daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Wed Nov 24 19:30:01 GMT 2010
No, it means that one is considering orthographic solutions.
From: nicholas williams
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 7:10 PM
The SWF is essentially a variety of Middle Cornish.
No one ever thought of writing <iw> until George mistakenly assumed that Cornish was very similar to Breton.
Writing <iw> means buying into George's erroneous assumptions.
On 2010 Du 24, at 17:28, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
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'
dhiụ 'to you' (dhiụχ)
piụ 'who' (pu)
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 andbyw.
Spellyans mailing list
Spellyans at kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans