Graham R.
Isaac s. xx–xxi
2014
2013
2012
2009
2008
The controversy surrounding the phonological and phonetic prehistory of the Neo-Brittonic voiceless spirants continues. This note defends the theory that they reflect voiceless aspirated geminate stops against some recent criticism, which has, however, failed to provide an adequate account of the issues involved, and has obscured several crucial concepts and meta-concepts.
The controversy surrounding the phonological and phonetic prehistory of the Neo-Brittonic voiceless spirants continues. This note defends the theory that they reflect voiceless aspirated geminate stops against some recent criticism, which has, however, failed to provide an adequate account of the issues involved, and has obscured several crucial concepts and meta-concepts.
2007
The paper revisits the question of the way the British diphthong *au is reflected in the extant Brittonic languages. The proposal that the correct chain of development was *au > *ō > W u is upheld, the evidence for the alternative proposal, *au > * ō > tonic MW aw, being examined and found inadequate. Related issues of the origins of some forms of the conjugated prepositions, some etymologies and some further contingent matters are discussed.
The paper revisits the question of the way the British diphthong *au is reflected in the extant Brittonic languages. The proposal that the correct chain of development was *au > *ō > W u is upheld, the evidence for the alternative proposal, *au > * ō > tonic MW aw, being examined and found inadequate. Related issues of the origins of some forms of the conjugated prepositions, some etymologies and some further contingent matters are discussed.
2006
2005
2004
The 'standard' account of the development of the Neo-Brittonic fricatives which are written in Welsh as ff, ph, th, ch, is that of Jackson's Language and History in Early Britain, which traces these sounds historically to geminates *pp, *tt, *kk, in Brittonic and Celtic, and Latin pp, tt, cc in loans (with phonological adjustments, these comments apply equally to Cornish and Breton). However, this 'standard' account has been a minority view for some decades. It was challenged early by David Greene, who was followed at various intervals by Anthony Harvey, Peter Wynn Thomas and Patrick Sims-Williams. Although these scholars have presented analyses which differ to a greater or lesser extent from one another, they nevertheless have in common the rejection of the LHEB account, in particular, the tracing of the Welsh spirants directly to old geminates. They see instead various separate changes in relative chronology, including the simplification of the geminates to the corresponding simple stops. I have upheld an LHEB-type analysis in previous work, and in the present paper will show in greater detail, 1) why the revisionist view is false (false predictions of how the attested forms should turn out), and 2) elaborate on the actual mechanisms involved in the development of Neo-Brittonic consonants, emphasizing the nature of phonology as a cognitive system of knowledge, rather than a physical system of sounds and articulations.
The 'standard' account of the development of the Neo-Brittonic fricatives which are written in Welsh as ff, ph, th, ch, is that of Jackson's Language and History in Early Britain, which traces these sounds historically to geminates *pp, *tt, *kk, in Brittonic and Celtic, and Latin pp, tt, cc in loans (with phonological adjustments, these comments apply equally to Cornish and Breton). However, this 'standard' account has been a minority view for some decades. It was challenged early by David Greene, who was followed at various intervals by Anthony Harvey, Peter Wynn Thomas and Patrick Sims-Williams. Although these scholars have presented analyses which differ to a greater or lesser extent from one another, they nevertheless have in common the rejection of the LHEB account, in particular, the tracing of the Welsh spirants directly to old geminates. They see instead various separate changes in relative chronology, including the simplification of the geminates to the corresponding simple stops. I have upheld an LHEB-type analysis in previous work, and in the present paper will show in greater detail, 1) why the revisionist view is false (false predictions of how the attested forms should turn out), and 2) elaborate on the actual mechanisms involved in the development of Neo-Brittonic consonants, emphasizing the nature of phonology as a cognitive system of knowledge, rather than a physical system of sounds and articulations.
