[Spellyans] Final dh and ascetics
daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Mon Nov 22 14:25:26 GMT 2010
Yogh was written finally, but mainly in the Charter Fragment, where it can stand for both /ð/ and /θ/. Only twice finally in PA.
From: s Chubb
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 1:01 PM
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:
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.
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:
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].
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.
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."
Spellyans mailing list
Spellyans at kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans