[Spellyans] dictionnaire de l'Académie française

Ray Chubb ray at spyrys.org
Mon Jan 31 09:03:09 GMT 2011


To first take Michael's point below.  He makes a very good case for  
showing diacritical marks in dictionaries and text books.


And that is why we use diacritics, Ray. We write "Lûk" and "lùck",  
keeping their traditional word-shapes. If you want to show the  
linguistic distinctions (from *luk [lʏk]~[lɪk] for instance) without  
diacritics, then you have to resort to "Loek" or "Louk" and "loeck" or  
"louck".


For showing diacritical marks everywhere, Eddie has hit the nail on  
the head.  No one has yet been able to demonstrate to me a speedy way  
of entering all the necessary diacritical marks at a reasonable typing  
rate.  Perhaps an expensive bit of software is required in which case  
type setters of simple Cornish short story books, magazines etc. will  
not put the marks in.

On 30 Gen 2011, at 15:40, Eddie Climo wrote:

> As an aside, one stumbling block to diacritics is their impact on  
> typing speed. I've been using computers for decades, and have taught  
> myself to touch-type (courtesy of dear Mavis Beacon!). In English or  
> UC without diacritics, I normally hit about 60+ words a minute. Add  
> in diacritics, though, and my speed drops way way down, despite the  
> fact I've been keying them on Mac keyboards in French, German,  
> Spanish, Welsh and Scots Gaelic (as well as UC+diacritics!) for up  
> to 20 years! On Windows PCs I'm even slower!

Ray Chubb

Portreth
Kernow




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20110131/096151ab/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list