everson at evertype.com
Tue Jul 1 08:26:08 IST 2008
At 23:36 +0100 2008-06-30, A. J. Trim wrote:
>Yes, I think you have it about right in KS,
>regarding <i> and <y>, though I'm still not sure
>about bÿs/bës words.
I don't know what you are unsure about.
>Why are despit and constrin quoted as
>exceptions? Surely, these have stressed <i> =
>[i:], and so are regular.
They are not monosyllables.
>I would also expect [I@] and [i:@] to be <ia>
>(e.g. fia "to flee"), and [ja] to be <ya>(e.g.
>redya "to read") and I would expect final <-y>,
>e.g. tyby "to suppose", chy "house".
>Initial <i> would be OK but there are exceptions
>(e.g. yw "is", y "his", yma/ymons, ytho).
>These will need to be in a very short list else
>they will need to be predictable -- "function"
>word is too vague a term.
We provide an exhaustive list. It isn't all that long.
>What happens when a word starts with <gy-> or
><gi-> under soft mutation? Does it become <y->
>or <i-> respectively, or do they all become <i->?
The root vowel is preserved.
>How do we know whether yn gwir is "truly" (with
>missing mutation) or in gwir "in truth", and
>does "in truth" mean "truly" anyway?
Because the particle we spell in KS as <yn>
mutates and the preposition <in> does not.
>I can live with it, if that is what you want to
>do, but I think that I would prefer not to have
>this initial <i> rule. It appears to be cosmetic
>only and without function.
Nance used initial <y> only.
George took that as his base and changed some
words to initial <i> on the basis of his theories
Gendall (I think) uses initial <i> only.
In KS Nancians will find plenty of <y> in KS.
More than many Gendallians might prefer, but the
reasons for them are coherent. There's no real
argument against initial <i> from the Nancian
point of view. Please see
for a discussion and a list of words (all the
words in George's dictionaries).
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
More information about the Spellyans