[Spellyans] Inclusion of Late Cornish

[A. J. Trim]

Michael Everson quoted and wrote:

“

On 31 Jul 2008, at 18:16, Eddie Climo wrote:

>> * <ei> in words like hei, crei, chei
>
> Yuk!

I would write and recommend <hy>, <cry>, <chy> for these words. <ei>  
is a Lhuydian innovation; I can see a use for this graph, if one were  
writing dialogue where one character had a strong Penwith accent or  
something... but I agree with Neil, there's no *need* to write <ei>,  
Having said that, it's unambiguous in terms of interpretation when  
encountered and so no problem for KS. In principle one might write  
<hy>, <crÿ>, <chÿ>.

”

 

I would write and recommend hy, cry, chy in normal writing. You should consider using the <ÿ> graph in dictionaries, etc. to indicate that two pronunciations are possible.

I would like to distinguish between hy = “she” and hy = “her”. Not sure how best to do that. Perhaps hy and hỳ.

 

“

>> * <oa> in words like broas, gwloan, cloav.
>
> No, I won't use that either.

Nor I, and again I think KS should discourage this: <brâs>, <gwlân>,  
<clâv> is a better solution.

”

 

I agree. I shall not use <oa> for long <a> of any type.

I intend to use brâs, gwlân, clâf.

I still prefer final f to final v.

 

“

>> * <ow> in words like own 'correct'.
>
> Nor that.

I object here, Eddie. If you say ['beUn at ns], write <bewnans>. If you  
say ['boUn at ns], write <bownans>. This is a dialect feature. I suppose  
we could write <bëwnans> and <böwnans> (with diaeresis to show  
alternation) but you're adding more diacritics then, and you'd end up  
with <Kernëwek>~<Kernöwek> and I don't know if that's a credible  
solution.

”

 

I think that you should consider bëwnans ~ böwnans and Kernëwek ~ Kernöwek in dictionaries, etc. but I would not include the diereses in normal writing.

 

“

> Given a 'take-it-or-leave-it' choice of this sort of 'fuk-Gernewek',
> I'd just stick with the UC/R that I've already learnt, and leave the
> SWF to go its own sweet way.

Are you sure you understand the philosophy behind the choices? Both  
SWF and KS offer <mabm> alongside <mamm> as spellings for the word for  
'mother'. That's support for an important dialect feature. KS offers  
<brâs> alongside <bras> because RLC speakers pronounce the words  
differently even though RMC speakers don't. KS offers <bÿs> alongside  
<bës> to support a dialect alternation.

”

 

If we are to reject the Owen/Dan solution(s) to bys/bes, then the diereses in bÿs/bës should be included in normal writing, as well as in dictionaries, etc. This is the best solution.

 

“

Every alternation isn't marked because it's simply not possible to do  
so with any ease. Both SWF and KS offer <kerensa> alongside <kerenja>.  
Ken George and Keith Bailey suggest that these words are pronounced  
"kerenzha" but I (and Nicholas I believe) see this as just a dodge  
because they find it difficult to imagine that Cornish had dialects  
which had both [k@'rEnz@] and [k@'rEndZ@] ([kə'rɛnzə] and  
[kə'rɛndʒə]). I would be reluctant to recommend writing <kerenŝa>  
and <kerenĵa> using letters from Esperanto here, though that diacritic  
is available in Unicode it is certainly not in most fonts.

”

 

No, I shan’t be writing kerenŝa ~ kerenĵa using letters from Esperanto!

However, this would be OK in dictionaries, etc.—not in normal writing.

I intend to use kerenza.

However, if that is “not allowed”, I’ll use kerensa, with the instruction that this <s> is to be pronounced [z], [Z] or [dZ].

Could the [d] in [dZ] be another type of pre-occlusion?

 

 

Regards,

 

Andrew J. Trim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20080807/f24a3f8d/attachment.htm>