This might be a stupid question coming from someone who knows next to
nothing on the topic, but how much of the linguistic evolution was
purely oral? For example, new words are "officially" added to the
English language all the time, often because of cultural usage. Would
it be possible that this combination was such a product, passed willy
nilly through oral tradition of some for or another with no central
authority to "legitimize" it's use?
On Nov 12, 2007 7:37 PM, Felicia <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks all for your fascinating input.
> According to the glossary of a Welsh-English book called _Y Seint
> Grael_ by Rev Robert Williams (translator & editor) 1875,
>
> Drych means 'appearance'
> tan means 'thy'
> ten means 'fiery'
>
> That said, the word Drychten does not appear in that book. Nor
> Dryghten or any other variant.
> So, without a Welsh linguist, it cannot be concluded that Drych and tan
> or ten are every coupled in that language
> to mean what certain folklorists of modern pagan trads might wish to
> assert.
>
> Felicia Swayne-Heidrick
>
>
>
> On Nov 12, 2007, at 4:30 PM, Thomas K. Johnson wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Thomas K. Johnson wrote:
> >
> > Quoting a Feri list:
> >> "It still seems of some value to me, to have a seperate Feri homonym
> >> name Drychten or Drychtan, meaning the Lady of the Mirror."
> >
> > And according to the lexicon Y Geiriadur Mawr of Christopher Davies,
> > "drych" means "mirror", so all we have to do is find some kind of rule
> > to create the suffix "-tan" meaning something like "of the"
> >
> > And that's as far as I'm going to take this,
> >
> > Tom
> >
>
|