s.hewitt at unesco.org
Tue May 14 15:13:38 BST 2013
In general, it is very difficult to have an orthography which brings together various diachronic and geographic varieties which is not etymological.
I don't really understand the persistent bias against etymology in this group. My etymological orthography for Breton builds on the interdialectal (S-SS) orthography, and works much the best of all systems to accomodate predictable dialect reflexes with a minimum of spelling variation.
Isn't that the goal of the SWF?
From: Spellyans [mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net] On Behalf Of Daniel Prohaska
Sent: 14 May 2013 16:10
To: Standard Cornish discussion list
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] tavas
As you and I have said, <taves> is also found in the texts, and thus fulfils the criteria for the SWF. Now, one can argue over whether it is wise to have an orthography that is based on etymology but that is a different discussion entirely.
On May 14, 2013, at 4:03 PM, Nicholas Williams wrote:
We all know the etymology, Dan. My point is that the phonetic environment appears to have cause the word to develop in a slightly anomalous fashion.
Tavas, tavosow are the forms in the texts. They should be the forms in the SWF. Etymology per se is no counter argument.
On 14 May 2013, at 14:57, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
I sympathise with those who wish to keep the spelling <tavas> from Unified Cornish. But I would rather redirect the energy and impetus of SWF-reviewing to more pressing issues. There is nothing "wrong" with the spelling <taves> "except" that it is the form used in KK. It is attested as such in the texts as well as being the etymologically expected form.
Spellyans mailing list
Spellyans at kernowek.net<mailto:Spellyans at kernowek.net>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans