Page 39 of 43

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:57 am
by Palores

Evertype said:
Is that a way of saying "thank you"?


It was evident that perghennogi was a mistake well before any discussions on Spellyans, but thank you for reminding us about it.

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:47 pm
by Evertype

pietercharles said:
[quote=Evertype]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. [/quote]I cannot speak for Craig and Eddie. When I use "yeah" and "nah" and "gotta" and "wanna" (the last I use in the phrase "wanna-be") it is my native Pennsylvania English, used precisely for rhetorical effect. I would not use "fink" and would typically not use double negatives. No Estuary English on my part.


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.

Naaah, it's just expressive rhetoric.


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: ?

Hardly. You may note the corrected typo in the original post.

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:51 pm
by Evertype

Palores said:
[quote=Evertype]Is that a way of saying "thank you"?

It was evident that perghennogi was a mistake well before any discussions on Spellyans, but thank you for reminding us about it. [/quote]Your persistent cool hostility is ever so gracious. You must be great fun down the pub.

You're welcome.

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:18 pm
by Pokorny


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



I was referring to the use of to represent //N// (or //nn//) in unstressed syllables. In earlier versions of KS, the digraphs and were limited to positions where RLC had and respectively. The forms you gave indicate a move towards a more morpho-phonemic representation of fortis sonants.



edited by: Pokorny, Jun 06, 2009 - 03:18 PM

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:28 pm
by Evertype
In KS the digraphs and are limited to positions where RLC had and respectively.

For the word in question, KS writes

KS -ak, -ogyon, -ogeth, -egy, -ogyl, -oges, -ogesow,
perhennak ~ perhednak, perhenogyon
perhenogeth
perhenegy
perhenogyans
perhenogyl
perhenoges, perhenogesow

We consider the SWF's use of and to indicate sounds which have little if any currency in Revived Cornish to be a fault, and in particular we consider the fact that RLC users cannot rely on the RMC spelling in terms of pre-occlusion to be prejudicial and unnecssary.



edited by: Evertype, Jun 06, 2009 - 02:31 PM

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 3:36 pm
by Marhak
Then why wasn't it corrected? Admit the truth, why don't you - you weren't aware of it before Michael brought it up.

Oops, mustn't use "don't" and "wasn't" or "Pieter" will be querying its use. Ignore, for "don't" read "do not" and "was not" (OK, "Pieter"? Pawlpussy, etc.?).

(Pedantic person! Just to keep the alliteration going).












edited by: marhak, Jun 06, 2009 - 03:40 PM

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 3:41 pm
by Pokorny

Evertype said:
In KS the digraphs and are limited to positions where RLC had and respectively.



Mere typos then? Pity.


Evertype said:
We consider the SWF's use of and to indicate sounds which have little if any currency in Revived Cornish to be a fault



How can it be a fault when these sounds were demonstrably part of more conservative varieties of the traditional language? What happened to tota cornicitas?

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 4:30 pm
by Marhak
Albert - Tota Cornicitas means exactly that. That pre-occlusion has its rightful place in the revived language and that alternative graphs should refer exclusively to it. However, non-traditional graphs that invite confusion should not be included. That was the SWF intention until silly and unnecessarily confusing suggestions like *jynn (engine) and *gonn (gun) were introduced after the AHG meetings.

mm and nn were only to be written when stressed, and where pre-occlusion demonstrably occurred.

Similarly with (i) and . The former was to denote long I, the latter the short I. Now we get lunacy such as kegin (kitchen) which was never, ever, pronounced "keg-EEN", but the spelling suggests that it was.

(now, why the hell did that go italic?)









edited by: marhak, Jun 06, 2009 - 04:39 PM

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 4:31 pm
by Evertype
Albert,

It is no "pity" that KS supports the two dialect phonologies which are actually in use by Revivalists, and which have been in use from the beginning of the Revival.

Ken George himself, as you well know, does not pronounce Cornish with geminate consonants, and neither does anyone else, except perhaps Ben and some of his students. They've had twenty years to implement their experiment, and it's been a complete failure. They substitute short [ɪ] for their theoretical long [ɪː], making those words rhyme with words with genuine short [ɪ]. No one says [ˈkemːɪn] (or [ˈkemmɪn] as the Gerlyvrik has it). They say [ˈkɛmən] or [ˈkɛmᵻn]. And you know it.

Your own SWF specification is, in fact, offensive in claiming that [bɪːz] is the "RMC" pronunciation of what KS writes as bÿs. Unified Cornish, which is RMC, has never taught that pronunciation, but rather [biːz].

You may, on theoretical grounds, admire George's theories and his reconstruction. I remember you telling me that you didn't care about Traditional graphs. It's little surprise to me that you admire George's reconstruction as far as the nasal consonants are concerned, as you are a Bretonist. Cornish is not Breton however, and two decades have shown us that the "aspiration" to introduce geminate consonants in the pronunciation of Revived Cornish has failed and will fail to succeed even though the SWF gives it lip-service.

KS considers mm and nn to be RMC dialect preference graphs and considers it appropriate to linked these to the RLC dialect preference graphs bm and dn, without any exceptions. Similarly, KS considers ÿ to be a RMC dialect preference graph and considers it appropriate to linked these to the RLC dialect preference graph ë, without any exception, and without any confusion with y and e used for other purposes. KS is consistent in this matter. There is nothing to "pity" about this.

The SWF's lack of consistency in its use of graphs which give clear guidance to users of both RLC and RMC dialects is one of its faults. Perhaps you wish to blame the AHG for it, but their name isn't on the document.



edited by: Evertype, Jun 06, 2009 - 04:38 PM

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 4:55 pm
by R3D3

Evertype said:
Your own SWF specification is, in fact, offensive


SWF is offensive? :-O If SWF is, in fact, offensive, I can understand why you're sticking to KS. I wouldn't want our children to be taught an offensive spelling system.

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 5:08 pm
by pietercharles

Evertype said:
Your persistent cool hostility is ever so gracious.


Good on yer, Palores, me ol' son, for being 'so gracious'! There ain't no shame in that.
(Note the use of 'expressive rhetoric' - ed.).

Personally I'm surprised Palores was at all 'gracious'. Did everyone see the posts morvran pointed us at?

morvran said:
just look through this thread in another place, especially the final two or three pages :
http://www.kernewegva.com/forum/viewtop ... &start=110


If Palores wants to be considered 'an expert' like those two, he really needs to learn that when someone points out a mistake the appropriate response is to call them 'nasty', 'snide', 'unpleasant' and the like, before then flouncing off in a huff. :lol:


Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 5:12 pm
by Palores

R3D3 said:
SWF is offensive?


I certainly find it so.

R3D3 said:
I wouldn't want our children to be taught an offensive spelling system.


Klywewgh!

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 5:15 pm
by Pokorny

Evertype said:
Albert,
It is no "pity" that KS supports the two dialect phonologies which are actually in use by Revivalists, and which have been in use from the beginning of the Revival.



It is a pity, however, that KS *only* supports UC/R and RLC phonologies.



Ken George himself, as you well know, does not pronounce Cornish with geminate consonants, and neither does anyone else, except perhaps Ben and some of his students.



Geminates were a part of traditional Cornish, so they merit a place within the construct of tota Cornicitas. This is irrespective of whether Ken George or Nicholas Williams use them in daily speech.



You may, on theoretical grounds, admire George's theories and his reconstruction.



No. I don't "admire" any phonological theory or reconstruction. They are there to be checked and discussed, and - if found to be useful - made use of.



I remember you telling me that you didn't care about Traditional graphs.




And everyone on this forum will remember you telling us that you care. Fine. Both positions are valid, and under normal circumstances we would agree to disagree. But the thing is that you want to force everybody to use what fits your own definition of "traditional". This I cannot accept.



It's little surprise to me that you admire George's reconstruction as far as the nasal consonants are concerned, as you are a Bretonist.




I am, first and foremost, a phonologist. Breton only came into the deal at a later time. Furthermore, it is irrelevant to what I think about Cornish phonology. To think that I "want to make Cornish look more Breton" or anything of the kind would be a red herring.

Everybody seems to agree that pre-occluded [bm] and [dn] are reflexes of earlier [mm] and [nn], so why should the latter pronunciation be actively proscribed in Revived Cornish or declared "not to have a place in it", which is what you seem to be aiming at?

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 5:18 pm
by pietercharles

Evertype said:
Your own SWF specification is, in fact, offensive...


Oooh! What a 'nasty', 'snide' and 'unpleasant' thing to say about someone's specification!

I would now flounce off with a hissy-fit in order to achieve 'expert' status, but there's still work to be done here to counter the language terrorism that we experience daily.

Y'know, sometimes a fella's jus' godda do whadda fella's godda do.

(more 'expressive rhetoric'...this could get boring -ed.')

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 5:38 pm
by pietercharles

marhak said:
Oops, mustn't use "don't" and "wasn't" or "Pieter" will be querying its use.


No, you didn't read the posts properly "marhak".

I wasn't talking about contractions like "don't" and "wasn't" - take another look, "marhak".

And I didn't suggest there were any forms that you "mustn't" use, "marhak". I simply wondered why you did use them. Just like Evertype, who wondered about Pokorny's use of a particular word and idiom.

Go back and read the posts slowly, "marhak" - it will all become clearer.

Ain't this a gas?

(any more 'expressive rhetoric' and you might find yourself banned -ed.)