ajtrim at msn.com
ajtrim at msn.com
Wed Mar 11 14:33:52 GMT 2009
In the SWF, according to Dan's dictionary:
liv means "a file (tool)", "a flood", "a lunch", "it floods", "short for a
Liberal", "he files (scrapes)", "she lunches".
liw means "a colour", "he paints".
lyw means "a rudder", "a flood".
So liv has 7 meanings and liw/lyw has 3 meanings.
Moreover, "a rudder" may be spelt "lew" (which also means "a lion") so most
ambiguities can be avoided.
As lyw needs no spelling change to bring it into line with the proposed
orthographical model, and as lyw has
less meanings than liv, and at least one of those could be respelt, I
conclude that lyw for "a flood" is better than liv.
However, I am concerned that the proposed orthographical model prevents us
from using attested spellings that
would help to solve the problem of some spellings being overloaded with
meanings. Perhaps we need to allow our
model to accept some exceptions. The word lyf would be authentic and not
clash with anything else. The langage
would be harder to learn if it had some spelling exceptions but it could
then prove easier to use. The pain may
have some gain.
Andrew J. Trim
From: "Nicholas Williams" <njawilliams at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 10:56 AM
To: "Standard Cornish discussion list" <spellyans at kernowek.net>
Subject: [Spellyans] 'flood'
> The word for 'flood' is attested 7 times as <lyf> in OM.
> In CW however the word appears as <lyw> twice and as <lywe> four times.
> Moreover Tregear writes <lew Noye> 'Noah's flood' at TH 7.
> We thus have <lyf> x 7 and <lyw(e), lew> x 8.
> In KS we should allow both forms. <lyf> however must be respelt with
> <i> rather than <y> and with final <v>. This means that the attested
> lyf will appear as <liv>. I prefer to use <lyw>, which requires no
> respelling. It may, however, be taken for lyw 'colour'.
> What do others think?
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans