain.
> I don’t know whether Lhuyd could distinguish what we write as “in” vs what we write as “yn” or not.
> Michael Everson
In the SWF/L we write ‹en› for both.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans