[Spellyans] <y>, <i>, etc
eddie_climo at yahoo.co.uk
Fri Jul 25 15:30:42 IST 2008
On 25 Jul 2008, at 14:25, Michael Everson wrote:
> Nicholas has told me that the lack of distinction in spelling in
> Irish between "ag" and "aig" causes constant error among students.
Yet, the revised orthography in Scots Gaelic has gone is just that
(1) eliminating the actute accent, and leaving only the grave. Some
pairs were previously only distinguished in writing by each having a
different accent to the other. Now, they're written identically.
(2) eliminating some of the apostrophes. For example, the previous pair
gun = without
gu'n = to the
are now both written <gun>.
While some older users won't accept these changes, seemingly it's
what's taught in schools today, and it's hard to imagine it causing
much confusion amongst learners (although perhaps 'An Ken ken' might
like to comment).
> To respond to Eddie here: this distinction *can* be easily made, and
> logically, and without causing any trouble to the system. It can only
> assist learners.
I don't contest that the distinction 'can be easily made'; it's as
easy as saying 'let it be so!'. But I dispute your other assertions:
that it would be logical, would cause no trouble to the system, would
assist learners, and should be done.
To be consistent, if we were to distinguish between <*in> and <yn 5>
on the basis of function, then logically we should do the same with
the other high-frequency function words I listed. We *cannot* do it
with the other words, therefore we should not do it with <*in/yn>.
> I don't see anything "wrong" with this . . .
Such arbitrary inconsistency would confuse learners, it would attract
criticism from more advanced users, and it's not necessary. That is
what is wrong with it.
> . . . and [I] don't see your examples (such as "ow") give cause
> enough to spell the adverbial
> particle <in> along with the preposition.
No, Micheal, the burden of proof is on you, in proposing a new
distinction not seen (afaik) anywhere in either historical or revived
Cornish. If you want to change the status quo (for this one word
only), you must prove why this one should change, while all the
others I cited should stay unchanged.
The fact that you 'don't see' it is clear, but, with respect, not
Eddie Foirbeis Climo
- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -
Dres ethom akennow byner re bons lyeshes
Accenti non multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans