[Spellyans] iw

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Mon Nov 22 14:48:09 GMT 2010

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Everson
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 3:25 PM

“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.”


That was not my question. I wanted to know what sound(s) Nicholas believes was/were represented by <yw>.


“> How do you explain

> Lhuyd <liụ> : <bêụ>


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


I was not inquiring about your orthographical solution in KS. I meant, how to explain the phonological history of the words attested in OC as <biu> and <liu> and why they have a different outcome in LC, different orthographic profiles in MC, different phonemes in Breton, Welsh and Irish and are according to Jackson of a different origin in Proto-Celtic and British.  


> <diweth> (TH 18a)


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


It is treated exactly like a diphthong in traditional Cornish and by Lhuyd. It is impossible for you to ascertain whether traditionally it was pronounced /di.wəθ/ and not /diʊ.əθ/. It’s an old formation, possibly as old as Proto-Celtic as we have OIr. díad, OW diued, OB diued.

Nicholas said <iw> doesn’t occur at all in traditional Cornish. It does. 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20101122/6cc19f83/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list