[Spellyans] Normalization of words in -ak and -ek

Owen Cook owen.e.cook at gmail.com
Thu Jun 4 00:26:53 BST 2009

I think Michael's suggestion here is a good one. Final -ak that
alternates with -og- is an easy rule to remember, while -ek
alternating with -eg- is a no brainer. There may be edge cases that
are hard to classify, but the principle seems good to me. And the fact
is that none of the other varieties have seriously grappled with this
particular question.

Ol an gwelha,

On 04/06/2009, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com> wrote:
> On 3 Jun 2009, at 23:05, Eddie Climo wrote:
>>> On balance I suggest the following normalization:
>>> KS -ak, -ogyon, -ogeth, -egy, -ogyl, -oges, -ogesow,
>> A more balanced suggestion would be
>> KS -ek
>> as that is used by 3 out of the 4 varieties of RC. To accommodate
>> those who prefer LC forms, this could be expanded to:
>> KS -ek (MC form
>> KS -ak (LC form)
> We aren't making an MC/LC distinction for -ak and -ek, both of which
> are pronounced identically, [ək].
> We're making an orthographic distinction, where -ak is used where the
> plural stem changes to -og-, and -ek where the plural stem remains -eg-.
> Why? Because right now there's no help for learners. Some -ak words in
> some varieties of RC are -og- some are -eg-. And some -ek words in
> some varieties of RC are -og- some are -eg-. See, it works out very
> well to keep to -ak/-og- and -ek/-eg- -- it's only that this
> particular word, perhednak/perhennak, has been difficult to classify,
> because the only evidence we have for it is one singular in -ek (BM)
> and one singular in -ak (BK).
> That's why I also did the analysis of all the RC varieties. The choice
> of which to choose (-ek or -ak) was not on the basis of statistical
> frequency of the masculine for only. If we did that, then we would
> have had an -eg- word. But since the greater number of derivative
> forms in RC are in -og-, we have good cause to choose the BK spelling
> in -ak.
>> And the economical thing about this MC/LC alternation is that
>> there'd be no call for yet another diacritic!
> Non sequitur?
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

More information about the Spellyans mailing list