[Spellyans] chi v chy

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Wed May 5 16:56:33 IST 2010


Michael, 

You said: “There is no justification for preferring them.” Neither Craig, nor Andrew, nor I said that we preferred them. In fact said the exact opposite, that we preferred <chy, ky, why> etc. What Craig rather brought up though, was, that since <chi> and <ki> do occur traditionally, albeit much less frequently, they are to be considered traditional and correct. So, while preferring <chy, ky> there aren’t apparently grounds for rejecting <chi, ki> if this is the majority decision for the SWF.  

Dan

 

--------------------------------------------------

From: "Michael Everson" <everson at evertype.com>

Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 1:49 PM

 

> On 3 May 2010, at 04:48, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> 

>> I certainly prefer <chy> (& ky, why, hy etc.), but since <chi> etc. do 

>> occur traditionally, I believe they are justified.

> 

> There is no justification for preferring them.

> 

> Thousands of homes throughout Cornwall are named CHY -- quite properly.

> 

> The rationale for -i in stressed monosyllables in the SWF is **NOT** that 

> this is an attested form. It was so that programmatic shifts between 

> SWF/RMC and SWF/RLC could be made. Unfortunately, the situation with 

> monosyllables in final -i~-y is not as simplistic as that -- in fact, the 

> SWF leaks here, and so the convention is not useful.

> 

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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20100505/1998f838/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list