High Tide Jangye-ryn
Also known as Dollar cove owing to the wreck of a 17th century ship that has yielded some silver coins over the years.
The geology here is of special interest with the contorted strata of the clif...
Jangye-ryn
The curiously named Jangye-ryn, located just around the corner from Gunwalloe beach on the Lizard Peninsula.
I believe there are some interesting geological formations somewhere here....
Poldhu Cove Panorama
Poldhu Cove on the Lizard Peninsula.
This wasn't even low tide and there was too much beach to fit on one photo (this is 3 stitched together).
Poldhu is perhaps best known for being the site of G...
Summer Field
Dandelions on a field on a summer's day...
Kernowak: Standard Profys rag Screfa an Tavas Kernowak
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.
"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.
What I want to know is why you Mr Everson and the others in this Group, are working outside of the set programm ? I know of you from another Forum and to be honest I do not trust your judgement on this issue. You are totally biased in your opinions, and I for one do not want you to be a part of the SWF process. Now that said, I do not think that this is good enough. There are a set group who have been brought together to make this dicission. They are all experts in their fields, and I for one do not like that you and the others who have done this are working against that group. You live in Ireland and are not Cornish, just keep your nose out of our Language. Thank you.
It's a bit late (23:38), AnGofBew, but thank you for your comments. I appreciate your concern. I will give a proper answer to you tomorrow, if you don't mind.
Evertype, martesen kamm ov mes nyns yw Ken McKinnon freth yn KK dell grysav, ha piw yw an den KK arall? Nyns eus denvydh KK a vri y'n rol a henwyn. Henn yw saw furv dhe settya erbynn KK. Heb skians yw dhe dyllo henna y'n pols diwedhes ma pan vynnyn ni gul dewisans erbynn mis Me.
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.
I don't think Ken MacKinnon actually *uses* KK, and he certainly isn't fluent. If you look at the document you will find he says he uses just about every form, including this new one!! I think he is trying to say that he uses anything and everything! It's a mystery.
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.
We are not working outside of "the set programme". Everyone is invited to make submissions to the Commission and to the Linguistic Working Group, and that is what our group is doing. At present, our draft proposal is unfinished. We have submitted it to the LWG as part of the process, and we are submitting it to the general public for comment and discussion. There is nothing unusual about this. We are being quite open about it. We might have submitted it directly to the Commission without public discussion. But that wouldn't be right.
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.
Evertype, (aka mr Everson) I'm not against the use of Diacritical marks, but is this the only way to indicate long/short vowels, Before we used to jst learn when one should sound aparticular "sound". As for preocclusion, does this really have a place in present day Cornish, it does make it harder to pronounce.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Curfew 'successful' before launch
A voluntary curfew for young people in a Cornish town is being hailed a success before it officially starts.
Warning after meningitis cluster
Parents are told to be vigilant after a small cluster of bacterial meningitis in a Cornish town.
Fishermen airlifted out of raft
A couple of fishermen had to be airlifted to safety from their life raft after their boat sank off the Cornish coast.
Appeal after body discovered
Police appeal to dog walkers after a woman's body is found at the bottom of cliffs in south east Cornwall.
Hotel fire charges could be made
Officials decide if charges will be made in connection with the fatal Penahllow Hotel fire in Newquay.
'Best' beaches are in South West
Torquay and St Ives top a poll of home-grown holiday hotspots chosen by Britons holidaying at home.
Eco-towns proposal 'not unlawful'
The government's strategy for up to 10 eco-towns, including one near St Austell, could be "unlawful", councils warn.
Heartlands plans for Pool go on show
Members of the public will soon have the chance to see the latest exciting plans for the innovative Pool village scheme.
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.
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.