craig at agantavas.org
Fri Apr 10 16:15:41 BST 2009
Plus historic place name evidence: gaver 4; gavar 0.
On 10 Ebr 2009, at 12:15, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2009, at 11:30, Owen Cook wrote:
>> I'm weighing in late, but I completely agree with Dan, Jon and
>> Craig on this word. I see nothing wrong with 'gaver'. It's
>> textually attested in the scribal tradition,
> How specifically do you define this here?
>> while 'gavar' is not.
> I don't accept this interpretation. The scribal tradition attests
> the following for 'speech'.
> lavar x43 (PA x1, PC x1, TH x4, BK x8, CW x21, Late x7)
> lauar x73 (CF x2, PA x8, OM x15, PC x26, RD x22)
> laver x12 (PC x1, BM x1, SA x3, BK x7)
> lauer x19 (OM x1, BM x18)
> All of this shows that the scribal tradition admits both -ar and -er
> (favouring the former).
> It is true that the texts offer us very few examples of 'goat'
> gaver x2 (OM x1, BM x1)
> gauer x1 (BM x1)
> I don't believe it is credible to suggest that "lavar" and "gavar"
> did not rhyme. And I do not believe it is credible to suggest that
> if goat occurred more frequently that "gavar" or "gauar" would never
> have occurred.
>> It clearly indicates the intended pronunciation. If we absolutely
>> must see this spelling as an olive branch to KK -- oh, terror! --
>> then it is certainly an olive branch we can extend without scruple.
> My interest in offering MORE olive branches has pretty much dwindled
> at this point. If they had allowed is to keep the PROMISED olive
> branch (text in the SWF permitting publishers to use diacritics) I
> might be inclined to agree now. They engineered it so that we had to
> make that major derogation. In light of that, <eu> and all the other
> changes we made was enough of an olive branch. It's not as though
> they're giving us anything.
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans