njawilliams at gmail.com
Tue Nov 23 19:37:08 GMT 2010
I write bew and lyw. There was never any suggestion that they should be written the same.
I cannot find <iw> anywhere in TH. Nor have I ever seen it anywhere else in traditional Cornish.
<yw> and <ew> are enough.
I will not write <iw> because I have never seen it anywhere in traditional Cornish and it isn't necessary.
On 2010 Du 23, at 18:42, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
> It’s not inauthentic, after all <iw> occurs in TH.
> It’s just very rare because mediaeval scribes would have resisted writing <iu> or <iw> because of minim.
Nonsense. The same would apply to in which is common.
> The SWF has to distinguish a threefold series,
Because it follows George's fantasy phonology
> this could be called an archaism or historicising, but I believe any Cornish orthography needs to distinguish lyw-words and bew-words. Writing <lyw> and <byw> in the same text in an orthography that claims to be phonetic or even phonemic is, in my view, incorrect. It’s OK in an orthography that merely claims to normalise traditional spellings and has no claim to phonemicity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans