everson at evertype.com
Thu Nov 26 11:49:35 GMT 2009
Yes, we know that George's distinction between <iw> [iʊ] and <yw>
[ɪʊ] is unwarranted. This is orthogonal to the discussion.
On 26 Nov 2009, at 11:27, nicholas williams wrote:
> But if the reflex of <iw> is written <ew> and <eu>, then aspiring to
> distinguish <iw> and <yw/ew> is not merely aspirational, it's
> On 26 Du 2009, at 11:19, Michael Everson wrote:
>> This is not relevant. The "justification" for them in the SWF is
>> (1) George has it in KK, (2) The Kesva and Cowethas members of the
>> AHG "aspire" (or said that they did) to distinguish <iw> and <yw>
>> in speech.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
More information about the Spellyans