[Spellyans] SWF questionable wordforms
everson at evertype.com
Thu Sep 11 10:35:47 IST 2008
On 11 Sep 2008, at 10:00, Jon Mills wrote:
> I agree that it isn't 1904. However a criticism frequently levelled
> against revived Cornish orthographies is that the prescribed forms
> lack legitimacy because they are unattested.
In orthography design one does NOT simply take any form that happens
to be written down. It's a normalization based on the principles
agreed for spelling. Lhuyd's <Kernûak> and <Kernowek> are not
incompatible; Cornowek isn't "better": the Kern- is well attested even
while Corn- may also be. <û> and <ow> are a matched set. <-ek> is
productive and well-attested in itself.
> Are we reviving the Cornish language or creating a conlang? Attested
> forms should not be ignored be cause they are inconvenient or at
> odds with 20th century practice.
I don't think that we're "ignoring" attested forms.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans