[Spellyans] the suffix -yeth or -ieth?

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Thu May 3 12:38:03 IST 2012


On May 3, 2012, at 12:09 AM, Michael Everson wrote:

> On 2 May 2012, at 22:25, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
> 
>>> 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?
> 
> I can't answer definitively and consultation with Nicholas (who is in Hungary) but I suspect there may be a tendency towards -ieth. I can do a search of our extant texts, but not tonight, as I am going to watch Forbrydelsen. 

I, too, would tend to go for -ieth rather than -yeth, judging by the syllable count and the metro in the texts. 

>>> 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?
> 
> Yes, and appearing very soon, though it is not a "Rechtschreibingswörterbuch" with exhaustive examples. It does explain all the rules. 

That's just "Rechtschreibwörterbuch" or "Wörterbuch der Rechtschreibung".

>>>> 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.
> 
> Understood.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I didn't suggest otherwise. 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> As I said earlier I will have a look at what we have done, but I have a feeling that -ieth is rather common for abstract nouns. Teknologieth is certainly a spelling we use. (This word does not occur in the Beybel!) 
> 
>>>> 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?
> 
> I believe we do, and I can't answer this question at the moment.

OK.

>>>> 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.
> 
> Well, wither aditcyon/aditsyon would yield adicyon in KS orthography, so "t" is off the table (that may not be a great example). 
> 
> Either recepcyon or recepsyon would be possible; I do not know if we have used this word or if we have a rule for it. I would have to check. But a formulated rule need not specify "voiceless consonants". One might have recepcyon alongside satisfacsyon, if the rule were simply that ‹cc› is not used and ‹cs› is. 

I prefer -kcyon ~ -ccyon (as in destrukcyon ~ destruccyon) and tekst ~ text, though I'd have no trouble at all losing the K-forms.  

>>>> 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
> 
> Well, that was easily done.
> 
>>> 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? 
> 
> I did not mention the traditional texts. All of the texts I mentioned were KS. I was informing you about the choices that had been made in mature KS texts. (Alys being immature, and Cult of Relics transitional (more mature than Alys anyway.) 

I see. 

> For my part I consider the Beybel relatively definitive.

OK.

> I do not believe that there is anything "unjustifiable" in terms of Revived Cornish. The difference between "dystrùcsyon" and "dystrùccyon" is not one of authenticity; either will do, neither causes a problem. Since KS seems to have no examples of ‹cc› perhaps this was a decision taken at some time. I do not recall it.

Yes, I remember that one, too. We decided it was unnecessary because having the cluster ‹nc› or ‹nk› already shows that the preceding vowel is short. There is no need to show the doubling of the consonant here according to the radical > comparative/superlative conversion rule "shorten vowel, double and provect the consonant". I think this is really a different case altogether.

> I know that ‹cc› is both [k] and [ks] in the texts. I remember a rejection of ‹yoncca› at some point. We write ‹yonca›. 
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> There is no impediment to this being adopted in the SWF. 

There is no impediment to ‹cc› being adopted to KS. 

>> I do, however, notice that -csyon/-csion does not occur in the texts, nor does -ksyon/-ksion for that matter.
> 
> Yes, you're right. 

OMG!!!!

>> 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.
> 
> In this matter, why not simply align with what we have done? If you write SWF/K destruksyon ~ SWF/T destrucsyon you will not have any difficulty.

Why? Because you wouldn't have to go back and reset the master files for the second/third etc. editions of your publications? I don't follow your logic here.
SWF has the suffixes -cyon [sjən] and -syon [zjən]. Why shouldn't -cyon be written in the case of detstrukcyon/destruccyon, especially if we have ‹destruccion› occurring several times in the texts. 
No, I stand by my standardisation and find it more practical, closer to what was done in traditional Cornish as well as more regular. I see no reason to adopt the destrucsyon model. Maybe this is also a relic from UCR which partially took over Nance's very arbitrary choices when to write -cyon and -syon, the latter being by far more popular.

> These words are rare. If there is no reason to differ from the Beybel Sans (which is out there and in use)

There's no reasons to differ from the texts and the standardisation already established. 

> ‹c› is used for [s] in the SWF in words with [s] that does not voice to [z], but that's initially and intervocalically.

Yes.

> Since you write SWF/K taksi

Well, [ks] is a different case anyway, because that changes to ‹x› with traditional graphs anyway. 

> there is no reason you shouldn't write SWF/K destruksyon.

There is also no reason why the suffix -cyon should differ from the other cases of -cyon just because [k] precedes it.

> I don't know whether you write tacsy or taxy in SWF/T, but destrucsyon can't be read with a [z]. 

Personally, that being an international word I would always write ‹taxi› be it in k-form or T-form. But "officially as it stands" the SWF would have K ‹taksi› and T ‹taxy›. I find neither acceptable when the whole word writes ‹taxi›. But as you see, tis is a different car entirely as we are not dealing with a standardized suffix. 
Dan













-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20120503/2860d996/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list