[Spellyans] kal revisited

Craig Weatherhill weatherhill at freenet.co.uk
Mon Jan 5 18:25:54 GMT 2009


Well, here's one that will continue to spell the word: cal.  Let it be  
an anomalous spelling - the language will need a few.  I'm uneasy with  
making the orthography overly phonetic/phonemic because we'll only  
find ourselves back in the old trap of regulating it so tightly that  
it strangles the life and soul from the language.

I am beginning to wonder if we might not be going too far with KS.   
For me, Revision 15 was the ideal.  Others might not agree.

I think the Col- of Colvennor, etc. results from the vowel (being  
unstressed in the place-name) reducing to schwa, to the point of  
virtually disappearing.

Craig


On 5 Gen 2009, at 18:05, Michael Everson wrote:

> On 5 Jan 2009, at 16:16, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
>
>> That would suggest [kæ:l].
>
> So? It's just another member of the list of anomalous vowel lengths  
> that the SWF doesn't mark.
>
>> I want [kæl] or possible (on Craig’s place name evidence) [kɒl].
>
> <al> is already [ɒ:l] and if you wanted [kɒl] I think you'd have to  
> write <koll>. Where do you get that vowel from Craig's place-name  
> evidence, however?
>
> We have rules about a before l and r in KS which so far as I know  
> are reflected in the SWF (needs checking). To get [kæl] I think only  
> <càl> would actually do it.
>
> In the short term, Dan, the SWF will give you <calgh> and <cal'>. I  
> think innovation on your part to <call> would be going too far.
>
> 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