[Spellyans] Mainly <yn>
njawilliams at gmail.com
Fri Jul 25 20:57:57 IST 2008
But too can be stressed and to can't. They are the same in origin, but
not any longer.
On 25 Jul 2008, at 15:28, A. J. Trim wrote:
> Michael Everson wrote:
> I disagree. It seems to me that the preposition which does not mutate
> has developed into an adverbial particle which mutates. Minimal pairs
> might not be easy to find, but "in gwydn" might be 'in white' ("she
> was dressed in white") and "yn whydn" might be 'whitely' -- not to
> use the "in gwir"/"yn whir" example, though distinguishing the two
> might help to stamp out the latter error, because in the phrase "in
> gwir" the first element is known to be the preposition which does not
> mutate, not the adverbial particle which does.
> And I think distinguishing the two in an orthography is a useful aid
> to learners, regardless of whether the distinction was made in
> spelling the particle in traditional Cornish.
> In English, we have “to” and “too”. These have differing functions
> in sentences. The spelling distinction however is only a hindrance
> to learners. We would have been better off if we had just the one
> spelling for both.
> Andrew J. Trim
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans