[Spellyans] the suffix -yeth or -ieth?

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Wed May 2 22:25:26 BST 2012

On May 2, 2012, at 10:18 PM, Michael Everson wrote:

> On 2 May 2012, at 20:28, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
>> Because the provision Gerlyvryn you let me see has:
> Ah. That will have pre-dated the Beybel, where a number of features have been worked out.

I see, so what is the preference in KS, or is this decided case by case?

>> Furthermore, in the foreword to "Alys in Pow an Anethow" I found descajor a galcoryeth.
> Yes, but that was the very first publication, preceding formal specifications, and there are certainly some things in that book which will by now be slightly re-spelt. Also there may be UCR spellings in Alys because Nicholas was so used to UCR when he wrote it. It was the Beybel and Enys Tresour where most of the fine points have been worked out. 

Fine. So is the situation still in flux, or is there a formal decision in the matter? Is there going to be a publication explaining KS spelling fully?

>> This prompted my checking the sources and spellings in the other dictionaries. Since this appears in a publication, no doubt there are more examples in all the KS publications, I should think this is "official" so that my putting it as "KS appears to have settled with the non-syllabic [jəθ], thus spelling it -yeth" seems accurate.
> That would be a hasty judgement on your part, since as you know the orthography has been subject to a period of development. 

That may be the case. I certainly didn't intend to put any of your publications down or anything, just wondering about the decision how the suffix is represented in writing and deducing the intended pronunciation. Since there is no clear consensus within the linguistic community as well as the Revival as to how this suffix is to be pronounced, I think it's quite useful, if I may say so myself, that I should ask these questions. Do we intend to recommend [jəθ] or [ˈi(ː)əθ] to speakers and learners? This is an important question how this should be written in KS and SWF as -yeth would prompt the former and -ieth the latter. UC, Gendall and UCR are more ambivalent there and UC/R -yeth, and Gendall -ieth could be pronounced either way.  

>> In KS there is only one way of pronouncing ‹calcoryeth›: [kælˈkɔɹjəθ]. If the phonological base, however, should be [kælkəˈri(ː)əθ], then KS would have to spell *calcorieth according to its own rules.
> That is correct. In a forthcoming publication we do have both "teknologieth" and "sonieth" for instance. 

That answers my above question. Thanks. Do you have -yeth as well? If yes, how is it determined whether to write -yeth or -ieth? Is there a rule?

>> Alys also contains the words tradycyon and satysfacsyon. In tradycyon the -cyon suffix stands for [sjən] or [ʃən].
> Yes, it does. 
>> Why would one deviate from this in satysfacsyon where elsewhere -syon as in vysyon stands for [zjən] or [ʒən].
> "Satysfacsyon" does not imply either [kzjən] or [kʒən] (or [ɡzjən] or [ɡʒən] for that matter), and it could not according to the rules. It could only be [ksjən] or [kʃən]. 

I'm aware of that, and the intention is still quite clear, though that leaves the suffix [sjən] ~ [ʃən] with an ambivalent spelling. Of course a rule can be formulated that it is spelt -cyon except after voiceless consonants, or something similar.

>> I should suggest satysfaccyon instead, as -ccion for [ksjən] or [kʃən] is well attested in TH: 
>> perfeccion
>> the thestruccion
>> [...]
>> also in 
>> condiccion for [sjən] or [ʃən]
> Well the last would be condycyon. Yes, you're right, Tregear does use this graph. 

You actually said "you're right" … ;-) LIKE

> In the Beybel I find that dystrùcsyon occurs (many many many MANY times) and perfecsyon occurs once. The graph <cc> does not occur *at all*. In Enys Tresour <cc> does not occur, and neither does -csyon.  

So, are you now treating the Beybel on par with the traditional texts? If it occurs in the Beybel it is justified usage in RC? 

> In two other books not yet published I find dystrùcsyon and projecsyon. 
> Since -csyon can only be /ksjən/ I would say that there's no need to add a graph ‹cc› for /ks/ to the system since ‹cs› in this context is unambiguous. Since ‹cs› is already in use in mature KS texts, and since ‹cc› solves no problem, we should stick with ‹cs› in this context. 

I have no trouble accepting two spellings -cyon and -syon for this suffix, if that is your decision for KS. It's just a matter of orthographic design. I do, however, notice that -csyon/-csion does not occur in the texts, nor does -ksyon/-ksion for that matter. In Albert's more "official" version of a SWF dictionary we find -cyon, but no word has as yet been listed which contains [ksjən] ~ [kʃən]. I have such words in my SWF dictionary which I spell, e.g. (SWFk) destrukcyon ~ (SWFt) destruccyon. I hope this will be generally accepted if such cases are discussed. The rule is simply, in the variant SWF form with traditional graphs /k/ can be spelt ‹c› before a, o, u and consonants. Of course, KS doesn't have this conversion problem.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20120502/9c91f6bb/attachment.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list