[Spellyans] <y Y> + diacritical
A. J. Trim
ajtrim at msn.com
Thu Jun 26 00:16:06 BST 2008
From: "A. J. Trim" <ajtrim at msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 12:11 AM
To: "Standard Cornish discussion list" <spellyans at kernowek.net>
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] <y Y> + diacritical
> Vocalic Alternation is a complication.
> If we have it, it needs to be defendable. This will be easier if we get it
> If it's not right, then it's broken, so it should be fixed -- regardless
> the route by which it came into being.
> If we don't repair it now, the KK-ers in 5 years' time will say that VA
> never really worked; let's get rid of it.
> If the rule is going to be that some <e> become <y> in monosyllables then
> must also become <i> in monosyllables -- depending on whether it is long
> short if that is to be the rule for deciding whether to write <y> or <i>.
> Given that the whole thing is optional, in some cases, we might need <ë>,
> <ÿ> and <ï>. This is complicated.
> You might want to use a single graph to represent all three, e.g. <ea>.
> This would give deadh, deadhyow as the only form. The <ea> would be an
> umbrella for <e>/<y>/<i>, long or short.
> We could use <ë> if you must, instead of <ea>, giving dëdh, dëdhyow.
> Andrew J. Trim
> From: "Michael Everson" <everson at evertype.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:31 PM
> To: "Standard Cornish discussion list" <spellyans at kernowek.net>
> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] <y Y> + diacritical
>> At 20:56 +0100 2008-06-25, Owen Cook wrote:
>>>><y> is [I] and <i> is [i:] in monosyllables and
>>>>their derivatives. Except that the SWF is
>>>>incoherent here where bÿs/bës are concerned.
>>>Isn't fixing incoherencies part of the point of this whole undertaking?
>> Yes; the diacritics on bÿs/bës is a way of fixing
>> that incoherence. Had it been <beis> there would
>> have been no issue with that class of words.
>>>>Because we can't succeed by "fixing" the SWF by
>>>>changing the spelling of bys and dydh to bis
>>>>and didh. They elected to preserve the bogus
>>>>[I:] here. If we put diaeresis on <dÿdh> and
>>>><dëdh> we are treading lightly. If we change
>>>>these to <dídh> and <dédh> we have gone too far.
>>>When did we decide this? It may be that our
>>>final decision about <y> and <i> requires us to
>>>change words like these anyway, no?
>> We do have decisions to make, but I think we have
>> to take it as read that the distribution in
>> monosyllables is fixed. For instance, dydh ~
>> dedhyow is now part of the SWF (as is dedh ~
>> dedhyow) in the form of Vocalic Alternation. I
>> don't think that we could get away with changing
>> this to didh ~ dedhyow since VA is already a
>> bitter enough pill the KK users have to swallow.
>> I think we should be conservative here.
>> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans