[Spellyans] reDistribution of <i> and <y>
A. J. Trim
ajtrim at msn.com
Fri Jul 25 00:09:05 IST 2008
I agree with Owen.
The <mis>,<res>,<bys>,<bÿs>/<bës> solution has long been the best solution;
Dan's suggestion (as modified by Owen) has changed that.
Now the <mis>,<res>,<bìs>,<bys>/<bës> solution appears to be better, and
needs to be investigated properly.
The example comparative texts really illustrated the point. We should use
more of these examples in future but preferably a little longer.
That way, non linguists, like me, can really see what the effects are of
what is being proposed.
1) The words with <i> for <y> are mostly attested in the traditional
2) <i> would only be <ì> in a few non-conforming words, so this would not
add many diacritics overall.
3) <ÿ> becomes unnecessary. The number of diacritical marks is thereby
significantly reduced in RMC.
4) The mark does not need to be a dieresis anymore. RLC users could now
write <é> where it is from Middle Cornish <y>. At least for PC users, the
acute accent is easier to type than the dieresis. We could not use the
acute accent with <y> but that restriction has gone now. If the mark is
easier to type it is less likely to be dropped altogether, and less likely
to be challenged.
5) I therefore propose the<mis>,<res>,<bìs>,<bys>/<bés> solution.
6) This does not really overturn the SWF. It just helps to fix it in the
best way possible.
7) Two diacritics will have been added to the current SWF, and one letter
will have been changed. One of the two diacritics <ì> will appear on a few
words only. The list of these words may be short enough to learn if people
don't want to mark them. The other diacritic <é> will appear only in the
minority dialect for which diacritics have already been accepted in their
8) These are minor adjustments compared with the other changes being
proposed that affect "word shape" and which are at odds with the current
9) Only stressed vowels are affected.
Andrew J. Trim
From: "Owen Cook" <owen.e.cook at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:48 PM
To: "Standard Cornish discussion list" <spellyans at kernowek.net>
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] reDistribution of <i> and <y>
> 2008/7/24 Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com> rug scrifa:
>> 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
> He proposed two things. I've already said I agree with you that his
> proposal vis-à-vis unstressed syllables would not be workable or
> desirable. But in stressed syllables, he proposes (if I understand him
> right) to allow <i> to be either short or long. This means any <y> in
> closed syllables will itself signal an alternation with RLC <e>. Hence
> splitting by 50% the need and usefulness of the diaeresis.
>> On top of that he wants to use <y> now as an
>> umbrella graph for RMC /i/ and RLC /e/
> Stop it, Michael. This is utter nonsense. Look at his email. There is
> absolutely no proposal of getting rid of RLC <e>. His proposal is
> exactly NOT to use <y> (long or short) as an umbrella graph, but to
> use it in RMC only where RLC still has <e> (long or short). Repeat:
> still has <e>.
>> 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.
> On this, we are in perfect accord.
>> I'll say it again: we fought for and won the
>> <bys>~<bes> distiction.
> And I'll say it again: Dan's proposal does not touch the <bys>~<bes>
> distinction. Indeed, it extends it to those words in which there is /I
> ~ E/ alternation (I've found about half a dozen).
>> Right now we are chasing our tails and failing to
>> come to consensus.
> Look, we're not going to come to consensus if alternate proposals
> aren't given an airing. Only after people have satisfied themselves
> that the alternatives are unsatisfactory, can there be consensus. A
> hasty dismissal, such as Dan perceived (rightly or wrongly) in your
> response to his email, will only get people's backs up.
>> 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,
> I really think you're overreacting. A complete overturning of
> everything? Come on -- how often does MC /I/ remain /I/ in Late
> Cornish? I can find about a dozen such monosyllabic words of Cornish
> origin, and about an equal number of English borrowings normally spelt
> with <i> anyway in modern English. Truth is, there just aren't that
> many words like 'gwidn'.
>> 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.
> Certainly, but as you've admitted yourself, Michael, there are a lot
> of words that have /e: ~ i:/ alternation (I count 19 items with <ei>
> in the KS 16 document). If we follow your proposal, all of these words
> need diaereses. How many words have anomalous short /I/ that remains
> stable in Late Cornish? Maybe half a dozen, tops.
>> 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.
> Yes, and I guarantee you, if we fix them in a systematic fashion,
> these will affect a good deal more than my two-dozen words. Consider
> it. This isn't a totally bad idea. (And it does serve one thing on
> KS's to-do list -- mildly, and systematically, increasing the
> occurrence of <i> with respect to <y> to satisfy RLC users' aesthetic
> Agas gwas euvel,
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans