[Spellyans] -ita

nicholas williams njawilliams at gmail.com
Tue Jul 1 09:53:25 IST 2008


I prefer encressya to incressya. <encressya> forms occur twice,  
<incressya> twice. *yncressya appears to be unattested.
cressya is much commoner than either:  x 9.

Nicholas


On 1 Jul 2008, at 08:16, Michael Everson wrote:

> At 01:19 +0100 2008-07-01, A. J. Trim wrote:
>
>>> (1) Initially <i> is [I]; initial [i:] would be
>>> written <î> (modulo <ÿs/ës>). This rule
>>> increases the visibility of the letter <i>
>>> considerably -- a concern many RLC users have
>>> expressed to us.
>>
>> Rule (1) is crazy for Middle Cornish folk.
>
> I beg to differ. Initial <i> is common in the
> texts. So is initial <y>. You may have a
> preference for <y> in general if you learnt
> Unified Cornish, because Nance didn't use <i> at
> all.
>
>> Best to use <y-> for initial [I] and <i-> for initial [i:].
>
> In the first place there aren't all that many
> words with either, though some of them are fairly
> high-frequency words.
>
>> RLC folk could use <i> instead of <y>, throughout the system, if  
>> they want to.
>
> Do you suggest that all of these words could have
> two different spellings? There's no advantage to
> that.
>
>> They would then need to mark long <i> with a diacritical mark,  
>> perhaps a
>> circumflex, thus <î>.
>
> Frankly the RLC folk have a lot to adjust to in
> the SWF and one of the reasons has to do with the
> distribution of <i> and <y>. For whatever reason,
> a number of them feel that "y is medieval" and "i
> is modern". That's not a very sophisticated view
> (and neither is your view that "initial i is
> crazy for Middle Cornish folk) but it *is*
> something we can address, and something we
> *should* address.
>
> Initial [i:} is not common at all, so it would be
> marked <î> if it occurs. Initial [I] is rather
> common, so initial <i> wouldn't be ambiguous. And
> some of the function words which use what we
> propose to keep initial <y> for have [@] rather
> than [I]. Moreover, distinguishing the
> preposition <in> which does not mutate the
> following word from the particle <yn> which does
> mutate the following word makes the orthography
> much more user-friendly for learners and teachers
> alike.
>
>>> (2) In monosyllables and their derivatives <i>
>>> is [i:] and <y> is [I] (modulo <bÿs>/<bës>.
>>> When unstressed, these <i> letters are
>>> shortened to [I].
>>
>> Rule (2) is OK (but see (3) below.) Not sure
>> about bÿs/bës yet. See Note below.
>
> <bÿs>/<bës> solves a fundamental problem that is
> otherwise insoluble given the option <bys>/<bes>
> in the SWF.
>
>>> (3) In polysyllables not derived from
>>> monosyllables, the sound is almost invariably
>>> [I]. In final unstressed position, <y> will be
>>> [I]~[@] and <i> will indiate that the vowel is
>>> [i:] and that the syllable is stressed
>>> (crodo'dil, pl. croco'dilys; con'strin, ppl
>>> con'strinys). Elsewhere in medial position <y>
>>> will be used since the vowel is almost always
>>> [I]; in those rarer instances where the vowel
>>> is [i:], it can be marked with the circumflex
>>> <î> (bîbel (if not beybel) sîra, personal
>>> names).
>>
>> Rule (3) is OK for Middle Cornish folk.
>> However, it would not be necessary to mark the <i> in words like  
>> Bibel and
>> sira, as the <i> is already regularly long [i:].
>
> Yes, it would, I think, because <i> is not
> regularly long [i:] in polysyllables because of
> Rule (2).
>
>> Marking is only thought to be necessary because
>> you want to say that the <i> in words like
>> tiryow (from tir) and gwiryoneth (from gwir) are
>> short.
>
> That's correct.
>
>> I would rather write these tyryow and gwyryoneth but, either way, I  
>> believe
>> that any confusion would be minimal.
>
> If you learned UC or UCR, you're already writing
> <tyr> and <tyryow> and you've learnt to pronounce
> one long and one short. So changing this to <tir>
> and <tiryow> doesn't affect that: the rule,
> "shorten [i:] to [I] in polysyllables" holds
> either way.
>
>> RLC folk would need to mark these, e.g. Bîbel and sîra if they were  
>> using
>> <i> in place of <y> [I].
>
> Well, we're not going to make <i> and <y>
> orthographic options in initial or medial
> position. That would solve nothing.
>
>> Note: Many people have problems, or mental blocks/bloody- 
>> mindedness, with
>> diacritical marks.
>
> Too bad. That's just plain too bad.
>
> The phonology of Revived Cornish (with its two
> dialects complicating things) simply can't be
> represented in a coherent yet authentic
> orthography that doesn't use diacritical marks.
> If people don't want to write a mature and robust
> orthography, they can write UC, or UCR, or RLC,
> or SWF. (I can't bring myself to recommend KK.)
>
> The Irish, Welsh, Scottish Gaels, and Bretons all
> manage with diacritical marks (though the Welsh
> are disadvantaged by character set issues). Never
> mind the French, the Germans, the Danes, the
> Estonians, the Luxemburgers and the Maltese.
>
> People are smart, and children will never have
> problems with KS's few diacritics.
>
>> Words like bÿs/bës would inevitably be written
>> bys/bes much of the time (as they are in the
>> current SWF).
>
> Would they? I'm going to publish books using
> them. I expect some of these might be popular.
> We're going to use them in our teaching grammars,
> and we will teach that the marks are important and
>
>> However, the <y> is long so they should be
>> bïs/bës. That way, when the mark is left off we
>> get bis/bes which is better.
>
> No, it isn't. It just shifts ambiguity from the
> <res>-'necessary'-words to the
> <mis>-'month'-words.
>
>> For RLC folk, bis would be a definite error as
>> for them the <i> would be short (assuming rule
>> (1) above.)  I don't know but I would expect RLC
>> folk to use only the <ë> form.
>
> In KS, in monosyllables, <i> is [i:], <y> is [I],
> <ÿ> is [i:] or [e:], and <ë> is [i:] or [e:]. We
> grasped this nettle: <ÿ> is a different letter
> from <y>. The diacritic can't be "left off" if
> the orthography is to be coherent.
>
> Sorry if I seem impatient. I don't mean to.
> -- 
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net





More information about the Spellyans mailing list