[Spellyans] RLC <h> for <gh>

[Michael Everson]

At 10:21 +0000 2008-06-26, Jon Mills wrote:

>I wrote that "each grapheme can be realised by several phones."

Yes.

>  > Or "some graphemes"; it would normally not apply to all of them.
>
>Or really? Which phonemes of English (for 
>example) are never realised by several phones?

Jon, you're being mighty persnickety. Or we aren't understanding each other.

We've got some umbrella graphs. But I said "some 
graphemes" instead of "each grapheme" because I 
am thinking that we do have umbrella graphs for 
different phonemes, like <eu> for /ø/~/e/.

>  > Minimal contrast is not the only way of establishing them;
>
>How else do you intend to determine the phonemes of Cornish?

At what level of abstraction are you talking? We 
have Revived Cornish and some pretty good 
recommended pronunciations that are actually 
feasible. What are you getting at? Starting from 
scratch and trying to reconstruct? Or?

>  > and we do
>  > have two dialects of Revived Cornish already, and we know quite a lot
>  > about both of them and about the influence of English on them.
>
>I am not talking about dialectal variation.

I don't know what you are talking about.

>My post was not intended to be an attack. I am 
>merely trying to point out what I consider to be 
>an important weakness in the underlying theory.

Please be plain about it, then, because I don't 
know what you're on about. Our brief when we 
devised KS was to devise an orthography that 
could handle the dialects of Revived Cornish in a 
practical way while remaining true to traditional 
graphs (modulo <dh> of course; we're talking 
about not supporting George's adventitious 
graphs). Our brief now is to take what they've 
done with KS in turning it into the SWF and to 
put right what has been put wrong.

How does this relate to what you are talking 
about in terms of "underlying theory"? Is it 
related, or is it tangental and related to 
something else?
-- 
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com