[Spellyans] Problems with SWF
A. J. Trim
ajtrim at msn.com
Wed Jun 25 22:42:14 IST 2008
Nicholas Williams wrote:
"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.
a) You list your objection to no diacritics, twice. I will accept diacritics if used minimally but I would rather not have to use them.
b) I agree with (1). I would prefer genef, myterneth.
c) I agree with (2). I would prefer dew, pew, newl.
d) I agree with some of (3). I would prefer why, chy and ky. I'm not sure about ni. It may be useful to distinguish between the negative particle and "we". Should my/me be mÿ/më and ty/te be tÿ/të? I would also prefer ef "he" instead of ev, even if it has to be an exception to the normal rules.
e) I agree with (4) but I don't want too many <i>, and their use has to be predictable, else spelling will be hellish.
f) I don't yet understand (6). No doubt I shall after it has been discussed. Should mires/meres "look" be mïres/mëres?
g) I could add (7): The status of the traditional graphs must be the same as or stronger than that of the KK graphs.
Andrew J. Trim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans