Re: Some suggestions

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

Rhaifun Bryn yscrifef:

> Now it was the Normans with their clumsy
> orthography applied more clumsily to English that started our language on
> its path of very unphonetic spelling.

Chaucer's spelling isn't too unphonetic: I think the unphonetic spelling
(which is still only 11% of the total word stock) has more to do with
sound change especially the Great Vowel Shift, just as is the case in
French and Danish.

> Whether we like "ffelig", "ffelicg", "ffelitg", "ffelig'" or whatever
> (shouldn't the initial consonant be /f/, i.e. ff- ?

I think the original context was mutated.

> Personally, I would need to be persuaded why they should be
> different over these matters from the Cymry of this world.

Because B. unlike W. belongs to a closely related group of
languages that have repeatedly influenced each other during
their history: the Romance languages are far more "closely
coupled" than the Celtic languages.  Just look at the
re-Romancization of Romanian in the 19th century:

	monument 'monument'	mormi^nt 'tomb'
	celest 'celestial'	ceresc 'heavenly'
	sentiment 'sentiment'	simt,@mi^nt 'feeling'
	direct 'direct'		drept 'straight, true'

"@" = a-breve, pronounced schwa.

> But the final choice has to be Andrew's.

Of course.

-- 
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)