Page 6 of 10

Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 1:21 am
by CowethasPeranSans
Send a private message with your email address and we'll talk some more.

Gans grassyans ha nos da! Zzzzzzzz....

Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 1:48 am
by Morvran

CowethasPeranSans said:

We did approach a leading member of the Cornish Language Board suggesting they produce a KK version some time ago, but never heard back from him. It would be quite inappropriate to name him here.

Since I was until recently a member of the Kesva, (although not specifically of the Publications Subcommittee), I find this rather surprising. My guess would be that your request somehow went astray. This is the sort of thing that either the Kesva or the Kowethas would generally by happy to publish, and funds are not a problem at present. I would suggest that in future you make a formal request to either the Secretary or the organiser of the Publications Subcommittee. Details should be on the Kesva website.

Regretably the Kesva has forbidden its members from posting here, so I'm afraid your only way of finding out what happened would be to contact them privately (as suggested above).

Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 8:27 am
by Marhak
Keith - Peter Pool did NOT think that UC was written in stone, and I can't understand why you always seek to put the man down in this way. If you read his 'Second Death of Cornish', you will see that he clearly writes that there is scope for careful and sensitive improvement to UC. Which is what UCR took on, rather well in my view and that of many other UC users.

'The Kesva has forbidden its members from posting here'. Well, if you want such an authoritarian organisation telling you what to do/not do, then that's up to you. However, that is the path to servitude and passive obedience. The rest of us don't. We believe in freedom of thought and freedom of speech, which is why we reject the Kesva and any other organisation that seeks to exercise power over its members.

Which brings me to religion, organised forms of which are merely means by which a few can exercise power over millions. Goky asked what Celtic spirituality was. It is that of the Columban Church, before Catholicism in Britain was manipulated into a place under the shackles of Rome. It is otherwise known as the 'Pelagian Heresy'.

edited by: marhak, Apr 12, 2009 - 08:28 AM

Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:34 am
by Evertype

morvran said:
Regretably the Kesva has forbidden its members from posting here, so I'm afraid your only way of finding out what happened would be to contact them privately (as suggested above).

They post here anyway, just under new pseudonyms. :roll:

Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:48 am
by Evertype

CowethasPeranSans said:
You will not make many friends or influence anyone behaving as disgracefully as that. Do not waste your talent. Use it.

He hasn't got any to use.

Don't waste your time. Some people really are irredeemable.

Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 10:33 am
by Evertype

Keith said:
[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? :roll:

Of course, you believe that KK=GOOD and Non-KK=BAD, so you'll stop at nothing to propagandize. :roll:

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.

Unsupported assertion.
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.

Unsupported assertion.
The speak a modern conlang, etc. etc.

Unsupported assertion.

Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:22 am
by pietercharles

morvran said:
Regretably the Kesva has forbidden its members from posting here...

Could you explain exactly what you mean by this, morvran?

How can it possibly be true?

"The Kesva" is not some entity separate from "its members". "The Kesva" IS "its members" and while such a group of people might agree not to do something, it can't forbid itself from doing something. That would only make sense if one subset of members, who did the forbidding, had authority over other members. And that simply isn't true of the Kesva.

Most people 'on the street' seem to think C24 brings the language into disrepute and makes it a laughing stock, so if Kesva members have agreed not to post here they have done the right thing in my opinion. This is not a place for serious discussion, as many people have pointed out, many times.

Your words have done nothing more than give marhak the opportunity to suggest that the Kesva is an authoritarian organisation that tells you what to do and what not to do, that doesn't believe in freedom of thought and freedom of speech and which seeks to exercise power over its members (again the erroneous notion that "the Kesva" is separate from "its members'').

All utter nonsense, of course, but if you naively supply the lead in, marhak will inevitably supply the punch line.

Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:02 pm
by truru
Morvran, you're in:

1) no position to talk about what does and doesn't make the language appear to be made up, and:

2) no position to preach about Kommonn Kornish as God's gift to the Cornish language when you don't even use it yourself:

morvran said:
Mar pleg, na wra disprisya agan kowetha vlewek. Fest moy nobyl yns agez Eddie. Dhe wir, del re beu leveryz, "ow kwelez Eddie owth assaya skrifa Kernewek yw porran kepar ha gwelez ki yn unn kerdhez war y dhiwarr a-dhelergh -- Nynz yw gwryz yn ta, mez marth a'gan beus dell yw gwryz vyth-oll!"

What is that exactly? Something you decided to make up because you thought KK still looked too English? Please do tell, how many other versions of KK are there, and which of those have you made up? Why should anyone take notice of your ranting about the SWF's "many versions" or your baseless claim that revived Cornish is seen as Cornic when you make up your own versions of Kommonn Kornish for your own personal use? How many "frequent and competent" users of Cornish use KK/KB then? 0%?

morvran said:
No one apart from their creators really wants to use the other 'new' forms, and most of those backing them (with a notable handful of exceptions) can't use them, because they are not competent Cornish speakers/writers. All they do is rant here in English.

You don't use KK now, you haven't written anything in KK since 1993 and most of what you do here is rant in English. Oh the hypocrisy (again).

Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:45 pm
by Morvran
Truru, I have seen the future, and it has z's in it. 8-)

Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:31 pm
by Evertype
That would be Ken's new dictionary, would it? We hear that Polin is proofing it.

I very much look forward to seeing a copy.

Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 8:43 pm
by truru
So is there a new version of KK coming out? How many KK users support this change? Is it a widely wanted change or did Ken George have another sudden flash of inspiration?