everson at evertype.com
Mon Apr 6 10:40:27 BST 2009
On 4 Apr 2009, at 18:13, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> “Why is Dan following George's gaver pl gever (with -ar in the
> sing.)? And what is the explanation for "gyffres" given "gifras"
> and "geffraz"? (Certainly there is no need for two f's.)”
> I’m not giving gavar, but gaver, you cited it yourself.
I know. Nance and Williams and Gendall all have gavar.
> This is attested in MC. In Lhuyd the -ar means schwa + r. This can
> be shown as gaver as well.
Why would it be a good idea to have gaver instead of gavar in the
singular? To me the sg/pl alternation gavar/gever is more sensible.
> From the SWF’s rule to give the etymological vowel
That "rule" is most objectionable, because it means "do what Ken
George reconstructed in KK" and there is enough wrong with his
reconstructions to think twice before accepting any of the holus-
bolus. Indeed I doubt the AGH took a considered view on this when they
(or Albert and Ben) made this "rule".
> the discussion is irrelevant anyway because it’s an epenthetic
> vowel anyway, cf. W gafr.
Then it isn't an ETYMOLOGICAL -e-, is it?
> Nicholas Boson and Andrew Boorde give gever as the plural which
> seems to be cognate to W geifr. Gyffras is the plural found in TH,
> with <ff>. Should we simplify <ff> to <f> if it’s not attested, I
<f> is never [v] in the SWF or KS.
> Could it mean /ˈgivrəs/?
Maybe that's what Nance was thinking, but I think it's /ˈgifrəs/,
which I think we should spell gyfras.
I remain unconvinced that tehre are good reasons to change from gavar/
gever to gaver/gever in KS. Jon? Nicholas?
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
More information about the Spellyans