[Spellyans] Front unrounded vowels, was: The quantity system
njawilliams at gmail.com
Wed Jun 25 20:49:36 BST 2008
Apart from no diacritics, my main objections to SWF are
1. unstressed -ev, -av, -edh, in words like *genev, *warnav,
*myternedh, etc. These are wrong.
2. the ahistorical graph <iw> in diw, piw, niwl.
3. the ahistorical graph i in stressed syllables in ni, chi, whi, ki
'dog', pri, bri.
4. the incoherence in the distribution of <i> and <y> outside
monosyllables. Dan in his dictionary
is bringing some order into this chaos. He now has nyver, lyver and
ryver, for example.
We really need to sort this whole question out.
5. the fact that diacritics are not part of the system
6. the "etymological" spellings in taves 'tongue', mires/meres 'look',
tiek 'farmer' etc.
On 25 Jun 2008, at 20:29, Michael Everson wrote:
> At 21:31 +0300 2008-06-25, Owen Cook wrote:
>>>> If the former, then I imagine we must also keep the main form
>>>> including <hw> and <kw>. We can't get rid of them, they're in the
>>> I don't believe we will get anywhere proscribing them -- evidently
>>> some people feel as strongly about them as we do about traditional
>>> graphs. We can say (perhaps in a note) that KS permits their use,
>>> that we as editors discourage them (and why). And then we won't use
>> Yowzers! Well, if the remit of our current project is that modest,
> It's not. There's a lot to fix.
>> then I suppose we've got to keep the rest of the SWF's
>> all-things-to-all-peopleness. I never thought <hw> would ever be
>> admitted into KS.
> It's not. It's just not being proscribed. Oddly, it's an option some
> people feel strongly about. In the grammar we write, it will get no
> more than a footnote. The same will be said about Main Form/Side
> Form. Options should be options, not this bizarre hierarchy the KK
> representatives imposed.
> Tactically, this is the better way to go. We shouldn't in our own
> grammar forbid <hw> and <kw> because that will just get people's
> backs up. We can say we don't encourage them, and why, and we can
> publish without them. I'm gambling that people will want to read our
> books. And they will get used to Traditional graphs.
>> All right then Michael, let's bury the hatchet on the particular
>> choice of diacritic. As I said before, if umbrella graphs are out,
>> then we presumably need a diacritic for <y>. You argue we'll need
>> the same diacritic for <e>.
> I will.
>> There are more important things for us to be worrying about.
> I reckon so.
>> PS: Privately, I'm also going to start making a list of things that
>> the SWF should have taken a courageous stand on, and failed to.
> Oh, Nicholas and I made a list already, and presented it to the AHG.
> It was pretty much ignored. Don't keep your list private, please.
> This is what we are here for.
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans