Ma morvil e’n mor. There’s a whale in the sea.
Pandr’üjy an morvil ow kil? What is the whale doing?
Üjy an morvil ow palas? Is the whale digging?
Nag üjy! No!
Ma’n morvil ow neyja e’n mor.
The whale is swimming in the sea.
Ma lies morvil e’n mor.
There are lots of whales in the sea.
Ma lies telher henwys “Wheal” en Kernow.
There are lots of places called “Wheal” in Cornwall.
Nag üjy anjei e’n mor.
They are not in the sea.
Ma telher henwys “Wheal Bal”.
There is a place called “Wheal Bal”.
Ma meur a whel dhe wil.
There is much work to do.
(MCm Yma meur a hwel dhe wul.)
Note that after “dhe” meaning “to” there is a soft mutation (posh word lenition) so gwil > wil (or gul > wul)
Ma “Whel Bal” ow menya “mine works at the diggings”.
“Whel Bal” is meaning “mine works at the diggings”.
Ma den whel ow kil whel.
A workman is doing work (working).
Üjy ev ow palas? Is he digging? Üjy! Yes!
Pe le ma ev ow palas? Where is he digging?
Ma ev ow palas en fordh. He’s digging in a road.
Ma’n den bal ma ow palas en bal.
This miner is digging in a mine.
Where did the extra “ma” come from? It is not part of bos locative. Acting as an adjective after the noun it means “this” - perhaps derived from "here".
Compare it to Ma den obma. There is a man here.
The following sentences use bos descriptive (also called the “short form”), while palas is being used as a verbal noun.
Bal ew telher rag palas. A mine is a place for digging.
Whel ew telher dhe wil balweyth.
A mineworks is a place to do mining.
Treth ew telher rag palas, ewedh.
A beach is a place for digging, too.
And here’s a negative:
Morvil nag ew best whel. A whale is not a work animal.
And this is an imperative!
Gwrewgh mires ort Telher Ertach Bes Balweyth Kernow.
Look at The Cornish Mining World Heritage Site.
Food for thought! Look at these sentences:
Yma ev ow palas. He is digging.
Ma va en bal. He is in a mine.
These just show two of the alternative ways of saying “he is” in bos locative. Some of these alternatives evolved during the east-west evolutionary drift, MC > LC, e.g. yma ev > ema ev > ema va > ma ev > ma va (not necessarily in that order)
At the same time, the continuous particle ow was becoming more indistinct, still causing mutation, but either not written or said, or reduced to <a>, similar in sound and appearance to the verbal particle used with the preterite, present future, etc. Did the particle disappear, or was it swallowed up by the personal pronoun?
It is easy to see how something like ema ev a could have become ma va, even when the continuous particle wasn't needed. Do we have a fossilised particle in <va>? Just an idea!!
No comments:
Post a Comment