[Spellyans] Is there a future for the SWF?

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Tue May 15 00:14:57 IST 2012


On May 14, 2012, at 8:31 PM, Craig Weatherhill wrote:

> If <i> was long and <y> was short, then there'd be no problem.  Pronunciation would be obvious.  But SWF doesn't do this.  The distribution of <y> and <i> is all over the place.

Well, it's not exactly all over the place, but it is a little difficult to get from pronunciation to spelling. It's much easier, however, to get from spelling to pronunciation according to which variety of RC you prefer. 

> If we take <dinas> as an example, derivatives would be  <din>, <dinek>, <dinan>, but <dynasow>.  Or should be.

Why? The only word I would consider to have a long vowel in the above mentioned group would be ‹din›, the others have a short vowel. But I consider SWF ‹i› to be pronounced identically ‹y› unless in long position, i.e. most usually in monosyllables. 

> Replacing <melyn>, "mill" with <melin> makes no sense to me.

On etymological grounds. It's derived from Latin ‹molīnā›. Even in KK ‹i› and ‹y› in unstressed closed syllables is to be pronounced identically, a bit like English ‹bear› and ‹bare›, identical pronunciation, but different etymology. 

>  Then they apply (as per KK) <melyn> "yellow" for <melen".    It was all so unnecessary.  They could, and should, have been left as they were. 
> Craig
> 

Also etymology. Br *melinos with short-i. 
Dan

> 
> 
> On 14 Me 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.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> - Ken
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net [mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net]
>> On Behalf Of Michael Everson
>> Sent: 14 May 2012 15:42
>> To: Standard Cornish discussion list
>> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] Is there a future for the SWF?
>> 
>> 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
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2012.0.2171 / Virus Database: 2425/4998 - Release Date: 05/14/12
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
>> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net





More information about the Spellyans mailing list