V Tree
A large V shaped pine tree on the Antony estate near Torpoint...
Seaton Beach
Located at the bottom of the Seaton River valley this sand and shingle beach is popular with families. At low tide it joins up with Downderry around the headland...
Seaton River
The Seaton River as it flows out of the valley and through the village of the same name...
Portwrinkle
Looking down over the one time fishing village of Portwrinkle. In the background is the start of Whitsand Bay as it stretches 4 miles down the Rame Peninsula...
I don't disagree with any of what you say. I am delighted that you now have an open mind. Let's let those who are qualified to know about these arguments and those who will finally make a decision can do so on the basis of having been fully informed.
Finally, I am not against KK or any other orthoraphy - I just one the best period.
You are mistaking opinion for advice. Just who do you think I was 'advising'?
Because I have read, a number of times, everything that has ever been written on the subject. To suggest that it is impossible to understand something or hold an opinion on it unless you have letters after your name or earn a living 'doing' it is again fallacious bordering on the just plain daft.
No "perhaps". I didn't express it. Now explain to us where I "certainly have implied it", please.
But I'm not keen to avoid this. Could you point us at the place where I said (or, as you will no doubt have it in your next post, 'implied') that this was so?
The only chance we have of resolving this stupidity at the moment is for this panel of linguists to reach a conclusion. So I'm all for it. Pointing out issues has nothing to do with wishing to avoid the process.
This one is not fallacious, it is just plain daft. Firstly, 'pontificate' means 'to speak in a pompous or dogmatic manner'. Frankly I think that applies to you more than it does to me, but that's just an opinion, not advice. Secondly, to state that you don't speak about matters you are not qualified in is unbelievable. In fact, you appear to speak about things you are not qualified in each time you post - so it's not just unbelievable, its demonstrably untrue. Just what are you qualified in? Forum posting?
You have attributed to me all sorts of beliefs, opinions and attitudes which I don't hold, and you have read things into what I have written based on your own prejudices. I would have thought your training in the scientific method would have helped you to avoid this.
Darn it, that fiver was going to pay for my lunch... No, I'm not Ken either!
I just edited that post - what are your feelings about having a dictionary with diacritical marks showing pronounciation which aren't used in writing?
I've always had an open mind, I just want a decision made ASAP, and I don't think that there's enough of a difference between the forms to get worked up about. To me the regular spelling of KK weighs heavily in its favour but I've nothing against the other forms.
Lyskerrys - I don't know enough about linguistic matters. Having said that, as an individual with no real knowledge in such areas, I would not have thought there to be a problem with diacritical marks in a dictionary.
I agree with you entirely - the process need to commence immediately. This process should be straight forward if, as you say, there are little differences between the various forms. All is needed is or someone with experience to sort of the fact from the fiction, in an envirnment entirely seperate from all of the various egos, and the job can be done to everyone's satisfaction.
I ask because I'm not happy with the Unified and UCR practise of putting diacritical marks in dictionaries to show pronounciation, which are left out of the written/printed word, so the pronounciation has to be worked out from context or guessed. The diacritical marks are also cumbersome to enter using a computer keyboard. I'm sure that kids (and adults!) would have major problems if they were to be given a dictionary that doesn't match the words they see on paper, and that it'd be a hindrance to picking up the language.
You appeared to give advice to this forum, at least, when you said, "There are no deep linguistic issues here. In fact, the educational issues are as important". The important word you used is "NOT". That might be your view but it is not a definitive judgement because only a qualified linguist is in a position to make such a difinitive statement.
There is a difference between simply holding an opinion (which you are perfectly entitled to do) and making a recommendation in regard to the implementation of government policy. That can only be done on the basis of sound advice from suitably qualified professionals. So, as an amateur, you are in no position to make such a definitive statement.
The mere fact that you are making such an issue out of this gives all the implication necessary. Just forget about all of this interesting (but non-definitive amateur opinion) for the time being, until the professionals (which are being commissioned right at this very moment) are able to come in and complete their job. They will then be able to inform you whether, for example, your statement that there are no linguistic issues to consider, is appropriate. If they do, then I shall be the first to congratulate and apologise to you!
I agree. And this is what you are doing in this process. You are implying that you know better than qualified, professional experts in linguistics - I rest my case
I hold opinions in these linguistic matters but I am not foisting them on anyone else, certainly not upon professional people. I haven't bleated on about pseudo-linguistic arguments that allegedly support my preferred orthography, I have simply articulated that I want some qualified experts to come in with impartial, untainted advice. That does not amount to pontification in my book! However, you need to carefully reassess your own position.
You have no idea about my qualifications or my experience in any matter. I, however, know that you have no qualifications in linguistics because you have stated that to be the case and I am simply pointing out to other members that your advice, currently without accreditation, needs to be taken with a pinch of salt because, until it can be proven otherwise, it is, I'm afraid, just your unqualified humble opinion.
Moreover, when I give my points of view on other matters, these are just my personal opinions, unless they are statements of corroborated fact. Furthermore, those comments I have made on other topics are not currently the subject of implementation of government policy and they have no direct bearing on the future develpment of these issues. Your opinion regarding Cornish is a matter which is central to the debate on the subject of the implementation of government policy. There is clearly a difference of opinion on the various orthographies and, even if amateurs were normally the ones to take responsibility for implenting policy, there is clearly a considerable need for independent experts to be directly involved in the process as they are the only ones who can say whether your, or my, orthographic preference is sustainable for use as the SWF! Furthermore, as one who has yet to be convinced of the merits of any orthography, I no longer require your biased opinions and would prefer some experts with experience in linguistics to guide me and the amateur members of the partnership through the process.
The current proposed pathway for the Cornish language is clearly somewhat different from the usual topics dicussed in other threads on this forum. Until very recently, there has been reluctance to involve professional linguists in regard to the future well-being of the Cornish language which, as I repeat once again, is currently a matter of implementation of official government policy. That it is of tremndous importance for future generations means that the process must be carried out efficiently, responsibly, without bias and it should not be based entirely on the opinions of those who, without qualification, are so arrogant as to pontificate that, they "know best"!
Now, if you don't accept that, you should take that point up with the GOSW or the Minister and tell them where they have got so many things wrong in implementing policy on such things as the Health Service, the Motorways etc past by employing professional experts for advice on all such things. It would have been much better if a bunch of amateur anoraks had drafted up some guidelines on the back of a fag packet, so saving the tax-payer a shed load of money! Go tell the panel of experts also that they are not required and tell them that you know best if you are that confident!
There are many successful businessmen and women (and plenty of them millionaires) who dropped out of school and have no university education. Would you recommend that the government and other businesspeople reject their advice just because they don't have an MBA?
I'm not sure that the Health Service was a good example, I reckon that a bunch of drunken gibbons could manage it better than this lot!
But they, as businessmen, do not have responsibility for implementing official government policy in regard to a legally binding international treaty. But the Cornish Language Partnership does!!!!
Exactly, look at the mess that is possible even when professionals are involved. That is why, right at the outset, experts in linguistics and professional administrators need to be brought in and consulted. Those who take responsibility for implementation can then do so in the knowledge thatthe process has been conducted properly.
Why is it that you have such difficulty with such a concept. If your linguistic preference is sustainable, put it down on the table and get on with it.
But they wanted to revise them a little, to be more more phonemic, would Accents and omlauts (or what ever there called) be acceptable to exapand a vowels sound? for the actual written form?
Simply on a pragmatic basis that will be advantageous to the standing and support of the language, I have to agree with Hunlef that the SWF if it is to have improved status should preferrably satisfy as many linguistic criteria as possible that the professionals will expect.
That doesn't mean detracting from the work of any 'amateur' enthusiasts; after all, were not both Jenner and Mordon both in this class? I prefer to think of such figures as more like the old self educated 'polymaths' of past generations- undoubted experts in their field though outside the 'guild' of academia strictly defined. So their work should not be lightly cast aside.
However it can do the language no harm to at least involve experts from the university 'guilds' in this process, can it?
What factors should predominate? 'Historical authenticity' as far as is possible and 'accessiblility' for teaching, particularly as Cornish has few, if any, current 'native' speakers; do the Chubb brothers count themselves as such?
Personally I strongly suspect the academics may prefer a version with at least some degree of historical attestation but I may be wrong in that. My own preference would probably be towards UCR or Late on this score; it can hardly be denied that words written by native Cornish speakers, whether they had a standard form or not, is 'authentic'! The exact sounds they represent can be left to the more rareified arguments of the linguists. Clearly variation has not prevented mutual comprehension even between the different versions so would such an orthography impede acquisition to absurd extremes? However it is true the differences at a practical level are largely minor and I am very pleasantly surprised at how much I am understanding of Jowann Richards very pleasant little tale An Arloedhes Dhison which is written in KK and not too removed from U or UCR as to be indecipherable. Clearly most of the words are common to all versions, making allowances for Late's very slightly different grammatical forms. I wonder how easy it would be to get the gist of An Arloedhes in, say, UCR? Certainly in KK it is refreshingly immediate. Of course it could be that this is just because An Arloedhes was specifically designed to reinforce the rudimentary grammar lessons of Skeul and the other standard grammars?!
