[Spellyans] gwiryoneth

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Thu Nov 18 09:26:25 GMT 2010

>From the point of view of a user of UC and UCR I can understand why you would consider final <dh> ugly. UC always wrote <th> in final position and UCR accepted <dh> finally in stressed monosyllables only. So maybe this is more a question of what you are used to rather than a linguistic argument. Aesthetics are important because people identify with an orthography, but I think we have to compromise if we want to find an orthography that as many Revivalists as possible can identify with and this will include aesthetic and linguistic criteria; it will also entail a fair amount of compromise on both sides to find workable solutions that will make the/an SWF usable even when opinion concerning the phonological base differ.



-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Chubb
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 9:48 AM

"From a user's point of view I consider final 'dh' to be simply ugly, therefore the more that this disfigurement of Cornish script can be avoided the better as far as I am concerned."


On 18 Du 2010, at 07:39, Michael Everson wrote:

>> From: Nicholas Williams


>>> Lhuyd writes guironeth twice. Guironeth cannot be ascribed to  

>>> contamination with Welsh. So guironeth is more likely to be  

>>> genuine than a form in -edh. The final segment was voiceless.


> On 18 Nov 2010, at 00:35, Daniel Prohaska wrote:


>> In your opinion Nicholas, because it happens to fit your theory of  

>> the phonological history of Cornish. But Lhuyd has other words with  

>> final <dh> in unstressed syllables.


> Yes, Dan. But you haven't addressed the argument, which has been  

> given several times already. We have an explanation for why Lhuyd  

> writes both -eth and -edh in some words. It is that he heard -eth  

> but sometimes wrote -edh because of what Nicholas has just called  

> "contamination" with his native language. He'd never have written - 

> eth if he'd been hearing -edh. It'd be -eth right through. The same  

> can be said for -ev. He couldn't have heard "genev" because the  

> forms by that time were "gene vy" and "genama" or "genam". The -ev  

> is most probably "contamination" with his native language.


> Moreover, we see that throughout the system of other consonants we  

> have devoicing in final unstressed position. By Occam's razor we  

> note that the simplest explanation is that (1) the interdental and  

> labiodental fricatives behaved just like the other consonants and  

> devoiced in unstressed final position and that (2) where Lhuyd gives  

> -eð and -ev it is on the basis of Welsh, particularly has he gives  

> them inconsistently as against -eθ.


> Our theory fits the evidence better than the theory that -eð and -ev  

> were operative and that somehow the -eθ in guironeth and other  

> words... erm.... Well, no, I don't think I've heard an explanation.


> In sum, since a decision has to be made as to whether to write -eth  

> or -edh, we prefer the former, because phonologically the  

> explanation is simpler, and because even allowing for doubt we know  

> that we are not making a mistake if we write -th as the texts do.


> This is not rash, and it is not unfounded in strong and sensible  

> reasoning.


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



> _______________________________________________

> Spellyans mailing list

> Spellyans at kernowek.net

> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net


Ray Chubb










Spellyans mailing list

Spellyans at kernowek.net


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20101118/a4816979/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list