[Spellyans] Normalization of words in -ak and -ek

Michael Everson everson at evertype.com
Wed Jun 3 23:25:49 IST 2009


On 3 Jun 2009, at 23:05, Eddie Climo wrote:

>> On balance I suggest the following normalization:
>>
>> KS -ak, -ogyon, -ogeth, -egy, -ogyl, -oges, -ogesow,
>
> A more balanced suggestion would be
> KS -ek
> as that is used by 3 out of the 4 varieties of RC. To accommodate  
> those who prefer LC forms, this could be expanded to:
> KS -ek (MC form
> KS -ak (LC form)

We aren't making an MC/LC distinction for -ak and -ek, both of which  
are pronounced identically, [ək].

We're making an orthographic distinction, where -ak is used where the  
plural stem changes to -og-, and -ek where the plural stem remains -eg-.

Why? Because right now there's no help for learners. Some -ak words in  
some varieties of RC are -og- some are -eg-. And some -ek words in  
some varieties of RC are -og- some are -eg-. See, it works out very  
well to keep to -ak/-og- and -ek/-eg- -- it's only that this  
particular word, perhednak/perhennak, has been difficult to classify,  
because the only evidence we have for it is one singular in -ek (BM)  
and one singular in -ak (BK).

That's why I also did the analysis of all the RC varieties. The choice  
of which to choose (-ek or -ak) was not on the basis of statistical  
frequency of the masculine for only. If we did that, then we would  
have had an -eg- word. But since the greater number of derivative  
forms in RC are in -og-, we have good cause to choose the BK spelling  
in -ak.

> And the economical thing about this MC/LC alternation is that  
> there'd be no call for yet another diacritic!

Non sequitur?

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/





More information about the Spellyans mailing list