njawilliams at gmail.com
Mon Nov 22 09:23:27 GMT 2010
But these are different in origin and in Hiberno-English meat is still often [me:t].
The objection to iw < iu is that it always represents the same sound as yw and is without warrant in the traditional language.
<i> is sometimes used finally in words like iudi 'Judaea', victuri 'victory' and even in chi 'house' and whi 'ye, you'. <iw>is wholly unattested.
If one respects the scribes one does not introduce alien graphs where they are not necessary.
<iw> was first by George in imitation of Breton and Welsh, because he mistakenly believed that Cornish /iw/ and /Iw/ were separate diphthongs. The SWF and all other speakers (including George himself) pronounce the two identically.
What possible reason can there be for using both, when yw is both sufficient and traditional?
On 2010 Du 22, at 03:57, Owen Cook wrote:
>> English <meet> ~ <meat>. This doesn’t mean they’re
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans