<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">Final th/dh is not simple. Nance opted for final <th> in all cases, but it is clear from Lhuyd that after a stressed syllable</span></font><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">Brythonic -d was in fact dh; e.g. ladh, gwedh, vedh. The expressionha uelkym tî a vêdh occurs three times in JCH. Amedh 'said' with</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">a stressed second syllable occurs 8 times.</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">Lhuyd also writes diuadh 'end', but it is likely that this is by analogy with W diwedd; he almost certainly heard dewa'; cf. An Duah an dridga Chaptra a Genisis Rowe; Menja e buz gweel dua; <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px; "><font class="Apple-style-span" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">Buz lebben preze ewe rag gweel dua</span></font><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px; "> Tonkin<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px; ">;<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px; "> and also Tregear's hen ew bugula devas for buguleth devas.</span></span></span></span></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">My own view is that we have an alternation between stressed voiced and unstressed unvoiced: ladh/bedh/scoodh but deweth/dewscoth and that this is also found in genef/esof but hav, ov. The same thing is also seen in carrek, galosek, mab, morrap but gleb but gwag, wheg, gleb.</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">Both dh and th are lost finally after r, but when dh disappears is goes entirely fordh > for', but when th is lost it leaves behind the voicelessness,</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">thus porth < Latin portus is Por' with a voiceless r (rh). Porth always had a voiceless th, not dh.</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">Final f also had a tendency to be lost leaving behind a residual h perhaps. In Middle Cornish we find genef, gene vy and genama. In Late Cornish these appear as gena vee and gennam. </span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">Genef doesn't occur in BM, it is always either gena or gena vy.</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">I will not write *genev or *gwragedh and no-one should have to. The SWF writes diuedh but nowyth (Welsh diwedd and newydd)! Why nowyth is different from other words with unstressed vowel + dh we are not told. </span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">Nicholas</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;"><br></span></font><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On 21 Oct 2008, at 07:56, Ray Chubb wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; ">Changing from 'th' to 'dh' can cause problems; final 'th' stops mutation of t, c/k, p and d, if we substitute 'dh' we should write, for example, 'fordh goth' instead of 'forth coth'. To me it seems incorrect that an arbitrary decision to use either 'th' or 'dh' can affect the the way in which mutation is applied.</span></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>