[Spellyans] Is there a future for the SWF?
A. J. Trim
ajtrim at msn.com
Sun May 20 23:14:19 BST 2012
By the same token we could have the same principle applied to word final ‹dh› and ‹th›: write ‹dh› where all agree on a voiced realisation, but write ‹th› where some pronounce the word with /θ/ and others with /ð/, or where some people vary the pronunciation according to the word’s environment.
Most words would then end in <-th> and match the texts.
Andrew J. Trim
From: Daniel Prohaska
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 2:17 PM
To: Standard Cornish discussion list
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] Is there a future for the SWF?
On May 17, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Nicholas Williams wrote:
Though Nance did change the spelling of the texts to make them conform to his preconceived notions.
UC byghan is unattested in the texts (though not in place-names); byhan or byan would have been better
UC Ywerdhon is unattested and should have been Wordhen
UC Kembry is unattested and should have been Kembra
UC Whevrer is unattested and should have been Whevrel.
Moreover, because Nance had no linguistic training, he did not seem to have realised that the vowel in tus 'men' and dus 'come' were different. This was apparent from the different reflexes in Late Cornish: tees 'men' but des 'come'. As a result UC lacks the [oe] vowel, that was already in Jenner's Cornish.
Nance was aware of the distinction otherwise he wouldn't have given the UC variants ‹kes› and ‹cus› for "cheese", but ‹tus› only for "men, people".
I like the idea of umbrella graphs in the SWF and KS: the orthography has ‹eu›, but people who say [e(ː)] read ‹eu› as /e(ː)/ and people who say [œ(ː)] read ‹eu› as /œ(ː)/.
By the same token we could have the same principle applied to word final ‹dh› and ‹th›: write ‹th› where all agree on a voiceless realisation, but write ‹dh› where some pronounce the word with /θ/ and others with /ð/.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans