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

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Wed Jul 23 13:43:05 IST 2008

Thanks everybody for the feedback. My desire for writing <i> rather than <y>
where both RMC and RLC have /i/ is a) to make a text easily convertible, and
b) to reduce the instances of <y> in SWF/L (Standard Written Form/Late), as
the RLC speakers consider <y> to be too “Middle Cornish” a feature, no doubt
because of its frequency in Nance’s UC.


So, Nicholas, just to get this right, you would write <y> in unstressed
syllables, i.e. SWF <bryntyn, brentyn> and SWF <kegyn, kegen>? 


I never liked the KK system of writing <i> in final unstressed position (or
anywhere else word-finally for that matter). 


What would you do in stressed position. It is quite clear where the vowel is
long, as in the <bys/bes>-words v. the <tir>-words. But where it’s short, I
would like to write <i> where RLC also has /i/ rather than /e/ and only
spell them <y> where RMC has /i/ and RLC has /e/. A text is easily
convertible to the <e>-spellings, which is allowed already. 




From: nicholas williams
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 12:17 PM

In unstressed syllables there is no difference in pronunciation between,
say, -in in kegyn and -yn in brentyn. Even KK (which spells
"etymologically") admits that unstressed i and y are not to be
distinguished. Moreover the texts always spell MC <brentyn>, <bryntyn>.
There are no exx of *<brentin>. The name for "Constantine" is common in BM,
where it is spelt <Costentyn> at least 20 times. It never has final <-in>.
The only time the name has <in> is in the Latin form <Constantinus> in stage
directions.  To attempt to distinguish kegyn from *brentin, *Costentin in
spelling is not wise. It will make learning the orthography much harder and
with no phonetic gain. It will merely look like an attempt to salvage a
feature of KK, which was misguided in the first place. The SWF should write
kegyn, Costentyn, brentyn, melyn, gyllyn, etc.

Notice incidentally, that following KK the SWF at the moment writes gyllyn,
gyllys, gyllyns but gylli! 




On 23 Jul 2008, at 08:40, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

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:/.



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/;





-----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


Spellyans mailing list
Spellyans at kernowek.net


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20080723/f7463d3c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list