Some thoughts about the Process

A new forum dedicated to Kernewek - the Cornish language, Cornish culture and the history of the Duchy of Cornwall
FlammNew
Posts: 1777
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:29 pm

Post by FlammNew » Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:45 am


morvran said:
Dr. Chaudhri's thesis


I hope that the Commission have a chance to read this document before Sunday as it looks like it might have some bearing on their decision. Does anyone know if they were made aware of it before it went online?

User avatar
Evertype
Posts: 3167
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:29 am
Contact:

Post by Evertype » Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:26 pm

Chaudhri's thesis is irrelevant to the Commissions decision. Their decision will be to accept UC, RLC, KK, or UCR as the SWF, or to recommend a Fifth Form.

Revived Cornish has two dialects: Middle Cornish without pre-occlusion and Late Cornish with pre-occlusion. The SWF must meet the requirements of both groups. If it does not, it will fail to be a SWF. (This is one of the key reasons that the SWF should not be UC, RLC, KK, or UCR.)

Keith is simply wrong in his assertion that pre-occlusion can be predicted. It cannot. We have given him examples before, and he has ignored them. The SWF should have spellings which permit readers to know when to pre-occlude or not. This feature should not be optional.

The hoots and hollers about Chaudhri's thesis are pretty much what we can expect from tthe Kemynistas. It's only a PhD thesis. Plausible? Good enough to earn a PhD? Maybe. Proof that Williams is wrong? I don't think so. Chaudhri did not make use of the third edition of Cornish Today nor of the new articles in Writings on Revived Cornish, nor of Towards Authentic Cornish, all of which were published in 2006. Unless it does that, it is simply out of date.

Even if Chaudhri's thesis did prove that the date of the Prosodic Shift were later than Williams set it in his articles in 1998 and previously, this would not "prove" that KK were a suitable orthography for Revived Cornish.

FlammNew
Posts: 1777
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:29 pm

Post by FlammNew » Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:49 pm


Evertype said:
Chaudhri's thesis is irrelevant to the Commissions decision.

....

It's only a PhD thesis. Plausible? Good enough to earn a PhD? Maybe.



One wonders whether a PhD thesis from an academic linguistic expert who specialises in Celtic phonology, such as Talat Chaudhri, which was critical of Kemmyn, would have been dismissed in so cavalier a fashion.

User avatar
Evertype
Posts: 3167
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:29 am
Contact:

Post by Evertype » Thu Oct 11, 2007 4:24 pm

Your wonderment is not surprising: you seem to find fault with all I say, and are rarely critical of the kind of crowing Bailey does. This is the terrible academic condemnation of all of Williams' work that Bailey warned us of? It's pretty light-weight.

This thesis is, contrary to your suggestion, also critical of George. I've also read more of it than the choice tidbits which Keith posted. I don't think it's particularly convincing.


Although I have disagreed with Dr. Williams over his use of fortis or lenis rather than gemination or non-gemination, the question of tenseness is probably the factor that motivated pre-occlusion.



This is rather weak. I think Chaudhri wants to discards the fortis/lenis argument in favour of gemination/non-gemination because he favours George's model. But then he argues the opposite -- that it was tenseness which causes pre-occlusion.

In any case I do not believe that this thesis vindicates the choices George made in devising his orthography. And, as I said, whatever the date of the Prosodic Shift it was certainly complete by the time of Jordan -- even George agrees on this. And since the SWF must encompass both dialects of Revived Cornish (or it cannot succeed) it is still my view that KS or a reconciliation of KS and KD is the way forward.

Bardh
Posts: 1764
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:18 pm

Post by Bardh » Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:02 pm


FlammNew said:
[quote=morvran]Dr. Chaudhri's thesis


I hope that the Commission have a chance to read this document before Sunday as it looks like it might have some bearing on their decision. Does anyone know if they were made aware of it before it went online?[/quote]

Or, indeed, what Nick-n-Mick's response was.

By the way, TC is a very good poet - there's some of his stuff in Nothing Broken.

Morvran
Posts: 2192
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:48 am

Post by Morvran » Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:55 pm

The Williams camp have been saying that our opinions (even Ken's opinion) don't count because we're not "professional linguists/celticists". None of these have supported either side, for the simple reason that they haven't taken any interest in Cornish. Now one has, and quite independently of us -- there has been no 'collusion' between the witnesses -- he has found several of Williams key ideas wanting. Pre-occlusion was one of the four outstanding questions he tackled, and he makes it perfectly clear that (a) it was an entirely regular predictable change, and (b) that it must have happened before any Prosodic Shift. Which while it appears a minor technical point, in fact pulls the rug out from under most of Williams "radical hypotheses" about historical Cornish.

But he's to be dismissed too?

So Williams is the sole authority on Cornish? Who's word and judgement would Everson accept against Williams?

If the answer is "no-one's" then it's clear that he's a fanatic and beyond all reason.

Do we really want to hand over the running of the Cornish language to such fruit-cakes?


User avatar
Evertype
Posts: 3167
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:29 am
Contact:

Post by Evertype » Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:09 pm


morvran said:
But he's to be dismissed too?

I didn't dismiss him. I said that I didn't think that his thesis was all that strong. You want to make much of that


So Williams is the sole authority on Cornish? Who's word and judgement would Everson accept against Williams?

The word is "whose", Keith. And I never said that Nicholas was the sole authority on Cornish -- and Nicholas has never said so either. I said that I didn't find Chaudhri's argument particularly convincing. I would say so to Chaudhri.

You're the one hooting and crowing about how Williams' suggestions are now "rubbished" by this brilliant young scholar. That's neither measured nor mature.


If the answer is "no-one's" then it's clear that he's a fanatic and beyond all reason.

You cannot paint me that way, however much you may wish to. I am not a fanatic, and it is fanatic of you to keep after me the way you are.


Do we really want to hand over the running of the Cornish language to such fruit-cakes?

I think you lost the linguistic argument long ago. That's why you tried to shift the argument to demographics. When you fail there, you descend to ad-hominem attack.

It is a pity that you have nothing to offer the Revival but hate and lies, Keith Bailey. You've yet to show anything else.

Bardh
Posts: 1764
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:18 pm

Post by Bardh » Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:13 am


morvran said:


So Williams is the sole authority on Cornish? Who's word and judgement would Everson accept against Williams?

If the answer is "no-one's" then it's clear that he's a fanatic and beyond all reason.

Do we really want to hand over the running of the Cornish language to such fruit-cakes?





No, we don't. And we're not going to. The Cornish language is not Nick-n-Mick's private plaything. They and their handlers are on a hiding to nothing.

Morvran
Posts: 2192
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:48 am

Post by Morvran » Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:23 am

Oh dear, I didn't mean to frighten you, Michael.

Calm down, and point out the faults in Chaudhri's section on Preocclusion, please. He seems quite certain (and presumably must have convinced his supervisors and examiner) that there was no early PS. He also has no truck with the 'dialects' hypothesis which Williams need to support some of his other ideas, on s/g alternation and the "two O's". Without that get-out clause his ideas fall flat.

You have to admit it, your bluff has been called. You've continually used the "no academic linguist ..." argument -- now you can't play that card any more.


Bardh
Posts: 1764
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:18 pm

Post by Bardh » Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:28 am


morvran said:


You have to admit it, your bluff has been called. You've continually used the "no academic linguist ..." argument -- now you can't play that card any more.





We must keep our eye on the ball from now on. The puppet show is over. Watch what goes on in the Heath Robinsonish 'Partnership' machinery. That's where they hope to win.

Morvran
Posts: 2192
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:48 am

Post by Morvran » Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:28 am

No one seems to know who's at the controls. Ordinary Partnership members don't seem to have much say in what the Management Group decides. Who chose this Group? Not apparently the Partnership as a whole.

So who really is calling the shots?


Bardh
Posts: 1764
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:18 pm

Post by Bardh » Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:41 am

Let's begin, if not at the beginning, at where we've reached so far. Who's on the Management Group?

Bardh
Posts: 1764
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:18 pm

Post by Bardh » Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:53 am

Let's put it another way.

Here are the people listed on the CLP website as being representative of various public and voluntary organizations, or as being in attendance at meetings:

Eric Brooke, Mike George,Frank Greenslade, Loveday Jenkin, Mark Williams, John Chapman, Morley Thomas, Shirley Polmounter, Bert Biscoe, Richard Gambier, Ray Chubb, Mina Dresser, Jori Ansell, Maureen Pierce, Laurence Rule, Bernard Deacon, Bill Glanville, John Sawle, Tony Steele, Jenefer Lowe, and Elizabeth Stewart .



edited by: Bardh, Oct 12, 2007 - 08:58 AM

Palores
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 2:21 pm

Post by Palores » Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:06 am


Keith is simply wrong in his assertion that pre-occlusion can be predicted. It cannot.


Chaudhri disagrees; he says "pre-occlusion is an entirely predictable sound-change".

We have given him examples before, and he has ignored them.


I have not seen these examples. Please give them again, and explain in what way they support your assertion of unpredictability.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest