[Spellyans] iw

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Wed Nov 24 17:28:22 GMT 2010

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Everson
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 5:28 PM
”On 24 Nov 2010, at 16:08, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> I view Lhuyd’s <iụ> as examples that can be written <iw> today.


I view Lhuyd’s <iụ> as examples that can be written <yw> or <uw> or <u> today. 


†biụ, vêụ 'life'

diụ 'black'

dhiụ 'to you' (dhiụχ)

diu 'two'

Dzeziụ 'Jesus'

liụ 'colour'

piụ 'who' (pu)

ziụ 'bream' 

Deụ 'god' (though Lhuyd does not have [diʊ])


byw, du, dhywgh, dyw, Jesu, lyw, pyw, Duw.”


The SWF today has: byw ~ bew, du, dhywgh ~ dhew’, diw, Jesu, liw, piw, Duw. Since the users of Late Cornish based Revived Cornish share a great dislike for the graph <y> I wanted to recommend the following proposal for the 2013 adjustments: to write <i>; <iw> where both LC and MC had /iː/, /ɪ/; /ɪʊ/; write RMC <y>; <yw> and RLC <e>; <ew> where (early/conservative) MC tends to have /ɪː/, /eː/, /ɪ/, /ɛ/ etc., and LC has /eː/, /ɛ/; and write <e>; <ew> where both MC and LC had /eː/, /ɛ/; /ɛʊ/. 

To summarise, I want to have <y> and <yw> as an MC umbrella graph for the people that want to make this archaising distinction of the sound change /ɪ/ > /ɛ/, /ɪʊ/ > /ɛʊ/ that I believe to have been largely complete by 1500. 


“Of these, du, dyw, Duw are redundantly marked orthographically, but there's just no need for <iw> aongside <yw> and <uw> and <u> in this set.” 


As lyw, dyw and pyw should be distinguished from bew your proposal doesn’t really work as you have lyw, dyw, pyw and byw.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20101124/3871b0c6/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list