[Spellyans] Possessive construction of verbal nouns

Nicky Rowe nickyrowe at gmail.com
Wed Nov 14 16:14:01 GMT 2012

Could it be hypercorrection among revivalists? Or perhaps just being
prescriptive, Wella Brown gives examples in OM:

OM1987 an guel a ras thyworth an lur guraf the drehy
OM1945 dog a le-na tyr guelen a wruk moyses the planse
OM2331 chyf guythoryon ol a'n gulas a wother the dysmegy


On 14 November 2012 07:26, Daniel Prohaska <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com> wrote:

> On Nov 12, 2012, at 11:07 PM, Nicky Rowe wrote:
> I wonder if anyone can shed some light: Some argue that you have to refer
> back to a noun if you use it with an auxiliary in a relative sentence:
> hemm yw an aval a yll'ta y dhebry
> This is presumably to keep the possessive construction "its eating" intact
> (whi a yll y dhebry). But then why is splitting the possessive construction
> fine in sentences such as "debry a yll'ta an aval", as well as "debry a
> wrav vy an aval"? Or is the possessive construction not as sacroscant as
> it's being made out to be?
> Nothing is ever as sacrosanct as it's made out to be…. that's a good rule
> ;-)
> Soem use ‹dhe› instead to replace the possessive adjective. There's the
> ‹pandra vyn'ta dhe eva?›-group that cries MISTAKE when you say ‹pandra
> vyn'ta eva?› but low and behold such sentences occur in the corpus, too.
> I've found some examples in the texts where the possessive rule is also
> broken:
> RD317 hep ygery na *fos* *terry* (terry fos, the breaking of a wall)
> RD489 yw saw ol the wolyow a wylys vy the squerdye a wruk an gu ha'n
> kentrow *the kyc precius* *dafole* (dafole the kyc, the defiling of your
> flesh)
> RD1324 pan wruk *an bara* *terry* (terry an bara, [when he did] the
> breaking of the bread)
> BK3588 *Maria* *gonys* a raff (gonys Maria, the serving of Maria)
> BK3789 *an flogh* then ymach dyson my a vyn *don* eredy ha mos quik bys
> in eglos (don an flogh, the bringing of the child)
> BK3795 Maria dyso mur grays *ov map* dym *dry* pan vynsys (dry ov map
> dym, the bringing of my son to me)
> There are others. The words were put in a different order for stylistic
> purposes, but surely if doing so had any bearing on the meaning than it
> wouldn't have been done?
> Nicky
> I should agree with your assessment…
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20121114/63be3dbd/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list