[Spellyans] 'up, upwards'

Craig Weatherhill craig at agantavas.org
Fri Jan 23 23:18:54 GMT 2009


Although I run the risk of ruffling feathers, I do wonder if we are  
not drifting off track with some of the items being discussed here.   
Surely, the idea was to concentrate upon addressing the faults  
recognised within SWF.  I don't understand where the yn/in question  
comes into this.  Are we, in fact, in danger of going a little too far?

Craig


On 23 Gen 2009, at 21:58, Eddie Climo wrote:

> This sounds like an equally good argument for admitting either 'yn',  
> or  both 'yn' and 'in', for the preposition.
>
> I do not favour the idea of introducing into Cornish artificial  
> orthographic conventions to make homonymic distinctions between  
> homophones.
>
> With some reluctance, I do accept the idea of distinguishing, say, / 
> gwyn/ 'white' from /gwy:n/ 'wine'; although I don't find this  
> confusing myself, I do understand that some learners might find it so.
>
> But as for using orthographic notation to distinguish homophones --  
> therein lies the path to madness! Consider this little set (which is  
> only one of many in Cornish!), and imagine trying to play this sort  
> of game with them. Let this one example stand for the many similar  
> ones that exist in Cornish; the word (rendered in UC) <cok>, with a  
> long vowel, can mean (Nance 1938):
> 1) cuckoo
> 2) fishing boat
> 3) man-cook
> 4) empty, vain, worthless
> 5) one-eyed.
>
> Imagine trying to find **5** different spellings for all of these  
> meanings of /co:k/.
>
> As we couldn't possibly do it for groups like /co:k/, we shouldn't  
> advocate it for /yn/.
>
> Eddie Climo
> - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -
> Dres ethom akennow byner re bons lyeshes
> Accenti non multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
>
>
> On 23 Jan 2009, at 08:41, nicholas williams wrote:
>> As a matter of interest in for 'in' is as common as yn.
>> <yn dan> occurs 18 times, <in dan> is attested 43 times.
>
>> On 23 Jan 2009, at 00:15, Eddie Climo wrote:
>>> I see no need for this distinction; 'yn' for both works perfectly  
>>> well, and should be allowed.
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

--
Craig Weatherhill





More information about the Spellyans mailing list