In the 16th cent. the sound of ‑y in the above Ml. W. forms was not known. J.D.R. writes it y (≡ ɥ), p. 136; but Dr. Davies compares it with Eng. final mute -e, as in take, and writes it ỿ, as bolỿ, helỿ D. 19. The correctness of this transcription is -confirmed by the b.ch., where it appears as e (≡ ỿ, § 16 iii), as dale a.l. i 20 ≡ dalỿ. [ᵹ > ỿ > a forms an interesting parallel to the supposed Pre-Ar. ᵹ giving ə and then mostly a.]
(3) Lat. virgo > W. gw̯yry (1 syll.) D.G. 156, Ỻ.A. 84, 87, 90, etc., whence gwyrdawt r.b.b. 119, though we have also gweryndawt Ỻ.A. 17, 50, 84, b.b. 40, direct from virginitātem. In b.b. 70 occurs the pl. gwirion < Brit. *u̯irgones. Later we find morwyn wyra a.l. i 518; Gwynedd dial. menɥn gw̯ɥrẟ (for *gwɥr-r cf. dal-l) ‘unsalted butter’, Dyfed menyn gw̯ɥra, Rhys CC. 46. We also have gwyrf (1 syll.) D.G. 118, gwyrɏf vireindawl (4 syll.) r.p. 1199, and gweryẟ (2 syll.) r.p. 1200, D.G. 137, pl. gweryẟon (3 syll.) r.p. 1199, b.b. 71. The latter cannot be derived from virgo; no medial syllabic irrational y is known in Early Ml. W.; gweryẟ must be Kelt. and may represent *ɡu̯heríi̯ō, pl. *ɡu̯heríi̯ones: Ir. gerait ‘virgin’, gerait (i. mac bec) ‘little boy’ O’Dav.: redupl., Gk. παρθένος < *ɡu̯hr̥-ɡu̯hén- (not: Skr. pr̥thukaḥ ‘boy, calf’, since *th > Gk. τ), Lat. virgin- < *ɡu̯er-ɡhen‑, dissim. for *ɡu̯her-ɡu̯hen‑, and perhaps W. gwyrf < *ɡu̯herɡu̯hō, which fits exactly, § 92 iii. Dr. Davies wrongly takes Ml. W. gwyryf as a disyllable gwy|ryf, which it may have become dialectally, § 16 v (3). The biblical pl. gwyryfon is formed from the new disyllable.
(4) In bwrw < *burg- § 97 v (3), llwrw < *lurg- < *lorg- § 215 ii (7), the ‑ᵹ was rounded by the preceding w, and became ‑w̯. In derived forms, however, it became i̯ regularly; as Ml. W. bỿrẏaf ‘I cast down’, now bwri̯af.
(5) In hy ‘bold’ (< *hyᵹ < *sig- < *sego‑: § 92 i) a final f is now wrongly written. The f is not pronounced, and there is no evidence of it in Ml. W. or the poets; see hy b.b.b. 265, D.G. 42, 269, 313, etc. It does not occur in old derivatives: kyn-hyet s.g. 277, hy-der, hy-dab. In the dialects, however, f is inserted in new derivatives, as hyf-dra, hyfach, which, like llefydd, brofydd, dial. pl. of lle, bro, are due to false analogy. Other spurious forms like hyf occur in late mss., such as daf, llef, brof for da, lle, bro. In none of these is the f an old substitution for ᵹ; they are sham-literary forms made on the analogy of tref for the spoken tre’.
iii. (1) Final f was lost before the Ml. period after aw, as in llaw ‘hand’ < *llawf < Kelt. *lāmā < Ar. *pl̥̄mā § 63 vii (2);—rhaw ‘spade’ < *rhawf < *rā-mā, √arā- § 63 ix. When a syllable is added and aw is replaced by o § 81 i, the f reappears, as in llof-rudd ‘murderer’, lit. ‘red-handed’, llof-yn D.G. 107 ‘wisp’, lloffa ‘to glean’ < *llof-ha, rhofiau ‘spades’. So praw Ỻ.A. 24, r.p. 1215 ‘proof’ for prawf a back-formation from provi Ỻ.A. 38, 72 < Lat. probo. The re-introduction of f in praw is artificial, and inconsistent with the N.W. pron. prāw, § 52 iii, Exc. (1).
