Alys in Pow an Anethow in Kernowek - Alices Adventures in Wonderland in Cornish

A new forum dedicated to Kernewek - the Cornish language, Cornish culture and the history of the Duchy of Cornwall
User avatar
Eddie-C
Posts: 1820
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:31 am

Post by Eddie-C » Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:41 pm


she said:
some good points eddie but it's a book for children who cannot be advanced users as they haven't been learning long enough. therefore, for them to read it easily it should be in the form they are most used to, which will be SWF main. would you be willing to publish a SWF main version alongside the KS one?

'Alys' is not a beginner's text; it is literature for more advanced learners, or for fluent speakers. As such, it falls outside the arbitrary restrictions imposed by the CLP.

For younger and less fluent readers, what would be needed would not be a SWF (Main) transcription/translation, but a simplified, rewritten edition -- or a comic book edition.

That sounds like an interesting project for someone.

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

Post by Evertype » Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:35 pm


gokyreloaded said:
A question why the two dots over the vowels , as this is kind of jarring at first to the eye, it does look as non-Cornish to me as Kammbronn does to others. kefrës

Here's your answer. In KS, the diaeresis (two dots) is used to show that a vowel may have more than one pronunciation depending on the preference of the user. This does not affect all words, just a particular set of words. The word kefrës you have cited is pronounced in by people who prefer a later pronunciation as [kəˈfreːz]. But people who prefer an earlier pronunciation say [kəˈfriːz]. ë and ÿ show each kind of speaker what the word is. If you prefer RMC, and you will probably write kefrÿs. The SWF offers the same choice, but doesn't distinguish words in the alternating group e~y from words which are either e only or y only. Before the AHG, KS proposed ey for the class of words with the alternation, but this was not accepted by the KK representatives in the AHG. They opted for e~y—but because this is too ambiguous to be good for learners we use ë~ÿ.

In Cornish a number of diacritics have been used in the past. Lhuyd used circumflex (ô) and grave (ò). Jenner used the circumflex (ô) and the breve (ŏ). Nance in his dictionaries used macron (ō) and diaeresis (ö).

KS uses grave, circumflex, and diaeresis in a number of ways.

Grave is used to mark vowels which by the rules ought to be long but are in fact short (mès [məz] 'but' mes [meːz] 'field'; cost [koːst] ‘coast, region’, còst [kɔst] ‘cost’). Grave is used to mark u when it is short /u/ rather than /y/ (Fug-Grùban 'Mock Turtle' is [fy:g.grʊbən] (RLC [fi:g.grʊbən]), not [fy:g.grʏbən] (RLC *[fi:g.grɪbən]).).

Circumflex is used to mark vowels which by the rules ought to be short but are in fact long (stât 'state'). Grave is used to mark u when it is long /u/ rather than /y/ (frût 'fruit' is [fruːt], not [fry:t] (RLC *[fri:t]).). Circumflex is also used to mark the alternation [eʊ]~[oʊ] as in bêwnans~bôwnans (restricted to êw~ôw). Where the vowel a would be long by the rules (and remember, these length rules are identical to those in the SWF), circumflex indicates that the vowel may be pronounced differently in RMC and RLC (brâs 'big' [bræːz]~[brɒ:z] (compare bras [bræːz] 'treachery' with no alternation).

Diaeresis was used in part because the dots are small, and in part because it cannot be guaranteed that fonts support ŷ or ỳ or ý. Nance did use diaeresis in his dictionaries.

It sounds complex when you write it down like this, but it really is very simple, as you will find out when you read the book.

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

Post by Evertype » Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:48 pm


gokyreloaded said:
Yes but I have seen no discussions on the Spelly list regarding the use of diacritics or what type to use .

We had those discussions before you started snooping.


rather than 'kefrës ' ' 'keffrys' the SWF version is easier to write and as for reading it, it is no harder to read than the KS version , except the SWF version has one extra letter, can someone explain the rationale for the 'ë' ? rather than the 'y' I am sure it is somewhere, but a simple explanation would help those struggling to understand why it is necessary to change the vowel,and a diacritic one at that.
thanks

I've given that explanation above.

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

Post by Evertype » Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:50 pm


gokyreloaded said:
I suppose the umlaut is just as 'Germanic' as 'Kammbronn' and spotted vowels look Nordic.

Nance used the diaeresis; it's not as though this has never been seen before in Cornish. And the KK Bible group is using ü.

The diaeresis is also used in Welsh and Albanian. And in English in naïve. And Tolkien used it. :-P

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

Post by Evertype » Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:44 pm

KS is meant to cover RLC as well. There is no "separate version" except insofar as alternations like ÿ~ë and êw~ôw are concerned (where the use of diacritics supports both RMC and RLC better than the SWF does.

Moreover, KS permits the optional mutation of s- to z- common in RLC, as well as the mutation of f- to v-.

KS does not recommend the use of -ei because it is unnecessary to write this, and it makes obscure relationships Why write kei but jhelgy or gourgy if you can just have a rule that ky can be pronounced [kiː] or [kəi]? The number of monosyllables in -y is not very large. (However, KS does not forbid the use of -ei; and certainly this would have value if one wanted to indicate a dialect clearly.)

KS permits the choice of bm~mm and dn~nn, restricting mm and nn to words which alternate with pre-occluding forms. This corrects the error in the SWF which disadvantages RLC readers by permitting nn in words which do not pre-occlude. KS avoids this problem.





edited by: Evertype, Jan 22, 2009 - 02:53 PM

User avatar
Marhak
Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:46 am

Post by Marhak » Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:59 pm

Why did no one object when Nance used the diaeresis? Not for sixty years. Why is that? Could it be that his name wasn't Williams or Everson?

Yes, these arguments are THAT thin.

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

Post by Morvran » Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:32 pm

I just wonder why you picked a book that had already been translated into Cornish, rather than another "children's classic" that hadn't. As with the NT you seem to be deliberatly setting yourselves up in opposition to other's efforts, rather than working in parallel to enrich the body of Cornish language literature.

How do you justify your choice of this particular book -- clearly you were aware that it had already been translated.

User avatar
Marhak
Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:46 am

Post by Marhak » Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:41 pm

How does the Kesva justify translating the New Testament, which, clearly, they were aware had already been translated and published, about a year previously? Or John of Chyannor, which had been translated and published several times previously? And so on . . .

Don't do as we do, do as we say?



edited by: marhak, Jan 22, 2009 - 03:42 PM

Egloshal
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 11:36 am
Contact:

Post by Egloshal » Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:46 pm

It is a great idea translating it into Cornish. I would buy it - but I have already read that book in Cornish - translated about 15 years ago I think by Ray Edwards.

She
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:13 pm

Post by She » Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:01 pm

to confirm for yerself if Alice is for grown-ups or kiddiewinkies, you can get the PDF for free here.

User avatar
Eddie-C
Posts: 1820
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:31 am

Post by Eddie-C » Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:15 pm


morvran said:
I just wonder why you picked a book that had already been translated into Cornish, rather than another "children's classic" that hadn't. As with the NT you seem to be deliberatly setting yourselves up in opposition to other's efforts, rather than working in parallel to enrich the body of Cornish language literature.

How do you justify your choice of this particular book -- clearly you were aware that it had already been translated.


Are you addressing Evertype? I don't imagine that, as a publisher, he selected 'Alice' and asked Nicholas Williams to translate it; it would have worked the other way round, with the translator choosing the text s/he wished to translate.

Your question is, as so often with you, of the slanted variety. NJAW's NT preceded the KK/UC one by a whole year. The professional production of a KS translation of 'Alice' (following on from earlier, exactly parallel editions in English and Irish, for those who might want or need them) hardly acts "in opposition" to a mimoegraphed amateur production in KK some 15 years ago.

For myself, I shall buy the new edition, as it's in authentic Cornish; I would not buy Ray Edwards' edition in KK, as I find that orthography unattractive, and I choose not to give KK my (small) financial support. However, as I said earlier, I rejoice that we now have 2 translations of this important book -- and of the NT! -- even though I will not read both of them myself. This enriches us all, and only a petty-minded begrudger would whinge at the duplication.

Nicholas Williams doesn't need to 'justify' his choice of what to translate to you or anyone else. His written works have all enriched the Revival, both his translations and his original writings, including those critical of Kemyn.

I look forward to his next books with some eagerness, for I doubt we've seen the last of them yet by a long way!

What have you produced Keith, to "enrich the body of Cornish literature"?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests