[Spellyans] Mainly <yn>

nicholas williams 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.

Nicholas

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.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Andrew J. Trim
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20080725/5312498f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list