[Spellyans] gawas 'to get'
daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Thu Sep 8 07:10:37 BST 2011
Ray a scrifas:
I have never liked final 'dh' and that is where the crux of the matter
lies. Clearly scholars cannot agree where final 'dh' should be applied and
no doubt there is also disagreement about where final 'f' should be sounded
as 'v'. In view of this I prefer to stick to the more authentic historical
Actually the scholars pretty much agree that the final dh and v were
voiced word-finally in stressed syllables. There is some dispute over
whether they were also voiced word-finally in unstressed syllables.
Writing <f> or <ff> word finally rather than <v> or <u> word-finally had to
do with the scribal practices of the time, rather than with accurate
phonological representation. There were restrictions about what <u, v> could
mean in this position, and it was usually /u/ or /w/, but not /v/.
Perhaps Cornish originally had a similar system to Modern Breton, where
voiced consonants unvoice in absolute final position and in unvoiced
environments, while they remain voiced before a following word beginning
with a vowel and in voiced environments. This amount of phonological detail
is difficult to retrieve so it will always remain a theory. This system, if
it existed at all, broke down by the Late Cornish period where final
consonants (at least in stressed syllables) appear to have become voiced and
remained so even in absolute final position.
Ray, what you dont like is the look of final <dh> and <v>, and I
understand that. One can get very used to a certain look of a spelling
system and feel estranged when that changes.
From: spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net [mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net]
On Behalf Of Ray Chubb
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:12 PM
To: Standard Cornish discussion list
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] gawas 'to get'
On 7 Gwn 2011, at 08:51, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 7 Sep 2011, at 08:27, Ray Chubb wrote:
>>> It's simply not the case that authentic Middle Cornish orthography
>>> ceased to exist in 1549.
>> I think what we can safely say is that any control over it ceased
>> to exist.
> There was a continuum of spelling options even before 1549.
> I don't understand how you use "authentic" in this context though.
> Evidently you think Nance's orthography is authentic, though since
> you prefer UCR you must agree that Nance's failure to distinguish /
> ø/ from /y/ (UCR ue from ü) was a mistake. Do you think that
> Jenner's orthography is authentic? Tregear's? Jordan's?
Yes of course I agree that UC (r) was an improvement on UC in certain
respects. I have never liked final 'dh' and that is where the crux of the
matter lies. Clearly scholars cannot agree where final 'dh' should be
applied and no doubt there is also disagreement about where final 'f' should
be sounded as 'v'. In view of this I prefer to stick to the more authentic
historical spellings. It has been said that Nance preferred to allow the
sources to speak for themselves, this is still a good principle where there
>> It's a bit like Nicholas abandoning UCR, we all feel free to tinker
>> or pick and choose from it as we wish.
> Nicholas (and I as a publisher) "abandoned" UCR because we (along
> with others) realized the value of moving towards an orthography
> which made use of authentic graphs while also doing a better job at
> (1) representing the major dialect differences of Revived Cornish
> (the continuum of choices between RMC, RTC, and RLC) and (2) being
Yes I commend you for what you have done but you must accept that there are
those who prefer, as I said, to allow the sources to speak for themselves.
Is it really so much trouble to remember to give a final 'f' a 'v' sound?
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans