[Spellyans] SWF questionable wordforms

[Michael Everson]

On 8 Sep 2008, at 16:16, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> Dhewgh whei lowena oll!
>
> As I was looking through the SWF document there are a number of word  
> forms for which I would like to suggest alternatives:
>
> -------------------------
> SWF: besyes (pl.) of bys ~ bes finger
>
> The SWF plural would suggest a pronunciation **[“bEzj at s], but Lhuyd  
> shows bÿzîas [b@”zi:@s]. I believe the SWF should follow Lhuyd here  
> and write *bysies;

Surely you mean <besies>.

> --------------------------
> SWF: dyski ~ dysky (vbn.), learn
>
> Forms with <y> are frequently attested in the Middle Cornish texts,  
> but <e> occurs as well. <E> is also attested in Late Cornish. I  
> suggest a variant SWF deski ~ desky be added.

That will make us have to write <dÿsky>~<dësky>.

> --------------------------
> SWF: dybri ~ dybry (vbn.), eat
>
> Forms with both <e> and <y ~ i> occur in both MC and LC (debbri,  
> dibri Lh.). Perhaps the SWF should allow the variants debri ~ debry.

That will imply for us <dÿbry>~<dëbry>.

> --------------------------
> SWF: unnweyth (adv.), once
>
> The double <nn> in SWF unnweyth seems unnecessary. First of all  
> since the vowel <u> would be interpreted as short before <nw> and  
> second, because there is no pre-occluded form in LC (eneth NB). It  
> seems to me that *unweyth may be a more appropriate SWF spelling.

I quite agree.

> --------------------------
> SWF: Kernewek (n., adj.), Cornish
>
> This word is Nance’s reconstruction. The <ew>+vowel does not appear  
> to be correct. The Middle and Late Cornish attestations show <ow> 
> +vowel, <û>+vowel or <oo>+vowel. Now there is a set of lexical items  
> in Cornish that has earlier <ew> that later becomes <ow>, as in  
> clewes => clowes. Such words do not develop into [“u:@] as the words  
> with old <ow> do, such as lowen and Jowan. Both end up with Late  
> Cornish <ûa>, just like Kernûak (Lh). This word does not seem to be  
> the direct cognate to Welsh Cernyweg and Breton Kerneveg, but a new  
> formation based on Kernow + -ek. It seems the consistent SWF  
> spelling ought to be Kernowek with an earlier pronunciation  
> [kEr”nOUwEk] and a later [k at r”nu:@k].

KS should have to deal with this by writing <clêwes>~<clôwes>  
alongside <lowen>, <Kernowek>.

> --------------------------
> SWF: lyther (n.), letter
>
> A Late Cornish variant lether ought to be added.

That will imply for us <lÿther>~<lëther>.

> --------------------------
> SWF: lyver (n.), book
>
> A Late Cornish variant lever ought to be added.

That will imply for us <lÿver>~<lëver>.

> --------------------------
> SWF: niver (n.), number                      never (WB),  
> niver(Lh)                                                      +  
> var. never
>
> Because of Late Cornish never, a variant never ought to be  
> permitted. Perhaps the main form ought to by spelt nyver.

That will imply for us <nÿver>~<nëver>. (And not *niver as it rhymes  
with the word for book.)

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20080909/ca50329e/attachment.html