[Spellyans] Is there a future for the SWF?

Craig Weatherhill craig at agantavas.org
Mon May 14 15:58:31 IST 2012


<whi> to <whei> is nice, convenient and easier to explain to learners  
than <why> to <whei>.  Place-name histories feature <chi> as often as  
<chy>.   It's one reason why I don't object to it.  That plus the  
historical justification which the real horrors (k, ks, kw, hw, mm/nn  
in unstressed syllables) don't share.

One of the things we need to consider is where we can bargain, and  
with what.    Accepting <-i> at the Review might be a useful  
bargaining chip if it helps us get shot of one of the horrors.

Craig



On 14 Me 2012, at 15:41, Michael Everson wrote:

> On 14 May 2012, at 11:28, Nicholas Williams wrote:
>
>> It's quite common in Middle Cornish too:
>
> Nevertheless it is agreed that we may write -y in polysyllables.
>
> Unfortunately (for the SWF), we are not "permitted" to write -y in  
> monosyllables. Why not? As far as I can see, it is only so that MAGA  
> can automatically convert what they consider to be  SWF MC to SWF  
> LC. Thus they can convert ‹hwi› and ‹whi› to ‹hwei› or ‹whei›.
>
> I certainly prefer ‹why›, which is the most normal traditional form.
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net





More information about the Spellyans mailing list