[Spellyans] ragtho, rygthy

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Mon Nov 15 10:41:51 GMT 2010

No, I didn’t say “I believed” I said Ken believed. Please read more carefully. I also said I would prefer to write <ragtho, rygthy>. The <ct> forms are CW only. The LC forms have <gth>. I wil write what I may within the rules of the SWF and change it from within. If we all derogate it falls apart and we will certainly end up with KK if that is what you prefer.

I agree with you about the remarks on KK, and I have hopes that with evidence and consideration other possible and actual inaccuracies that entered the SWF by using it as the base of the SWF (thanks to Trond) can be corrected.




From: nicholas williams
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 10:44 AM


“Really? You believe (in spite of the racta/ractha forms) that the cluster is voiced; yet you would prefer the voiceless clusters ragtho, rygthy.

This seems inconsistent. 

Ragtho, rygthy were almost certainly voiceless (otherwise ractha, racta, etc. are inexpliacable). If you prefer ragtho, etc. you should write ragtho.

George is mistaken here (as in many other places). KK should not be used as the basis for an agreed spelling.

KK was rejected as the SWF. It is illegitimate to allow it in through the back door.

The spelling of revived Cornish should be based on an expert analysis of the spellings of traditional Cornish, not on the unfounded hypotheses of an untrained amateur.





On 2010 Du 15, at 09:29, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

 I agree though. I would prefer ragtho, rygthy, ragtha(ns).


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20101115/29cda74c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list