daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Sat Nov 20 12:41:34 GMT 2010
From: A. J. Trim
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 8:53 AM
“I thought that you were recommending <dew> "two" for both masculine and feminine. Has that changed?
I don't regard the difference as significant but some people believe that there is a real difference between <iw> and <yw>.”
The difference can be shown to have existed in Cornish. They both have a different origin etymologically and their etyma are distinguished in ate Cornish, so we can easily assume that they were different in MC even if their spellings varied and amalgamated to a variation of <yw, yv, ew, ev, u> etc. It was the diphthongs <yw> /ɪw/ and <ew> /ew/ which fell in with each other, not /iw/ and /ɪw/.
“Perhaps we should recommend that they write their supposed difference as <yu> and <yw> instead.
Andrew J. Trim”
I don’t like that solution. We have had bad experiences with UC <yu> pronounced as [juː], which I cannot recommend.
From: nicholas williams
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 10:38 PM
To: Standard Cornish discussion list
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] iw
<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.
<iw> has no place in any traditionally based orthography for Cornish.
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