[Spellyans] iw

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Sat Nov 20 12:35:41 GMT 2010

-----Original Message-----
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.



See Lhuyd. 

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...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20101120/d9a1a3af/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list