[Spellyans] -ita

[Owen Cook]

I agree that we should be consistent about these items. Which is more
common in the texts, <yta> or <ita>? <ita> looks better to me on
etymological grounds. And <i> is always short anyway if unstressed
and/or in syllables earlier than the penultima...

~~Owen

2008/6/30 nicholas williams <njawilliams at gmail.com>:
> KK is incoherent in its spelling of words in -ita/-yta < Latin -itat(em).
> It writes <trynyta> 'trinity', <cheryta> 'charity', <dynyta> 'dignity' with
> <-yta> but
> <kontroversita> 'controversy', <antikwita> 'antiquity' and <awtorita>
> 'authority' with <-ita>.
> The SWF (as exemplified in Dan's dictionary) renders the ending as <-ita>
> everywhere.
> I wonder whether this is wise. The vowel in -yta is invariably short. I
> should prefer to write
> trynyta, cheryta, dynyta, controversyta, antyqwyta, auctoryta, etc.
> Otherwise we might have the following:
> akwyt a! 'pay him!'
> kwyt a! 'leave him!'
> antikwita 'antiquity'
> dibita 'pitiless'
> all with [It@] but written differently. This isn't very helpful for
> learners—many of whom (understandably)
> found the distribution of y and i baffling in KK.
> And it is not just learners who were befuddled by <i ~ y> in KK. The editor
> of the KK New Testament in his introduction describes his team of
> translators as 'experienced Cornish linguists'. They wrote in KK and yet
> they, 'experienced' as they were, could frequently not decide whether to
> write <i> or <y>.
> In An Testament Nowydh we find <Symeon> Luke 2.25 but <Simeon> Acts 13:1;
> <Sylvanus> 2 Cor. 1:19 but <Silvanus> 1 Peter 5:12; <Sidon> Matt 11:21 but
> <Sydon> Mark 3:8.
> Should we not be looking for a simple and coherent distribution of these two
> graphs <i> and <y>?
> Nicholas
>
>