[Spellyans] Is there a future for the SWF?

Craig Weatherhill craig at agantavas.org
Tue May 15 07:11:57 IST 2012


I wonder if too much emphasis is being placed upon etymology.   
Languages change over time, and spellings from British are largely  
conjectural.  It seems to be pretty shaky ground at best.


Craig



>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net





More information about the Spellyans mailing list