[Spellyans] iw

nicholas williams njawilliams at gmail.com
Wed Nov 24 09:42:13 GMT 2010


This is the crux. We have to distort the orthography of revived Cornish because George assumed a threefold distinction, for which there is not a shred of evidence.
George's indefensible phonology is intended to represent the period ca 1500. So why  in heaven's name has the spelling of revived Cornish  got to archaise?
This just won't do, Dan. 
There are no examples anywhere of <iw> in monosyllables, so why do we have to write <diw>, <liw>, etc.?
There were two major mistakes in KK. 1) that there was no vocalic alternation (because George wasn't aware of it). 2) there was half-length with all its concomitant features
(e.g. clear unstressed vowels, y in final position rather than <Iw>, etc.). 

As for <diweth>, Tregear's usual spelling is <deweth> x 25. How can we be sure that <diweth> is not a slip?

While the SWF maintains these errors it is unfit for function.
I intend to write against them until they are expunged, i.e. until revived Cornish returns to an authentic orthography and a realistic phonology.
I say, a realist phonology. Nobody actually uses George's fantasy phonology, so it has no raison d'être. Everybody (including George) uses UC phonology.
The SWF as it stands is little better than KK. It was put together by an untrained group of enthusiasts, who didn't understand what they were doing. In the long term the current SWF has no future. 


Nicholas.

On 2010 Du 23, at 20:19, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> No, because that was agreed upon in the Ad-Hoc group. George’s threefold distinction may be wrong for 1500, but it is not wrong to assume this series was part of earlier pre-MC phonology. In that sense both KK and the SWF/M are archaising.
> Dan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20101124/d8652b44/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list