Re: Brithenig diphthongs (was: Yiddish influences in Brithenig)

[John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>]

Rhaifun Bryn yscrifef:

> The question, I suppose, is whether length distinction would've arisen
> between two sets of diphthongs, but not elsewhere.  That is a different
> matter.  On reflexion I can see problems here.  The obvious reason would be
> that original /ae/ and /oe/ developed to /a:/ and /o:/ in some dialects but
> fell together with /ai/ & /oi/ in others; an artificially "correct"
> pronunciation /a:i/ and /o:i/ was developed by the educated.

It may be worth noting that in the posted vocabulary "ai" and "oi"
are quite rare, only 5 and 6 examples respectively, whereas "ae" has
21 examples and "oe" 13.  (This excludes names.)  So if we want to keep
the phonetics [ai]/[@i] and [oi]/[Oi] in the language at all, we
should move warily on de-unifying "ai"/"ae" and "oi"/"oe".

> Raifun.

You seem to always write "Raifun", but Andrew's original remarks
made it "Rhaifun".  Is this some grammatical point I'm missing
whereby signatures get the soft mutation?

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@ccil.org
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)