Page 40 of 43
Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 5:42 pm
[quote=Evertype]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.[/quote]An element of the SWF specification is offensive. That element is the pretense that "RMC phonology" means "KK phonology", when in fact not only does UC phonology exist (there is no trace of it in the specification), but it is, in fact, UC phonology which most users of KK actually speak.
What I wrote was not unclear.
Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 7:57 pm
[quote=Evertype]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.[/quote]No. It is realism, Albert. KK users don't actually use KK phonology. We support the actual phonology of the Revived Cornish dialects. It is a pity that the SWF does not actually support the UC-based pronunciation which everyone uses. It is a pity that the SWF (which you claimed once has no phonology, as I recall) supports a construal which has no support in practice.
[quote]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.[/quote]But NO ONE uses them in daily speech. They aren't there. They aren't even there in germinating seeds which are growing. In two decades they have not succeeded to be introduced, and I don't believe there is any reason to keep trying. There are more important aspects of Revived Cornish pronunciation that need attention, such as an emphasis on pure vowels ([eː], [oː]) rather than English glides [eɪ], [əʊ]).
[quote]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. [/quote]Well that means rather little. It's vague and distant. But I have just done that. I and others have checked and discussed KK phonology and we observe that it has no currency and there are no signs that it will gain currency. We do not find KK phonology to be useful. Maybe you want to support the artificial distinction between SWF iw and yw. Nobody pronounces them differently, though, and we don't believe that people should continue to be encouraged to try. Even George didn't talk about the pronunciation in his submission as one of the Linguistic Advisors. He only said that iw should be used in the half-dozen or so affected word because Welsh and Breton make a distinction. Not because Cornish does, or even did. Just because Welsh and Breton have it.
[quote]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.[/quote]That's nice and vague. I want to "force" people? Not only some people, but "everybody"? And you know what my "definition" of "Traditional" is? And that it differs from the general "definition" we use over here on this side? You've made a nice blanket statement not only about what I believe but about how I am promulgating that. There are no specifics however. What exactly do you think I believe? What exactly do you think am I "forcing"? Where do you think I am "forcing" it?
[quote]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.[/quote]Really? It is hard to believe that a phonologist had a hand in the SWF. Certainly the SWF is a failure where it comes to UC, which it ignores.
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.
I said nothing about what you might "want". It seems to me from your arguments that you're more interested in historical diachrony (where Breton is more relevant) than in practical synchronic solutions.
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?
You misunderstand completely. I don't believe geminates should be encouraged in RC because the L1 community doesn't have them, doesn't use them, and has shown no sign of adopting them in two decades. So why bother? Let [ˈkɛmᵻn] be [ˈkɛmᵻn]. We've no need to try to change Revived Cornish to [ˈkɛmːɪn]—particularly as that experiment has already been tried and has already been a failure.
We have no problem with bm and dn being linked to mm and nn. That's supportive of both RLC and RMC, and indeed it is fair to say that the former are reflexes of the latter. We object to the SWF's using mm and nn in contexts where there is no pre-occlusion, because to write *jynn instead of jyn will only attract *[dʒɪᵈn] (*jydn). The KS approach to this—in our view, of course—is inclusive and practical. The SWF approach gives spellings which look as though they could be pre-occluded even though the are not, evidently in order to support a theoretical pronunciation that nobody uses. This is—in our view, of course—not an advantage to anybody.
edited by: Evertype, Jun 07, 2009 - 01:24 PM
Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 9:21 pm
Read the posts . . . read the posts . . . read the posts . . .
Does "Pieter" go out of his way to be bloody irritating? Hang on (spends ten minutes out to read posts).
The answer's yes.
Which means he doesn't have to respond and can thereby spare the rest of us from the tedium.
edited by: marhak, Jun 06, 2009 - 09:22 PM
Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:28 am
[quote=Evertype]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?
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.
With reference to that thread I pointed to, my main concern is the way that by constantly harping on about the odd 'made-up' word (e.g. ilow) or phrase (e.g. yn hwir) or usage (e.g. yn kever an den-na) which may or may not have been invented, they give the impression that Revived Cornish as a whole is a "made-up language", a myth which is a long time dying, and which can still be found on 'authoritative' linguistic web-sites, publications etc. This of course probably helps to prevent real expert linguists from taking much interest in Cornish (which is a pity both for them and for us). However it would be a problem for our self-style 'experts' since their phoney rhetoric and linquababble would be torn apart in no time. Perhaps that's their motivation. They certainly do nothing to help establish the credibility of the Revival.
In fact most languages have the odd word or two that are the result of mistakes of one sort or another, mistranslations, misunderstandings or were just made up on the spot. The english word "gas" for example. Many other common words have no known etymology. There are one or two words in Welsh that were pulled out of the OCV by mistake, etc. I can't see how ilow for example is any different really from a neologism like pellgowser etc. Both fill gaps. For a few words to have been invented or adapted relatively recently is not at all odd. It's what happens in any actively used language. This is not a valid argument for trying to undermine the entire Revival.
Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:44 am
Michael : How can you talk about synchronic phonology when you're system attempts to cover several historical stages of the language, and indeed several divergent interpretations of those stages. The diachronic approach must be part of the solution simply because there is just not enough data available to fully analyse the phonology (or much else) of most periods of Cornish. Really the Ordinalia is the only text long enough to provide synchronic data. And even there, we probably have a work written at one stage and copied (and recopied) later. The same is true or worse for almost all the other texts apart from Tregear. Incidentally this shows that Nance was correct by his own lights when he based UC mainly on the Ordinalia + PA.
Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:08 am
Pieter (whoever you may be) :
I'm inclined to agree that posting here is futile. But it is a free and open forum (apart from the occasional witch-hunt) so I can use it to let off steam when I feel the need. While I support KK, that does not mean that I mindlessly support the Kesva and Kowethas. The first is mainly an academic / teaching / examining / regulatory body, and serves that purpose well. The latter a mutual-aid organisation for learners and users of Cornish. Neither is very well equiped to represent language users politically, and both were easily wrong-footed when the came up against the real manipulative political forces that drove the 'Process'.
Who are the people I criticise?
*** All those supposed KK supporters, including some very prominent Kesva people who failed to sign the KK petition I set up.
*** All those who went to TremoghII and didn't object to the way things were being railroaded. I wrote to Jenefer asking for a proper debate to be organised, not to waste half the day on 'divide and rule' small groups etc. It did no good of course, all was preplanned. Maybe if many people had objected, and then if ignored made a fuss on the day, the plan might have been derailed. But no, we can't make a fuss, we're all so in awe of authority. We'll all just sit quietly like stuffed dummies and let outsiders tell us what we've 'decided'.
*** The people who did the same again at TremoghIII, even though it was clear that the Commission had not followed its remit and had not entered into any discussions with the language community or any representative body.
*** The KK supporters on the 'Partnership' who accepted the pathetic report of the Commission, despite the fact that they had come nowhere near doing a 'proper job'. Again they did not force a recorded vote, or insist on having their objections minuted. At that point it should have been obvious that they'd been shafted good and proper, and the best thing would have been to have walked out. But no, have to be polite, mustn't dare to stand up to authority, even if that authority is just a few County Council people, most with no knowledge of the language.
Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:29 am
It seems to me that focusing on one period or text as UC and KK did with Middle Cornish, and UCR did with Tudor Cornish and LC did with Pre-Modern Cornish was the best way to go for orthographical purposes, and even style.(the Lexicon could be chosen from any period).
A language revival based on all periods and mixing them up seems the wrong way to go, if that what the SWF was all about,or we have two registers a Literary one based on MC, and a colloquial one based on later usage .
It probably would have been easier to find accommodation between UC and KK users, then then new divisions created now.
Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:56 pm
Your assertions are not all correct. UC and UCR both admitted forms covering the entire period of historical Cornish, from the Old Cornish Vocabulary, through the Middle period, and up to and including Late Cornish, as do both KS and the SWF as well.
By contrast, I gather that KK does what you state - sticks pretty much to MC, and discards the rest as 'corrupt'.
Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:32 pm
Well, KK sticks to MC apart, that is, from the spelling conventions. Even Oliver Padel thought it had gone too far in that respect.
Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:32 pm
I gather that KK does what you state - sticks pretty much to MC, and discards the rest as 'corrupt'.
It is unfortunate that most of the detractors of KK criticize it without having studied it intensively. If they were to do so, they might then perceive its advantages.
Rather than condemn words which are from periods other than Middle Cornish, KK accepts them, but attempts to up-date or back-date them to the form which they would have had in Middle Cornish, then re-spells them (if necessary) in accordance with its morpho-phonemic principles.
Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 4:29 pm
I was under the impression that the UC of Nance stuck to Middle Cornish,Nance rejected the Later Cornish of Jenner .(I am not talking about the lexicon here, just orthography and syntax),for example UC does not allow for pre-occlusion.UCR was the revision that moved UC further forward to Tudor times,and was seen as a bridge between the UC of Middle Cornish and Late Cornish.
As far as I can see KK and UC are identical as far as syntax and the lexicon.In fact propanants of Kernewek Kemmyn have been criticised for using some aspects Unified Cornish syntax, and Nance's neoligisms.(NJW's critique of Brown's grammar and the KK dictionaries ).
Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:55 pm
As far as I can see KK and UC are identical as far as syntax and the lexicon.
They were originally very close, but have diverged, because UC is practically immutable, while KK evolves. Obvious errors in syntax are corrected in KK but not in UC. But what is an error? Is dos ha bos 'to become' an error because it is not attested in traditional Cornish, but was invented by Nance? It has been used for decades.
The UC lexicon is practically static, but that of KK has expanded considerably since its introduction. It is important to realize that 21st century Cornish, although similar to that of past times, is not and cannot be exactly the same language. Not everybody has taken this on board.
Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:40 pm
They were originally very close, but have diverged, because UC is practically immutable, while KK evolves.
Could you explain what you mean by this?
Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:06 pm
DYDH RAG DYSKADORYON
Kesva an Taves Kernewek a elow dyskadoryon an yeth dhe Dhydh rag Dyskadoryon dhe vos synsys dy' Sadorn an 20ves a vis-Metheven dhe Hel an Konsel, Truru. Pella derivadow ha form omrolya a-dhiworth Maureen Pierce, Skrifennyades Kesva an Taves Kernewek firstname.lastname@example.org
edited by: Bardh, Jun 09, 2009 - 10:37 PM
Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:11 am
[quote=kio]As far as I can see KK and UC are identical as far as syntax and the lexicon.
They were originally very close, but have diverged, because UC is practically immutable, while KK evolves.[/quote]IUntrue. UCR corrected faults in UC.
Obvious errors in syntax are corrected in KK but not in UC.
But what is an error? Is dos ha bos 'to become' an error because it is not attested in traditional Cornish, but was invented by Nance? It has been used for decades.
But if there is an authentic way of saying what was intended, why not shift and use that? (This is one thing Nicholas does in his writing; he avoids some problematic constructions. Since what he writes is good, expressive Cornish, readers will likely not notice that some expressions are missing—they'll just be exposed to more accurate Cornish ways of saying such things.)
The UC lexicon is practically static, but that of KK has expanded considerably since its introduction.
Completely untrue. The UCR dictionary—widely used by many—has a large number of neologisms which can be seen in use, by Rod Lyon for instance, and Myghal Palmer, and so on.
It is important to realize that 21st century Cornish, although similar to that of past times, is not and cannot be exactly the same language. Not everybody has taken this on board.
Not everybody has taken on board that as our knowledge of traditional Cornish improves so can and should "21st-century Cornish". Otherwise one may as well remember—as Keith does so very often—Price and consider "21st-century Cornish" a conlang. It seems clear that Palores' comments here are thinly-veiled attacks on Williams, as we have come to expect from him, whether he is Ken or Julyan or whoever.