[Spellyans] iw

Michael Everson everson at evertype.com
Mon Nov 22 14:24:46 GMT 2010


On 22 Nov 2010, at 14:09, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

>> “The objection to iw < iu is that it always represents the same sound as yw and is without warrant in the traditional language.”
>  
> What does <yw> mean here [iʊ] or [ɪʊ]? Both?

In the revived language, [iʊ]~[ɪʊ] are allophones of /iʊ/, written in KS yw, uw, and -u.

> How do you explain
> Lhuyd <liụ> : <bêụ>

Explain how? One might write these lyw and bÿw~bëw, if that is what you are asking.

> <diweth> (TH 18a)

This is di-weth /di.wəθ/ not diw-eth /diʊ.əθ/; it is not a diphthong.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/





More information about the Spellyans mailing list