[Spellyans] iw

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Sat Nov 20 12:41:34 GMT 2010



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





-----Original Message----- 

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...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20101120/034213c2/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list