The Partnership would appear to want to keep all debate confined to 'experts' behind closed doors and/or on closed internet fora.
They could remove 90% of the bones of contention if they simply got their fingers out and commissioned immediately :
1. An independent census (even to within c10% either way) of who actually uses what at present. They have the money to employ the sort of organisation that could do the job well and be seen to be unbiased;
2. An audit of Dr. Georges data and methods, by an experienced historical/comparative linguist, to demonstrate that these follow conventionally accepted lines. I.e. that the reconstructed phonology has been correctly deduced from the data. (As with a financial audit, it would not be necessary to check every detail, just the overall methods, some sample data, and a few key issues).
That would take a lot of the heat out of the debate, and it could have all been done and dusted months ago. This is why I seriously wonder if the 'Process' is really designed to solve the problem or simply to stir up as much disagreement as possible, so the government can avoid spending any money on Cornish.
Nicholas Williams, who was made a bard for his knowledge of the language in 1962, has been writing about KK for 17 years. His first article, about /tj/ and /dj/, was published in 1990. He has written more than a thousand pages in criticism of the linguistic accuracy of KK, including lists of the many, many, MANY instances in which KK supports things which are simply not supported by the texts. The "phonemes" /tj/ and /dj/ were not Cornish. Had Williams not pointed this out, the Revival would be full of learners trying to pronounce Cornish as though it were Hungarian. There are other errors in KK, which George now simply ignores with a flat "I disagree with Williams' phonology" rather than by trying to address the shortcomings and errors which are pointed out with reference to the corpus which is the source of our knowledge of Cornish. As I said elsewhere, a good scholar would thank his critics and engage with them for the benefit of all. George just ignores criticism now, because of "the manifest benefits of KK". Effectively the entire Revival process is roadblocked because of one man's ego, and the egos of his pals who enable him to maintain an entrenched position (and evidently what "power" they enjoy "running" the Revival). The fact that the Revival is split and that there are good people who know something about Cornish on "the other side" is something you try to dismiss by saying that "it is only a tiny minority of splinter groups" who criticize KK. Of course that isn't true, and you know it. You've written to me, patronizingly, imploring me to listen to you because my friends in Cornwall just lead me astray. Well I've been working with Cornish for 13 years now, and I know whom to believe. It ain't you.
So now you write and suggest that an "experienced historical/comparative linguist" should review KK. Well guess what? Nicholas Williams is a historical/comparative linguist. And I am a historical/comparative linguist. I trained in Indo-European Studies at UCLA some two decades ago, and my career has been built on my expertise in writing system analysis. Of course, you despise us because we find fault with KK. But we find fault with KK because there is fault to find. And other linguists have found fault with KK. In fact, a number of trained linguists, as well as a number of other people, have registered their support for the effort we have put into the draft proposal which you know as KS. (Their names will be published in due course.)
Nicholas has been writing on KK since 1990. He's written nearly 1000 pages about it. He may have been undiplomatic in Lostwithiel when he first criticized KK, but you and your friends have done nothing but vilify him, ad hominem, for many years. Because he dares to oppose the Gospel according to Ken George. About orthtography/. About spelling. But there you are. You asked for an audit... well an audit has been done and many aspects of KK are found to be wanting. And Williams is not the only one who has done an audit. And, sorry, but KK has much in it that flies in the face of the evidence. His data and methods have been scrutinized, and there are problems with both and with George's conclusions.
And now we have a Partnership Process, and all that Ken and you and the rest of the Kesva can manage is a game of Chicken. Engagement with Agan Tavas and the Cussel? Not a chance. Engagement with UdnFormScrefys? Hell no! No discussion. No compromise. Indeed you have on many occasions, as here, "seriously wondered" if the Process is designed to create disagreement.
IT IS THE KESVA WHICH REFUSES TO COME TO THE TABLE, KEITH. Perhaps you might wonder if you are, in the context of your conspiracy theory, not acting counter to the good of the Cornish Revival with your intransigence.
We in UdnFormScrefys remain hopeful that the Kesva will find some way to swallow its collective pride and consider engagement, discussion, consensus, and compromise. We believe that a Fifth Form can be designed which could be acceptable to the majority of Cornish users and which could be accurate enough to be suitable for teaching future generations.
I said elsewhere, the Revival is split 50%/50% ±10%. Nobody buys the Kesva suggestion that the "overwhelming" majority of the 300-400 people who use Cornish all use KK. It's hard to imagine the Commission choosing KK. It's just as hard to imagine it choosing UCR, RLC, or UC. Don't you think they will want us all to work together to achieve something by consensus?
There are good linguists on both sides of the Split. We should all work towards a suitable Fifth Form solution.
Well said, Michael. What you say is well argued good sense. Compromise is the only answer and intransigence is only serving to clog up the works. We should all be prepared to lose something in order for all to gain a hell of a lot more. The future of Cornish is not about what present day KK, UC, UCR or RLC people want to see for their own systems - it's about what we all want for the future of Cornish.
A previos writer has mentioned <hw>, <kw>, etc, and says that we don't want to use <wh>, <qu/qw> because we would be writing English. But <hw> and <kw> aren't Cornish, either. One isn't attested anywhere in native writing, and the other only once. <hw> is English. Old English.
hwitan = white; hweol = wheel. Honest!
Attested is attested is attested. On the one hand KS supporters will ONLY accept attested spellings (although, inconsistently, messing around with unattested accents seems to be OK for some reason), on the other hand here you are slagging Kemmyn off for using an ATTESTED spelling. Consistent, I don't think.
Marhak, please edit your last post. Evidently you used angle brackets or square brackets but the software here considered them to be control codes. What you posted has lots of gaps in it and can't be read.
Please do not make blanket statemsts about what KS supporters will or will not do. I have explained to you on the other thread that UFS has taken principled decisions with regard to some of the choices we have made. I discussed "ue" vs "eu" specifically. One might discuss "wh" vs "hw" as Marhak seems to have done. One might discuss some other choices. But from YOUR side you have to acknowledge that we are not making arbitrary choices. And if you want us to discuss making different choices, you'll have to actually discuss reasons for doing so. Stamping your feet and saying "See? You won't discuss!" is not working. It's just a sign that you are not discussing.
I said nothing about making arbitrary choices. Marhak said that <hw> and <kw> "aren't Cornish" then said that one had been attested. If it's attested then by the KS group's assertion, it *is* Cornish. All of the people who have signed up to KS have implicitly, if not explicitly, agreed to that premise. *Which* attested spelling is the one to use is another matter, and one I did not comment on. I don't personally think that attestation is as important as you do, but shall we agree to differ on that point?
Attestation gives us the best indication as to whether a particular spelling is Cornish or not. The more a spelling is attested in texts written by Cornish writers, the greater the likelihood that it is truly Cornish. <kw> is attested just the once. <hw> not at all. The fact that KK spelling has been devised by one man and his computer does not suffice make the spelling Cornish any more than if I wrote "bak to skool" makes that English.
My angle brackets look fine on the C24 forum, Evertype and that's all I can go by. Couldn't see anything to edit (except my usual typos - and they weren't too bad this time).
1. The spelling system must be based on attested traditional orthographic forms.
2. In the orthography the relationship between spelling and sounds must be unambiguous.
Can you explain why either of these principles is really unacceptable to you? I have some other thoughts, but would like to learn your answer to this question first.
1. BASED ON. That I agree with. BASED ON. Not having to follow it letter for letter. Not ONLY allowing attested forms. <hw> is BASED ON <wh>. Therefore it is acceptable.
2. I agree with this to the degree that it will be unambiguous *if* you follow the pronunciation rules to the letter. If you accept that there will be dialects and accents, then the link between spelling and sound is no longer ambiguous, only approximately so, and that is as much as we can hope for.
The fact that everyone knows what "bak to skool" means, shows that it is possible to change the spelling of a system and still have it be perfectly intelligible. Anyone who learnt to spell that way could still read "back to school" with no problem, in the same way that Kemmyn users can still read the extant texts. Kemmyn still looks as Cornish as UC to me. A spelling system is only a way of representing the spoken language (which is the important part) on paper, so provided the spelling system is close enough to the texts to allow you to read them (which Kemmyn is), then I'm not bothered by attestation. Others disagree, but that's fine by me!
This principle leaves open the question of how this should or might be achieved. There is plenty of room for discussion and debate. There are plenty of options. To signal vowel length, for example, one could double consonants, double vowels, use diacritics, or implement the magic 'e', similar to English.
This principle, on the other hand, completely overrides the other one, and is entirely inflexible. It leaves no room whatsoever for coming up with a sensible approach to determining an unambiguous relationship between spelling and sounds. Essentially there is nothing to debate because this principle ties everything down to an unacceptable degree. It's either in the texts or it's not. It's not? Then it's not Cornish - don't bother even suggesting it.
Luckily it doesn't have to be that way, as we've all seen. People that are dead keen on a compromise can support one that is reasonable in its approach to these two principles.
Three rescued from capsized boat
A fishing boat crew rescues three people from the sea after their speedboat capsizes near Padstow in Cornwall.
Priorities to safeguard children
A board which monitors children's welfare groups sets out its priorities for the future.
Pedestrian hit in bypass accident
A pedestrian suffers serious injuries after being hit by a car on the A30 bypass near Camborne.
Food prices
Cornish farmers fear food bills could rocket if controversial plans get the go ahead from the European Parliament.
INTERNET - CAMPAIGN FOR NATIONAL DOMAIN SUFFIXES
The Celtic League has urged the Cornish Language Partnership to support the campaign to adopt national internet domain suffixes for the Celtic countries. So far just Ireland and Mannin have national domain suffixes (ie and im respectively).
CORNWALL COUNCIL MONEY CRISIS WITH ICELAND?
Cornwall Council is welcoming the news that the Local Government Association is meeting with the Government to discuss the position of local authorities who have money invested with the Icelandic bank Landsbanki.
CORNWALL COUNCIL IS TRYING TO CHANGE THE RULES OF THE GAME
In a further blow to Cornwall CouncilÂ’s plans to build a mass burn incinerator in St. Dennis, it has emerged that the County is seeking to alter the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West to get round conflicts between the incinerator proposal and new regional planning policy.
