Spellyans Watch -- Goelva Spellyans

A new forum dedicated to Kernewek - the Cornish language, Cornish culture and the history of the Duchy of Cornwall
Bardh
Posts: 1764
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:18 pm

Post by Bardh » Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:32 pm


pennysquire said:
[quote=Evertype]You aren't who you said you were.



You are not really Michael Everson, Alphonse.

- Penny[/quote]

Mes piw yw Alfons ytho?

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

Post by Morvran » Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:44 pm

Michael has written the following. He also had the decency to send it to me by private email, and I will reply in due course.

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

I resigned from C24 the other day. It was wasting my time. I'll go
back to it to announce more publications. A word, however, to our
"nemesis" Keith Bailey, with whom some of us have jousted for three or
four years.

On 15 Jan 2009, at 11:52, Keith Bailey wrote:

>> Michael Everson said:
>> I asked you a question. You were courteous to me. Then you attacked
>> me in public, again. Why? Never mind "why should I answer you?".
>> Why were you courteous to me and then nasty again a short time later?
>
> I have no personal animosity towards you.

I don't believe you, Keith. Just yesterday on C24 you suggested on a
public forum that I shìt my books out of my arse. In what way does
this not display "personal animosity"?

> What happens on C24 is 90% politics, as you must realise. Well maybe
> you don't?

That is no reason for such incivility.

> In any case you appear to be a little over-sensitive at times.

My my. Is taking offence a the kinds of abuse you fling at me "over-
sensitive"?

I think I know the answer. It's something you said nearly two years ago:

On 13 Mar 2007, at 14:29, mongvras wrote:

> You are not just a bunch of pathetic losers, you are a bunch of
> PATHETIC BAD LOSERS! You deserve no respect.


I think you should look in a mirror. You and your friends refused to
talk with UdnFormScrefys about a Fifth Form. You insisted that the
Commissioners should examine all of the materials sent to them. (We
sent them dictionaries; I am sure you did the same. We sent them our
personal statements; I am sure you did the same. You've complained
that they did not engage in follow-up discussion with you, but we had
the same treatment.) Ken would not talk to us about a Fifth Form
because he wanted KK to have its day in court. It did. It was not
chosen, and a Fifth Form was.

Then you managed to get 4 KK supporters onto the AHG, balancing 2 UC/R
supporters and 2 RLC supporters, and you managed to succeed in
refusing *me* a place amongst the 2 UC/R supporters (despite the fact
that the Commissioners said each group should have the RIGHT to choose
whom they wished), AND you managed to even prevent me from turning up
to give a short discussion of the principles of KS. You were very
successful there. And you created a hierarchy where KK's "aesthetic"
glyphs are "Main" and the "Traditional" form contains forms which are
not traditional. I suppose you have noticed that even despite Bock and
Bruch's waffle in the SWF spec, KK's bogus phonology is pretty much
off the table.

And it *is* bogus. There's not a shred of fortis or lenis in the
English dialects of Cornwall; even had it been there in the earliest
Middle Cornish, bilingualism and Sprachbund erased it pretty quick,
probably about the time that fortis /N/ broke into pre-occlusion
because English learners of Cornish couldn't manage /N/, and here even
Jenner says that pre-occlusion must have been spoken long before it
was written.

Yet you hold these unpronounceable consonants to be sacrosanct, a goal
to be aspired to, even though your own teachers don't use them and
don't teach them because it's unnatural to them.

You think *KK phonology* is more important than good books and
authentic grammar. You think *KK phonology* is more important than a
credible Cornish phonology which unsurprisingly is not unrelated to
the phonology of English in Cornwall -- just as it must have been in
reality. You scrape the bottom of the barrel trying to find reasons to
dislike beautiful new publications like "Alys in Pow an Anethow" and
"Adro dhe'n Bÿs in Peswar Ugans Dëdh". It sure makes you look
"pathetic", if not a "loser", or even a "pathetic bad loser".

I asked the Commissioners for a proper Orthography Congress, where
your linguists and our linguists would be put in a room and told to
devise a Fifth Form with a design brief based on identified
requirements. We got the AHG instead. I think that had we all been put
in such a room, we would have come out with something a lot like KS,
since we would have been forced to accept that realism in phonology
makes better sense than impractical reconstructivism. Oddly, Keith, in
July of last year you criticized the Gorseth for being linked to "some
imaginary past full of druids and celtic myst" yet your attachment to
George's Bretonized phonology is little more than "anything-but-
Englishism" based on the same Celtic-myst befogged fantasy.

Will the penny drop, I wonder? Probably not. You probably will never
give up the idea that the Kesva should "run" the Revival, that
geminates should drip off the tongues of Cornish schoolchildren, and
that "in whir" is Cornish. You'll probably stew away angrily I feel
sorry for you, because it's your attitude which perpetuates the split
in the Revival. You oughtn't go blaming us. You ought to look into the
mirror and see who the loser is.

We were all losers already. We chose it. We gave up UC and UCR. For
something better. It was worth it.

I don't hope for a conversion from you Keith. It would be splendid if
you could surprise me. Think what wonderful books we might make if we
all worked together.

But I imagine that what I've written is more a fit of spring cleaning
than anything else.

Back to work. I've got books to publish.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com

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



edited by: morvran, Feb 25, 2009 - 04:45 PM

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

Post by Morvran » Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:45 pm

To which Craig (Marrak) adds :

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

I, too, have given up on the C24 language forum (although I continue
to participate in the general discussion forum, where I am keeping
people informed about such things as the Save Penwith Moors campaign).

Basically, I am sick and tired of being insulted for the sin of
holding views. The forum has become a waste of time, trying to deal
with people who are utterly determined to hold fast to a narrow and
ultimately doomed doctrine. I am tired of seeing gratuitous insults
hurled at outstanding scholars such as Nicholas and, in his own field,
Bernard. Or at people whose purpose in life is to construct and
create, such as Michael and Eddie. The situation becomes worse when
such insulting behaviour is being perpetrated by people who have
produced, contributed and created nothing at all: Bailey, Dunbar,
Reeves, Saunders, etc.

Lostwithiel showed those of us who attended that rank and file KK
adherents are generally people like ourselves - willing to look at
alternatives, discuss constructively and with people of differing
views. C24 shows us that the split in the language revival movement
was created and maintained by a tiny handful of utterly destructive
people who are not interested in the future of the Cornish language,
only their own agendas which need to be seriously examined in order to
ascertain their real motives.

Many on this list have changed and adapted their views and
preferences, often with unease, to achieve a language for the present
and future which does not inflict damage upon its natural development
history. However, in a view I have always held, the latter is
precisely what Kernewek Kemmyn did and, seemingly, without conscience
or feeling.

I was introduced to Unified Cornish by the late Peter Pool and, later,
to Late Cornish by Richard Gendall. Nicholas Williams's work to
produce UCR showed me that gaps could be bridged and possibly healed.
The move towards the SWF and the teamwork that debated, discussed and
built Kernowek Standard, brick by brick, proved that Cornish users
from across the board could indeed work together as a team and produce
something outstanding and, meanwhile the SWF/T turned out to be
something very close indeed to it, while the KK hardcore merely threw
every obstruction they could in its path (and failed). I continue to
contribute whatever I can to the KS project while teaching beginners
in the SWF/T And yet, I am accused of intransigence!!!!

It is doubtful that I will ever become a fluent speaker of Cornish but
can still contribute in my own specialist fields. For me, fluency
doesn't matter as long as I can do something to ensure fluent speakers
in future generations.

Doubtless, Reeves will put this post onto C24, as he is accustomed to
doing, and as he has nothing better to do. Not that it contains
anything that is news.

I apologise for sounding off on this discussion list but perhaps I'll
be forgiven for doing so. The point is that the majority of Cornish
users, including all who take part on this list, want to forge a real
future for the language. It is only a tiny handful whose aim is to
destroy it. We should acknowledge that it is only a tiny handful,
upon whom we should waste no more of our valuable time. They are
simply not worth our attention.

Craig





edited by: morvran, Feb 25, 2009 - 04:46 PM

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

Post by Pokorny » Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:39 pm

Fresh waffles, anyone?

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

Post by Bardh » Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:33 am


Craig said:
It is doubtful that I will ever become a fluent speaker of Cornish ...



Craig - please tell us why you don't want to join the community of Cornish-speakers.

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

Post by Pokorny » Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:31 pm


"Evertype" said:

There's not a shred of fortis or lenis in the
English dialects of Cornwall




I wouldn't be so apodictic when looking for reflexes of an earlier fortis-lenis system. What about medial [ll] in traditional placename pronunciation in 20th century West Penwith English?

Earlier [mm] and [nn] are of course gone due to pre-occlusion, and [rr] would have been lost when the original Brythonic realisation as an apical trill was replaced by the SW English retroflex which is heard in Anglo-Cornish today and was very probably also in place in LC. That leaves us with [ll] as the sole candidate for the reflex of an originally fortis/geminate sonorant to look out for in the English dialects of Cornwall. And lo and behold - it has been observed and described by Gendall (amongst others), and its use has even been recognised and recommended by some UC teachers.



probably about the time that fortis /N/ broke into pre-occlusion




Fair enough. But are you absolutely convinced that this could only have happened shortly after the Norman conquest - yet never once showed up in writing for over 400 years?



because English learners of Cornish couldn't manage /N/




That presupposes that at some point in history some large-scale re-Brythonicisation took place. Large enough in fact to oust the traditional system even from dialects in regions which were never Anglicised before the 18th century. Unfortunately there is no convincing evidence for this. The idea seems to be based mostly on the staunch conviction that pre-occlusion could *only* have happened as the result of an English substrate. It's the word "only" I object to.



, and here even
Jenner says that pre-occlusion must have been spoken long before it
was written.




For one or two generations such a lag would be probable, but I honestly doubt that he meant "for centuries".



edited by: Pokorny, Feb 26, 2009 - 02:16 PM

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

Post by Evertype » Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:30 pm

I don't know where you got your dates from, Albert. I never mentioned the Norman Conquest. But if you wish to discuss this with me, you'll have to do it on Spellyans, as I'm taking a break from C24.

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

Post by Morvran » Fri Feb 27, 2009 6:40 pm


**--------------------------
My responses to Michael's long post are indicated thus
**--------------------------

I resigned from C24 the other day. It was wasting my time. I'll go
back to it to announce more publications. A word, however, to our
"nemesis" Keith Bailey, with whom some of us have jousted for three or
four years.

**------------------------
Is this a backhanded compliment?
**------------------------

On 15 Jan 2009, at 11:52, Keith Bailey wrote:

>> Michael Everson said:
>> I asked you a question. You were courteous to me. Then you attacked
>> me in public, again. Why? Never mind "why should I answer you?".
>> Why were you courteous to me and then nasty again a short time later?
>
> I have no personal animosity towards you.

I don't believe you, Keith. Just yesterday on C24 you suggested on a
public forum that I shìt my books out of my arse. In what way does
this not display "personal animosity"?

**------------------------
As usual you are trying to put (unpleasant) words into my mouth. There
were no scatological terms in my post, just a well-know oblique
metaphore regarding creative urges, anticipation and relief on
production. I carefully avoided being too graphic, whereas you
appear to take a childish delight in doing so. What you take to be
animosity may well have been an expression of empathy.
**------------------------

> What happens on C24 is 90% politics, as you must realise. Well maybe
> you don't?

That is no reason for such incivility.

> In any case you appear to be a little over-sensitive at times.

My my. Is taking offence a the kinds of abuse you fling at me "over-
sensitive"?

**------------------------
C24 is a bit of roughhouse. But then so was CO once Eddie got going. He
seems to have mellowed a little of late, but to begin with he was
incredibly abusive. You may choose to deny such people, but the impression
given is that you all work together as a co-ordinated propaganda team.
**------------------------

I think I know the answer. It's something you said nearly two years ago:

On 13 Mar 2007, at 14:29, mongvras wrote:

> You are not just a bunch of pathetic losers, you are a bunch of
> PATHETIC BAD LOSERS! You deserve no respect.

**------------------------
Unable to win the spelling wars, you have ensured that the result is a
stalemate. This has benefitted no one and drained the Language Movement
of people's time and energy, wasted large amounts of funding etc. Why?
Just to satisify a few over-inflated ego? I stand by my judgement.
**------------------------

I think you should look in a mirror. You and your friends refused to
talk with UdnFormScrefys about a Fifth Form.

**------------------------
The time to discuss a new system would be if and when ALL existing
systems had been shown to be inadequate, either as is, or with
reasonable amendments and corrections. That had not been done, and
as far as I'm aware still has not been done. I am not aware that the
Commission really addressed this issue. There were certainly no
discussions between the Commission and the Language Board, or any
other language body. Nor were there any discussions with the
Language Working Group ('panel of local experts'), set up for exactly
that purpose. In effect your group set out, (and suceeded it would appear)
to hijack the Process and force through a 'compromise' before the
question of whether such a compromise was either necessary or feasible
had been examined. The 'Process' we got was not anything like the process
we'd apparently agreed to. We were skillfully manipulated and cheated.
The only missing piece is 'why'? Who could have possibley gained from
the outcome?
**------------------------

You insisted that the
Commissioners should examine all of the materials sent to them. (We
sent them dictionaries; I am sure you did the same. We sent them our
personal statements; I am sure you did the same. You've complained
that they did not engage in follow-up discussion with you, but we had
the same treatment.) Ken would not talk to us about a Fifth Form
because he wanted KK to have its day in court. It did. It was not
chosen, and a Fifth Form was.

**------------------------
I think we can both agree that the Process was seriously flawed.
As A result I think it's outcome should be set aside. You would
appear to agree, at least judging by your actions, since you have
refused to publish in ANY variant of the SWF, including those
specifically designed to please your faction(s).
**------------------------

Then you managed to get 4 KK supporters onto the AHG, balancing 2 UC/R
supporters and 2 RLC supporters,

**------------------------
I'm not entirely sure who decided the balance of the AHG membership.
I think it was the Partnership Management Committee, which apparently
was not even elected by the Partnership members as a whole. There has
been little transparency to any of this. I do not know who made this
decision, nor on what basis. I CERTAINLY DID NOT! I would have had
a more representative balance, say 6 to 2, and that would have been
generous to the minority factions.
**------------------------

and you managed to succeed in
refusing *me* a place amongst the 2 UC/R supporters (despite the fact
that the Commissioners said each group should have the RIGHT to choose
whom they wished), AND you managed to even prevent me from turning up
to give a short discussion of the principles of KS. You were very
successful there.

*------------------------
I do not really know how the delegates (if that's what they were) were
chosen. Some names were circulated and commented upon. The final line-up
seems to have been cooked-up between Jenifer and the Secretaries of the
different groups. As I understand it, the members were all supposed to
be fluent speakers and wherever possible experienced teachers of Cornish.
You would appear there not to have qualified. There was probably also an
attempt on all sides to exclude 'hard-liners' for fear that no agreement
would be possible if they were present. I believe nevertheless that you
were an accredited 'official advisor' and that papers were circulated
between you and your old friend Trond. None of this was public. Nor
have the drafts etc. been released officially now the Process is over.
Again we were promised that all materials etc. would be open to inspection.
*------------------------

And you created a hierarchy where KK's "aesthetic"
glyphs are "Main" and the "Traditional" form contains forms which are
not traditional. I suppose you have noticed that even despite Bock and
Bruch's waffle in the SWF spec, KK's bogus phonology is pretty much
off the table.

*------------------------
That's not how I read it, but it count for little as both of us have
agreed to ignore it. How that particular deal was done I don't know.
IIRC the Kesva advised 'our' 'delegates' to make the opposite deal,
that is to give in (if necessary) on aesthetics, but hold on to
to the basic structure of the language (no bogus VA etc.).
*------------------------

And it *is* bogus. There's not a shred of fortis or lenis in the
English dialects of Cornwall;

*------------------------
You may be mistaken.
*------------------------

even had it been there in the earliest
Middle Cornish, bilingualism and Sprachbund erased it pretty quick,
probably about the time that fortis /N/ broke into pre-occlusion

*------------------------
The evidence is post 1500ce, and not really significantly for another
century.
*------------------------

because English learners of Cornish couldn't manage /N/, and here even
Jenner says that pre-occlusion must have been spoken long before it
was written.

*------------------
Must is rather a strong term. The point is there is no evidence. 'Must'
of course in a trivial sense, you probably wouldn't write something
you didn't say (but even then there are possible arguments revolving
around the 'devaluation' of in English), but there is no way to
know if PA began a week or a year or a decade before it began to be
written. And no good reason to believe there was any extended period
before it was written down.
*------------------

Yet you hold these unpronounceable consonants to be sacrosanct, a goal
to be aspired to, even though your own teachers don't use them and
don't teach them because it's unnatural to them.

*------------------
That is another issue entirely. Removing them from the orthography closes
the door to them ever being taught, and so closed the door on us ever
teaching and restoring authentic Cornish pronunciation. This simply plays
into the hands of those determined for doctrinaire reasons to deny that
Cornish (or any other 'dead' language) can ever be restored. One important
role of the Revival is to demonstrate that this can indeed be done. A language
cannot however be restored 'fully armed' and accurate in every respect instantly.
The process is long and difficult and procedes by stages of successive
approximation. The experience of the revival informs study of the historical
language, which in turn informs the revival. The process is cyclic and
interactive. To deny this is to stop the Revival in its tracks and freeze it
at some intermediate stage. You may be content with "Cornic for the Corns",
but most of us are not.
*------------------

You think *KK phonology* is more important than good books and
authentic grammar.

*------------------
Stop trying to put words into my mouth. I want it all, Michael.
*------------------

You think *KK phonology* is more important than a
credible Cornish phonology which unsurprisingly is not unrelated to
the phonology of English in Cornwall -- just as it must have been in
reality.

**----------------------
There's that 'must' again. There is no 'must'. The circumstances of
language replacement are many and complex. In Wales and Ireland the
English that replaced the native languages is heavily flavoured by
their phonology -- a marked substratum effect. This is not true at
all in Scotland however. There is no trace of a 'Highland accent' over
the large areas of the mainland which were Gaelic speaking long after
the loss of Cornish. That accent (which if you're unfamiliar with it
sounds a little 'Irish') is rarely heard except from first language
Gaelic speakers, it doesn't even last a single generation. I'll
leave the explanation to the sociolinguists. I suspect it's more
important for the non-Gaelic speaking child of Gaelic parents to
identify as Scots (i.e. NOT English) than with a small marginal
community, and with a language s/he can't even speak. This may well
have applied in Cornwall. However the point is that the Welsh/Irish
model is not the only possibility by any means.
**----------------------

You scrape the bottom of the barrel trying to find reasons to
dislike beautiful new publications like "Alys in Pow an Anethow" and
"Adro dhe'n Bÿs in Peswar Ugans Dëdh". It sure makes you look
"pathetic", if not a "loser", or even a "pathetic bad loser".

**----------------------
I was simply pointing out your strategy. Unable to call up much of real value
in the way of content, you are nevertheless determined to promote your useless
and unwanted orthography by selling books on their superficial appearance. I
feel it's a shame that your obvious talent in your chosen field is squandered on
such vain trivia. Such a pity you fell in with the wrong crowd ;-)
**----------------------

I asked the Commissioners for a proper Orthography Congress,

**----------------------
How, I wonder, did you manage that, since the Commission would communicate with no-one, were effectively in quarantine throughout the Process. Did you somehow have priviliged access?
**----------------------

where
your linguists and our linguists would be put in a room and told to
devise a Fifth Form with a design brief based on identified
requirements.

**----------------------
Again, you cleverly slip in the assumption that a new orthography would be required. A proper enquiry would certainly draw up necessary and desirable criteria. It would then have to evaluate all the existing systems with respect to those criteria. Only if all existing systems failed miserably would a new system be mooted. In general, linguists are reluctant to create new systems unless absolutely necessary. They understand the difficulties, costs, delays and pitfalls far too well to suggest any such course of action lightly.
**----------------------

We got the AHG instead. I think that had we all been put
in such a room, we would have come out with something a lot like KS,

**---------------------
In your judgement. Since this never happened, who can say.
**---------------------

since we would have been forced to accept that realism in phonology
makes better sense than impractical reconstructivism.

**---------------------
Obviously there are other views. If you are really opposed to reconstruction
why are supporting the Revival in the first place? It's clearly contrary to
Progress, and a cruel hoax to perpetuate on the Cornish nation.
**---------------------

Oddly, Keith, in
July of last year you criticized the Gorseth for being linked to "some
imaginary past full of druids and celtic myst" yet your attachment to
George's Bretonized phonology is little more than "anything-but-
Englishism" based on the same Celtic-myst befogged fantasy.

**---------------------
No, your analogy fails.
**---------------------

Will the penny drop, I wonder? Probably not. You probably will never
give up the idea that the Kesva should "run" the Revival,

**---------------------
That depends on whether the Kesva gets its act together. Unfortunately
the trouble you and your friends have made over the past few years has
drained much of their energy, and driven away support from the movement
as a whole. A constant barrage of ill-intentioned and usually trivial
criticism has rendered most of the KK faction (i.e. the most active and
important part of the Revival) unresponsive and defensive when faced with
ANY criticism. (Preferring to shoot the messenger). This has paralysed
innovation at just the time that it's most needed. Nor can your side
easily fill the gap, however much they'd love to leap into the breach.
They just don't have the skills and talent. You can make any number of
pretty books, but whose going to create the quality content to make them
worth buying and reading once the novelty factor wears off.
**---------------------

that
geminates should drip off the tongues of Cornish schoolchildren, and
that "in whir" is Cornish.

**-----------------
I was brought up with "If a job's worth doing, its worth doing well".
If you can't be bothered to do a 'proper job' on Cornish, why support
the Revival at all. I have no time for your Cornic Revival.
**-----------------

You'll probably stew away angrily I feel
sorry for you, because it's your attitude which perpetuates the split
in the Revival. You oughtn't go blaming us. You ought to look into the
mirror and see who the loser is.

**-----------------
We are ALL losers. That was your Mein Kampf. You engineered it, and now
we all have to live with it. And you complain -- pathetic!
**-----------------

We were all losers already. We chose it. We gave up UC and UCR. For
something better. It was worth it.

**------------------
UCR had no significant uptake, it 'loss' was of no practical significance.
No it was not worth it. We haven't got anything better. We've got an
unholy mess -- I thought you'd agree that was the case.
**------------------

I don't hope for a conversion from you Keith. It would be splendid if
you could surprise me. Think what wonderful books we might make if we
all worked together.

**-----------------
And the lamb shall lie down with the lion ... World Peace, motherhood
and apple pie in the sky. Mike. Anyone with few brain cells that can
march in step, and a computer and two functioning eyes can put together
a PDF and send it off to a digital press. Interesting, breaking the
'culture of scruffy publications' is rather similar to breaking the
'culture of mispronunciation', or before that the 'Nancian Synthesis'.
If anything you've made the donkey even harder to shift. No doubt
you're proud of you interference. Don't linguists have some sort of
Prime Directive though?
**-------------------

But I imagine that what I've written is more a fit of spring cleaning
than anything else.

Back to work. I've got books to publish.

**----------------
Watch out for those n-dashes!
**----------------

Keith Bailey

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

Post by Bardh » Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:53 pm

[quote=pennysquire} Please, Alphonse, can we stick to the facts?[/quote]

A very peculiar exchange I've just had with Alphonse makes me suspect that he may not have a sufficient grasp of some facts to stick to them. It doesn't seem to occur to him, for example, that if you don't know a language you need to get a text in it translated if you want to know what it says.

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

Post by Bardh » Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:51 pm

Re gevis keskows hwath y'n negysyow priveth gans Alphonse - muskog yw an gwas, muskog hys ha hys!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests