craig at agantavas.org
Sat Nov 9 15:05:33 GMT 2013
I thought we were determining a modern language. The one attestation we have from the last few centuries wrote <hol->. Surely what may or may not have happened 1000+ years ago (and we can only use assumed reconstructed spellings from early Celtic) is irrelevant to that aim?
On 2013 Du 9, at 14:10, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
> This has to do with whether pre-tonic Proto-British */ɔː/ (Proto-Celtic *ā) was shortened early, later (after the stress shift) or not at all. Schrijver has written extensively about it in his "Stdies in British Celtic Historical Phonology" (Amsterdam/Atlanta, 1995). Might be worth checking out.
> As far as the prefixes he- ~ ho- (< *se- , *so-) go, I think (if memory serves) he said that all British dialects (which later evolved into Western British then Welsh, and South-Western British then Cornish and Breton) shortened the vowel in these pre-tonic prefixes. But I'll have to check again.
> On Nov 9, 2013, at 2:26 PM, Nicholas Williams wrote:
>> The ending -oleth in sansoleth, drockoleth, skentoleth might be a further instance.
>> The Breton equivalent of sansoleth is santelezh, with e.
>> On 9 Nov 2013, at 12:14, Linus Band wrote:
>>> As soon as I do, I will look whether I can find any other examples of this retention of the rounded quality before l.
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans