Spellyans Watch -- Goelva Spellyans

A new forum dedicated to Kernewek - the Cornish language, Cornish culture and the history of the Duchy of Cornwall
Morvran
Posts: 2192
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:48 am

Post by Morvran » Fri Jun 05, 2009 11:44 am

Truru : Not true for Breton, for example :

http://celtopedia.druidcircle.net/index ... rthography

What is your solution?




edited by: morvran, Jun 05, 2009 - 11:44 AM

Kio
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 3:03 am

Post by Kio » Fri Jun 05, 2009 11:52 am


After centuries of orthography calqued on the French model, in the 1830s Le Gonidec created a modern phonetic system.


sounds familiar ;-)

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

Post by Evertype » Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:20 pm


morvran said:
You don't solve a problem like this by adding up the citations willy-nilly.

It's not clear to me that you know what the "problem" is since you've ignored the rest of the discussion. The problem in the bit that you quoted is this: What should be done, in a normalization, about one single word, perhennak/perhednak, which has no derived forms in the corpus, and is otherwise attested once with -ek and once with -ak. SInce there is no evidence in the texts as to whether this word would form its derivatives in -eg- or in -og-, we may have recourse to the practice of Revivalist innovation.


You need to ask how reliable each text is, does it tend to mistake 'e' and 'o' (probably the commonest reading/copying error in the texts), what are the underlying morphemes and their etymology ...

This word has -ek in BM and -ak in BK and nothing else. No plurals. No feminines. No nominal or verbal derivatives. No adjectives. Yet we need and we use the derivatives in the Revived language.


And adding in existing 'reconstructions' is just chasing your own tail. Either the texts are the touchstone or they're not.

You are welcome to continue using perhennek, perhennogyon, perhennogeth, and perhennogi, Keith. That's all you want since all you want is KK anyway. We're going to use perhennak~perhednak, perhenogyon, perhenogeth, perhenegy, where -ak is chosen because the derivatives in most of Revived Cornish are in -og- and where -egy is preferred because that suffix is attested and George's *-ogi appears not to be.

But what do you care? You're not interested in the SWF, and you're certainly not interested in KS improvements on inconsistencies in the SWF because both the SWF and KS are a threat to KK hegemony as-was.

Likely you and George, like Nance, just never examined the -eg- words and the -og- words in Revived Cornish (of any orthography) to look for patterns that could make sense of the language synchronically.


As for muskok this clearly doesn't contain the -ek/-ogyon

Hm, yeah, but that still doesnt get you -ogy. Feel free to cite examples of words in -ogy though. I could, of course, be wrong.



edited by: Evertype, Jun 06, 2009 - 02:29 PM

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

Post by Pokorny » Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:39 pm


Evertype said:
We're going to use perhennak, perhennogyon, perhennogeth, perhennegy, where -ak is chosen because the derivatives in most of Revived Cornish are in -og- and where -egy is preferred because that suffix is attested and George's *-ogi appears not to be.




KS is going partly morpho-phonemic in the spelling of sonants, then? Cool beans! 8-)



edited by: Pokorny, Jun 05, 2009 - 06:06 PM

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

Post by Morvran » Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:08 pm


kio said:

After centuries of orthography calqued on the French model, in the 1830s Le Gonidec created a modern phonetic system.


sounds familiar ;-)



Despite having three or four rival systems, and some very bitter and political disputes, all modern systems are based on that system. No one in Brittany afaik has even dreamed of going back to "traditional" French based spelling with "qu" and "c" and "x" for /s/ etc. All use "k" exclusively for /k/ yet you have to wade through pages and pages of Middle Breton to even find a "k"!

Because their language never quite died out, the Bretons are well aware that Breton is not just "funny French", yet in Cornwall, probably because the language did die out, many people seem not to understand that Cornish is not just "funny English" and so refuse to dignify it with its own customised spelling.

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

Post by Morvran » Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:20 pm

Michael. You have to decide whether you think perghennek is a derivative in -ek i.e. |-9g| -a:kos. If it is then the plural (for persons) is -ogyon and the singular is -ek (or to be strictly phonemic -eg. That's assuming a reference date c1500. If you choose to standardise on a date after c1550 then you'd need to write -ak, -ogyan. Your problem seems to be that you are unable to make systematic decisions of this sort, and so are reduced to agonising (it's painful to watch) over individual words. And with the limited corpus of Cornish that just isn't going to work in most cases.

Of course you may conclude that a particular word has 'jumped the tracks' and developed irregularly, then you just have to make a best guess, a more or less arbitrary decision, but I don't see any cause for that in this case. The "-ek" and "-ak" attestations fit the dates of BM and BK and are consistent with the spelling of other words in these texts.




edited by: morvran, Jun 05, 2009 - 04:22 PM

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

Post by Eddie-C » Fri Jun 05, 2009 6:25 pm

Bailey the Fake-Philologist is even more excruciating than Bailey the Pseudo-Statistician, or Keith the Kwazzy-Kelticist!

Mind you, I did rather enjoy the ludicrous spectacle here recently of Morvran the Pretend-Publisher wannabe trying to tell Evertype (the actual publisher) how to run his business at a profit. That was almost as much fun as Keith the Former Translator telling Nicholas Williams how to translate better!!

You, sir, Doctor Bailey (Ph.D), are the very embodiment of the epigram coined by (?) the Earl of Salisbury a few hundred years ago, to the effect that
too much education doth make a man forget he is a blockhead.



Better get back to the monkey business you trained for, eh, O Blockhead?!



edited by: Eddie-C, Jun 05, 2009 - 06:26 PM

Lemùr
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:22 am
Contact:

Post by Lemùr » Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:37 pm

Come back, to us, Morvran. All is forgiven....

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

Post by Morvran » Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:41 pm

Guys, I ignore your abuse. If anything it just means I've made a good point. Pity most of the others who back KK are too thin-skinned to stand up to your purile comments, or too cowed to fight their corner. The fact that they're such a load of pathetic wimps is disappointing, but it doesn't change my views. These are based on knowledge and reason, and can only be changed by evidence and logic. Two things mostly lacking from your side of the 'debate'. Meanwhile our resident 'world expert' continues to demonstrate his own failings.




edited by: morvran, Jun 05, 2009 - 10:42 PM

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

Post by Palores » Sat Jun 06, 2009 9:25 am

The form perghennogi in the Gerlyver Kres is clearly a mistake. It should be perghennegi. I shall inform the appropriate authorities.

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

Post by Eddie-C » Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:06 am

Well, folks, there we have the Revival and its Revivalists in a nutshell. Earlier, on the CornishOrthography forum, Keith 'morvran/mongvras' Bailey described those who prefer historically attested, authentic Cornish thus:

Bailey said Authenticists are said:
"not just losers, but pathetic bad losers who deserve no respect ... devious, lying, cheating little sh*t-bags."



Now we find that "most" of the "overwhelming majority" who (allegedly) prefer KK are hardly any better!
Bailey said KK supporters are mostly said:
"too thin skinned ... too cowed ... such a load of pathetic wimps."



In case this ghastly landscape littered with Pathetic Revivalists is enough to make you despair of the future of Agan Yeth-ny, fear not! In stark contrast to this 'disappointing' unworthy rabble, this canaille décevante indigne, one person shines forth in glorious isolation. Keith describes himself as a man of ...
knowledge ... reason ... evidence and logic.



So, tell us, Keith; does this 'pathetic majority of KK users' include Palores, pietercharles, bardh or your good chum Goky? Ken George, perhaps? Loveday and Conan Jenkin? Wella Brown? Paul Dunbar? Presumably it does include all those horrid Kesva 'wimps' who recently booted you out from that KK Inner Sanctum.

Do tell, please; sure, we're all agog!

ps. Keith, it's 'puerile' not *purile, by the way. Nothing to do with 'pure', but a foul sexist etymology from Latin 'puer', a boy.

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

Post by Evertype » Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:21 am


Pokorny said:
[quote=Evertype]We're going to use perhennak, perhennogyon, perhennogeth, perhennegy, where -ak is chosen because the derivatives in most of Revived Cornish are in -og- and where -egy is preferred because that suffix is attested and George's *-ogi appears not to be.


KS is going partly morpho-phonemic in the spelling of sonants, then? Cool beans! 8-) [/quote]KS is normalizing four relatively large declensional classes (-ak/-og- and -ek/-eg- on the one hand and -or/-oryon and -er/-ers on the other. Whether one considers it a philological normalization or an expression of morphophonemic theory is of little consequence. The intent was synchronic simplification of an needlessly complex and unsystematic system.

I do wonder why you used "sonants" which is vague and appears to mask the intent of your comment. As does your peculiar use of idiom.



edited by: Evertype, Jun 06, 2009 - 12:42 PM

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

Post by Evertype » Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:25 am


Palores said:
The form perghennogi in the Gerlyver Kres is clearly a mistake. It should be perghennegi. I shall inform the appropriate authorities.

Is that a way of saying "thank you"?

By the way, I was citing the Gerlyver Meur.

pietercharles
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:51 am

Post by pietercharles » Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:31 am


morvran said:
Pity most of the others who back KK are too thin-skinned to stand up to your purile comments, or too cowed to fight their corner. The fact that they're such a load of pathetic wimps is disappointing...


Your assessment could be accurate, morvran, and I'm sure many KK users are grateful to you for putting the case against them so cogently.

On the other hand, it's been said (and it's probably minuted somewhere) that there are so few KK users (none of whom seem to be particularly competent in the language) that they could all be posting to C24 and nobody would notice.

And yet I can't help wondering whether in fact they all have better and more productive things to do for the language than to come here to argue with people that bill themselves as a 'world-expert' or an 'authority on the Cornish language'.

Possibly they all think that posting here is completely futile and highly damaging to the revival.

Have you spotted an argument that wasn't futile? Or one that presented the revival in a good light?

pietercharles
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:51 am

Post by pietercharles » Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:54 am


Evertype said:
I do wonder why you used "sonants" which is a vague and appears to mask the intent of your comment. As does your peculiar use of idiom.


I've noticed something similar.

I do wonder, often, why you, "marhak" and Eddie-C suddenly break into something resembling estuary English - 'wanna', 'gotta', 'ain't', 'yeah', 'nah', 'fink', double negatives - that sort of thing.

There seems to be no rhyme or reason to it, and it's not at all clear what it signals. Sometimes you're just being rude, sometimes you're having a joke amongst yourselves, sometimes you're being perfectly serious. Sometimes you're even being quite reasonable.

It's very odd behaviour.

By the way, is
Evertype said:
a vague

some kind of wave, the use of which is an attempt to emulate Eddie-C's command of the French language and use of le mot juste :lol: ?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest