[Spellyans] Final -dh, final -th, final -v, final -f

Michael Everson everson at evertype.com
Fri Aug 10 21:29:30 BST 2012

Sending this again with a meaningful subject line. No other changes.

On 10 Aug 2012, at 15:43, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

>> Taking these three together, Dan, I have to say to you again that yes, it can be argued (as you always do) that there is some room for doubt if you take Lhuyd's spellings at face value.
> I don't take Lhuyd's transcriptions at face value and I don't necessarily believe there wasn't a stressed/voiced : unstressed/unvoiced phonotactic relationship in traditional Cornish. However, the textual spellings don't give us very much to go on. 

When you say "I don't necessarily believe there wasn't a stressed/voiced : unstressed/unvoiced phonotactic relationship in traditional Cornish" you are saying "I might believe there was a stressed/voiced : unstressed/unvoiced phonotactic relationship in traditional Cornish".

If so, why can't you join with some others with the same view, as opposed to letting us know that you intend to oppose our proposal to the Review in favour of your own proposal in the Review?

> The plosives are different from the fricatives in so far as there never was a clear cut voiced : voiceless opposition in the first place.

You can't know that. 

> The texts show that even in stressed monosyllabic words there was no opposition between /k/ : /g/ or /p/ : /b/.

I believe you are mistaken. In medieval writing, voiceless stops are often written where we *know* that the sound must have been voiced. If this is true for Welsh and Irish (and it is) it ought to be true for Cornish as well. (I don't believe that there is evidence for final -g or -b in unstressed final position, If there are examples they must be rather rare.) 

> The fricatives, however, have this opposition as you can see in ‹kôth› (Lh) for /θ/ and ‹bêdh› (Lh) for /ð/.

Yes, I know. I already mentioned that we aren't concerned with the monosyllables.

> The native writers always wrote ‹th› for both /θ/ and /ð/; so from their writings we cannot determine when, where or how the two were distinguished, but it seems plausible to assume that the distinction was valid throughout the development of Cornish as a living language.

Why? If final consonants in unstressed position devoiced, why would some of them devoice but not others? What specific mechanism do you suggest. 

> The cognates of C ‹coth› are W ‹coth› 'old man' and B ‹kozh› 'old', as well as Gaulish ‹cottos› preserving the original Celtic *kott-o-s. By the same token original British /ð/ continues to be distinguished in C ‹bedh› 'grave, tomb', cf. W ‹bedd› and B ‹bez›, going back to CC *bed-o-. 

Yes, I know. 

> Yet the Middle Cornish scribes wrote ‹coth› and ‹beth› with no way for us of knowing whether they heard or pronounced /θ/ or /ð/ and in which context. We have only Lhuyd to tell us that these two consonants were distinguished. 

We also have the comparison with the stressed monosyllables of the sister languages. 

> The same holds true for the contrast between /θ/ and /ð/ in unstressed syllables.

No, because they don't exist in a vacuum. The exist within a linguistic system where other consonants are also devoiced in final unstressed syllables. 

> There is no way of knowing from the native writers which of these two phonemes was intended. In medial position PA sometimes wrote ‹ȝ› to indicate /ð/,

‹Ȝ› can also indicate /θ/; compare PA 341 worthebys and 345 worȝebys.

> so here we have independent proof that the etymon ‹menydh› 'hill' contained /ð/ at least in medial/intervocalic position, cf. PA.(170) ‹menyȝyow› 'hills', corroborated by Lhuyd's ‹menedhiou›. 
> In this word Lhuyd writes the simplex with ‹dh› also. 

Lhuyd also writes the simplex with ‹th›. 

> So even if Nicholas' theory of Cornish phonotactics after the prosodic shift seems nice an neat and ties the MC spellings (which don't distinguish word/final /f/ : /v/

Yes they do. ev RD and ev and ov occur in CW; compare ynaff, allaff, mannaff, genaffa and sewenaffa in CW. A more systematic presentation could be presented but the way you have put it is simplistic. 

> and /θ/ : /ð/) it remains a theory only. Nothing more, nothing less. 

And yet most speakers have -əθ in final unstressed position. I've been listening to them for years. I take notes in IPA at the Lostwithiel meetings. So "it remains a theory only" but it is a theory that stands up in the framework of a phonological system, which happens to match the practice of speakers of the revived language. 

The only reason to want to keep the KK -dh in final unstressed syllables is if one wanted to encourage speakers of the revived language to voice that segment. I don't believe that we should want to do that. 

> For us the relevant question is how to treat this in Revived Cornish. Why is distinguishing /θ/ : /ð/in ‹coth› and ‹bedh› any more authentic than distinguishing /θ/ and /ð/in ‹dalleth› and ‹menydh›?

Everybody agrees about coth and bedh! Why drag them into it? It doesn't explain what happens in final unstressed syllables! Stressed monosyllables are different. Final unstressed syllables in Cornish are very weak. Welsh syllables are staccato and crisp and very different from Cornish. Cornish has a *different* phonological system. 

> Just because it fits Nicholas' theory on Cornish phonotactics? If that is the case, then I'd prefer to err on the side of caution. Rather than following one man's theory, I'd write ‹th› and ‹dh› consistently, that is as it has already been chosen to distinguish /θ/ and /ð/ in RC at all. 

So what you're saying is that you're happy to ignore the evidence Lhuyd gives for -th, because you would rather "follow one man's theory", namely that of Ken George, who is responsible for deciding that these segments "must" have been voiced. 

Of course, in the revived language, they *aren't* voiced. The Grand Bard and Polin Prys, for example, both of whom learnt KK, say "gorseth". They don't say "gorsedh". 

Nor should they. 

You want to write ‹th› and ‹dh› "consistently", that is "where Welsh has -dd". But Cornish isn't Welsh, and if some final consonants devoice in final unstressed position, WHY SHOULDN'T ALL OF THEM DO LIKEWISE? This you do not explain. 

> The principle of ‹menydh› pl. ‹menydhyow› can be regarded as the same with ‹tir› pl. ‹tiryow›. ‹i› is written in ‹tiryow› because the simplex has ‹tir›. 

They are in no way analogous. This is a poor argument. 

> The same rule can apply for ‹menydh› which has ‹dh› because the derived form has ‹menydhyow›. With ‹menydh› and ‹nowydh› you can chose to devoice them in speech if that is what you think the correct pronunciation is. 
> It's really not that difficult.

Then why do you not do this?

[ɡ] rag, teg, kig
[k] marhag, carreg, uthyg

[b] mab, glëb, me a dÿb
[p] methêwneb, morreb, modryb

[ð] sedh, bëdh, scoodh, rudh
[θ] gorsedh, menedh, nowydh, arlùdh

[v] gwrav, nev, gov, cuv
[f] manav, genev, orthyv (often drops to Ø)

Why not? It is just the same. Sure 'aunt' is "modryb" in Welsh and 'knight' is "marchog". If Cornish is like Welsh for -dh and -v (‹f›), surely it should be like Welsh for -b and -g. 

The same rule can apply for ‹marhag› which has ‹g› because the derived form has ‹marhogyon›, and The same rule can apply for ‹modryb› which has ‹b› because the derived form has ‹modrebeth›. With ‹marhag› and ‹modryb› you can chose to devoice them in speech if that is what you think the correct pronunciation is. 

THAT is an exact analogy. 

>> But then we come to the area of language structure and practical phonotactics.
> I see no evidence that this was the case in traditional Cornish. Yes, the unstressed/unvoiced consonants are more frequent in the stops, but not universal and there's no way of knowing /θ/ : /ð/, both written ‹th› and /f/ and /v/ both written ‹f› or ‹ff› in final position. 

/v/ is also found as ‹v› in final position. And then there are the rest of the consonants. 

>> We have offered -- based on our observation of what is in the texts -- a phonological model of Cornish where final consonants are very often voiced in stressed monosyllables, but which devoice in unstressed final position.
> Final devoicing can have other reasons as well, which has been theorized by others. I'm not on anyone's side here.

Gee, that's very helpful. What you are doing, however, is setting it all up for a nice big battle during the Review, don't you think? It's all very well to be nice and theoretical and "neutral". But you're not "neutral". You're pursuing a definite result. You want a system where final -b alternates with final unstressed -p, where final -g alternates with final unstressed -k, but instead of having a system where final -dh and final -v alternate with final unstressed -th and -f. for those ones you want to have a "special rule" that people can follow "if they think that's the correct pronunciation". 

This is inconsistent. It's contentious because it ignores the fact that people already actually say "gorseth" and not "gorsedh" (even those who were taught otherwise). That is really, really bad orthography design. 

> I'm not saying this particular linguist is right and the other is wrong.

You might try saying "Hey, people are using the devoiced form already anyway, why not just allow the orthography to be paradigmatic in this matter?" Then you don't have to worry about this or that particular linguist. You can just observe -- as I have -- the reality of the revived language and support that.

> I want to find a sensible and consistent way of spelling RC. and in so doing accommodate the greatest number of users.

How do you gauge them? I observed prominent KK users, some of them teachers. They had -əθ in final unstressed position.  

> I feel in the case of /θ/ and /ð/ this is best achieved by distinguishing /θ/ and /ð/ consistently as ‹th› and ‹dh› even in final unstressed position, as any final devoicing can be done by rule.

Then you are inconsistent with p/b and k/g. Because if you were consistent, you'd have the same orthographic convention for those, "as any final devoicing can be done by rule". 

> Final voicing of ‹nowyth› can on the other hand not be predicted because the learner wouldn't know why to voice in ‹nowyth› but not in ‹dalleth›. So the best way would be to write ‹nowydh› and ‹dalleth› and allow for the speaker to decide whether to pronounce /ˈnɔwɪθ/ or /ˈnɔwɪð/.

People say [ˈnoʊəθ] already. Why should we *want* them to say [ˈnoʊəð]? Oh, that's right. Because Ken George thought that Cornish should be like Welsh in this matter. 

> Again, I see no reason in the argument that ‹dh› in ‹bedh› is any more or less authentic than ‹dh› in ‹nowydh›. 

The question of stressed monosyllables is not contentious. Everyone agrees about them. The question of what happens to consonants in final unstressed syllables is a question of systematic phonotactics. The two things are not the same, regardless of what was written in the MSS. 

>> [z] bos, tas, in mes (original tad)
>> but (at least earlier)
>> [s] gwelys, gweles, myternes (original gwelet)
>> We also think that the influence of final voiced ‹s› in English plurals is the cause of the general voicing of  final ‹s› in later Cornish. 
> I find this highly unlikely. If Cornish writers identified the Cornish ending with English ending they would have spelt them accordingly, with ‹s›. No, I believe they wrote ‹z› because they pronounced and heard [z]. 

I think you misunderstood. I was not talking about spelling, but of sounds. We think that ‹bos› and ‹tas› were [boːz] and [tæːz] and that ‹gweles› and ‹myternes› were originally [ˈɡwɛləs] and [mᵻˈtɛɹnəs] (fitting into the same paradigm as the b/p, ɡ/k, ð/θ, v/f), but that the later influx of English plurals in -ys [əz] helped to spread the voiced sound even in the native words. So it was natural for the letter ‹z› to be written for all of these in the late period. 

> There's no way of knowing if MC distinguished /s/ : /z/, /f/ : /v/ or /θ/ : /ð/, in final unstressed position, but it seems odd that if in MC the general rule was that the stressed/voiced : unstressed/unvoiced phonotactic relationship was operational and that after the MC period in LC ‹bedh› and ‹nowydh›, as well as ‹coth› and ‹dalleth› "resurface". If indeed MC had had */beð/, */koð/

Who said anything about MC /koð/? There is no problem with MC having both /beð/ and /koθ/. This is not related to the question of final unstressed syllables. 

> and */ˈnowɪθ/, */ˈdal(ː)əθ/, why do [they] show their expected sounds in LC? 

By "in LC" do you mean "in Lhuyd"?

Lhuyd isn't consistent. 

> Yes, one possible explanation is that Lhuyd substituted the Welsh distribution.

Yes. We think that this is the most likely explanation given the paradigmatic nature of unstressed final syllables. 

> The other explanation is that Cornish retained the original values all along.

But then you have to explain what mechanism devoices some final consonants and not others. Come on! You have marchog/marhak and modryb/modrep and newydd/nowyth and W‹genef›/C‹geneff› (careful now!). What mechanism protects -ð and -v from devoicing when -g and -b do?

It is that the nature of the syllable stresses differs dramatically between the staccato Welsh and the much less crisp, much more Anglicized perhaps, Cornish. 

> Whatever it may be, neither can be ruled out, nor proven.

No, but I think our explanation is strongly plausible and your explanation is quite unclear and gives rise to lots of questions. 

>> This is a structured pattern, which fits the data.
> Partially, and very dependent upon dismissing evidence from Lhuyd. 

We do not "dismiss" evidence from Lhuyd. (You've made this mistake before. It offends.) We try to interpret his inconsistency. It is easy to understand him hearing [ˈɡɛnə vi] and parsing it like his native Welsh ‹genef fy›. And come on, he writes:

arleth, banneth, bisqueth, bisᵹụeth, bithqueth, bitqueth, bolongeth, borègueth, bysqueth, dallath, degụyth, deụyth, ergụath, filgeth, folneth, foloreth, flannith, foủetneth, gresyth, guanath, gụanath, gụrkath, gwyroneth, hanath, iganzvath, kanzụyth, karlat, kettoth, kidniath kyzalath, kẏzɐleth, lonath, meneth, mennith, milụyth, molleth, mẏhterneth, nèpyth, progath, skiantoleth, sẏụêth, tallath, tergụyth, gravêth, traveth, rrebath, triụath, ụarbarth, ụihith, unụyth, zolᵹụeth, and ᵹevyth.

[List provided by Jon Mills in 2008.]

Explain to me your phonotactic rationale for marchog/marhak and modryb/modrep BUT newydd/nowydh and W‹genef›/C‹genev› in a nice paradigmatic way that makes sense, and then show me how dependent you are about "dismissing evidence from Lhuyd", because you have to dismiss all those words right there. 

>> It is coherent, easily explained, and indeed, easily taught.
> Nice and neat in historical linguistics always makes me a little suspicious, especially in this muddle of scribal spellings, prosodic shifts and Cornish-writing Welshmen of the 18th century….

Occam's razor says to me that your dependent-upon-dismissing-some-of-Lhuyd argument (in the light of wide-spread devoiced -th in the revived language) has little to recommend it. 

>> Do you have a different description for these pairs, Dan?
> Yes, I do. I've explained them many times, as you know. 
>> If so, shouldn't you wish to explain it to us?
> Yes, I have done. Many times, as you know. 

No, I don't know. You've never set anything out in a nice neat table as I have done above, together with your description of the pairs. I'm asking you to do so now, here, in this thread. 

>> Or have you not thought about the phonotactics of Cornish?
> Yes, I have. 

Then set out your argument plainly, as I have done above. The table begins:

[ɡ] rag, teg, kig

Copy it out, and give your explanation of it, so that everyone on Spellyans can evaluate it.

You see, you're asking us to accept "menydh" and "genev". We don't believe we should. Convince us.  

>> It's true that Lhuyd writes -v in ‹a hanav›, ‹a yuhav›, ‹dredhev›, ‹genev/ᵹenev›, ‹orthiv›, ‹ragov›, ‹ụarnav›, ‹olav›, but this -v is **not found in traditional Cornish** (though -ff and -f and Ø are) and so the most likely reason for this is the influence of Welsh. He heard "gene vy" and the thought it was like Welsh "genef vy". 
> It's true that there is even less dependable evidence concerning /f/ : /v/ than there is for /θ/ : /ð/. This is why I would like to propose for R13 an umbrella graph ‹f› that more or less works like ‹s›. We would spell ‹f› word-initially and word-finally with the optional pronunciations [f] ~ [v], but spell ‹v› where both 'dialects' of Cornish agree on /v/, i.e. ‹ev›, but ‹bedhaf›, in essence what you have in KS, but with the rule-based option of pronouncing [f] or [v] for words/position in doubt or where one variety has [f] and the other [v]. SWF ‹cavos› could then be spelt SWF13 ‹cafos› meaning [ˈkafəz] or [ˈkavəz]. 

Not quite sure what you mean by 'dialect' here. 

I would support your scheme as far as it goes (since it does away with -v in final unstressed position), but I don't see much need for your rule-based option. We simply state thet "cafos" has as variant forms of the verbal noun "cavos", "cawas", and "gawas", and allow people to write what they like. We also premit both "gul" and "gwil". 

>> It's true that Lhuyd writes -dh or -ꝺ sometimes -- but he also writes -th and -ꞇ, and the texts all write either -th or -ȝ. So the most likely reason for this is the influence of Welsh. 
> Dismissing Lhuyd's evidence, though I'm not saying you shouldn't view his work critically, doesn't really help, because what you find in MC doesn't tell you much and leaves only speculation without any kind of proof. 

We explain Lhuyd's use of -dh in unstressed final syllables as the natural influence of his native tongue. 

You are left still "dismissing" this:

arleth, banneth, bisqueth, bisᵹụeth, bithqueth, bitqueth, bolongeth, borègueth, bysqueth, dallath, degụyth, deụyth, ergụath, filgeth, folneth, foloreth, flannith, foủetneth, gresyth, guanath, gụanath, gụrkath, gwyroneth, hanath, iganzvath, kanzụyth, karlat, kettoth, kidniath kyzalath, kẏzɐleth, lonath, meneth, mennith, milụyth, molleth, mẏhterneth, nèpyth, progath, skiantoleth, sẏụêth, tallath, tergụyth, gravêth, traveth, rrebath, triụath, ụarbarth, ụihith, unụyth, zolᵹụeth, and ᵹevyth.

>> For your view to be taken seriously, shouldn't you wish to produce a coherent argument which takes the linguistic system into account?
> Yes, I should.
>> You'd have to have a convincing reason why we have g/k and b/p (and probably z/s) on the one hand but ð/ð and v/v on the other.
> Yes, as mentioned above, I have. 

Do it again. Don't just say that you've done it, please. 

>> Because so far, Dan, while we have shown a coherent and systematic linguistic structure, you have just said "it's doubtful because of what's in Lhuyd, and so we should have dh and v throughout".
> But that's precisely what we have! You have a coherent theory for which there cannot be any proof and I have several theories that I believe may be possible and simply wonder what the best way is to treat these doubtful cases in RC.

Why not support the actual phonology of the revived language in this matter?

> I'm not saying you're wrong, nor do I favour any other particular theory, but when it comes to the point where several theories are unprovable yet imaginable and fit the data, as I believe both theories here do, then I need to find out how to accommodate these theories and include them in written and spoken Revived Cornish. 

Well, all I can say is that I won't support -dh in unstressed final syllables because I don't believe that the evidence or any arguments I have heard is sufficient to convince me that it is anything but an unwelcome and unnecessary Cymricism. 

> You on the other hand seem to be so convinced that your theory is correct, that you wish to impose it on the spelling of RC regardless of lack of absolute and convincing proof.

I believe that our model fits the phonology of the revived language and that it is the most plausible model to explain the treatment of final consonants in unstressed final syllables in Cornish generally. I have yet to hear a more plausible argument. I've asked you for one, and suggested that you try to demonstrate statistically your claims about the data in Lhuyd. 

> This is what I don't want to go along with. I don't believe it is inclusive, I don't believe it is sensible. And I don't believe it is very respectful of the theories other linguists working on Cornish have where this problematic issue is concerned. 

Inclusive of... what? The phonology of KK, which nobody uses? Which linguists are you talking about?

> As Nicholas has written in "Clappya Kernowek" - along the lines of, if he were to jump-start the Revival he would probably choose not to distinguish ‹th› and ‹dh› and write only ‹th›. I can relate to this and this is legitimate position. But he didn't jump-start the Revival and decided to distinguish the two sounds. 

Quoting his book from 1990 at this juncture doesn't do your argument much good! 

> Originally in the first edition of Cornish today, his UCR spellings did include words that had ‹dh› in final unstressed position. But by the time of "Clappya Kernowek" and his dictionary, the final unstressed ‹dh› had changed to ‹th›. 

I can't say. §17.13 of the third edition which discusses ‹dh› doesn't mention final unstressed syllables. 

> I would like to explain ‹dh› as an umbrella graph in the context of the SWF: those who believe Nicholas' theory that final unstressed /ð/ was unvoiced to [θ] in final unstressed position can do this by rule, whereas those who believe final unstressed /ð/ was variously pronounced either [θ] or [ð] according to the phonological environment can do so as well, while those who believe final unstressed /ð/ was always [ð], can do so, too. Thus we have a spelling that caters to all tastes and doesn't prescribe one man's theory saying that final unstressed /ð/ was always unvoiced. 

I don't think you'll find anyone on the traditionalist side who really wants to write "menydh" or "nowydh". An unwelcome umbrella graph is no good to anybody. And I think you should really face up to the marchog/modryb discussion above.   

>> That's not a structural argument.
> From the point of view of orthographic design it is. 
>> And indeed, it would only approach being a convincing argument if you were to list **all** of the words in -dh and -ꝺ and -th and -ꞇ in Lhuyd, with a following word in instances of words within a sentence or phrase.
> I know, and this would take a lot of time, as I haven't got a single searchable computer database of attested Cornish spellings. In my dictionary I'm currently in the process of putting such a database together so in time it'll be easier to search. Perhaps then I will write something along the lines. I will prepare a short statement though within the R13 proposals. 
>> Really, there aren't all that many. To know what the implications of Lhuyd are (since there is doubt because of his Welsh) the only way to deal with it is exhaustively.
> You are mistaken, in my opinion, to dismiss Lhuyds distinction of ‹th› and ‹dh› by assuming analogy with Welsh.

Enough with the "dismiss", Dan. Lhuyd is *inconsistent* in his use of these, and we have endeavoured to explain why. 

