[Spellyans] Inclusion of Late Cornish

A. J. Trim ajtrim at msn.com
Thu Aug 7 23:13:08 IST 2008

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  



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?





Andrew J. Trim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20080807/f24a3f8d/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list