If the form IS going to be phonemic then isn't it vital that to gain official recognition the system underlying it can be more or less vindicated by its apologists to university experts? I DO like the phonemic idea as I'm sure a good phonemic script would probably enthuse more learners with its greater ease but it has to be recognised such an orthography carries a greater burden of proof of 'authenticity' as it must demonstrate its sound system is authentic, not just its spelling .
I think May is a tall, order to sort all this out in detail but given goodwill and determination on all sides it could be achieved.I assume the main outcome of the summit was indeecd to get some sort of(reasonably!) independent and/or balanced adjudicating body together to get a solution? Meanwhile I'm off to find out what happens in An Arloedhes Dhison if my Cornish is up to it!
Fair enough, but as U, UCR and Kemmyn are basically the same language all of them have essentially the same degree of historical attestation. KK and UCR are based on the same texts after all!
If the academics are to discard all of the work of amateurs then they will have to start from scratch with the original texts, because even Williams' work is based on Jenner and Nance's. Maybe that's the best way - for the group of professional linguists to devise a new phonemic system from scratch, so there is no favouritism shown to ANY of the existing systems. I could go along with that if it guaranteed we had an agreed, phonemic system by the end of May.
Suppose today that a Geordie, a Scot and a Cornishman wrote down English in their own personal phonetic systems: all of the spellings would represent "authentic" English as spoken by a native speaker, but I suspect that they would vary far more than KK, U and UCR! Yes, of course we need to get pretty close to an original pronounciation, but as those varied from place to place and time to time there is no single true pronounciation, so provided we're close what does it matter? I suspect that it is only academics who are trying to force everyone to speak in a particular way - which of course will never happen because even when we have a SWF there will be variations in pronounciation across Cornwall, but that doesn't make the variations of Cornish spoken across the Duchy invalid, any more than the Scots or Geordie or Cornish variations of English are somehow not authentic English.
Academics are involved in English, French, German and any other language you can care to mention. So why should Cornish be any different? That seems to me to be the accepted way of mangaing things.
In so far as Cornish is concerned, why do some people on this forum feel that a phonemic orthography is best? OK, I can see that it might be easier to teach but that is arguable, bearing in mind that millions of people are taught English and that language is most certainly not taught phonemically7.
By insisting on a phonemic form, you seem to imply that Cornish students are not capable of learning it in the same waty as most other languages.
Phonemics have a place but, before that can be decided upon, we really need to see what the expert linguists have to say.
That is one argument AGAINST a phonemic system!
Having said that, I don't really care what system we employ as long as it is academically sound.
As you are looking to "Launch" Cornish with a written form to a much wider 'audience', there is now a "golden oppurtunity" to decide that it is to be in a form that looks like it sounds.
Hopefully there will be many, many more newcomers to Cornish looking at learning the language.
I do not think they would be grateful if, on first viewing it looks like gibberish with letters having unfamiliar sounds.
Few languages get this opportunity, I hope no one meses it up!
Police name death crash cyclist
Police in Cornwall name a cyclist who died after being badly injured in a collision on Sunday.
Training to distribute aid boxes
Cornish-based charity Shelterbox trains Burmese workers to distribute its boxes of aid for cyclone victims.
Pony pair graze conservation area
Two Exmoor ponies are installed at a Cornish conservation area to help manage the site by grazing.
Gyrocopter pilot had heart attack
A gyrocopter pilot whose machine crashed on the way to Bodmin Airfield died from natural causes.
Sanctuary man jailed over abuse
The former owner of a donkey sanctuary is jailed for five years for sexually abusing young girls.
Lorry stuck between buildings
A wrong turn ends in embarrassment for a lorry driver as his vehicle gets stuck in a Cornish village.
Police save harbour jump suspect
A man attempting to run from police is rescued by them after jumping into a harbour in Cornwall.
Chapel to host animal blessing service
An animal blessing service is to be held at Tredarvo chapel on Sunday at 3pm, conducted by reverend William Ireland. Anybody is welcome to attend the hour-long service with their pets, and this will be followed by refreshments. Mr Ireland said: "I ...
No, I'm not Ken either!
