[Spellyans] The two roles of â (a-circumflex) in Kernowek Standard

Philip Newton philip.newton at gmail.com
Wed Sep 18 07:44:35 BST 2013

First off, I would like to apologise for the slightly provocative tone
in my original message - I was a bit frustrated.

On 17 September 2013 23:52, A. J. Trim <ajtrim at msn.com> wrote:
> Introducing the ring would add to the types of diacritical mark. So I'm not
> in favour.

That's reasonable.

> I favour: bräs, brässa, cläv, clävjy, äls.

That would work as well; the double-dot diacritic is already in use,
but not for "a", and could apply here as well.

> I do not think that it is necessary to mark êw/ôw but if you do, ëw/öw would
> be more logical, and it would match the use of ë/ÿ.

There is a word which the SWF spells either "bew" or "byw" ("alive,
lively, active, etc."), which I imagine KS currently spells bëw, bÿw.

This would seem to preclude the use of ëw/öw for that alternation,
since if you saw "bëw" in a text, you would know that it has an
alternative spelling but couldn't tell whether that alternative
spelling is böw or bÿw.

Unless the êw/ôw alternation (or the ë/ÿ one) is limited to certain
positions? For example, the words that I can think of off the top of
my head that have êw/ôw are all polysyllabic, so "bëw" would then be
unambiguously bëw/bÿw. My vocabulary is not nearly large enough to
know whether any other collisions would be possible.

> The circumflex would then always mean a long vowel, and the diaeresis  would
> always mean a vowel with two pronunciations.
> The two dots would be a good reminder of two pronunciations.

That sounds like an attractive property to have.


More information about the Spellyans mailing list