weatherhill at freenet.co.uk
Mon Dec 14 16:04:37 GMT 2009
The danger, as I see it, Michael, is to apply rules too rigidly to the
language (which was one of my major objections to KK - not that there
is any comparison, let me add. From my viewpoint, KK deprived the
language of life and character: to use Peter Pool's description,
robotic). We mustn't fall into the same trap. A few foibles and
irregularities allow a language to breathe; to have vibrancy and
life. Don't misunderstand me - KS hasn't got to anywhere near that
stage. Basically, it's great (although I have one or two small
misgivings) but we must be careful to ensure that we don;t go down the
On 14 Kev 2009, at 15:53, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
> Just took a quick look and I found 4 attestations, 2 each in TH and
> CW – interesting:encressyens, encresshys (TH) and incressya,
> incresshys (CW). I give both pronunciations in my dictionary:
> [ɛN”krɛsj at ns] ~ [ɛN”krɛS at ns].
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Everson
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 4:40 PM
> On 14 Dec 2009, at 15:17, Craig Weatherhill wrote:
> > It's also a question of whether we are in danger of taking things
> > too far, which is a concern of mine.
> “Taking *what* too far, Craig?
> We have a rule. -ssya is [sjə], as in passya, encressya.”
> CW also has vb.adj. passhes, so we may have palatalisation.
> “We have a rule, -ssy- in other positions is [ʃ], as in passyon,
> TH has possessyon, so we may have [pO”sEsj at n] or [pO”sES at n], no
> [z] as in English - perhaps?
> “Since -ssy- has more than one reading, we need to have rules for
> the distribution. So we need to know what -ssyans will stand for. It
> looks to me like it will be [sjəns].
> But there's nothing "dangerous" about asking such questions. KS is
> meant to be precise, as precise as we can make it.”
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans