[Spellyans] Is there a future for the SWF?

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Mon May 14 22:33:37 IST 2012

On May 14, 2012, at 6:16 PM, Michael Everson wrote:

> On 14 May 2012, at 16:53, Ken MacKinnon wrote:
>> Quite frankly, colleagues, I have never fully understood the use of i and y in KK and SWF.
> It isn't the same in KK and in SWF. 

Not quite the same in KK and SWF, though the SWF leans heavily on KK where the distribution of ‹i› and ‹y› is concerned. 

>> If one were 'long' and the other 'short' that  would have seemed a consistent principle. But I have never really go down to this - and would appreciate guidance.
> As you know, Spellyans started examining the SWF and KS began from that with some changes made to correct problems. One of the problems is the distribution of ‹i› and ‹y›, which in the SWF is a bit of a mishmash since in some cases it uses KK etymological spellings, and in some cases it doesn't. 
> Our scheme for distributing ‹i› and ‹y› is easily learnt and very regular. 

- It's easily learnt, but it doesn't reflect what we find in LC, which means it's difficult for the RLC speakers to adapt to. 
- The solution was decided upon without the usual and consensual discussion previously held in UdnFormScrefys, which I was a little disappointed about from day one of your presentation of this solution.
- it graphically encodes Nicholas' theory that Cornish had only two contrasting front vowel, which I agree with after the MC period, but the picture is a little more complex and less easy to determined before, say, 1500. 

> ‹i› at the beginning of a word
> ‹y› at the end of a word
> ‹i› for [iː] in monosyllables and [ɪ] in their derivatives
> ‹y› for [ɪ] in monosyllables and polysyllables
> ‹î› for [iː] in polysyllables
> This is easily taught, easily learnt, and easily remembered while writing. 

More information about the Spellyans mailing list