Spellyans Watch -- Goelva Spellyans

A new forum dedicated to Kernewek - the Cornish language, Cornish culture and the history of the Duchy of Cornwall
Pennysquire
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:55 pm

Post by Pennysquire » Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:31 pm


Evertype said:
You aren't who you said you were.



You are not really Michael Everson, Alphonse.

- Penny

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

Post by Morvran » Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:00 pm


Evertype said:
[quote=morvran]The purpose of this thread was to show the inconsistencies (is hypocracy too strong a word?) of the Spellyans gang.

It's "hypocrisy".[/quote]

There was no ambiguity, you understood me perfectly, so what is your problem? Just call it "Late English spelling".


[quote]They claim to believe in politeness yet there is clearly license to insult and degrade anyone who disagrees.

No, just the Little Weasel. :-)
[/quote]

I don't think politeness should be conditional. Either the rules forbid personal attacks or they don't. Or is the Lord Michael above the Law?


[quote]They claim to encourage open discussion and open minds, yet anyone who disagrees with Mick 'n' Nick pretty soon gets short shrift.

Not so.
[/quote]

The archives do not support that statement.


[quote]They support the inauthentic pronunciation(s) of many present day speakers, while instantly attacking any deviation from their rather pedantic understanding of grammar.

Not so.
[/quote]

The archives do not support that statement.


[quote]As to vocabulary, can anyone understand their position

Evidently quite a number of people. Of course, you just want to sit there and throw spit-wads at us. [/quote]

That is not an answer, it's just another gratutious insult.


[quote]They say they believe in 'authentic' Cornish, which seems to mean only using forms actually attested, yet they delight in wrapping those forms in as many unsightly diacritics as they can devise.

Neat! You insert a rhetorical "unsightly"! Your analysis is inaccurate however.
[/quote]

My judgement re diacritics is shared by many. Review the strong reaction that occured on CO when you first raised the issue. Everyone pretty well said, "don't do it", but of course you did anyway -- ME Knows Best, Silence Peasants!

The point is, to us at least, adding diacritics changes words just as much as doubling or substituting the odd letter. Indeed to many diacritics are just as foreign looking as a "k" in the 'wrong' place -- more so perhaps.


[quote]Note 'attested' means 'as written in the scholarly editions of the texts' not 'as actually written in the mss'.

Clearly you don't understand what "authentic" means, or what "orthographic normalization" is.
[/quote]

Normalisation apparently means whatever Michael wants it to mean. I do indeed understand normalisation. It means removing redundant variation, alternations that carry no information. There is no difference in meaning between the three types of "s", the two ways of writing "w" etc. Nor is there any difference between (written) "i" and "y", either can mean /i/ or /I/. We lump the ms signs and then re-assign them according to etymology. Exactly as you do with "th" and "3", lumping and re-assigning to "th" and "dh" according to your theory of how these signs were distrubited in trad. Cornish. We may disagree about the theory used, but the process is exactly the same. There is no essential difference between lumping three different graphemes that all signify /s/ into "s" than there is in lumping the three different signs that all signify /k/ ("c,k,q" ) into "k". There is no difference between splitting "n~u" into "n" and "u" than there is in splitting "o" into "o" and "oe", or "u" into "u" and "oe", or "i~y" into "i" and "y". And so on. If you think there is it's just your preconceived ideas that are blocking rational thought.



[quote]They claim to be dealing with faults and inconsistencies of the present SWF, yet they do not seem to be following any obvious agenda or checklist. Most of the time they seem to be arguing over the next edition of KS.

You wouldn't really know, would you, since you've chosen not to participate in the discussion.[/quote]

The archives are public (thank you!) and they tell a different story. Whether I choose to take part or not is quite beside the point.

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

Post by Morvran » Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:15 am


spellyans said:

However consider the following:
1) Go to bed! (Imperative)
2) I go to church on Sundays. (1st pers. sing. pres.)
3) To go or not to go? (Infinitive)
Then ask yourself the question, would we be better served by an orthography that spells these 3 parts of the paradigm of GO differently?
Jon




The first is ke/kewgh

The second is my â/ yth av

The third is moz/monez

Has anyone ever contemplated not spelling these forms differently?

