daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Sat Nov 20 12:35:41 GMT 2010
From: nicholas williams
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 11:39 PM
"<iw> is not found in Cornish. It is therefore not justifiable at all. One should write pyw 'who' and dyw 'two' (feminine); end of story. <iw> is George's ideal based on Lhuyd, who actually wrote iu with a dot under the u.”
Since Lhuyd’s <ụ> basically means <w> (the texts also have w, v, u where we write w today), so <iw> is a valid interpretation of Lhuyd’s <iụ>.
As I said I don’t care whether you write iw or yw, but I want lyw-words to be distinct from bew-words. I don’t want to have to write lyw and byw and forced to assume that they contained the same sound.
“<iw> has no place in any traditionally based orthography for Cornish.
And TH: war an diweth in y pistill
Also, you don’t seem to have a problem with the redistribution of <i> and <y> in Revived Cornish, why is that such a problem where <iw> and <yw> are concerned?
On 2010 Du 19, at 21:29, Michael Everson wrote:
> The distinction between <iw> (which is unattested in Cornish and is justifiable only by Breton <iv>) and <yw> is a fiction.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans