Posts: 1159
Posted:
26.Mar 2007 - 13:41
Kernowak: A proposed Standard Written Form for the Cornish language
Since September 2006, a diverse group of Cornish users, working under the name "UdnFormScrefys", has been working together to devise a compromise spelling for the language. When mature, the proposal will be submitted to the Cornish Language Commission as part of the Cornish Language Partnerships Strategy for the Cornish Language.
The group has identified two basic requirements necessary for consensus on spelling reform acceptable to the majority of users. Those requirements are:
* The spelling system must be based on attested traditional orthographic forms,
* The relationship between spelling and sounds must be unambiguous.
The proposed orthography is now ready in draft. Called "Kernowak", it is the first form of Revived Cornish ever to have been produced in a group effort, rather than being the work of one person.
The draft proposal has been made available today to the Linguistic Working Group (which is under the auspices of the Cornish Language Partnership) and may also be downloaded as a PDF file from http://kernowak.com/. A dedicated discussion list called "Profyans" has also been made available for those who wish to ask questions and to suggest improvements to the draft proposal. Visitors may also register their support for this compromise form of the language.
The editorial group will be discussing the proposal only on the "Profyans" list, not on this list or on any other forum. We look forward to a lively debate.
On behalf of UdnFormScrefys,
Michael Everson
Posts: 1814
Posted:
26.Mar 2007 - 16:52
"Compromise" yntra pubonan marnas KK...
Ple'ma'n dus a vri KK y'n rol a skriforyon? Y'm breus vy pur gompleth yw an furv ma gans an merkys diacritical; hager yw geryow kepar ha qwrêwgh; ha kales yw dhe jynn-skrifa gans keyboard Sowsnek.
Posts: 1159
Posted:
26.Mar 2007 - 21:48
If you wish to address comments to the UdnFormScrefys editing group, please subscribe to the e-mail list as described at http://kernowak.com
Gromercy dhys,
Michael Everson
edited by: Evertype, Mar 26, 2007 - 11:40 PM
Posts: 899
Posted:
26.Mar 2007 - 23:31
Posts: 899
Posted:
26.Mar 2007 - 23:36
Posts: 1159
Posted:
26.Mar 2007 - 23:39
Posts: 1159
Posted:
26.Mar 2007 - 23:42
Please look at the list of signatories again. two of them are KK users. More tomorrow.
Posts: 1814
Posted:
27.Mar 2007 - 09:33
Evertype, I may be wrong but as I understand it, Ken McKinnon is not fluent in KK and who is the other KK man? There is no KK user of note in the list of authors. This is nothing more than a form to set against KK. It is nuts to be introducing this new form at this late time when we are working towards a decision by the end of May.
Posts: 273
Posted:
27.Mar 2007 - 09:54
The other KK user lives in the States and genuinely does use KK but has never been happy with it. He visited a language weekend once, round about 2002 or 2003, and on the strength of that one visit has recently made claims such as "I only know one person that speaks Cornish properly and he lives in the States" and "the pronunciation of Cornish hasn't changed since the 1960s". It's impossible to work out how he came to that conclusion given that he wasn't around in the 60s and doesn't appear to have been here since that weekend. Aligning himself with the group that has produced this proposal is a good move for him.
Posts: 1159
Posted:
27.Mar 2007 - 11:46
Yes, I'm the "whipping boy" on a couple of Yahoogroups lists. I've been working in the field of minority language support and the writing systems of the world for many years, and am (believe it or not) fairly widely liked and respected for the work I have done. Within the Cornish Revivial I certainly seem to have enemies, as far as I can see all from the group which uses KK. That orthography and the tactics of some of its promulgators has done an awful lot of damage. We have a split Revival. If there is any hope of getting it unsplit, people are going to have to "think out of the box". I and some others do not believe that UC, RLC, KK, or UCR could function as a SWF. Accordingly it seems that a 5th form (as suggested by the Partnership) should be considered. When our group began working, we were simply trying to reconcile UC, RLC, and UCR. That was a big task, and it was not easy. We succeeded. We also attempted to address the principal shortcomings of UC which led to attempts in the 1980s to devise an orthography that was less ambiguous. That, it seems to us, is the main thing that KK users feel is the most important thing to them. (Ken George talks about this "advantage" KK has in the front matter of the second edition of his dictionary the Gerlyver Kres.)
We are interested in no longer having a split revival. We are prepared to give up UC, RLC, and UCR for a better form that is both authentic and unambiguous. We aren't prepared to use KK. I don't think it is unreasonable for us to have worked on a proposal.
I rather think that my opinions re fairly measured and rational, based on sound linguistics supported by the evidence of the texts. The texts are our source for Cornish and we must respect them. I don't think this "bias" is unreasonable.
That's regrettable, but here I am.
The Commission is supposed to make a decision. The LWG is supposed to help the Commission by giving them advice. The rest of us (all of us) are also invited to help deal with all of this.
I've seen many people say that they don't care what the SWF is and will use whatever is chosen. Our group has put forward a proposal which is linguistically accurate, robust, and respects the heritage of the traditional texts. It's a draft and we invite comment. And we invite people to show their support if they believe that what we have done (or something like it) might be a way forward to unifying the Revival. We have done this in good faith.
I can't quite follow what you are saying here. A number of people in our group are members of the LWG itself.
The Cornish language is for everyone, wherever they live. Many KK users live outside of Cornwall, don't they? As it happens I have Cornish ancestry, though one does not need to have that to be interested in Cornish.
I hope you read the draft and consider it carefully.
Posts: 1151
Posted:
27.Mar 2007 - 12:20
Mar vedhow avel gelvinek
(as maazed as a curlew)
Posts: 1814
Posted:
27.Mar 2007 - 12:50
Is reducing ambiguity why, in Kernowak, there are six different forms of the present 2s long form of BOS, MYNNES etc? Why "udn" (unn in KK) has four pronunciations? Why the conditional tense has forms in both -S- and -J-? It seems to me that by trying to reconcile the two Unifieds with Late that you have actually introduced *more* ambiguity which will confuse learners no end. A SWF which contains all the spellings and pronunciations from all the existing forms is no SWF, it is a continuation of the status quo under a single banner. I am all for a SWF, but we need to have one which is manageable and well-defined, not one which is a confusing mish-mash of several existing forms. In any case, we have two existing forms, UCR and KK, which were designed to reduce the shortcomings of UC, why do we need yet another one?
Nor is anyone.
We need to shake and make up and move forward together, but it seems clear to me that the development of Kernowak is purely designed to be used against Kemmyn. It would have been much better to have ALL worked together to produce a combined form we were ALL happy with.Sad when so many people on all sides have said that they will use the SWF whatever form it is. I just can't help feeling that introducing this new version in the middle of the decision-making process is divisive and designed to throw a spanner in the works. If the independent experts go with Kemmyn does that mean you will fight against the chosen SWF?
Your proposal actually looks like one designed to unite the minority of non-Kemmyn speakers against the majority Kemmyn form. That is hardly going to unify the revival, is it?
Sorry if I sound a bit antagonistic about this, I'm just really not convinced that the publication of this new form, which is clearly biased against the most widely-used form of Cornish, at this precise moment in the language's history, is going to do the move towards a SWF any favours at all.
Posts: 1159
Posted:
27.Mar 2007 - 12:56
These are good points. I can't discuss them here. I really can't. For one thing there are only so many hours in the day. For another, this is a group effort. The entire editing group (including people who would not use the Cornwall24 forum or be subscribed to the Yahoogroups lists) is subscribed to the list set up for discussion and feedback of the proposal. Everyone is invited. As long as everyone is courteous, criticism and debate is welcome.
I want to address your questions. But I won't do it here. I invite you, and everyone, to join the discussion list described at kernowak.com if you have questions, queries, complaints, or praise for the proposed Kernowak orthography.
Posts: 1159
Posted:
27.Mar 2007 - 15:27
I have answers to your linguistic questions, but again, won't discuss them here. Why not subscribe to Kernowak and encourage other members of this Cornwall24 to do likewise, and then send your questions in two or three days (to allow time for more people to subscribe)? Your questions are good, and have good answers, but the Kernowak discussion is part of the SWF process (in that it is about a document which will go to the Commission for consideration); this forum here is just for chat.
Well it is not a secret that we don't like KK and we don't want to use it. It's got a lot wrong with it and hundreds of pages have been published all about that. In point of fact, getting UC/UCR/RLC requirements together at all was a real challenge. It began with a compromise date for the Revived Language, basing it not at the earliest period, nor at the latest, but in between. Jordan's Creation of the World (1611) was our foundation text. It has linguistic features both early and late -- and some speakers of Revived Cornish prefer early features and some prefer late. Compromise must grasp this nettle.
Quite the opposite. The Partnership brief is to determine whether one of the existing four forms could be used for the SWF, or if a new fifth form should evolve. We think the only way for all of us to win, is for all of us to lose. That means moving to a 5th form, based not on one person's work and vision, but as a collective response to identified requirements.
Our draft proposal is an attempt at compromise. While it may seem unfamiliar at first, please read and study the document. Remember that it satisfies some really big requirements that RLC users had, and that was not easily done. (If you have only ever used KK you may not be familiar with RLC practice, but it's true nonetheless.) And it deals with the question of ambiguous spelling that is (rightly) pointed out as an important requirement by KK users. Our draft proposal is an anticipated part of the decision-making process.
No comment. This kind of question doesn't get us anywhere. At present, the Commission hasn't made up its mind about anything. I could equally ask "If the independent experts go with UC (or UCR, or RLC, or something like our proposed KS) does that mean you will fight against the chosen SWF?"
I don't accept your premise that UC/UCR/RLC users are in the minority and KK is in the majority. The Kesva "80% myth" is untenable.
We did begin with the requirements of the groups that insist on a traditionally-based orthography. That was hard enough. We did not ignore the legitimate need for the orthography to be unambiguous. We are not insisting that KK users use UC or RLC or UCR. We are suggesting that the best way forward, in the light of research done over the past two decades, is to move on. Much has happened in Cornish Studies since 1986. Bewnans Ke wasn't even known then. We know more, and collectively, can design an orthography that works. It won't be "just like" anything anyone is used to. It will take work for people to change. (Some people chose to do the same in 1986; it isn't that hard.) But it's the best hope we have for uniting the Revival.
We have been attempting to engage KK users in discussions with us. Those involved more closely with the Kesva have refused. That does not deter us, however. And it is one reason we are attempting to involve discussion with the general public.
Again, I do not accept your thesis that KK is "the most widely-used form". This is a myth told by the Kesva, misusing, in fact, the MacKinnon report. At the end of the day, no group would be happy were any of the existing orthographies to "win". UC and UCR and KK don't meet the needs of RLC users. RLC and KK don't meet the needs of UC users (though some are OK with UCR). UC and UCR and RLC don't meet the needs of KK users. and UC and KK and RLC don't meet the needs of UCR users.
We can do better if we work together toward an orthography designed to meet specific needs, rather than to bolster the dysfunctional status quo or to stick to one person's theories about what Cornish should have been.
Please take up your discussion of the linguistic questions you have with us on the Kernowak.com list.
Posts: 1814
Posted:
27.Mar 2007 - 16:07
Thanks for the response, though I'm disappointed that you are only prepared to discuss the new form on your forum where supporters will be in the vast majority. Surely the measure of any form is its ability to stand up to criticism? I'm reluctant to voice even constructive criticisms in a forum where I'm likely to be flamed for doing so.
As you're not prepared to enter into a linguistic discussion here, I'll have to limit my responses to general points.
And hundreds of pages have been written showing that the criticisms about KK are unfounded. Pardon me for saying so, but by including features of both early and late you *haven't* grasped the nettle, you are simply saying that in Kernowak you can use both early *and* late! This doesn't lead to a single form, it leads to two-forms-in-one. We could easily produce a single form acceptable to everyone if we say that any spelling from any form is acceptable - that way Late users continue with late, Kemmyn with Kemmyn and so on!
However by excluding input from Kemmyn from your fifth form it isn't a case of all of us losing, is it? There are none of the Kemmyn "big guns" in your list of authors, so I doubt that the Kemmyn input has been more than minimal.
That speaks volumes. It looks like you will be happy to accept the independent panel of experts' decision only if it goes your way. We cannot hope to achieve a SWF if people think that way. I make no secret of which way I hope the decision goes, but I would make an effort to use the SWF whatever it is, even if it's this fifth form. It was mainly people outside Kemmyn who fought to get a decision from a panel of experts, and now we're getting one, it looks likely that it won't be accepted if it doesn't go their way! Well in that case we could have saved a lot of money and time and just flipped a coin two years ago to pick a SWF.
I've never though that it was as high as 80%, but even 51% is a majority and I'm sure Kemmyn has more than that.
Hear, hear!
Posts: 899
Posted:
27.Mar 2007 - 16:32
Pre Oclusion. I like this, as it brings what was naturaly happening in the Language into Modern Use.
One thing I have always had a gripe about in your theories was the one on Loan Words. I cannot agree and never will, on the use of Loan Words even though they are found in the Likes of Tregear. Where we can use a Cornish Word, or one that has been compiled by looking at Welsh and Breton, then I think the Loan Word should be dropped completely. In this Report you do not mention this aspect at all, and I for one would like an answer to it.
New Words. There have been over the past 30 Years a number of new Words that are not attested, what is your Policy on these ? Yet again this is an important point not mentioned. What are you suggesting in this Area? Are we going to have a Committee within the Tavas to look at new Words? Also where will the new Words come from, English??
Apart form these points I have not seen much else that I would not support if this is the SWF. I do however need to go through it in more depth.
Posts: 1159
Posted:
27.Mar 2007 - 17:18
KKC21 did not really "prove" that. And was refuted in Towards Authentic Cornish to which no response has been offered. I will not rehearse the linguistic arguments here. The Commission has copies of all of those books, and as independent linguists, will make their own decision. As a linguist myself, I don't believe that they will be convinced that criticism of KK is "unfounded". (For heaven's sake, people, we don't criticize KK because we are humorless bastards who hate people who have learnt it. We criticize it because it's got holes all through it. George did his best in 1984 with FORTRAN programs and some theories about Middle Cornish. It was an interesting experiment. It has a lot to teach us. But he got a lot wrong. There's no shame in that. The shame is in not admitting it though.)
That's what Cornish speakers do. Maybe you don't have a lot of contact with speakers of RLC. There are a lot of them. And the way that they speak is related to the way the Cornish language developed. Our draft proposal, therefore, does was Welsh and many other languages do. It allows a literary register and a colloquial register. That's the right compromise. It preserves genuine linguistic diversity.
By and large the members of the Kesva and those close to them have refused to engage with us. I myself wrote to Ken George some weeks ago, telling him what we were doing and asking him to engage with us. He did not wish to do so. That's his choice. We're still here, still working on our proposal for the Commission, still trying to make it as acceptable to the greatest number of people that we can. Any time Ken wants to talk to us, he can. We have not "excluded input from Kemmyn". Indeed, we invite you to discuss our proposal with us.
No, it doesn't. It means I'm not going to discuss this kind of speculation. I am going to stay focused on preparing a proposal for the Commission.
I am not so sure, and neither are my colleagues. But really, 51% of "few" or even 80% of "few" isn't really very meaningful. There are probably 150 really good speakers of Cornish, and even if there were 1,000 of them, it doesn't really mean very much given that there are 510,000 people living in Cornwall. The split Revival has not been effective in promoting Cornish.
Please come to kernowak.com and discuss the issues you have with the draft proposal. Or don't. Discussion here is not going to have any effect on the proposal, and won't be seen by the other authors.
Gen oll ow holon vy,
Michael
Posts: 1159
Posted:
27.Mar 2007 - 17:29
Please raise your questions about orthography with the editing group at kernowak.com
Vocabulary is a different matter from orthography. If you don't want to say onderstondya even if it's attested in Tregear, say something else. A good dictionary should include the word, though. The principles of lexical development are a whole 'nother discussion, as they say, and I really have some other work I need to do. But it would be my hope that a lexicography committee will be constituted after a SWF is chosen. There are many experts on vocabulary in the Revival, from all four camps.
Michael
Posts: 1159
Posted:
27.Mar 2007 - 17:52
I'm sorry I can't discuss the draft proposal here any longer, but our group wants people to talk to our group, not just to me.
Gen oll ow holon vy,
Michael Everson
Posts: 1293
Posted:
27.Mar 2007 - 22:46
Seventy Percent of "competent & frequent" Cornish users prefer to write KK! (MAGA/CLP Survey)
Posts: 1159
Posted:
27.Mar 2007 - 23:29
We are serious about public discussion, and we have set up a publicly-available discussion list. It's not on Yahoogroup and it's not on Cornwall24. I started a thread on this board to invite people, openly, to join the conversation, which is taking place elsewhere. Not to talk to me, but to talk to all of the people in our group responsible for the forthcoming submission to the Commission.
What you say about Richard Gendall is most uncivil, and indeed is deplorable.
Maybe no one from Cornwall24 will join our discussion. That is for participants in this forum to decide. We have published a draft document, and invite people who are serious about the SWF process to engage with us. Not me. Us.
I'm not [i[able[/i] to discuss these matters on six different forums at once. I'm (and my colleagues) are not interested in "negotiating" or "winning over" people who don't want to be honest enough give us their names. We have our own list, which is public and available to anyone who wishes to subscribe.
Morvan, your use of the word "ghetto" is the same noxious dismissive rhetoric I've had to put up with for the last two years on the Yahoo group. It is tiresome. I've had enough of it. I have much energy to devote to the Cornish Revival. I have little patience left for time-wasting.
Sorry, folks. I don't mean to be uncivil. I am tired of ad-hominem attacks, and that's all that Morvran's attempt to belittle and marginalize has been. I've seen it before.
It's our draft proposal, and we have decided to invite the general public to help us improve it. Morvran's criticism of the way in which we choose to manage the way we get input seems churlish to me.
It is early days on the Kernowak discussion list, but discussion has begun there, and it has been interesting and stimulating, friendly and intelligent. Cornwall24 readers are, as I have said, invited to participate.
Nos da.
Michael
Posts: 2538
Posted:
27.Mar 2007 - 23:46
Posts: 1814
Posted:
27.Mar 2007 - 23:47
I think you've missed the nature of some internet forums. People on C24 *want* to remain anonymous, not least because of the unpleasant personal treatment of some on here. I'm not worried about being on your forum because of your forum, but rather because I don't want my ID on C24 to be connectable to my real name. *I* don't know who is running your forum and how secure the data protection is, so I'm afraid I'll have to stay off it because of C24. Sorry, I would have liked to join! I think that it's a shame because there are people on C24 who are strongly in favour of Cornwall and Kernewek and who could contribute a lot.
And morvran, toujours la politesse, eh?
Posts: 1159
Posted:
27.Mar 2007 - 23:56
I am of course aware that our list is short of KK representation. We are inviting KK users to read and understand the draft and to engage in dialogue with us. To date, most of the people we know (on the Yahoo forum) have found excuses for not wanting to do so.
(That's not really true. They pretend to dismiss us utterly and refuse to talk to us.)
Do you use KK? You're invited to discuss matters with us.
Posts: 2538
Posted:
28.Mar 2007 - 00:10
Posts: 1159
Posted:
28.Mar 2007 - 00:21
I am the one running our forum and the members list is not available to anyone but me. If you don't identify yourself as FlammNew I won't know that you are FlammNew and neither will anyone else. You'll be just one of a number of people subscribed. There are already people subscribed whom I don't know. I've no idea if any of them have aliases on C24 or not.
I've dealt with his kind of "politesse" for two years. Read the CornishOrthography archives if you want. It's been no pleasure.
Think about it. Join in some vague number of days and lurk until you feel comfortable asking a question. I don't think I can suggest more. I know there is not a lot of trust out there.
Posts: 1159
Posted:
28.Mar 2007 - 00:23
edited by: Evertype, Mar 28, 2007 - 12:24 AM
Posts: 1814
Posted:
28.Mar 2007 - 09:17
Thing is, *I* don't know who *you* are either, other than a name.
If I join your list and make the same points I'm making here it'll be pretty obvious who I am.Can I suggest a compromise? I note from the archive that you have actually already copied to your forum comments about Kernowak made on another forum by Keith Bailey. How about you copy over the points raised here as well, I'll keep an eye on the forum archive, and depending on the responses I'll think about joining. Can't say fairer than that, can I?
Keith Bailey did raise an important point, that an internet forum is a permanent, public record of a discussion, whereas a private list can be deleted or awkward questions censored. Can I suggest that you do have a discussion on a permanent, public forum? Mailing lists are actually a bit old-fashioned in this day and age...
Posts: 1159
Posted:
28.Mar 2007 - 10:31
Posts: 477
Posted:
28.Mar 2007 - 11:37
Posts: 1159
Posted:
28.Mar 2007 - 11:43
online
Posts: 802
Posted:
30.Mar 2007 - 17:11
The answer to your dilemma's not hard to find. You would not be able to register on the Kernowak list with an obvious pseudonym like 'Bram-bras' or 'Morvram'. So you can't use an obvious pseudonym, but . . . D'oh!
Eddie-C
Posts: 694
Posted:
31.Mar 2007 - 05:11
I'm Cornish; feel free to argue the point with me (for what it might achieve!)
Posts: 556
Posted:
31.Mar 2007 - 06:49
I have now definately put my support 100% with Kernewek Kemmyn!
I honestly believe going along the Kernowak.com route will be the worst outcome for the language as if this system were chosen, we would lose a vast number of fluent and semi-fluent Cornish users. I believe Kernowak would set the language back decades.
I have even been back to the Cornish Language Office, torn up my original testimony, and written a new one this week.
Thanks once again to the Kernowak crew for helping me make up my mind.
Radyo an Gernewegva
Posts: 7
Posted:
7.Apr 2007 - 01:16
Posts: 3274
Posted:
21.Apr 2007 - 08:57
Posts: 990
Posted:
13.May 2007 - 17:55
online
Posts: 802
Posted:
13.May 2007 - 20:22
The Kemyn hardcore clique has been trying to wipe out all other forms of Revived Cornish for the last 20 years, and their failure at that has been just as great as their failure to increase the total number of Cornish speakers. Matched as well, of course, by their failure to find any academic support for their jerry-built sham-Cornish.
One notices that you use multiple, made-up names for Kemyn: 'Standard Written Cornish' and 'Modern Cornish'. And it's also apparent that you display a distantly familiar propensity for juvenile humour in your malapropist nonce-word 'Kernowacky'.
This terminological inexactitude, coupled with your pretentious pseudonym, makes one think that you might just be the former-bard manqué Mr. Saunders, who not only doesn't live in Cornwall, but who doesn't use Kemyn either (preferring a home-grown concoction of a bastard idiolect that no-one else but himself takes seriously).
You're also repeating some hackneyed turns of phrase from a recent letter to the Western Morning News that someone who sounds remarkably like yourself (and who signed himself 'Tim Saunders') penned. What's wrong, laddy buck? Has your Muse deserted you, so that you have to plagiarise yourself in such a drearily unoriginal fashion? Did you not realise that, if you prostitute your poetical talents, they would shrivel up and die?
As a 'friend' of yours put it recently, "these days," you're "rather marginal to Cornish affairs".
Eddie-C
Posts: 990
Posted:
13.May 2007 - 20:38
By the way - you do me too much honour, as ever. 'Kernowacky' isn't one of mine. Glad you, too, have taken it up, though.
Posts: 1293
Posted:
13.May 2007 - 22:11
Posts: 990
Posted:
13.May 2007 - 22:33
Posts: 3274
Posted:
14.May 2007 - 08:05
Posts: 990
Posted:
14.May 2007 - 08:18
Andrew set up a data base of Old, Middle and Early Modern Cornish, down to c. 1850. We desperately need systematic evidence for Recent Modern Cornish since then. Surveying spoken Modern Cornish will take a lot of field work. However, it shouldn't be too difficult to create a data base of written Modern Cornish in *all* its forms. This would be very useful indeed.
Posts: 3274
Posted:
14.May 2007 - 08:24
Posts: 3274
Posted:
14.May 2007 - 08:27
Posts: 990
Posted:
14.May 2007 - 09:05
Posts: 3274
Posted:
14.May 2007 - 10:45
online
Posts: 802
Posted:
14.May 2007 - 10:52
Oh, do tell us more, please.
That wouldn't by any chance have been in connection with the shoddy edition of 'The Life of Ke' which the Kesva published last year, would it? You know, the one where the National Library of Wales protested to the Kesva that they had broken a copyright agreement by publishing an unauthorised editon of the manuscript?
If so, surely the Kesva brought it upon themselves by playing fast and loose with the copyright laws.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
KS y'n Udn Form Screfys? -- Hep wow!
Kernewek Hengovek? -- Sur, nyns us nahen!
Posts: 990
Posted:
14.May 2007 - 12:57
We also need information on demographics - age, sex, income, etc. Who takes an interest in Cornish? Who starts learning? Who actually uses the language, and for what purposes?
Posts: 3274
Posted:
14.May 2007 - 14:10
Posts: 990
Posted:
14.May 2007 - 14:44
Posts: 711
Posted:
14.May 2007 - 15:06
You'll be telling us next that Shakespeare still has copyright!
Regardless - this has nothing to do with Kernowak ...
Posts: 990
Posted:
14.May 2007 - 15:43
The NLW backed off, and claimed they'd been acting in the interests of the publishers of the second edition of the play. Members of their staff want to mend fences with the Cornish.
A Member of the National Assembly condemned the bullying of Kesva, and called for the manuscript to be sent back to Cornwall.
online
Posts: 802
Posted:
14.May 2007 - 15:56
Please answer the questions:
-- what 'spurious legal attacks'?
-- what 'current assaults'?
online
Posts: 213
Posted:
14.May 2007 - 16:59
Isn't the spelling <bardh> as "dreadfully" Kernowak and UCR as it is "dreadfully" KK?
Posts: 3274
Posted:
14.May 2007 - 17:20
Posts: 3274
Posted:
14.May 2007 - 17:25
Posts: 1151
Posted:
14.May 2007 - 19:30
Mar vedhow avel gelvinek
(as maazed as a curlew)
Posts: 3274
Posted:
14.May 2007 - 22:26
Posts: 388
Posted:
14.May 2007 - 22:29
Posts: 3274
Posted:
14.May 2007 - 23:33
Posts: 1293
Posted:
15.May 2007 - 01:04
This I believe was the original source of Ken's "secret database", although I understand there has been much added over the years, but it is still, I think, AH's copyright which is why it can't be made public.
OTOH the Nat. Lib. of Wales cannot show how they obtained the copyright of Bywnans Ke, which still exists and belongs technically to the heir(s) and assigns of whoever it was who first set the play down on paper. It does not pass with the physical copy of the text, even if there is only one in existence (which cannot of course be proved). Come to that the NLW can't even prove they own the physical copy. It came to them amongst the papers of the late Prof. Caerwyn Williams, but nobody has any idea how he got it, even less whether he was it's legal owner.
This however did not stop them trying to put the frighteners on the Kesva, threats which were groundless, possibly illegal, and which simply wasted Kesva funds on legal expenses. It is however typical of the Welsh scholarly establishment that the last thing they want is for ordinary Cornish people to have access to their language. In any case the concept of a single scholar producing the definitive edition of a difficult work like this, all by himself and on dead trees, is thoroughly out dated in the age of internet collaboration and publication.
Posts: 1293
Posted:
15.May 2007 - 01:29
Well some sample extracts were processed as a demo two or three years ago, but there was absolutely zero interest or feedback so the whole business was left on one side. But if you want to look, it seems the demo is still around :
http://corpus.k...k/allex.html
(You need to scroll down past all the proper names and loan words to see the 'real' stuff)
http://www.howl...extvocab.php
Enter say, "wrms2m0" in the box ...
http://corpus.k...k/index.html
Index to what there is.
NB This stuff is NOT up to date and some ideas and interpretations need to be changed, and the spelling isn't standard KK either ...
Posts: 3274
Posted:
15.May 2007 - 08:04
The Rillaton Gold Cup, the Morvah gold hoard and the Towednack gold hoard are among Cornish treasures held by the British Museum, and we can't get our hands on them. The BM continues to hold what it is pleased to call the "Elgin Marbles", and the Greeks can't get them back.
Chysauster is managed (not owned) by "English" Heritage, who market the site as someone else's heritage (no matter how often the signs get doctored) and charge the village's descendants to enter it.
None of this is right but just a sad fact of life. We'll change it only by bringing protracted pressure to bear.
Nonetheless, the CLB still had no right to simply steam in without asking (at least) the heirs of Caerwyn Williams who, as I understand it, handed the document and its associated ownership rights (not copyright - that lapsed c.1625 to apply the current law)to the NLW. As I stated earlier, all the CLB had to do was ask and the daft situation would never have occurred.
Posts: 990
Posted:
15.May 2007 - 08:22
Posts: 3274
Posted:
15.May 2007 - 08:42
Can't resist, can you, Timothy?
Posts: 1159
Posted:
15.May 2007 - 16:24
Posts: 1151
Posted:
15.May 2007 - 20:04
What criteria do you use to go back and amend certain items?
Mar vedhow avel gelvinek
(as maazed as a curlew)
Posts: 1159
Posted:
15.May 2007 - 20:22
Wouldn't you like to discuss this with all the authors of the draft proposal? The entire editing group is subscribed to the discussion list which you can join at http://kernowak,com.
All you have to do is tell us your name and remain civil. That's not very hard.
The reason we have our own discussion list is that on other discussion lists, we have been vilified and abused by people who know who we are, but who hide behind nicknames. We don't believe that that is appropriate for a public consultation process.
I might give you a rough break-down here. But I'd like you to tell me why you don't think that our invitation to discuss the proposal with all members of the editing group is preferable.
Discussion of the linguistic evidence leads to consensus.
Posts: 1293
Posted:
16.May 2007 - 01:04
Who pray, of the names on the document (21 now) are its 'editors'? You dislike people who hide behind nicknames, but your editors seem to need to hide in a scrum of people. It's clear that some of them are not linguists or regular Cornish users and so could contribute little more than moral support. Furthermore there are several Cussal an Tavaz members listed, although it's clear from their submission to the Commission that they are by no means committed to Kernowak and would if they could just as readily do a deal with KK if it was offered to them.
So who are the 'experts' who cooked up Kernowak?
Also where's the list of all the many people who've signed up on your site in support of the proposal. Have you had any takers? I really can't believe that if you'd had more than a handful you wouldn't be splashing the list all over your site.
Posts: 1293
Posted:
16.May 2007 - 01:15
Chwarae teg iddyn nhw 'te! Ond sut roedd y cyfryw hen Wyddeleg tro wedi cael 'i wneud yn ein erbyn ni gan y LlGG? Dyna'r cwestion, tybed!
Posts: 1293
Posted:
16.May 2007 - 01:48
Once again an AT member is merrily passing off misinformation as truth, believe me the CLB went into this matter very thoroughly and took professional advice to confirm their own researches. Copyright in an unpublished ms by an unknown author used to last indefinitely under common law. A few years ago a new statute put an end to this, but not immediately. So the copyright in BK has, from memory, something like 20 years still to run. Ownership of the copyright has no connection with ownership of the ms. The NLW don't own the copyright, neither did Caerwyn Williams in all probability, unless he'd somehow been assigned it by a descendant of the original writer (not even the scribe of the existing copy who makes it clear that he wasn't the author!)
Now I would imagine that a insitiution like the National Library of Wales would know the laws of copyright inside out, or at least their legal dept. would. And yet, and yet, here's one of their minions making threats against the CLB, in restraint of trade perhaps? People and even organisations often panic when the receive 'official' letters threatening legal action, and that was clearly the intention here. In the event the Language Board called their bluff, and they retreated PDQ with their cowardly tails between their legs.
Oh yes, and our friend Everson seemed to know the content of the letter almost before it had been opened (and that's on record in another place) ...
Posts: 3274
Posted:
16.May 2007 - 08:48
Posts: 1159
Posted:
16.May 2007 - 12:21
The members of the UdnFormScrefys group are subscribed to the discussion list at Kernowak.com. They are the editors.
It's clear that some of them are not linguists or regular Cornish users and so could contribute little more than moral support. Furthermore there are several Cussal an Tavaz members listed, although it's clear from their submission to the Commission that they are by no means committed to Kernowak and would if they could just as readily do a deal with KK if it was offered to them.
A group of people whose names have been published.
I find it difficult to be concerned with what you can and cannot believe, Keith. It is clear from your behaviour toward me for the past two years, and especially since March, that you loathe me and the work which i have done in support of the Cornish language. You have pretended friendliness and then gone for the jugular too many times for me to be impressed by soft rhetoric from you. You have yet to show good faith. I think I have done better in that regard than you have.
We have a list of supporters. It grows. We will publish it when we submit our proposal formally to the Commission. I am not disposed to giving you any ammunition by telling you how many there are. I am also aware that you will use the fact that I am not telling you how many there are as ammunition anyway. I'm sorry for that, but you choose your own tactics, and I shall choose mine.
This whole process is very strange. On the one hand we have one man who devised an orthography a long time ago. That orthography has problems. Many problems. So many that it has been possible to publish more than a thousand pages discussing its problems in comparison with real evidence found in the traditional texts. No satisfactory response to that criticism has ever been received.
But that one man has a stranglehold on the Revival, because while he purports to be a scholar, he doesn't act like one, in my opinion. A real scholar admits when he is wrong. He thanks his critics, and makes changes for the better. Here, what we have is his coterie in the CLB all supporting him and doing all they can to preserve the status quo. The fact that half the Revival prefers traditional spelling is irrelevant to those few. So they make a lot of noise in the WMN, and they try to paint Professor Williams as some sort of foreign demon (for daring to criticize George and KK) and on and on.
I think that KS is a splendid orthography. It's robust and accurate. It's not confusing or arbitrary. It looks like traditional Cornish and is easly to relate to Cornish placenames. It is a fitting successor to Jenner, indeed.
The Revival is split. It is George and his supporters who split it, 20 years ago, by contriving to take over the CLB. You can go on as much as you like with your claims that "democracy" was in effect then but it was KK which caused the split. And twenty years later, we are still split.
Cornish needs a spelling reform. KKers digging in their heels and dismissing the half of the Revival which does not accept KK is not a way forward. It's just digging in and hoping that people will go away. What a pity that we all could not have co-operated and worked together toward consensus.
But wait.. that's what UFS did. We did co-operate. We did work together, in a group. We did achieve consensus.
UdnFormScrefys' invitation to the CLB's experts to discuss a Fifth Form of Cornish remains open. You, Keith, may trot out your rhetoric about how spelling reform is not needed, or the silliness about the "secrecy" in which UFS began its work, but it remains the case that we have been, were, and are open to dialogue with George and the CLB. The door is open. We cannot make you come into the room.
Posts: 3274
Posted:
16.May 2007 - 13:36
However, and as all will have noticed by his posts on this forum (and others) Tim is not exactly a diplomat. The wording of his initial concern constituted an attack, which put backs up and, basically created a furore.
Only then did a tiny minority decide to replace Unified with Ken George's new Kemmyn spelling, which didn't resemble written Cornish from any period of its history. Why such a radical change? It wasn't necessary (and still isn't). If it doesn't work with written Cornish, it works even less with place names.
It's a pity that Williams's revision of Unified didn't come along until 1995. Had it been 10 years earlier, the present situation would never have arisen. OK, so Prof. Williams is also not the world's best diplomat but his scholarship and ability cannot be faulted (he has also been a language bard since 1962 - much longer than today's self-proclaimed "experts"). Resistance to his work is much, much more about personality clashes than it is about scholarship and the best course for the language. What Williams did was to address the recognised faults of UC in as subtle a way as could be achieved. The result still closely resembled historical Cornish. He himself admits that UCR is not necessarily the last word, and that there was room further adjustments and considerations.
That's a long way from "we have a perfect system" that we hear from the KK leadership. In his admission, Williams was inviting further inout from others. KK admits none, nor will its leaders talk to others. Perhaps it should take the lead given by some its grass roots members who have seen KS, like it and have offered further input. That is what discussion leading towards consensus is about.
KS remains a proposal and offers a firm basis for further compromise. It's not an imposition as KK was.
No matter what Sandercock's track record may be (and it is impressive), many of those involved with KS have equally impressive records. His magazine contained articles making certain assertions and the UFS group that has worked on KS deserved the right of reply. He refused to give them that right, and that is all there is to it. It is suppression, rather as the CLB has, for years, deliberately suppressed RLC and UCR by refusing to hold exams in those forms of the language. Any reasonable person or neutral observer would view this as unacceptable.
Posts: 273
Posted:
16.May 2007 - 14:27
What a daft and, frankly, sycophantic claim to make!
I'll ask again. Could you please NAME the KK leadership, marhak? The ones that are not very nice to know? And the ones that keep saying to you "we have a perfect system"? Only, I've never heard ANYONE say "we have a perfect system". What circles do you move in? Perhaps you're hearing voices?
MANY? Who? Could you tell us something of the track records of these MANY people, so we can judge for ourselves? We're looking for something like "30 years of activities (listing such activities) carried out daily or weekly in support of the Cornish language". That sort of thing.
Well, in the time it took marhak to write that latest demolition of all things KK, he could have written another UCR exam. Why is he suppressing UCR by refusing to take any action? Why does he think everything is someone else's responsibility?
Things are certainly going to be different round here once George's stranglehold over the revival is released and the power base shifts to Kernowak. The revival should take off like never before - and everyone will be safe in the knowledge that is is someone else's responsibility to make it happen. Good luck 'someone else' - Gwydn da ves!
Posts: 3274
Posted:
16.May 2007 - 17:15
Posts: 3274
Posted:
16.May 2007 - 18:34
Were those who appointed Williams to Professor in Celtic Linguistics at University Colege, Dublin sycophantic? Did they consider the standard of this work to be "daft"? Of course, you're not sycophantic, pard, are you?
Track records: 21 names appear in the preamble to the KS document. Many of those names have long and impressive track records in their fields, these being known to most of us - well, all except Branvras, it seems.
Which of the K|K leadership are not nice to know? Those who post repeatedly insulting messages on this and other fora. Those who insult, belittle and bully everyone who does not share their point of view and, worse, have the sheer temerity to say so. Those who deliberately interfere with and sabotage projects being carried out by other groups. Those who steadfastly refuse to discuss any compromise in the linguistic question.
Sandercock - to my knowledge, I have never met the man. His own track record does not suggest any reason why I should dislike him, except for his decision to refuse the UFS group the right of reply. That was not only wrong but doesn't do much to support KK's claim to be "democratic".
Finally, pard, you have no idea what responsibilities I may or may not have exercised but others are always consulted first when I do. Oh, and I do note that you refer to me as "he". I suppose you could be 50% right.
Posts: 178
Posted:
16.May 2007 - 19:00
I see that the number of names in the preamble has dropped from 22 to 21.
Posts: 1159
Posted:
16.May 2007 - 19:17
Thomas is an intelligent and gentle person and I have been glad to get to know him. His withdrawal from the Orthography Wars is understandable. His absence from the KS supporter list does not, however, imply that he changed his mind about its linguistic excellence.
Posts: 178
Posted:
16.May 2007 - 21:18
Perhaps this explains why many people don't want to sign up to the Kernowak discussion group. With all the vitriol I can see why most people want to remain anonymous. I know I don't want to get caught up in the petty squabbles and have my name smeared all over the internet. Is he the only KK supporter you had that left the group? Do you still have any KK users who are attempting to compromise with you?
Posts: 273
Posted:
16.May 2007 - 21:19
Sorry! If you're familiar with the Cornish language you'll know that it is at least reasonable to assume that 'marhak' is a 'he' because otherwise you could certainly expect the name to be 'marhoges'.
I think if you called yourself 'horsewoman' or 'actress' or 'bride' in English people might (rashly) assume you were a 'she'. It's the same principle, but it's a stronger, more prevalent, principle in Cornish than it is in English.
It certainly caught me out, didn't it?!
And apologies for