( I'm a bit confused by the addition of the definite article (?) ) 'Y' before the verb 'mae' in the following examples. Since ( there is already an article before the nouns y+d and botel, ) what is its purpose? Is this akin to the reason there is ( an 'r', a remnant of 'Yr', in 'Rydw'? ) ( Y mae'r y+d yn wyrdd It's not an article, again; it's not the same particle as you get in front of subsidiary clauses, either. It does seem to be the same y/yr as in 'yr ydw' or 'rydw', because it goes with the verb 'bod' (to be) but not as far as I can see with any other. However dropping it doesn't change the sentence into a question as would dropping the 'R' from the front of a 'Rydw'. The sentence seems fine without it, but it also seems to be what you feel a need to put there. When spoken it can be little more than a brief exhalation before the 'm'. My impression is that it makes a slight difference of emphasis, but perhaps only because the extra syllable makes it easier to put more stress on the verb, which becomes the second syllable of the sentence. g