[Spellyans] Normalization of words in -ak and -ek
ajtrim at msn.com
ajtrim at msn.com
Thu Jun 4 01:14:56 IST 2009
Yes, this seems like a good suggestion.
There are some words in -ik too, e.g. merghik (KK) "pony", podik (KK) "jug".
I assume that these are all diminutives, and they all have plurals in -igow.
It is not obvious that "jug" is diminutive. Do any of these end in -yk
/ -ygow in (KS)? Will the diminutive endings all be the same, or will some
be -ik and others -yk?
Andrew J. Trim
From: "Owen Cook" <owen.e.cook at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:26 AM
To: "Standard Cornish discussion list" <spellyans at kernowek.net>
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] Normalization of words in -ak and -ek
> I think Michael's suggestion here is a good one. Final -ak that
> alternates with -og- is an easy rule to remember, while -ek
> alternating with -eg- is a no brainer. There may be edge cases that
> are hard to classify, but the principle seems good to me. And the fact
> is that none of the other varieties have seriously grappled with this
> particular question.
> Ol an gwelha,
> On 04/06/2009, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com> wrote:
>> 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/
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans