[Spellyans] kal revisited

[Craig Weatherhill]

There is no evidence at all that *kalgh, *calgh was ever an older form  
or even existed.  It interests me that modern Breton spells the word  
kalc'h and yet Lhuyd lists the Armorican as Kal.  Have we any evidence  
to show the antiquity of the -c'h form?  The Welsh, as mentioned has  
no such ending, either.

*Kalgh, *calgh is a false word that only invites confusion with the  
word of identical spelling, which translates as "lime" (geological).   
Surely it would make sense to differentiate between the two by  
spelling, just as (dare I say it), the retention of <au> would have  
avoided the kons/cons situation.

Craig

Craig
On 4 Gen 2009, at 16:08, Michael Everson wrote:

> On 4 Jan 2009, at 15:51, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
>
>> I’ve now spelt <kall, call>, because I think it contains a short  
>> vowel. I have mentioned reconstructed *kalgh as a possible older  
>> form in the entry, but not recommended it as a main entry. Is this  
>> feasible? How about the plural?
>
> I would not mention the bretonization.
>
> On balance I think this word would look better as <kàl>~<càl>. The - 
> all forms will tend to be pronounced as in English, I think. There  
> are words in <-al> that have a lowered pronunciation (long vowel)  
> that more or less rhymes with English <call>.
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

--
Craig Weatherhill