Heraldry-Ordinary question

[Detroitpete]

Both Mr. MacDougal and Detroit Pete are correct. If the arms of the upside down "Y" extend to the edge of the shield it is a pall inverted. If the arms of the upside down "Y" don't touch the edge of the shield then it is a shakefork inverted.

If the pall inverted touches a border-not the edge of the shield, then is it also considered a shakefork inverted?

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

If the pall inverted touches a border-not the edge of the shield, then is it also considered a shakefork inverted?

No. It is still a pall. A shakefork has pointed ends which by design and definition generally do not extend to the edge of the field. So, to be a shakefork you have to be able to see the pointed ends of the shakefork within the bordure, but not touching it. The only way that a shakefork (or a pal) interrupts a bordure is if it is blazoned as being "overall":

Argent a bordure or, overall a shakefork (or pall) gules.

If the pall and the bordure are the same colour (or metal) then the blazon would read:

Argent a bordure gules overall a pall of the second.

In this instance the word "overall" is to be preferred to "within" so that when the arms are exemplified (that is painted) the painter does not diminish the size of the pall and float it within, but not touching, the bordure. If that was the effect desired then the blazon would read:

Argent within a bordure gules a pall of the second.

If it was the intention that the points of the shakefork touch the edge of the field, then it would be blazoned as "throughout":

Argent a shakefork gules throughout.

Or, if the shakefork was meant to touch the bordure:

Argent within a bordure gules a shakefork of the second throughout

Because of the subtleties of blazon, on letters patent one will inevitably find that the blazon is followed by a phrase something to the effect of:

"as more clearly seen in the margin hereof"

which, of course, refers to the illustration of the arms so that no ambiguity exists.