[Spellyans] RLC <h> for <gh>

[Owen Cook]

I agree with Nicholas and Michael here. If a Late Cornish user can
look at a Middle Cornish spelling and immediately know exactly how it
must be pronounced in Late Cornish, then let's not mess with it. For
instance, I won't be writing por'h and for' very much, because I know
that's how porth and fordh should be pronounced most of the time. The
apostrophe does nothing but satisfy the curiosity of those ignorant of
Late Cornish pronunciation. By the same principle, <gh> for LC 'h'
works fine for me.

(The same is not true, by the way, of 'eth, because we ONLY have
'eyth' attested in the texts. In my opinion conscientious Cornish
users should write 'eth passim.)

Oll an gwelha,
~~Owen

2008/6/25 nicholas williams <njawilliams at gmail.com>:
> If you write dhywgh 'to you', to be consistent you will have to change the
> spelling of the 2nd plural desinence
> in all prepositional pronouns and in all verbs as well. What a massive
> change that would be!
> kerowgh < kerowh, owgh > owh, bedhewgh > bedhewh, kewgh > kewh, gyllowgh >
> gyllowh, may hallowgh > may hallowh.
> And for what purpose? The endings ough/owgh/ogh/ugh are virtually universal
> in the texts. The wgh endings are common in CW
> and Borde has drewgh eyo hag amanyn de vi.  Is it sensible to add a further
> difference between the revived language and the foundation texts? And
> between registers?
> Besides the theoretical basis of the change is highly questionable. One can
> easily write bogh and say bo:h. It would be
> harder to get bo:x from <boh>.
> Do you really want to write ogh! as <oh>? People will just say [o:] or [@w].
> Not a good idea, in my view.
> Nicholas