[Spellyans] SWF questionable wordforms

[Craig Weatherhill]

I think that Andrew is referring to the second syllable of the word as 
we both think that it is the same in each word. KK spelt *gordhugher and 
*nyhewer and we could never understand why the former should not have 
been gordhewer, or where KG got -ugher from.

Craig


Jon Mills wrote:
> I cannot follow your argument, Andrew. Why do you doubt the legitimacy 
> of Lhuyd's <dh> in this word? How does analogy with 'nyhewer' tell us 
> anything about whether 'gorthuher '? should be spelled with <th> or 
> <dh>? The attestations include
> Ordinalia: gorthuer
> Ton, Rad. (1504): gorzewar
> Which gives some legitimacy for spelling this word *gordhewer.
> Jon
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: "Andrew Climo"
>     To: "'Standard Cornish discussion list'"
>     Subject: Re: [Spellyans] SWF questionable wordforms
>     Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:34:17 +0100
>
>     ...
>
>     --------------------------
>
>     *SWF: gorthuher* (n.), /evening/
>
>     * *
>
>     Lhuyd’s spelling*/ gÿdhiühar/* indicates that the spelling <dh>
>     may be more appropriate: *gordhuher*;[Andrew Climo] I really doubt
>     this. Without wishing to rake up previously discussed points it
>     should surely be gorthewer (analogy nyhewer). Or is the proposal
>     to respell nyhewer as nyhuher? Is this etymologically correct?
>
>     * *
>
>
> _____________________________________
> Dr. Jon Mills,
> School of European Culture and Languages,
> University of Kent
>   
>
> -- 
> Be Yourself @ mail.com!
> Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
> Get a *Free* Account at www.mail.com <http://www.mail.com/Product.aspx>!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>