[Spellyans] redistribution of <i> and <y>

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Wed Jul 23 08:40:39 IST 2008


I would like to hear everyone’s opinions on the following idea for
redistributing <y> and <i> in the SWF. I would write <i> where bother Late
and Middle Cornish have /i/ and /i:/, and write <y> ~ <e> (in dictionaries
<ÿ> ~ <ë>) where Middle Cornish has /I/ and /I:/, but Late Cornish has /e/
and /e:/. 

 

Examples:

SWF <brentin>; RMC /”brentin/, RLC /”brentin/;

SWF <kegyn>; RMC /”kegin/, RLC /”keg at n/; 

SWF <tir>; RMC /ti:r/, RLC /ti:r/;

SWF <bys> ~ <bes>; RMC */bI:z/ = [bi:z] ~ [bIz] ~ [beIz] etc., RLC /be:z/; 

 

Dan

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Everson
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:31 PM



At 21:46 +0100 2008-07-20, Craig Weatherhill wrote:

>Good question - if <y> is a short i and <i> a long one, then this makes

>no sense at all.

 

“That is the SWF (and KS) rule for monosyllables. In KS we are making an
attempt to rationalize (and make teachable) the distribution of <i> and <y>.

 

Nicholas and I tried many times to have this distribution dealt with 

during the AHG meetings when we were asked our advice. Our concerns 

were not addressed. Not even acknowledged.

-- 

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com”

 

_______________________________________________

Spellyans mailing list

Spellyans at kernowek.net

http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20080723/06105a3e/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list