I suppose if you had your mouth full they'd all be reduced to schwa. Perhaps we could have a form where everything was reduced to schwa -- the dictionary would be quite short.


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

Post by Marhak » Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:01 am

Is that a diacritic circumflex over a in your second example,by any chance, Keith?

User avatar
SalaciousCrumb
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:33 pm

Post by SalaciousCrumb » Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:54 pm


do we really need to spell 'pyth' that way



No.

In KS the diacritic marks the word as having an optional late form 'pëth' and middle form 'pÿth'. The diaresis (two little dots) shows that there is an alternative spelling/pronunciation.

If you don't use that late pronunciation, in KS you can spell it 'pÿth'.

You can spell it 'pyth' in KK, UC, UCR and SWF if you use Middle Cornish, if you are a Late speaker those orthographies give you no choice..

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

Post by Eddie-C » Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:06 pm

A most lucid explication. O Crumb Chum, but I fear you cast your crumbs be fores wine!

The self-styled 'Idiot Regurgitated' had a rare and fleeting moment of insight when he adopted his present nom dee plum.

We shall not see its like again!

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

Post by Eddie-C » Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:34 pm


gokyreloaded said:
... if you want KS to impose itself ...

We don't.



edited by: Eddie-C, Feb 23, 2009 - 02:35 PM

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

Post by Morvran » Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:11 pm

kenwesow could be related to W. cynwyd 'fierce', so 'fierce warriors' perhaps?

-------------

Near the start of OM we have :


Hedhyw : yw | an seythvez dydh
Aban dhallethis | gonis
May hwrug nev | mor tir ha gwydh
Bestez : puskez | golowyz
Oll dhymm goestydh | i a vydh
Kekeffryz | eus ynne gwryz
Mab-den a bri | yn perfydh
My a vynn | y voz formyyz


Given the amount of internal rhyme in this verse, which has a bit more than average polish because of its importance, I think there's a very good chance that goestydh 'subservient' does indeed end in /-ID/. Although internal rhymes don't have to be perfect, the ones here seem to be.

-------------

Himself, quotes his favourite Cornish writer, Tregear :

ny a rede in lyas tyllar in scriptur lowar notabyll lesson warbyn pehosow coth ha vicys TH 6

This along with other lines is supposed to show how the underlined words 'must' be proper Cornish words, even though it seems obvious to me that he lifted them straight from the text he was translating. In particular notabyll lesson has been taken en block, complete with English word order (adj. before n.)

Last night I was writing about publishing and since this wasn't the place to invent new words that other might not understand, I included lines like :

... kyn fo genen ni hedhyw jynnow-skrifa `virtual' ha marthuz dres eghenn, agan word-processors meurgeryz

Yma pub linenn double-spaced may fo keworryz ewnheansow ...

ny wonn pyth yw kost an overheads

fest kalez yw diank pub typo oll etc.

I really can't see that Tregear was doing anything different c1550 than I was last night, simply inserting English words as stop-gaps where a Cornish equivalent failed to come immediately to mind. In some cases a Cornish word may exist that I couldn't think of, or may be devised. In others the English word I used, or some other English (or Welsh or Breton or ...) word may be adapted. But the fact that I fell back on English as an expedient hardly suddenly makes these words "Cornish". How is Tregear different?





Pokorny
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:52 pm
Contact:

Post by Pokorny » Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:36 pm

The relevant question here is: was Tregear's use of "lesson" ad-hoc, as morvran suggests, or was the word actually part of mid 16th century Cornish as used by "normal" people as opposed to priest who did their best to sound pompous when preaching?

Two things suggest that the word was not actually treated as part of the system:

a) "notabyll lesson" is as un-Cornish a syntagm as they get and a typical feature of Kernewek Pronter. However, as mentioned earlier on this forum, the assimilated loan "eg(g)los" which had been part of the Cornish lexicon for over a millenium at the time Tregear used it is subject to the same treatment.

b) as with other unassimilated loan-words, the plural suffix used with Tregear's "lesson" is also English: "the folya aga lessons"

Is there proof that the word was ever used outside the context of Tregear's idiosyncratic writing?



edited by: Pokorny, Feb 23, 2009 - 10:37 PM

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest