> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Jason I Mirza, Dysgwr o Lambedr Pont Steffan, pj041@lampeter.ac.uk > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Jason -- onid ydy'r cyfeiriad hwn i fod "Lambedr Pont Steffan"?(neu "Llanbedr", > >wrth gwrs!) > > >Roger Rhos Fawn Corfforaeth Intel > > > Mae'n ddrwg ddrwg calon iawn iawn 'da fi. O'n i ddim yn gweld y gamgymeriad > yna, dych chi 'n eithaf reit. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Mae e'n "Llanbedr" gyda > "n" sy'n treuglo ar o^l "o". > Gyda diolch. Jason. Dyna well. :- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jason I Mirza, Dysgwr o Lanbedr Pont Steffan, pj041@lampeter.ac.uk > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This raises the whole question of how far, with a language that has selectively grammaticalised certain assimilations, speakers are conscious of a need to suppress the assimilation in contexts where it's not required. n > m before p, b; n > ng before c, g are perfectly natural (hence 'Lampeter' in English, or pronunciations like "imput", "ing Cape Town", etc.) In English it doesn't matter whether you do it or not, because nothing hinges on the difference, and people are mostly not even aware of it. But Welsh grammar has ordained that in some grammatical contexts it's obligatory (*yn Paris > ym Mharis; *yn cornell yr ystafell > yng nghornell ... etc,), but in others not just not obligatory, but wrong (mae'r tir 'ma 'n breifat; mae ef yn cerdded; etc.). There must be a strong inclination to say "ym breifat", "yng cerdded" -- because that was, after all, how pronunciations like "ym Mharis", "yng nghornell" came about in the first place. Will it be noticed and frowned upon if you say "ym breifat" for "yn breifat", or is that OK so long as you don't go the whole hog and start saying "ym mreifat"? ************************ Nigel Love Linguistics Cape Town NLOVE@BEATTIE.UCT.AC.ZA ************************