[Spellyans] SWF (t) and Maga web site
daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Thu Aug 9 15:14:16 BST 2012
On Aug 9, 2012, at 11:33 AM, Nicholas Williams wrote:
> The SWF is not a neutral spelling. It uses graphs derived holus bolus from Kernewek Kemmyn.
> *Piw rather than pyw,
I respect your sentiment, but there are some things which aren't so clear cut. The graphs ‹i› and ‹y› and were interchangeably used in traditional Cornish and it is only sensible to assign specific functions or positions to ‹i› and ‹y› in Revived Cornish. You have done this for KS, and the SWF has done it, too, albeit differently. Since in traditional Cornish ‹y› and ‹i› were used interchangeably I have no problem with writing ‹iw›.
> *niver rather than never,
Since both ‹never› and ‹never› are attested I believe this is one for the 2013 Review, as belong to the class of words where ‹y› and ‹e› alternate.
> *dy'Lun rather than de Lun,
I agree, dy' Lun or dy'Lun is a silly unauthentic spelling habit. I would prefer de Lun or dyw Lun any day...
> *melin rather than melyn,
The SWF has the rule of the etymological vowel. I don't think you will contest that Brythonic borrowed this word from Latin ‹molina› with */i/ rather than */I/. Since traditional Cornish wrote ‹y› and ‹i› interchangeably I don't see a huge issue, also considering the fact that the recommendations for pronunciation of the SWF specifically say that ‹i› and ‹y› are to be pronounced the same in unstressed syllables.
> *menedh rather than meneth,
The spelling ‹menedh› is SWF/L, alternatively ‹mena›. The SWF/M has ‹menydh›. This spelling follows Lhuyd who was the only one to make distinction between the phonemes /D/ and /T/ in Cornish. He has several spellings with ‹dh›.
> *genev rather than genef,
Again, Lhuyd has several spellings with final ‹v›.
> *orthiv rather than orthyf
Lhuyd and Pryce have ‹orthiv›.
> for example, are not neutral. Nor are they authentic.
They cannot be said to be inauthentic in the light of the attestations.
> They derive entirely from Kernewek Kemmyn.
> It is disingenuous to call such spellings 'neutral'. It is also offensive to those for whom traditional spelling is essential.
There are several possibilities how these forms can be accommodated in the 2013 Review.
> The question then arises, why is public money being spent on a spelling system that is neither phonetic nor authentic and is also repudiated by at least half of all revivalists?
The standard orthography is matter of finding a workable compromise...
> If tax-payers' money is to be spent, should it not be on a linguistically sound and authentic orthography, rather than on an inauthentic, inconsistent and politically motivated compromise?
Anything a group of people decide upon will be a political compromise,
> If something is in official use, it ought to be the best available. The SWF/M and T is certainly not that.
> Nicholas Williams
SWF/t is better than SWF/m but there is some work to be done for the 2013 Review.
> On 9 Aug 2012, at 08:34, Lowe Jenefer wrote:
>> The point with the SWF is to provide a neutral spelling for official use.
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans