[Spellyans] reDistribution of <i> and <y>
weatherhill at freenet.co.uk
Thu Jul 24 18:56:17 IST 2008
As I understand it, consideration of <au> did not take place within the
AHG discussions and was, indeed, an oversight. The substitution of <o>
for <au> was done outside of any discussion group, nor (and I believe
I'm right in saying this) was it the subject of any ruling by Trond.
Therefore, I would contend that <o> for <au> is not an agreed item of
I certainly need to restore <au> in my recommendations regarding
place-names. I realise that place-names lie outside the scope of the
SWF (and thank God for that) but I felt that I could produce
recommendations which both respected the historical integrity of each
name, and brought close to SWF orthography (traditional graph SWF, that
is - main form graphs would remove the place-names too far from their
history). I have tried to keep departures from the SWF to an absolute
minimum but the inclusion of <au> will certainly be one of them. For
historical reasons, I cannot possibly recommend Monan, and Lanvosa for
Mawnan and St Mawes. In fact, when I look at the historical record for
each <au> toponym, I find that Pluvogan (1523, for Mawgan-in-Meneage) is
the only example of <o> for this vowel.
Michael Everson wrote:
> At 19:20 +0300 2008-07-24, Owen Cook wrote:
>> > Except that then you aren't even attempting to engage with the SWF.
>> Neither are you when you substitute <au> for short <o>
> That corrects an oversight and affects a dozen words.
>> ... and <th, f> for final <dh, v> in unstressed syllables ...
> That corrects pronunciation errors in the SWf.
>> and <y> for unstressed <i>.
> There's no rationale for the unstressed <i> but
> that "George had it that way". His own
> etymologies are questionable
>> Sheesh. Are we trying to fix a mistaken and incoherent system here, or not?
> Yes, but what's this about
>> Dan's proposal makes sense, at least vis-à-vis
>> stressed syllables, and is a bit more
>> streamlined than what we've been working with. I
>> don't think it can be dismissed without a
> Eh? Dan did not propose to change <tir> and
> <bÿs>~<bës> in stressed syllables. He proposed to
> extend the <bÿs>~<bës> analogy to unstressed
> vowels and I don't think that can be done without
> hugely multiplying the number of diaereses
> On top of that he wants to use <y> now as an
> umbrella graph for RMC /i/ and RLC /e/ -- which I
> won't accept any more than I did when the authors
> of the SWF suggested that the <bÿs>~<bës> words
> could all be spelt <bys>. That is why we HAVE the
> <bÿs>~<bës> alternation now. In KS 15 we proposed
> that all these words be written <bes>. We learned
> that the KKers wouldn't accept that. We proposed
> <beis>, a darn good solution. The KKers in the
> AHG would accept that and got the first draft of
> the SWF to use <bys> only. We pushed back and we
> WON <bys>~<bes>. Now because there are crashes
> there with <bys> [biz] and <res> [re:z] we have a
> problem. We use the diaeresis, and behold! The
> problem is gone.
> I really don't want to go back to the drawing
> board AGAIN to try to second-guess what might
> satisfy the KKers by trying over and over to make
> a system with the constraint "don't use
> diacritics". I think that's preposterous. I think
> it insults all of Europe, never mind the Irish
> and Scots and IN POINT OF FACT all of the ***RLC
> users*** who have been happily using diacritical
> marks IN CORNISH for years.
>> Actually, I think it might tread even more
>> lightly on the SWF than does the diaeresis
>> solution. The words that have consistent /I/ in
>> both Late and Middle Cornish are admittedly
>> numerous, but they mostly tend to be
>> lower-frequency items than those in the
>> alternating /i: ~ e:/ set (gryll, myrr, pyt).
>> And trimming the number of diacritics without
>> adding ambiguity to the system is a further
> I'll say it again: we fought for and won the
> <bys>~<bes> distiction. If we use diaereses on
> these, we are within the system. EVEN IF THE SWF
> doesn't say we can use diacritics, Ben and Albert
> and Trond knew perfectly well that this was a
> solution for us to what they were putting
> together -- and they said so explicitly to me and
> Dan and Nicholas in an online conference.
> Right now we are chasing our tails and failing to
> come to consensus. Owen, we cannot throw out the
> whole thing and go to spell gwinn/gwidn when the
> SWF offers us gwynn/gwydn for this. This is a
> complete overturning of EVERYTHING. You're
> putting me back to Square One, and the
> orthography won't be even remotely compatible
> with what kids might be learning if they learn
> SWF. Those kids will learn <kyst> 'box' and
> <Crist> 'Christ". If I understand what Owen has
> written, he'll propose to change the first to
> <kìst>. That just shifts the "diacritic problem"
> to another place.
> ****ALL WE NEED TO DO**** is to use diacritical
> marks judiciously to mark anomalous vowel
> quantity and anomalous vowel quality as presented
> in the SWF. If we do that then the word-shapes
> for a great many words kids might learn in the
> SWF will be JUST THE SAME except with some
> decoration that makes pronunciation easier and
> Yes, we have other deltas from the SWF, like
> final unstressed -f and -th. Those are word-shape
> deltas. So are the dozen <au> and dozen <ai>
> words. The remaining deltas have to do with <i>
> and <y> in polysyllabic loanwords, and then with
> a certain number of other "etymological"
> spellings "inherited" from KK. These should be
> reviewed in a systematic fashion. I discussed
> with Nicholas whether or instance the nouns could
> be examined in terms of declension classes.
More information about the Spellyans