[Spellyans] gawas 'to get'
daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Thu Sep 8 15:44:36 IST 2011
Me neither. I quite like the idea of using <v> where we always find /v/ (eg.
an venyn, gav, nev), use /f/ where there is variation or uncertainty (e.g.,
fos, cafos, fenester) and <ff> where /f/ is unambiguous (e.g. scaffa,
affeccyon, offra, scriffa). The letter <f> would then be an ‘umbrella graph’
for words with /v/ ~ /f/.
Just an idea.
From: spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net [mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net]
On Behalf Of nicholas williams
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 11:36 AM
To: Standard Cornish discussion list
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] gawas 'to get'
“I didn't at first really like final <v>.
If we take all those words which in CW and elsewhere end in <ve> we find,
eve 'he, him'
preve 'worm, reptile'
ove 'I am'
We don't however use final silent -e, since that is a spelling convention
derived from English. If we remove
the silent -e from these items, they become gwav, hav, ev, crev, nev, prev,
ov and gov, the recommended KS forms.
Although they don't look like MC gwaf, haf, ef, cref, etc. they do have the
merit of making clear
that the final segment is [v] rather than [f]. This avoids mispronunciations
like me yw *goff hag yth *off *creff.
Spellings like hav, gwav, prev etc. also make the spelling
easier for those used to a LC orthography.
They cannot be called untraditional because sporadic spelling like ev 'he',
ov 'am' occur even in MC and CW:
ev yv pen cok RD 2017
mabe Jared yth ov heb gowe CW 2096
On 2011 Gwn 8, at 09:31, Ray Chubb wrote:
Ray, what you don’t like is the ‘look’ of final <dh> and <v>,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans