online
Posts: 492
Posted:
23.Feb 2008 - 11:58
However, I am asking a simple question, that requires a one word, only, one word, answer.
Are you "For", the SWF, are you "Against" the SWF, or are you as yet "Undecided"?
So, "For", I will support it.
"Against", I want nothing to do with it.
"Undecided", I have yet to make up my mind.
My Answer.............For
Kernow Kensa!
Our day will come!
"Everyone has their own particular part to play. No part is too great or too small, no one is too old or too young to do something."
Posts: 956
Posted:
23.Feb 2008 - 12:20
Mar vedhow avel gelvinek
(as maazed as a curlew)
Posts: 585
Posted:
23.Feb 2008 - 14:18
As for *this* SWF, we don't yet know what it'll be, so I'm reserving judgement until we do.
My acceptance will depend on what the SWF ends up looking like. To use a very mixed metaphor, I've always declined to buy a pig in a poke, by giving the Commissioners, the AHG or anyone else a blank cheque.
So my answer to your question is, 'None of the 3 above; instead it's 2 words:
"JUDGEMENT DEFERRED!"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kernowak y'n Udn Form Screfys?
Hep wow!
Kernewek Acordys? Mar plek!
Posts: 956
Posted:
23.Feb 2008 - 14:40
Mar vedhow avel gelvinek
(as maazed as a curlew)
online
Posts: 492
Posted:
23.Feb 2008 - 14:43
So that is one of the three options, UNDECIDED.
Kernow Kensa!
Our day will come!
"Everyone has their own particular part to play. No part is too great or too small, no one is too old or too young to do something."
Posts: 161
Posted:
23.Feb 2008 - 15:37
Posts: 585
Posted:
24.Feb 2008 - 00:30
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kernowak y'n Udn Form Screfys?
Hep wow!
Kernewek Acordys? Mar plek!
Posts: 270
Posted:
24.Feb 2008 - 03:21
Some people prefer one system to another, as new speakers probably will do in 50 yrs time, after learning the SWF.
I hope all the systems survive, as i see worth and value in all of them.
Every other language has variations in how it is spoken or even spelled.
The SWF allows for all to be included.
FOR
Posts: 612
Posted:
24.Feb 2008 - 11:49
edited by: TheElvenLord, Feb 24, 2008 - 11:52 AM
My a gar boos
Posts: 488
Posted:
24.Feb 2008 - 13:08
Radyo an Gernewegva
Posts: 273
Posted:
24.Feb 2008 - 13:31
Posts: 164
Posted:
24.Feb 2008 - 13:48
online
Posts: 880
Posted:
24.Feb 2008 - 15:17
Posts: 956
Posted:
24.Feb 2008 - 15:18
Mar vedhow avel gelvinek
(as maazed as a curlew)
Posts: 225
Posted:
24.Feb 2008 - 16:01
and we need the best possible orthography in schools; anything else would be doing a disservice to our children.
Posts: 585
Posted:
24.Feb 2008 - 16:34
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kernowak y'n Udn Form Screfys?
Hep wow!
Kernewek Acordys? Mar plek!
online
Posts: 880
Posted:
25.Feb 2008 - 01:26
We all base our views on the texts, but differ in the way we view them. Dr. Williams, as far as I can make out, seems to think that the texts are written in an orthography designed or at least adapted to reflect the sounds of Cornish at the time, and so can be taken more or less at face value. We think they were written in a sort of 'hand-me-down' English system that was a rather ill-fitting garment, and so have to be interpreted along with other evidence to determine what really lay behind them. In principle both hypothesis are possible, and a proper debate could be had as to which is most plausible in the light of all the evidence, (linguistic, historical etc.)
One of the weaknesses of the proposed SWF, which I'm surprised either side accepted, concerns the sounds written <oe> in KK. In stressed syllables most of these are to be written <oo>. This looks a bit silly, and might mislead learners over the correct pronunciation, but nevertheless does at least distinguish the sound unambiguously. The problem over this sound is that for reasons I won't go into here, the texts often don't bother to distinguish KK's <oe> from <o> in stressed syllables.
However in unstressed syllables, rather paradoxically, KK's <oe> and <o> are frequently written differently in the texts. As 'u' and 'o'. This was not a problem because the scribes wrote phonetically and the /y/ sound (='French u as in lune') which is the usually value of <'u'> in the texts was always pronounced like <'i'> or <y> when unstressed, and so written <y>. That left the sign <'u'> free to be used for the unstressed KK <oe> sound. Thus we have for example arloedh 'lord', a very common word indeed, nearly always written <arluth> and very very rarely <arloth>. Likewise galloez 'power' mostly written <gallus> and so on ... In addition this difference is supported by the rhymes in the texts, in BK especially, where e.g. arloedh rhymes with the english word 'forsooth', clearly more of an 'oo' sound than an 'o' sound. Since Dr. Williams edited the academic version of BK, he can hardly have missed this distinction, even if it had passed him by in the other texts. Why then was it overlooked?
To me this is a very clear example of how the SWF is unacceptable linguistically. As such it will sooner or later come in for the sort of academic jibes that were leveled at UC, 'made up language' and so on. It also leads to an unnecessary alternation in spelling between e.g. "gallos" 'power' and "galoosek" 'powerful' etc. Both could seriously jeopardise its acceptance in education.
Clearly the language has been allowed to become a politicians' plaything. The SWF pleases no-one, not the Kesva, not AT, and certainly not teachers and linguists. Was it perhaps intended to please no-one so as to put us all off learning Cornish? It certainly hasn't 'healed the split'.
online
Posts: 492
Posted:
25.Feb 2008 - 02:02
For:-................6
Against:-........3
Undecided:-..1
And 1 who has given his answer on another thread, but at the moment, I can't find it.
At the moment, it looks like the For's have it.
Anyone else want to express a simple non argumentative opinion?
I think it would be worth your while, in that it will give everyone an idea, at least as far as the contributors to this forum are concerned, what support, if any the SWF will have when it is finally ready.
Kernow Kensa!
Our day will come!
"Everyone has their own particular part to play. No part is too great or too small, no one is too old or too young to do something."
Posts: 815
Posted:
25.Feb 2008 - 07:23
Consequently, it's impossible to answer this question. Sad, but that's how the Authenticists want it. They usually seem to have a sound operational reason for what would otherwise seem to be mere vagaries of behaviour. And, as usual, I've no doubt that the reason will come out.
Posts: 245
Posted:
25.Feb 2008 - 16:05
What you say, Nosdan, makes no sense.
The Kesva, which promotes Kernewek Kemmyn as the best orthography for Revived Cornish, has always had the aim of making the texts available to the public.
Originally the Kesva published the texts in Unified with an English translation.
When Kernewek Kemmyn was adopted a policy developed of making the original textual spellings available in parallel text with Kernewek Kemmyn and a translation to English.
The Kesva has in fact published far more Cornish in the original textual spelling than any other publisher.
Morvran has shown by his contributions on this list and elsewhere that he is a considerable scholar of the texts with an excellent competence at reading original mss.
- Pawl
Posts: 245
Posted:
25.Feb 2008 - 16:12
Eddie's competence in Cornish is negligible.
It follows that the value of his opinion on the merits or otherwise of Kernewek Kemmyn are likewise nigligible.
- Pawl
Posts: 245
Posted:
25.Feb 2008 - 16:34
The problem with attempting to guage opinion using questions with 'yes, no or undecided' is that the data produced can be so simplified that it is limited usefulness. It may even be misleading.
At present even those who were involved in the horse-trading at Treyarnon appear unable to agree on what the result was. (The 'official' version is, apparently and on the highest authority, 'not quite correct'.)
So anyone giving an opinion on the SWF at present is double guessing a pig in a poke.
- Pawl
Posts: 245
Posted:
25.Feb 2008 - 16:47
(on the evidence so far)
- Pawl
edited by: pdunbar, Feb 25, 2008 - 06:05 PM
Posts: 2411
Posted:
25.Feb 2008 - 17:39
In my case, I'd rather see the complete thing but, at present, it is looking very like: For.
Posts: 245
Posted:
25.Feb 2008 - 18:11
Even so far it is clear that consensus - without which Eric Brook declared there would be no funding - is not achievable.
- Pawl
Posts: 956
Posted:
25.Feb 2008 - 19:02
But he said this:
For a kemmyn supporter to advocate a spelling system because its in the texts on one hand yet spell words according to kemmyn rules which don't look much like the MSS on the other seems to me to be cheap.
Also he suggests re-instating the final unstress -nn why?
edited by: Nosdan, Feb 25, 2008 - 07:07 PM
Mar vedhow avel gelvinek
(as maazed as a curlew)
online
Posts: 492
Posted:
25.Feb 2008 - 20:09
Surly, the whole point about a revival is that something gets revived. In this case, I would have thought that the goal was to get Cornish being used by the ordinary Cornish man woman and child in the street. When that happens, the language, and the bloody spelling, will take on a life of it's own, it will become a living language once again.
For this to happen, the ordinary person in the street has to hear the language, they have to see the language, it has to have relevance for them.
As I understand it, the SWF, when it is ready in what ever form it eventually takes, is the spelling system that is going to be used by "official" bodies in their "publications", it is the system that will be used on street signs etc. In short, it is the system that people will see. For that reason, I can understand why it would be important to make it as near "perfect" as possible.
However, please bear in mind the end user, you know, the non academic ordinary guy in the street, in general, they can read and write, including being able to spell(ish) in english, which has a rather confusing system of spelling of its own, what with things like "magic E", "I before E except after C(usually)", "silent letters"(why?), etc etc etc. Most of these people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a verb and a noun. It is not going to make the slightest difference to them what "glyphs" are used, if there is a "z" or not, let alone why. All they will want is a spelling system that they can follow. It really dose not matter if to you it doesnt "look" Cornish, to them it will
When the day, hopefully, comes when people are learning their language in droves, your petty squabbles, about who did what, first, to whom, and where, and the reasons, real or imaginary, behind it all, will be totally forgotten, or brought back as a sketch on Cornish TVs own version of spitting image. It will not matter, what will, and dose, matter is that this continual childish behaviour is responsible for Cornish not being where it should, it has been held back, to the extent that we now have the english government interfering, telling us how we will arrive at the spelling system that will eventually be used for our, not their, but our language. Thanks.
Most parents if they caught their children behaving the way you academics are behaving now, would give them a clip around the ear and send them to bed until they learnt better.
We have a chance, with the SWF (whatever it turns out to be) to give the revival a kick start, to get things moving again, who knows when, or even if we will get the chance again. It is time to put your petty quarrels and your pride away, and work for the SWF, whether you like it or not, for the good of the Cornish Language, for it is that which is important, not you.
Kernow Kensa!
Our day will come!
"Everyone has their own particular part to play. No part is too great or too small, no one is too old or too young to do something."
online
Posts: 880
Posted:
25.Feb 2008 - 21:06
You're right that Cornish has to become relevant to more people before they'll learn it. Fortunately Cornish is already relevant to at least a few people, and as their numbers grow those on the margins get tipped over from passive good will to actually speaking the language. And so far it's been a rolling process, and hopefully it will keep on rolling, so that one day, maybe even you, or realistically perhaps your grand-kids will speak it.
And funding will oil the wheels, but can't provide the motive power, that has to arise from within the nation itself. And unity of the movement might be adventageous, but then again perhaps diversity has its points?
But at the end of the day the language can only advance by individuals getting their backsides into Cornish classes, or using some other means to learn and then to use the language and pass it on to others. We're all so use to it it hardly causes more than a shrug and smile, but really it is out of order for you and all the rest of that wonderful Good Intentions Brigade, to lecturer us on how to advance or not to advance the language, when the one thing you (and all those like you) need to do is just to learn the bloody language. But hell will freeze first, I fear.
online
Posts: 492
Posted:
25.Feb 2008 - 21:45
Let us all know when you feel it getting cold down there, so we can prepare.
Kernow Kensa!
Our day will come!
"Everyone has their own particular part to play. No part is too great or too small, no one is too old or too young to do something."
Posts: 1234
Posted:
25.Feb 2008 - 22:00
Blog Gokki,(Gokky's Blog)Skodhyewgh An Furv Skrifys Savonek !
Kernewek rag an Gour Gwir updated.
Posts: 2411
Posted:
25.Feb 2008 - 22:45
Posts: 2411
Posted:
25.Feb 2008 - 22:48
But, then, you knew that before you wrote your inflammatory words.
Posts: 29
Posted:
25.Feb 2008 - 22:55
I've seen a few comments along these lines now, and I have a question about this. For years, based on the written descriptions that KK <o> represents "open o" and <oe> represents "closed o", I pronounced <o> and <oe> as /O/ and /o/ respectively, that is as cardinal vowels 6 and 7 in IPA, which are the open and closed "o" sounds in Gaelic, Italian, Portuguese, Catalan, etc. These have the same tongue height as [E] and [e], respectively.
Then, a couple of years ago, I was taught that in Cornish, this was in fact not correct, that <o> is actually (in "proper" KK pronunciation) closer to /o/ than /O/ (in other words, the tongue height is higher than for /E/ & /O/), and that <oe> is closer to /u/ than /o/ -- the tongue height for <oe> being parallel to that of /I/ rather than that of /e/.
So given that the proper sound of <oe> strikes the anglophone ear as more like /u/ than /o/, and given that it became /u/ in LC, surely a spelling which might lead people to pronounce /u/ is better than one which leads people to pronounce /o/ (or a diphthong /ow/, /@w/, whatever). For example, pronouncing <boes>/<boos> like English "booze" is surely preferable -- and closer to the "right" sound -- to pronouncing it like English "bows".
As an aside, since LC has /u/ in these words, usually spelt <oo> (e.g. <booz>, <trooz>, <gool>), I wonder if perhaps <oo> in the SWF might have been a concession to LC users?
Getting back to the original question, I personally am for the SWF. I find nothing objectionable in it, and I don't see anything in it so far which renders it inferior to any of the other varieties of Revived Cornish. I'll use it gladly.
Regards,
Thomas
Posts: 815
Posted:
25.Feb 2008 - 23:41
If Thomas is in a position to support the SWF, he must have broken through the information blackout that MN have imposed. MN have told us very clearly that the spelling of Cornish is no business of ours, that there will be no SWF until they appprove it, and that we shall only find out what it is when they deem it proper to do so.
Posts: 29
Posted:
26.Feb 2008 - 04:46
What information blackout? I base my opinion on that preliminary SWF document that everyone else has seen (and which, in case it wasn't clear, is all I have seen as well) which outlines what the AHG agreen upon. And I see nothing amongst the "unresolved issues" which have been mentioned (use of <z> or not, <kelli> vs <kelly>, <bys>/<bes>/<beis>, etc.) that would make the SWF unacceptable to me. But then, I'm personally not very fussy about orthographic matters. I've learnt primarily KK, with a bit of UC and UCR, and I have to say that, honestly, I don't find any of them a great standout or vast improvement over the others.
KK is not, in my opinion, the superior beast that some folks make it out to be. It's easier to go from spelling to pronunciation in KK, since vowel length is clearly indicated, but going the other way, from pronunciation to spelling, is every bit as difficult as UC/R. This is an extreme example, but if a polysyllabic word ends in an unstressed /In/, then there are no fewer than 6 possible spellings: <-yn>, <-ynn>, <-in>, <-inn>, <-un>, <-unn>. Even if you have a textbook KK pronunciation, geminate consonants are still pronounced short in unstressed syllables, so it's a matter of rote memorisation as to when to write single consonants and when to write double consonants; if, as is the case with the majority of Cornish speakers I've met, one does not actually pronounce geminate consonants in stressed syllables either, then the problem is compounded. In addition to this, there are issues such as the fact that <oe> has different sounds when long and short, and <i> and <u> have different sounds when stressed and unstressed (this is a problem for me -- I still tend to pronounce e.g. <seythun> as /sEjTyn/ rather than the proper /sEjTIn/). And *no* existing orthography for Cornish, including the SWF, indicates in any way the irregular stress in words like <myghtern> and <amari>, which is a problem for students like myself who live outside of Cornwall and have to learn primarily from books rather than from direct contact with other Cornish speakers. Bottom line: KK is *not* phonetic, as is often claimed. It's simply one of several variants, which for me, at least, are really more or less equal in terms of difficulty.
The SWF as outlined in that initial document is not a great improvement over KK and UC/R either; it seems to me about equal to KK (and certainly not worse -- definitely *not* "broken KK", or a "dog's breakfast", or any of the other things that some other members with an obvious strong preference for KK have said elsewhere in this forum). I personally really *like* the choice in graphs, for example that one can use either <k>, <kw>, <hw> or <c>/<k>, <qu>, <wh>. I've always rather preferred (simply on aesthetic grounds, my personal taste) the look of UC/R over that of KK, though I focused on learning KK as it seemed to be the most widely used variant of Revived Cornish, so I'm delighted to have the option to use the latter graphs while other people who prefer the former can use those, and *everyone* is still writing "proper Cornish". There are some neat syntactic constructions in UCR and RLC, such as the use of <dos> as an auxilliary in forming the conditional and introducing relative clauses with <dell> or <fatell>, which I really like, and would like to be able to use without being told "oh that's late Cornish, you can't use that in KK". In the SWF it would be fine to use either the older MC syntax preferred in UC and KK, or the later syntax used in UCR and RLC. Again, I like the flexibility, and the fact that it's *all* "proper Cornish" in the SWF.
I fear I've gone off on a bit of a tangent here, what were we talking about again?
Posts: 815
Posted:
26.Feb 2008 - 07:15
Posts: 2411
Posted:
26.Feb 2008 - 08:36
Further to that, there is a current attempt by some to alienate Agan Tavas from the process and to goad us into walking away from it. However, we were not born yesterday and we are not rising to the bait. We're sticking with the SWF, and I hope that message is very clear to all concerned.
edited by: marhak, Feb 26, 2008 - 07:39 AM
Posts: 29
Posted:
26.Feb 2008 - 13:59
Thanks, Marhak. I should perhaps reiterate that I'm only speaking from my personal experiences learning Cornish. I find KK about equal to UC/R -- as I mentioned before, it improves over UC/R in that it allows for pronunciation to be extracted from the written word more precisely, although IMO it does so at the expense of a certain aesthetic elegance, and so I think it balances out. I honestly have a hard time imagining anyone trying to learn Cornish via UC for years and failing, and then suddenly being able to learn it much more easily when KK came along. But what do I know, maybe there are some people for whom this was indeed the case, as improbable as it might seem to me.
What bothers me most is that the whole thing has become so politicised that I fear I can't say such things without being branded "anti-Kemmyn", even though I have been a KK user up to this point. I fear I'm probably blacklisted in certain circles simply because I liked KS, for example, or because I don't find KK so superior to anything else and didn't sign the pro-KK petition, or because I spent a delightful afternoon with Nicholas Williams when I was in Dublin last November. Tarnished by association, and all that. (While I don't share all of Nicholas' opinions, and have on occasion found his tone in his writings inappropriately brusque, in person I have to say that Nicholas is a scholar and a gentleman, and a fine host. Most definitely not the Palpatine he is made out to be by some!)
It also upsets me to read some of the things I've seen said about Ben Bruch and Albert Bock -- I've known Ben for 10+ years now, he's one of my dearest friends, and he is scrupulously honest both personally and academically. So it pains me greatly to read accusations that he & Albert had some sort of secret agenda for the SWF, or that they overstepped their mandate, or what have you. They faced a most difficult assignment, and stepped up to it very admirably, at the risk of sacrificing friendships and risking their academic reputations. So if I'm in anyone's corner in all this, it's theirs.
Man, there I go again. Getting back to my original question regarding <oe>/<oo> above, I hope Morvran (or someone) will answer me later when they log in. I'm still curious about that.
edited by: ThomasLeigh, Feb 26, 2008 - 08:59 AM
Posts: 2411
Posted:
26.Feb 2008 - 14:12
Posts: 225
Posted:
26.Feb 2008 - 14:23
Posts: 1234
Posted:
26.Feb 2008 - 14:36
Blog Gokki,(Gokky's Blog)Skodhyewgh An Furv Skrifys Savonek !
Kernewek rag an Gour Gwir updated.
Posts: 585
Posted:
26.Feb 2008 - 14:37
They "stick out like a sore thumb", and are the real 'unfortunate choice' which [if anything needs it!] need to 'be revoked'. At the very least, these sorry examples of spurious scholarship should be confined to just one of the 2 Forms of the SWF, and IMO not to the Main one.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kernowak y'n Udn Form Screfys?
Hep wow!
Kernewek Acordys? Mar plek!
Posts: 1234
Posted:
26.Feb 2008 - 14:39
Blog Gokki,(Gokky's Blog)Skodhyewgh An Furv Skrifys Savonek !
Kernewek rag an Gour Gwir updated.
online
Posts: 2133
Posted:
26.Feb 2008 - 14:48
Posts: 225
Posted:
26.Feb 2008 - 15:51
Posts: 4
Posted:
26.Feb 2008 - 21:25
Although I can't see myself using the main forms at all.
Peller
Posts: 645
Posted:
27.Feb 2008 - 12:48
Prefer to have KK as SWF but will accept a compromise solution.
Why? Politically an agreement will allow for all of us to progress Cornish in Public Life and education at the moment we face a brick wall.
The council that I am a member of will not consider using Cornish on its signage until we have an agreed form neither will the LEA give support to educational organisations with out a SWF. It is essential that it is achieved otherwise the UK govt will have all the reasons it needs not to fund Cornish properly in the future.
online
Posts: 2133
Posted:
27.Feb 2008 - 13:24
I would prefer KK to be the main form but OK with a compromise as long as a fair number of KK features are retained.The advantages of having a SWF outweigh the disadvantages of a compromise (hybrid).
Posts: 143
Posted:
27.Feb 2008 - 13:46
Posts: 488
Posted:
27.Feb 2008 - 14:55
FOR
Byttegyns... gwell via genev usya KK a-vel an furv veur.
Radyo an Gernewegva
Posts: 3
Posted:
27.Feb 2008 - 17:37
Posts: 143
Posted:
27.Feb 2008 - 20:57
Posts: 815
Posted:
27.Feb 2008 - 23:20
Posts: 3
Posted:
28.Feb 2008 - 12:45
Posts: 612
Posted:
28.Feb 2008 - 18:23
But i do want to say this
In Janners book it said that all of the old records use different spellings, and even different spellings within the same text.
How can you base a system on that??
Lets step back here and look at the pros and Cons of Authentic vs Modern
Authentic
Pros
The Old spelling of Cornish
Has accents to mark Intonation of the word
Quite phonetic spelling
Cons
Has accents (cant write plaintext)
Considered Old
Modern
Pros
Is plaintext, so easily writable on a PC
Its very phonetic
Its up to date
Uses K for hard C and S for soft C, so it does not lead to confusion.
Looks modern
Cons
Completly made up system
No authenticity in the spellings
No accents, therefore you have to guess at intonation.
I think that sums it up. If you want another thing added to any list, send me a PM, or if i have got somethign wrong, do the same
TEL
My a gar boos
Posts: 956
Posted:
28.Feb 2008 - 19:01
KS uses diacritics to mark anomalous length and quality.KS is, yes. UC and UCR were not phonetic systems, but rather orthographic normalizations alone.
Millions of Europeans succeed to do so every day. And they are not their for their help. They are there to help you, the reader or writer, to be accurate.You mean, "Considered a proud part of our heritage."
We write Irish easily. And German and Spanish and Polish and Breton and French and on and on. You have to learn to use your computer, that's all.
They tell you that, do they?
It's out of date now.
Are you really confused by Kitten, Cat, Queen, and Cider?
Looks alien.
Pretty much.
Not a lot. And it's easy to achieve.
Anomalous vowel length and quality is certainly a problem.
Thanks for taking a fresh look.
Posts: 1234
Posted:
28.Feb 2008 - 19:05
Typical arrogant remark from Everson, if it is authentic then one should not have to learn to use a computer, is this guy for real.!
Blog Gokki,(Gokky's Blog)Skodhyewgh An Furv Skrifys Savonek !
Kernewek rag an Gour Gwir updated.
Posts: 956
Posted:
28.Feb 2008 - 19:18
There is nothing arrogant about telling a person that it is not difficult to use diacritical marks. All it takes is some learning. When I say to TheElvenLord, "You have to learn to use your computer, that's all", I mean that it isn't easy and that I am sure he is bright enough to manage it. Computers can do a lot of things. Most of us don't learn to use their capabilities till we need to.
And of course if one isn't using a computer, one can use a pencil, or a pen.
"Typical arrogant remark", yeah yeah. Every one of your remarks is typical too.
online
Posts: 492
Posted:
28.Feb 2008 - 19:23
What have authenticity and computer use got to do each other.
Surly to be authentic, in any spelling system, one should have to use a pen/pencil, or even a quill, computers haven't been around long enough to be classed as "authentic"?
Kernow Kensa!
Our day will come!
"Everyone has their own particular part to play. No part is too great or too small, no one is too old or too young to do something."
Posts: 1234
Posted:
28.Feb 2008 - 20:02
http://keltack....n-pennk.html
Blog Gokki,(Gokky's Blog)Skodhyewgh An Furv Skrifys Savonek !
Kernewek rag an Gour Gwir updated.
Posts: 956
Posted:
28.Feb 2008 - 20:07
edited by: Evertype, Feb 28, 2008 - 08:08 PM
Posts: 815
Posted:
28.Feb 2008 - 20:56
Yn le kyn y'fve y'leverys ev dh'un 'Mr. Reeves' na'dhaeth ann 'Argerdh' dhy benn c'hwath.
Posts: 1234
Posted:
28.Feb 2008 - 21:34
http://keltack....-byghan.html
Blog Gokki,(Gokky's Blog)Skodhyewgh An Furv Skrifys Savonek !
Kernewek rag an Gour Gwir updated.
Posts: 815
Posted:
28.Feb 2008 - 23:21
Posts: 1234
Posted:
29.Feb 2008 - 00:16
Blog Gokki,(Gokky's Blog)Skodhyewgh An Furv Skrifys Savonek !
Kernewek rag an Gour Gwir updated.
Posts: 29
Posted:
29.Feb 2008 - 20:32
It was, IIRC, a couple of summers ago at the Pennseythun Amerikanek -- as part of the classes we had a detailed workshop on Cornish phonology & pronunciation (this was prior to the whole SWF thing, of course, so it was all KK) and this is what we were taught.
(PS Apologies for the late reply, I managed to come down with flu at the beginning of the week so I've been out of commission for a few days.)
edited by: ThomasLeigh, Feb 29, 2008 - 03:34 PM
Posts: 29
Posted:
29.Feb 2008 - 20:39
Why, Michael, I'd no idea you cleaned up so nicely!
And Goky, you've got my vote for Official Entertainer of the Cornish Language Movement. Or at least Court Jester. Or something.
Posts: 143
Posted:
29.Feb 2008 - 21:16
Posts: 956
Posted:
29.Feb 2008 - 22:31
I would go along with that... *fingures crossed it shuts goky up for a while*
Mar vedhow avel gelvinek
(as maazed as a curlew)
Posts: 585
Posted:
29.Feb 2008 - 22:40
As 'goky' is well known for sewing far and wide his seeds of wisdom, despite sewing many on stony ground, and sewing still more on thorny ground, what better title for him than the 'Greatest Sewer of the Cornish Revival'?
Those interested in the origins of this illustrious Roman phenomenon may find more details on Wikipedia at http://en.wikip...loaca_Maxima
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kernowak y'n Udn Form Screfys?
Hep wow!
Kernewek Acordys? Mar plek!
Posts: 815
Posted:
29.Feb 2008 - 23:31
These prompts two questions:
1) Will their presiding duo, despite their boorish manner and conduct, manage to blag their way into the next AHG conclave?
2) If not, will they gatecrash the meeting anyway?
edited by: Bardh, Feb 29, 2008 - 11:42 PM
Posts: 1234
Posted:
29.Feb 2008 - 23:33
Oh stop it Eddie, my sides are splitting with laughter.
Blog Gokki,(Gokky's Blog)Skodhyewgh An Furv Skrifys Savonek !
Kernewek rag an Gour Gwir updated.
Posts: 221
Posted:
1.Mar 2008 - 00:18
Drog yw genev y dhiskwedhes dhis, Eddy, mes dha wari geryow a fyll drefenn bos anewn dha lytherennans a 'sew' y'n kas ma. Y skrifir 'sow seeds' na 'sew seeds' poken y fydh res gul devnydh a naswydh rag y wul!
Mes gwell yw dha Latin!
Posts: 585
Posted:
1.Mar 2008 - 09:35
sow = hogh
sew = gwyras
so = mar, del, yndella
soh = an 5es nota y'n scul ylow
sough = hanajen, whystra
. . .
Nyns yeth yu hem, saw hansel ky!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kernowak y'n Udn Form Screfys?
Hep wow!
Kernewek Acordys? Mar plek!
Posts: 245
Posted:
1.Mar 2008 - 15:41
Comment
(a) Eddie claims to have been studying Cornish for 'more than six months'. He has been giving this list the negative benefit of his highly opinionated views of the language for about that time.
(b) 'Nyns yeth yu hem' (sic, above) is incorrect and Cornish of this standard would produce a 'fail' at Language Board Grade One examination (if what was intended was the Cornish for 'This is not a language' it should have been 'Nyns yu hemma yeth' in UC or 'Nyns yw hemma yeth' in KK). His other postings in Cornish contain similar 'beginners mistakes', testifying to his lack of ability in Cornish.
(c) Eddie has been vociferous and detailed in his arguments against Kernewek Kemmyn, has attacked the Cornish Language Board with unfounded accusations and has opined that Ken George 'is not a linguist' etc. etc.
(d) All available evidence appears to show that Eddie's case is by no means unique among the ant-Kernewek Kemmyn factions. Further, it is evident that many anti-Kernewek Kemmyn activists are even less competent at Cornish than he is, including some with the most strident and persistent arguments.
(e) The most highly qualified and experienced Cornish speakers and users, with very few exceptions, use Kernewek Kemmyn and have views diametrically opposed to Eddie's vis a vis Kernewek Kemmyn, the Cornish Language Board and Ken George's abilities as a linguist.
People might well like to ask themselves how many of those who oppose Kernewek Kemmyn are as ill-qualified as Eddie to voice an opinion about the language.
Who am I to criticise Eddy?
I have been a fluent speaker and user of Cornish for a couple of decades and, in addition to all the Cornish Language Board exams also have the Institute of Linguists Grade Five examination in Cornish. I have served on the Language Board for most of that time as well as many years on the Council of the Language Fellowship. I taught Cornish for many years and attended countless language events. Since 2000 I have been promoting the language and Cornish history, identity and politics 'in the High Street' via Gwynn ha Du in Liskeard, having left the more lucrative business of marine surveying in order to do so.
My opinion, based on my experience and what hard evidence is available, is that most of those who oppose Kernewek Kemmyn (and who want to sideline KK and the Cornish Language Board) know as little about the language as Eddie.
For instance, membership lists of anti-KK bodies contain the names of numerous individuals known to have little or no competence in the language. Some are academics who, while not being remotely qualified in linguistics, use their status to fool members of the public into thinking that their views are reasonable.
In a sentence - the language revival is in danger of being severely damaged by interference from non-Cornish speakers and unqualified pundits, some of whom have demonstrably malicious intentions.
If anyone thinks that a SWF will end the attempt by non-Cornish speakers to dominate the language revival and thus destroy it they are, in my opinion, fooling themselves. It is clear from the evidence here and elsewhere that Agan Tavas are using the SWF as a stalking horse and intend to continue their war of attrition into the forseeable future, to the detriment of the language.
One hardly needs to observe that undermining the language revival would suit the British Government very well indeed.
- Pawl
Posts: 29
Posted:
1.Mar 2008 - 16:27
Posts: 1234
Posted:
1.Mar 2008 - 16:31
Blog Gokki,(Gokky's Blog)Skodhyewgh An Furv Skrifys Savonek !
Kernewek rag an Gour Gwir updated.
Posts: 1234
Posted:
1.Mar 2008 - 16:34
'Kernow yw hemma.'
Blog Gokki,(Gokky's Blog)Skodhyewgh An Furv Skrifys Savonek !
Kernewek rag an Gour Gwir updated.
Posts: 585
Posted:
1.Mar 2008 - 16:52
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kernowak y'n Udn Form Screfys?
Hep wow!
Kernewek Acordys? Mar plek!
online
Posts: 2133
Posted:
1.Mar 2008 - 17:14
No cred Ed!
Posts: 245
Posted:
4.Mar 2008 - 16:56
Posts: 612
Posted:
4.Mar 2008 - 17:12
TEL
My a gar boos
Posts: 245
Posted:
4.Mar 2008 - 18:35
I take it that you are referring to the caption on Thomas Leigh's great piece of graphics.
Hemm yw Kernow is fine (yu if yu must) but it should definitely be a double m.
Putting the 'hemm' first is like saying THIS is Cornwall.
Kernow yw hemma is like saying CORNWALL is this (literal translation, but a statement, not a question) or CORNWALL this is (in more usual English word order).
In Cornish one can alter the emphasis by altering the word order - placing what you want to emphasise at the start of the sentence.
ASD Smith (Caradar) in Cornish Simplified and Wella Brown in The Grammar of Modern Cornish are both worth reading on this.
- Pawl
Posts: 2411
Posted:
4.Mar 2008 - 22:54
Posts: 1234
Posted:
4.Mar 2008 - 23:46
http://keltack....-euthvi.html
Blog Gokki,(Gokky's Blog)Skodhyewgh An Furv Skrifys Savonek !
Kernewek rag an Gour Gwir updated.
Posts: 226
Posted:
5.Mar 2008 - 12:10
That's the only way it will survive, and in how many schools is it in now?
Think of the greater good will you please, join together for St Piran's.
It would be good for Kernow's best brains to get together to brainstorm effective ways to bring the cornish population together, to capture the imagination of those who live here and see themselves as SAWSNEK!!!
That is really something worth debating!
Posts: 1234
Posted:
5.Mar 2008 - 13:51
Blog Gokki,(Gokky's Blog)Skodhyewgh An Furv Skrifys Savonek !
Kernewek rag an Gour Gwir updated.
Posts: 956
Posted:
6.Mar 2008 - 01:18
Posts: 612
Posted:
6.Mar 2008 - 16:54
TEL
My a gar boos
Posts: 1234
Posted:
6.Mar 2008 - 17:35
(after taking a genetic test)
Blog Gokki,(Gokky's Blog)Skodhyewgh An Furv Skrifys Savonek !
Kernewek rag an Gour Gwir updated.
online
Posts: 492
Posted:
6.Mar 2008 - 19:43
Don't use that old chestnut.
IF you believe that genetic studies show that the English are the same, genetically, as the Cornish, and you believe that that means that the Cornish and the English are of the same "stock", then all that means is that those from "north of the border" chose to identify as English (Saxon) for reasons best known to themselves, and the Cornish are only being honest by saying that they are not.
Kernow Kensa!
Our day will come!
"Everyone has their own particular part to play. No part is too great or too small, no one is too old or too young to do something."
Posts: 1234
Posted:
6.Mar 2008 - 19:51
Consider what you are , what you are not.
Blog Gokki,(Gokky's Blog)Skodhyewgh An Furv Skrifys Savonek !
Kernewek rag an Gour Gwir updated.
online
Posts: 492
Posted:
6.Mar 2008 - 20:15
So the "(after taking a genetic test)" was added to your post by someone else then.
I see.
Sorry.
Kernow Kensa!
Our day will come!
"Everyone has their own particular part to play. No part is too great or too small, no one is too old or too young to do something."
Posts: 1234
Posted:
6.Mar 2008 - 20:21
Blog Gokki,(Gokky's Blog)Skodhyewgh An Furv Skrifys Savonek !
Kernewek rag an Gour Gwir updated.
online
Posts: 492
Posted:
6.Mar 2008 - 21:52
AS long as the tongue was not in my knickers when they twisted.........ouch!
Kernow Kensa!
Our day will come!
"Everyone has their own particular part to play. No part is too great or too small, no one is too old or too young to do something."
Posts: 245
Posted:
11.Mar 2008 - 14:56
No genetic study that I am aware of has suggested this.
North of the border? North? How many English are in the sea off our north coast? Best place for 'em, I suppose...
If you are having problems with your 'Easts' and 'Norths' (and I remember a former Grand Bard - Ann Jenkin - who once made a similar directionally challenged remark) then nip into Penrose's in Truro. They do nice, inexpensive hikers' compasses.
It sounds as if you could do with one.
- Pawl
Posts: 1234
Posted:
11.Mar 2008 - 15:28
Blog Gokki,(Gokky's Blog)Skodhyewgh An Furv Skrifys Savonek !
Kernewek rag an Gour Gwir updated.
Posts: 245
Posted:
11.Mar 2008 - 15:30
- Pawl
Posts: 245
Posted:
11.Mar 2008 - 15:31
- Pawl
Posts: 245
Posted:
11.Mar 2008 - 15:32
PM me if you wish.
- Pawl
edited by: pdunbar, Mar 11, 2008 - 03:34 PM
online
Posts: 492
Posted:
11.Mar 2008 - 16:54
I have had many an interesting debate with some on the BBC boards who would suggest that your knowledge is lacking, However, for the record, note the big IF used.