[Spellyans] <y Y> + diacritical

A. J. Trim ajtrim at msn.com
Thu Jun 26 00:11:05 IST 2008


Vocalic Alternation is a complication.
If we have it, it needs to be defendable. This will be easier if we get it 
right.
If it's not right, then it's broken, so it should be fixed -- regardless of 
the route by which it came into being.
If we don't repair it now, the KK-ers in 5 years' time will say that VA 
never really worked; let's get rid of it.
If the rule is going to be that some <e> become <y> in monosyllables then it 
must also become <i> in monosyllables -- depending on whether it is long or 
short if that is to be the rule for deciding whether to write <y> or <i>.
Given that the whole thing is optional, in some cases, we might need <ë>, 
<ÿ> and <ï>. This is complicated.
You might want to use a single graph to represent all three, e.g. <ea>.
This would give deadh, deadhyow as the only form. The <ea> would be an 
umbrella for <e>/<y>/<i>, long or short.
We could use <ë> if you must, instead of <ea>, giving dëdh, dëdhyow.


Regards,

Andrew J. Trim



--------------------------------------------------
From: "Michael Everson" <everson at evertype.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:31 PM
To: "Standard Cornish discussion list" <spellyans at kernowek.net>
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] <y Y> + diacritical

> At 20:56 +0100 2008-06-25, Owen Cook wrote:
>
>>><y> is [I] and <i> is [i:] in monosyllables and
>>>their derivatives. Except that the SWF is
>>>incoherent here where bÿs/bës are concerned.
>>
>>Isn't fixing incoherencies part of the point of this whole undertaking?
>
> Yes; the diacritics on bÿs/bës is a way of fixing
> that incoherence. Had it been <beis> there would
> have been no issue with that class of words.
>
>>>Because we can't succeed by "fixing" the SWF by
>>>changing the spelling of bys and dydh to bis
>>>and didh. They elected to preserve the bogus
>>>[I:] here. If we put diaeresis on <dÿdh> and
>>><dëdh> we are treading lightly. If we change
>>>these to <dídh> and <dédh> we have gone too far.
>>
>>When did we decide this? It may be that our
>>final decision about <y> and <i> requires us to
>>change words like these anyway, no?
>
> We do have decisions to make, but I think we have
> to take it as read that the distribution in
> monosyllables is fixed. For instance, dydh ~
> dedhyow is now part of the SWF (as is dedh ~
> dedhyow) in the form of Vocalic Alternation. I
> don't think that we could get away with changing
> this to didh ~ dedhyow since VA is already a
> bitter enough pill the KK users have to swallow.
>
> I think we should be conservative here.
> -- 
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
> 




More information about the Spellyans mailing list