[Spellyans] <kk> and <ck>

[ajtrim at msn.com]

For what it's worth, here is my attempt:

In either Main Form or Traditional Form, we should have a double consonant 
only where the SWF rules say one should be, i.e. at the end of a closed 
syllable that is both stressed and where the vowel is short.

In the Main Form, the first consonant should be <k>. The second one should 
be <k> unless it is pronounced [s] being before an <e, i, or y>, when it 
should be <c>. But if it is pronounced [k] regardless, it should be <k>.

In the Traditional Form, the first consonant should be <c>. The second one 
should be <k> unless it is pronounced [s] being before an <e, i, or y>, when 
it should be <c>. But if it is pronounced [k] regardless, it should be <k>.
However, it should also be <k> in word-final position, and should be <c> 
before an <a, o, u, l, or r>.

I note however that UCR, at least, has <trenkles> for "rhubarb", and this 
fails the above rules.
So I think that we need at least one further rule to wrap this up.
Perhaps it should be <k> between two consonants.

We also need a rule for when <ks> or <cs> becomes <x>.
 I don't think that it will be always.
Similarly for <kw> or <cw> becoming <qw>, and whether or not <qu> should be 
regarded as an error.

For KS, you may want different rules regarding stress!

We also need a rule for <ch> in "technical" terms that are pronounced <k>.
We have words like "technical" and others like "tectonic".
I think that UCR had it about right.


Regards,

Andrew J. Trim



--------------------------------------------------
From: "Michael Everson" <everson at evertype.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 12:09 AM
To: "Standard Cornish discussion list" <spellyans at kernowek.net>
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] <kk> and <ck>

> On 17 Dec 2008, at 22:43, Thomas Leigh wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:41 AM, nicholas williams 
>> <njawilliams at gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>> Do the members of the AHG really know which words are loanwords and 
>> which not?
>>
>> Also, at what point does a loanword become a native word in the  minds of 
>> a language's speakers?
>
> When it violates Ken George's ideas of "English borrowings for which 
> there are perfectly good Cornish alternatives". For my part I trust 
> Tregear's choices more than I trust George's.
>
>> For example, when did the words "native" and "language" in my  previous 
>> sentence stop being French loanwords, and start being  English words? How 
>> can one tell?
>
> One can observe in the texts when "native" replaced "homely" and 
> "language" "tongue", but one can only guess about speakers. Except  that 
> we do know in extreme bilingualism speakers will always use the  word 
> closest to the tip of the tongue.
>
>> All in all Hodge's suggestion was bizarre. Even more remarkably it  was 
>> accepted.
>
> I suspect they were tired, and no one was there to say "hold on, now, 
> this is going to suck for students, you don't want it."
>
> If only we'd called their bluff.
>
>> I have to agree. I could understand them choosing <kk> for the  "main" 
>> form — following KK usage — and <ck> for the "traditional"  form, but to 
>> impose both spellings on both orthographic varieties on  the basis of 
>> etymology is just, well, bizarre, as you said. I too  find it amazing 
>> that the AHG voted to accept it!
>
> I've been doing other things this evening but will forward my 
> recommendations in the morning.
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>