[Spellyans] <y>, <i>, etc

Eddie Climo eddie_climo at yahoo.co.uk
Fri Jul 25 10:31:44 IST 2008


On 25 Jul 2008, at 09:50, Michael Everson wrote:

> At 08:42 +0000 2008-07-25, Jon Mills wrote:
>> Like Andrew, I too consider YN (preposition) and YN (adverbial
>> particle) to be the same lexeme.
>
> Why does one cause mutation and the other not?

Because the single lexeme <yn> does 2 jobs, and uses the 2 mutation  
states to distinguish them.

However, <yn> is pronounced identically, irrespective of which job  
it's doing. Therefore, it has to be written the same in both cases,  
because to do otherwise would lead us into an absurdity:

Consider the case of UC 'cok'. In dictionaries, this is written both  
<cok> (with no diacrit), and <co_k> with a macron. Now, we can  
distinguish in KS the long-vowel form from the short-vowel one quite  
easily. But according to Nance (1938),the long-vowel form has the  
following 4 distinct meanings, and thus does 4 different jobs:
(1) a cuckoo (fem.)
(2) a fishing-boat (masc,)
(3) a cook (masc.)
(4) empty, vain, worthless (adj.)
If we attempt to distinguish the 2 homophonic forms of 'yn' in KS, we  
should attempt the same with the 4 homophonic forms of <co_k>.

It would be absurd to attempt this with the latter.
Therefore, it would be absurd to attemp it with the former.

In practice, we distinguish the 2 forms of 'yn' by syntactic/semantic  
context, with help from the mutation. And we do precisely the same  
with the 4 forms of 'co_k'.

KS must have 'yn' for both forms of the former, and (?) 'co^k' for  
all forms of the latter.


Eddie Foirbeis Climo
- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -
Dres ethom akennow byner re bons lyeshes
Accenti non multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20080725/df70f525/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list