[quote=Michael]The backbone of the Revival is Unified Cornish, warts and all. Jenner was a better linguist than Nance (not Nance's fault), and deserves study.
If it hadn't been for them, you'd have no Revival at all.
If you believe that the Revival = UC, then why are you assisting Dr. Williams et al. in their (vain) attempts over the past c12 years to overthrow that system?[/quote]Wow. Such a clear example of you you twist people's words.
"The backbone of the Revival is Unified Cornish", I said. I did not say "the Revival = Unified Cornish".
People have studied Cornish and its phonology and history of its phonology, and have proposed and implemented modifications to Unified Cornish which improve it. UCR improved UC by simplifying it a bit and (importantly) by restoring some sounds to its repertoire which Nance had overlooked.
George came up with a new phonology. It's unlikely, and it's certainly not used—even by George himself. Taran is right to point out that KK orthography has no raison d'être without George's phonology, but the Revival doesn't use that phonology (not even the "effective" speakers).
Remember UC was conceived as perfect in itself and once codified, independent of the historical Cornish which it was based upon it.
Where do you get this nonsense? It's not even plausible.
That is it was intended to last for 1,000 years, presumably unchanged. If like PAS Pool you think UC was delivered on tablets of stone, then the presumption is that it cannot be altered for 1,000 years, regardless of any future research, discoveries etc. That was, and possibly still is, it's one great virtue -- absolute solid stability.
Give over, Keith. A thousand years? Been watching WWII movies again? Trying to subtly tar UC supporters with a particular brush, are you?
Of course, you believe that KK=GOOD and Non-KK=BAD, so you'll stop at nothing to propagandize.
OTOH, the downside of this view is that Revived Cornish is a modern creation and not in any sense a continuation of Historical Cornish. If you take this view you have to accept that Revived Cornish is just "Cornic", a "Made-up Language".
You know, YOU are the only one who keeps going on about "Cornic". Price was wrong when he said it, and that was years ago. Get over it! Of course he did ultimately encourage further research into the language which has improved it. (By that I do not mean the construction of the un-used KK phonology.)
The work of a few hobbists, and not a worthy subject for serious academic interest. This is still very much the view in academia.
Researchers are warned to give Revived Cornish a wide berth, and claims that the language is no longer dead, receive the patronising reply that although there are people who claim to speak Cornish they in fact do not.
The speak a modern conlang, etc. etc.