[Spellyans] 'up, upwards'

Christian Semmens christian.semmens at gmail.com
Sat Jan 24 18:53:12 GMT 2009


Oops, and Dan of course! apologies Dan!
Christian

2009/1/24 Christian Semmens <christian.semmens at gmail.com>

> Although I understand there are some aesthetic sensibilities in RLC
> regading the use of the letter 'i' but, so far I haven't seen much
> engagement from the RLC community here with the exception of Mina and Neil.
> Is this so important to them?
>
> I must say, for my part, I tend to side with Eddie and Craig in this matter
> and would prefer that, if we must use 'in' then, as Andrew suggests, 'yn' is
> optional. I don't think there would be much likelyhood of there being
> confusion between the adverbial particle and the preposition if both were
> rendered 'yn'.
>
> Christian
>
> 2009/1/24 Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>
>
> On 23 Jan 2009, at 23:18, Craig Weatherhill wrote:
>>
>>  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?
>>>
>>
>> One of the faults is that it has no principled distribution if <i> and <y>
>> except in stressed monosyllables and some finals. The other is that its
>> accommodation of RLC cosmetic preferences isn't so great.
>>
>> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
>> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090124/68c6348b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list