njawilliams at gmail.com
Fri Nov 19 08:12:31 GMT 2010
I have an explanation for the th/dh which is the same as that for v/f. And for b/p and g/k. You appear to agree with v/f, b/p and g/k. You seem to allow that the variation is a question of the preceding vowel's being stressed or unstressed. But in the case of th/dh you adduce a rule about position and pausa, for which there is not a shred of evidence—and for which there are no parallels in the system. In the one case it's historical. In the other it's position. It looks as though you are "bending over backwards" to defend the KK based spelling of the SWF.
And not very convincingly.
I agree that -eth (< ed) is -edh before vowels, e.g. dewedha 'to finish'. That is already in UC. What I will not agree is that the simplex is dywedh rather than dyweth.
I regret that we are never going to agree and I am certainly not going to write the SWF.
On 2010 Du 19, at 01:09, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
> No, Nicholas, it doesn’t. You’re interpreting with your phonological model in the back of your mind. You’re not willing to let go of that – you needn’t, not if it were even shown in a Revived Cornish orthography, as this ca be done by a simple rule. As I said, I’m not even arguing against the possible unvoicing in this position – in fact I show it in my dictionary, but I also accept that the voiced sound can re-appear before vowels and in derivatives. What’s so difficult to understand about that?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans