njawilliams at gmail.com
Mon Jun 30 18:16:54 IST 2008
-yte, -yta is much more common than -ite. -ita is unattested outside
On 30 Jun 2008, at 15:40, Owen Cook wrote:
> I agree that we should be consistent about these items. Which is more
> common in the texts, <yta> or <ita>? <ita> looks better to me on
> etymological grounds. And <i> is always short anyway if unstressed
> and/or in syllables earlier than the penultima...
> 2008/6/30 nicholas williams <njawilliams at gmail.com>:
>> KK is incoherent in its spelling of words in -ita/-yta < Latin -
>> It writes <trynyta> 'trinity', <cheryta> 'charity', <dynyta>
>> 'dignity' with
>> <-yta> but
>> <kontroversita> 'controversy', <antikwita> 'antiquity' and <awtorita>
>> 'authority' with <-ita>.
>> The SWF (as exemplified in Dan's dictionary) renders the ending as
>> I wonder whether this is wise. The vowel in -yta is invariably
>> short. I
>> should prefer to write
>> trynyta, cheryta, dynyta, controversyta, antyqwyta, auctoryta, etc.
>> Otherwise we might have the following:
>> akwyt a! 'pay him!'
>> kwyt a! 'leave him!'
>> antikwita 'antiquity'
>> dibita 'pitiless'
>> all with [It@] but written differently. This isn't very helpful for
>> learners—many of whom (understandably)
>> found the distribution of y and i baffling in KK.
>> And it is not just learners who were befuddled by <i ~ y> in KK.
>> The editor
>> of the KK New Testament in his introduction describes his team of
>> translators as 'experienced Cornish linguists'. They wrote in KK
>> and yet
>> they, 'experienced' as they were, could frequently not decide
>> whether to
>> write <i> or <y>.
>> In An Testament Nowydh we find <Symeon> Luke 2.25 but <Simeon> Acts
>> <Sylvanus> 2 Cor. 1:19 but <Silvanus> 1 Peter 5:12; <Sidon> Matt
>> 11:21 but
>> <Sydon> Mark 3:8.
>> Should we not be looking for a simple and coherent distribution of
>> these two
>> graphs <i> and <y>?
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans