[Spellyans] SWF review results.
clive.baker at gmail.com
Wed Apr 2 11:09:06 IST 2014
I noticed you mentioned 'gulla/gullys and then put the English 'seagull'
beside it...a small thing but the English is gull, as seagull is a
colloquialism...I know it is English but.....:-)
On Apr 2, 2014 10:44 AM, "Michael Everson" <everson at evertype.com> wrote:
> Here are some comments I made on the Lytherennans Kernowek Facebook page
> regarding the “recommended changes":
> Some SWF Review results have been made public:
> DOUBLE CONSONANT SPELLINGS.
> 1. Introduce <ll> and <rr> in roots. Do not revert to single letter in
> unstressed non-final syllables where that changes the root.
> 2. Introduce <ll> for <dell>, <-ell> for the suffix which implies 'tool'
> or 'device', e.g., dewynnell, draylell, gwariell, hornell, karrigell,
> musurell, pibell, rostell, skitell, skubell, skwychell, tempredhell,
> torgentrell, yeynell.
> SHORT <o> and <u>
> 1. Change to <o> in <arlodh>, in line with <toll>, <tomm>, <boka>,
> <bronn>, <koska>
> <GH> and <H>
> 1. <gh> everywhere except word-initially.
> PARTICLE <th> in SWF/L
> 1. Join particle with verb as in <thera>, without a gap.
> PARTICLE (ow>- RLC VARIANT <o>
> 1. Retain <o> (present participle), but drop the apostrophe.
> 1. To be respelt <nowydh> (M), or <nowedh>.
> 1. Remove hyphens from numbers, particles and some other words, e.g.
> 2. Add hyphens in loose compounds of the form 'noun + verbal noun', e.g.
> <jynn-skrifa>, <skath-wolya>, etc.
> 3. <poslev/poslevow> to replace <poos-lev/poos-levow>.
> 4. <erbynn> to replace <er-bynn>.
> (but personal use to remain optional).
> VOWEL LENGTH IN MONOSYLLABIC LOAN WORDS ENDING -p OR -t.
> 1. To be written as <pp>, <tt> if they contain a short vowel.
> 2. Accept both permissible plural endings, e.g. <hattys/hattow>
> 1. Accept <dhyworth> and <dyworth> as alternatives, and <dhort> and <dort>
> in RLC variants.
> A/OA ALTERNATION
> 1. Remove RLC variants <toal>, <kloav>, <gwoav>, <gwloan>, spelling them
> only with -a-.
> 2. Add <boas>, <doas>, <moas> in RLC variants to the remaining <broas>.
> <OO> for KK <OE>
> 1. <goolan> to become <golan>. Otherwise, no change.
> <kk> AND <ck>
> 1. <ck> to be used in all borrowings; <kk> in all other cases, including
> those in doubt.
> 2. <okkupya> to be respelt <okupya>.
> APOSTROPHES IN RLC VARIANTS
> 1. Retain before nouns like <'manyn>.
> 2. Do not use elsewhere where the beginning of a word has been shed, e.g.
> <skydnya> from <dyskynna>.
> 3. Do not use internally, e.g. <metern> from <myghtern> and <mos> from
> 4. Do not use after <kal> (KK <kalgh>).
> 5. May be used where -th, -dh is dropped, e.g. pro', for', warbar'. To be
> left to the discretion of individual writers.
> 1. Add SWF/L <enkladhva>, SWF/M <ynkladhva> (presently SWF <ynkleudhva>).
> 2. Allow <teudhi and <tedha> as alternative spellings.
> 3. Add to SWF/L <bidhi> (currently <beudhi> only); and <briji> (currently
> <breuji> in SWF/L).
> No change to <breusi>, <Meurth>, <feusik>.
> GWR & GR (SWF/L VARIANT)
> 1. Write <gwr-> in RMC and RLC, inclusing <gwra>, <gwruthyl>.
> GEMINATION & PROVECTION IN SUPERLATIVES/SUBJUNCTIVES
> 1. Retain <tth>, introduce corresponding <ggh>, <cch>, <ssh>.
> WORTIWEDH, ETC.
> 1. <wortiwedh/wostiwedh> and <wostalleth/wortalleth> to be single words,
> without apostrophes.
> 1ST PERSON SINGULAR
> 1 RC variant <me>, <ve>, no longer required.
> A spectacularly lousy set of amendments, lacking any sense of structure.
> Indeed, a number of them will have to be repealed, as they directly
> contradict the agreement made at Treyarnon.
> Since no one in the revival says [dʒɪᵈn] or [ɡɔᵈn] it is absurd to make
> this assumption. Whether <gon> was lost in late Cornish is irrelevant to
> the complaint, which is that the inconsistent linkage of nn/dn and mm/bm is
> a source of potential error and therefore a violation of the principle of
> inclusiveness. Whether "gonn" is used in RLC is irrelevant. What is
> relevant is that RLC users will read it as "godn", which is an error. And
> as a late loanword it is completely ridiculus to posit a "regular
> development" to *[dʒɪᵈn]; that didn't happen, and positing it is in this
> instance an example of conlanging.
> "1. Introduce <ll> and <rr> in roots." What does this mean? What roots?
> Why? The current rule is that monosyllables in -rr or -ll have a short
> vowel, and monosyllables in -r or -l have a long vowel. An example in KS is
> instructive: <war> [wæːɹ] 'beware' has a long vowel, and <wàr> [wɑɹ] 'on'
> has a short vowel. Is the SWF going to write *<warr> for the latter now?
> Other than that I take it that the alternation (attested in the texts)
> dallath/dalathow will now be dallath/dallathow. This is no improvement.
> "Introduce <ll> for <dell>." This is fine. KS already did it. The
> alternative would have been <dèl>.
> "Introduce <-ell> for the suffix which implies 'tool' or 'device’." This
> is an absurdity. If I am not mistaken only one of these "tool" words is
> attested, and then with a single -l. This is not a valid orthographic
> morpheme that diserves special spelling. In fact the spelling will probably
> attract erroneous final stress in these polysyllables. This is an
> unnecessary Kemmynism.
> "Change to ‹o› in ‹arlodh›, in line with ‹toll›, ‹tomm›, ‹boka›, ‹bronn›,
> ‹koska›." This makes no sense. The vowel in ‹arlùth› [ˈɑɹlʊθ] is unstressed
> and therefore is not in the same class with the others. In KS we write
> ‹toll› [tɔl] 'hole', <tomm>~<tobm> [tɔm]~[tɔᵇm] 'warm', ‹bùcka› [ˈbʊkə]
> 'goblin', ‹bronn›~‹brodn› [bɹɔn]~[bɹɔᵈn] 'breast', ‹củska› [ˈkʊskə]
> 'sleep'. Củsca and bùcka have a different vowel from the rest of these. No
> improvement here.
> "<gh> everywhere except word-initially." Guaranteeing another generation
> mispronouncing [ˈbiːən] as [ˈbɪkən]. The morphophonemic alternation found
> in SWF1 and in KS is better than this unwarranted Kemmynism.
> "Join particle with verb as in <thera>, without a gap." This fails the
> inclusivity test. Writing ‹th era› with a gap was bad typographically.
> Writing ‹thera› without a gap is bad morphologically. Writing ‹th'era› as
> KS does correctly assists non RLC readers in recognizing the relation
> between ‹th'› and ‹yth› while avoiding the typographic hypercorrection that
> could occur in ‹ˈth era›. This is a splendid way of ghettoizing the late
> variety of Cornish.
> "Retain <o> (present participle), but drop the apostrophe." Again, this
> violates the principle of inclusivity. There's no reason RLC cannot either
> write ‹ow› like everyone else and just elide it in pronunciation, or just
> drop it in writing and provect where necessary. Writing ‹o'› was
> unnecessary. And writing ‹o› will surely confuse it with the verb. Once
> again, a splendid own goal by the RLC, which will marginalize text in that
> variant because it emphasizes something that makes no difference.
> "To be respelt <nowydh> (M), or <nowedh>." Nearly every speaker of Revived
> Cornish has voiceless final consonants in final unstressed position in
> polysyllables. This orthographic decision simply underpins an unnecessary
> and unimplemented Kemmynism.
> The hyphenation rules proposed are so incoherent that there is nothing to
> be said. The rules in KS are clear, and provide a better model for anyone
> (since personal use rules here).
> "To be written as <pp>, <tt> if they contain a short vowel." THIS IS A
> VIOLATION OF THE AGREEMENT MADE IN TREYARNON. The rules are simple: In
> stressed monosyllables the vowel is short before a voiceless consonant and
> long before a voiced consonant (at least for the stops as here). Therefore
> the ONLY words which are problematic here are words like ‹shâp› [ʃæːp]
> where the vowel is unexpectedly long. What this rule has done is revert to
> the incorrect half-length rule of KK, where ‹hat› would be [hæːt] and
> ‹hatt› would be [hæt]. The correct thing to do here is to do what the other
> recommendations do (for dûk and jùnya) and to permit a diacritical mark if
> desired for the exceptional words like ‹shâp›. I say again, THIS
> RECOMMONDATION GOES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE REVIEW AND IS AN ATTEMPT TO
> REVERT TO KK PHONOLOGY.
> "Accept both permissible plural endings, e.g. <hattys/hattow>" This is
> stupid. This is a matter of morphology, not orthography.
> "Remove RLC variants <toal>, <kloav>, <gwoav>, <gwloan>, spelling them
> only with -a-." On the face of it this is a violation of the principle of
> inclusivity because RLC users will not pronounce ‹tal, clav, gwav, gwlan›
> correctly. However, so long as people mark these words (as KS does) by
> writing ‹tâl, clâv, gwâv, gwlân› there is no problem. So from that
> standpoint this is an improvement.
> "Add <boas>, <doas>, <moas> in RLC variants to the remaining <broas>".
> This is a mistake. The alternation in ‹brâs› is [bɹæːz]~[bɹɒːz]. The other
> alternations are [boːz]~[bɒːz] which occurs ONLY in these three words. RLC
> users can learn their preferred pronunciation for these three words and be
> done with it. There is no reason to mark ‹bos, dos, mos› specially.
> "1. <goolan> to become <golan>. Otherwise, no change." I don't know what
> this is about. We write ‹gùlla› pl ‹gùllys› 'seagull'.
> "1. <ck> to be used in all borrowings; <kk> in all other cases, including
> those in doubt." Yeah, right. This just burdens the learner with working
> out which are the borrowings. Is it "gocky" or "gokky? Is it "tycky" or
> "tykky"? In my view "whecka" is a better spelling than "hwekka".
> "2. <okkupya> to be respelt <okupya>." What a blessing. We write ‹ocûpya›
> [ɔˈkuːpjə] and are pretty happy with that.
> As for the apostrophes, I can again say that the only rules for apostrophe
> use that are coherent and pleasing to the eye are those established and
> implemented in KS.
> "Add SWF/L <enkladhva>, SWF/M <ynkladhva> (presently SWF <ynkleudhva>)."
> We're writing ‹ancladhva›.
> I don't know what the rest of the ‹eu› words are about because of course
> the discussion documents were never made public.
> "Write <gwr-> in RMC and RLC, inclusing <gwra>, <gwruthyl>." Good. An
> improvement. We already did that.
> "Retain <tth>, introduce corresponding <ggh>, <cch>, <ssh>." Pretty much
> useless, as [θː] [xː]~[hː], [tʃː], and [ʃː] are not part of the revived
> language. Unnecessary Kemmynism. Unwelcome.
> "<wortiwedh/wostiwedh> and <wostalleth/wortalleth> to be single words,
> without apostrophes." Will wonders never cease. We write
> ‹wortyweth/wostyweth/wàr an dyweth›.
> There appear to be no concessions to KS. One can see quite clearly that in
> a number of instances they have re-introduced Kemmynisms precisely to
> distance the SWF from KS where there was previously similarity. The
> spitefulness is palpable.
> To answer one question before anyone asks it: Since not one of the
> recommended changes here would improve the accuracy or authenticity of KS
> were it to be adopted, the orthography of KS as presented in Desky
> Kernowek, An Beybel Sans, and the rest of the more recent KS publications
> will not be changed. "Alys in Pow an Anethow" will be taken out of print
> and revised for a second edition because the orthography was made more
> precise during the preparation of An Beybel Sans, but that is not a
> reaction to this review, but rather just some house-keeping (since Alys was
> the first KS publication). (I don't know whether any of the other early
> publications will need revision; Alys certainly needs some.)
> KS is an accurate, authentic, inclusive, and stable orthography. I commend
> it to everyone. To anyone who is using the SWF: Stick with SWF1. SWF2 as
> proposed is markedly worse and less coherent.
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans