[Spellyans] Lhuyd's Cornish
tom.trethewey at yahoo.co.uk
Sun Oct 22 20:10:56 IST 2017
| Nicholas wrote:
>If you listen to the recent editions of Nowodhow an Seythen on the Kernewegva website you will hear the following:
>lies *tusnebes *lyver. These are clearly mistakes, because lies + singular and nebes + plural are attested several times; but the other examples are less clear cut.
>You will also hear ev a drig 'he lives' for the correct yma va trigys (subject) + a drig is attested several times (usually with the meaning'remain' rather than 'dwell'), so this does not bother me. >tus [neb] a vydn desky Kernowek 'people who want to learn Cornish' for the correct tus a garsa desky Kernowek This implies that the first sentence is incorrect; in what way? >in kever 'about' for ow tùchya or adro dhe. Because this phrase is not attested does not make it wrong.It is a logical extension, avoids the obvious English origin of ow tuchya and the semantic ambiguity of a-dro dhe.
>These are all Nancean in origin.
>You will also hear an huny-ma 'this one' for the correct hebma, hemma.
>This last solecism was absent from the first (UC) edition of Brown's Cornish Grammar. and, so far as I can tell, this specific expression is absent from his second and third editions. >It appears for the first time in the second KK edition at §71 1 where Brown recommends such expressionsas gwell yw genev an huni rudh 'I prefer the red one'. This is without warrant in traditional Cornish. Ray Edwards thought such usage 'reasonable' (Notennow Kernewek s.v.). I agree with Ray Edwards. >If you want to speak a conlang it is. Otherwise you use onen. Why? Onen is not attested in phrases like 'the red one'.To use onen is to set up a calque on English.Brown obviously prefers to copy Breton practice. Tom
Spellyans mailing list
Spellyans at kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans