[Spellyans] Final dh and ascetics

Ray Chubb ray at spyrys.org
Mon Nov 22 12:01:01 GMT 2010

But my point is that they were attempting to represent 'dh'  (in the  
main) when they wrote a yorgh.  As far as I have been able to  
ascertain a yorgh was never written finally.

On 20 Du 2010, at 12:22, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> Ray,
> The scribes didn’t think to represent <dh> at all! I never said, I  
> didn’t think they pronounced it, but they never wrote <dh>, even  
> word-internally. So, writing <dh> in bledhen is just as  
> “authentic” or “inauthentic” as writing it in diwedh.
> Dan
> From: Ray Chubb
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 6:49 PM
> “No, I said that we could conclude that final dh is just not  
> Cornish.  In other words the scribes would not be thinking to  
> represent dh in final position in any way.  That does not mean that  
> they were not pronouncing it but, as we can see from this forum,  
> there is a lot of uncertainty about where it should be pronounced in  
> modern Cornish.
> On 19 Du 2010, at 15:00, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
> Ray,
> If you look at it from that perspective, then <dh> in general is  
> just not Cornish and we’d have to write <th> everywhere, whether we  
> actually said [ð] or [θ]. That also means that a learner of Cornish  
> wouldn’t know when to pronounce [ð] and when [θ].
> Dan”
> From: Ray Chubb
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 10:52 AM
> “I except that there may not be many people who care as much as I  
> do about how what I write in Cornish looks like on the page.
>  Interestingly, though if we refer to the first part of Bewnans  
> Meriasek, where a yorgh is used to represent 'dh', (although  
> sometimes 'th'), it is never used in final position.  Nance resisted  
> using final 'dh' although I am sure that he would have been aware of  
> all the arguments for its use.  Perhaps he drew the same conclusion  
> as I do from Bewnans Meriasek i.e. final 'dh' is just not Cornish.
> On 18 Du 2010, at 09:26, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
> From the point of view of a user of UC and UCR I can understand why  
> you would consider final <dh> ugly. UC always wrote <th> in final  
> position and UCR accepted <dh> finally in stressed monosyllables  
> only. So maybe this is more a question of what you are used to  
> rather than a linguistic argument. Aesthetics are important because  
> people identify with an orthography, but I think we have to  
> compromise if we want to find an orthography that as many  
> Revivalists as possible can identify with and this will include  
> aesthetic and linguistic criteria; it will also entail a fair amount  
> of compromise on both sides to find workable solutions that will  
> make the/an SWF usable even when opinion concerning the phonological  
> base differ.
> Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Chubb
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 9:48 AM
> "From a user's point of view I consider final 'dh' to be simply  
> ugly, therefore the more that this disfigurement of Cornish script  
> can be avoided the better as far as I am concerned."
> Ray Chubb
> Portreth
> Kernow”
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

Ray Chubb


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20101122/74679c54/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list