[Spellyans] del 'leaves' and dèl/dell 'so, as'

[Ray Chubb]

Surely the very fact that you have started a sentence with 'del' would  
tend to give it more stress than normal?

On 14 Kev 2008, at 18:35, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> Ray,
> I would stress <won> and <ta> in that sentence; never <del>.
> Dan
>
> From: Ray Chubb
> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 10:57 AM
>
>
>
> On 13 Kev 2008, at 19:12, <ajtrim at msn.com> <ajtrim at msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks, Daniel.
>
> I think that explains why unstressed "so" is <del> in the SWF.
> Sooo, it does follow the SWF rules, after all.
>
> Sooo, is it always unstressed?
>
> In the regularly used phrase 'Del won yn ta' it would be stressed.
>
>
> If "so" is stressed, as it is in my two sentences above (and this  
> one too), do we spell it <dell>, or does the vowel become long?
>
> Certainly in English, "so" is often stressed. Of course, Cornish is  
> not English.
>
> What do we do in KS???
> I still think that <dell> would be best for KS.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Andrew  J. Trim
>
>
>
> From: Daniel Prohaska
> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 4:09 PM
> To: 'Standard Cornish discussion list'
> Subject: Re: [Spellyans]del 'leaves' and dèl/dell 'so, as'
>
> It’s <del> and <war> in the SWF because they are unstressed. Just  
> like <gwedhen> is spelt <gwedhen> and not **gwedhenn. The SWF rule  
> is that consonants are not doubled in unstressed syllables. E.g.  
> <rag> is /rag/ when unstressed, but /ra:g/ when in stressed in the  
> sentence, i.e. usually when it’s used as an adverb rather than a  
> preposition.
> Dan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Everson
> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 3:20 PM
>
> "In the SWF and KS we have a rule that in monosyllables a vowel is  
> short before -ll. So the expected form of the word 'so, as' is  
> <dell>, just like <pell> 'long'. We can distinguish <del> 'leaves'  
> and <dèl> 'so, as', but why not <dell>? <Dell> also happens to be  
> the form in KK. Why do we have <del> for 'so, as' in the SWF?
>
> Ray Chubb told me that Albert Bock had argued against <del> (our  
> <dèl>) because it would imply that we ought to write <warr> 'on'. We  
> write <wàr>, but in terms of orthography design I think Albert's  
> view is incorrect. Yes, both *<warr> and <dell> follow the rule and  
> give nice predictable short vowels. But <dell> occurs 152 times in  
> the corpus, so there's certainly no reason to avoid it. True, we  
> don't like <warr> which contrasts with <war> [wæ:r] 'beware'. But in  
> good orthography design we should use the predictable rule whenever  
> possible and mark only exceptions.
>
> I think we should write <dell> and not <dèl> in Kernowek Standard."
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>
> Ray Chubb
>
> Portreth
> Kernow
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

Ray Chubb

Portreth
Kernow




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20081216/95ace0d9/attachment.htm>