[Spellyans] Goat

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Mon Apr 6 12:47:51 BST 2009

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Everson
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 11:40 AM


“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.”


And the texts and the place names overwhelmingly have gaver. 


“> 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.”


Why, if gaver is attested. In other cases you argue in favour of a form that is based on textual attestation. Why is this case different. Just to be different to KK? 


“> 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".”


I do not interpret this rule as meaning “Ken George’s reconstruction”.


“> the discussion is irrelevant anyway because it’s an epenthetic  

> vowel anyway, cf. W gafr.


Then it isn't an ETYMOLOGICAL -e-, is it?”


My point entirely, which is why I said the discussion was irrelevant. Since gaver is the attested form in the texts, that’s the one I prefer. It suits all our requirements. It shows the pronunciation and is authentic in that we find it spelt thus in traditional Cornish.


“> 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  

> wonder?


<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 there are good reasons to change from gavar/gever to gaver/gever in KS. Jon? Nicholas?”


What do you mean, change? Is there an established KS spelling of gaver?



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090406/5dd1f9da/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list