> Since the other evidence is silent, Lhuyd is all we have in this question. We can choose to ignore him, choose to view him critically or choose to dismiss him.

We have chosen to view him critically. 

> I view him critically. With the evidence available I feel I have to entertain the possibility that final unstressed /ð/ was indeed distinguished, at least occasionally from final unstressed /θ/ and that I cannot in full conviction endorse Nichoals' theory that final unstressed /ð/ was always unvoiced. 

Then you must explain how and why ð differs from all the other consonants in final unstressed position. But let me say this:

"At least occasionally" is not a strong enough argument for imposing a "spell -dh always" rule on the orthography. "At least occasionally" is *weak*, and is only enough to suggest a reading rule for "occasional" voicing of the segment, perhaps intervocalically across word boundaries. But in that case, the stronger argument is for a "spell -th always" orthographic rule. 

>> Now, we know that the reason KK has -i is that Ken George was very impressed by Welsh and Breton. Ken George said as much in his Linguistic Advisor submission to Albert and Ben and Trond. He said:
>>> I advise against <-y>. Welsh and Breton both write <-i>.
>> The reason the SWF (via KK) has -dh and -v is that Welsh has them. 
> Welsh has -v?

Welsh has -dh? (Pay attention.)

>> You suggested that perhaps there could be a rule for people who say [ˈɡɔɹsəθ] that they could learn to devoice -dh in some positions.
> Yes.
>> And you said, I believe, that there was evidence in Lhuyd that some of these words were voiced in intervocalic position. I don't think there is much evidence of that, and you haven't produced a complete analysis with exhaustive examples (the sort of thing Nicholas does), but even so. 
> No I haven't, just a few examples from JCH. Though I wouldn't go so far as to endorse the theory that we have a voiced : unvoiced alternation similar to Breton which is what Ken George proposes. 

Neither would I, but it the use of -dh in final unstressed syllables is Ken George's Cymricism. 

>> The easier rule,
> Says you...
>> the safer rule,
> says you….
>> the rule that is more certain in terms of Traditional orthography, is to spell -th and -f as the texts do (for then we know we are not erring), and to allow these sounds to be voiced in intervocalic position.
> No, it is not, because it is no easier, safer or more authentic to distinguish final stressed /ð/ and final stressed /θ/ while deciding not to do so in final unstressed position. The evidence for the stressed distinction doesn't weigh much heavier than for the unstressed distinction. The native MC writers didn't distinguish them either. 

Modern speakers say "gorseth". Modern KK speakers too. All of this argument is either navel-gazing or supporting KK for, well, for no good reason I can see. 

> So the safest bet in my opinion would be not to distinguish ‹th› and ‹dh› at all and write only ‹th›. But this option isn't practical for the non-linguistically inclined average learner of Cornish, who wishes to be able to predict the pronunciation of /ð/ and /θ/ by the spelling. That leaves us with distinguishing the two consistently. 

And so we do. 

>> Most people including KK users whom I hear speak say -əθ or -ɛθ for these words. Maybe they voice them intervocalically. But they don't in absolute auslaut. 
> True, but hardly relevant to my argument, as I said that ‹dh› is to be viewed as an umbrella graph for [θ] and [ð] by the learner/speaker according to which school of though s/he may wish to follow. 

I would have a fundamental objection and opposition to the use of ‹dh› and an umbrella graph for [θ] and [ð]. It is just a fence-sitting dodge, and especially in light of the fact that speakers from all camps have -[əθ] in their speech, I find nothing "inclusive" about it. This is just supporting a Cymricist fantasy built into KK. 

You might get away with ‹th› in final unstressed position with optional intervocalic voicing across word boundaries. But the evidence from Lhuyd is not "conclusive".

I know a convincing argument when I hear one. You've not offered one, not yet. 

marchog/marchogion, modryb/modrybedd, arglwydd/arglwyddi, cwrw(f)/cyrfau

marhak/marhogyon, modrep/modrebeth, arlùth/arlydhy, core(f)/corevow

Regular pattern, anyone? 

(Evidence for nouns in -f in both Welsh and Cornish is very scant.)

>> (We don't have to worry about -dh and -v in stressed monosyllables because we all agree that they were voiced.)
> But the evidence for this distinction in the traditional texts is also lacking. So why treat the two differently?

Because the environment is what counts, not just the spelling. Come on, Dan. That is elementary philology. You know that!

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

Spellyans mailing list
Spellyans at kernowek.net

More information about the Spellyans mailing list