everson at evertype.com
Tue Jul 1 12:20:07 IST 2008
At 11:36 +0100 2008-07-01, nicholas williams wrote:
>incressya/yncressya is not attested. That seems to me like good reason.
I do not believe that this is a good enough reason. We have been over
this MANY times! We do not write words only as they appeared. We take
our graphs from authentic sources, but for any given word we are not
bound to specific attested examples in order for it to avail of a
normalized spelling in our orthography.
If the "in-" in "increase" is related to the "in-" in other
borrowings, and we use "in-" for those words, we ought to be
consistent. Now, in English we have "in-" words and "en-" words
(encroach, entomb); I have nothing a priori against "encressya". But
I want us to know why we choose whichever we choose, because (1) we
need to be able to explain it to learners, and (2) we need to have
principles for eventual borrowings in future.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
More information about the Spellyans