[Spellyans] SWF questionable wordforms

[Daniel Prohaska]

We should write <dewes> because it is thus attested, the etymological vowel
fits, and the alternation -es ~ -osow is regular an well attested. -as would
have made sense in KS (original draft). What we shouldn't write is *diwes.
This is a purely speculative form that the SWF should not have permitted.
The <i> as reconstructed by George is by analogy with Breton and Welsh, but
the Cornish word has a different history. If it were analogous to the Breton
and Welsh forms we would have found *dyes or *dyas in Middle Cornish, which
we don't.

Dan

 

  _____  

From: nicholas williams
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:51 AM



<dewas> is attested ten times in the texts.

 

Nicholas

 

On 17 Sep 2008, at 09:34, Michael Everson wrote:





On 17 Sep 2008, at 08:44, Jon Mills wrote:





Pascon agan Arluth: dewas, zewas
Ordinalia: dewes; dywes
Ton, Rad. (1504): dewes; deues; dewosou
Boorde (1555): dewas

We should write 'dewes'.

 

To be more specific: There is NO reason to write "diwes" at all, except that
George reconstructed it thus.

 

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

 

_______________________________________________
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/20080917/2b67a1ba/attachment.html