[Spellyans] <l>, <ll>, and <lh> in Sacrament an Alter (1576)

Michael Everson everson at evertype.com
Fri Jul 23 12:55:11 BST 2010

On 23 Jul 2010, at 12:01, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> Of course we can never be sure about the exact phonetic realisations of traditional Cornish, so whether Cornish <ll> was realised as voiceless or geminate will remain a matter of theory, but what we can say, is that the author of SA most likely retained the contrast of <l> : <ll> ~ <lh>.

What we can say is that the SA made an orthographic distinction. This does not *necessarily* imply anything about his pronunciation. In this I found Albert's paper begging that question.

In any case I am in agreement with Nicholas: 

> A proper study of all the attested texts is required and the spelling <l>, <ll>, <lh> need to be isolated and tabulated. 

So far as I know, even those Revivalists who do distinguish two kinds of "l" do not do so for all words in <ll>. (Do you, Dan, for instance?) A comprehensive study of Revived Cornish in this matter would also be most welcome.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

More information about the Spellyans mailing list