Page 9 of 10
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 11:58 am
I'm not sure that this particular book has any special virtue, compared to the many similar books that might be translated. But in any case a re-translation would probably be advisable, since Eddie is hardly the most skilled and experienced user of Cornish.
I really don't know what they think they're playing at, but it seems rather mischevious (to say the least) to produce a book clearly aimed at schoolchildren in a spelling which is not that approved for school use over the next few years. Especially when they were party to that agreement.
edited by: morvran, May 05, 2009 - 11:59 AM
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 12:03 pm
It doesn't look odd at all that the Cornish in this book can't be used for official education of children, because there is no official education of children. There should be, but there isn't. Apart from Porth, not a single word of material for that education (when and if it ever happens) has been prepared, as far as I'm aware, and, until it is, it can't begin in schools.
That's not a good situation from anyone's point of view and, to be honest, I'm annoyed about it. This should have been the Partnership's No 1 priority.
Kensa Lyver Redya is for the education of children (and, indeed, any beginner). That's education at home which has been the norm throughout the entire revival. It seems to me that if we wait for all to be done to get the language into schools on a serious basis then, at the present rate of non-progress, we'll be waiting until doomsday. Kids need material to help them learn their own language, and they need it NOW. This book begins to give that to them.
Does it matter what orthography it's written in? All language groups had opportunity enough to cater for children and produce a wealth of varied material for them over the years. Broadly speaking, we failed them. All of us.
Now, we have various people on this forum moaning because Michael and Eddie have started to produce that material (and because it happens to be Michael and Eddie and not the great gods of KK) but, apart from Goky, there are no children here. It doesn't matter what you or I think. We're not the audience it's aimed at. Try asking the children what they think and what they want.
edited by: marhak, May 05, 2009 - 12:10 PM
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 12:26 pm
It doesn't look odd at all that the Cornish in this book can't be used for official education of children, because there is no official education of children.
Indeed, even when the Language Ladder materials and exams are available, there is still no guarantee that there will be any Cornish in the schools. There is no statutory mechanism for requiring any school to offer Cornish.
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 12:29 pm
Who are you kidding, Steve? You'd have moaned at any publication if it wasn't in KK. Both Keith and yourself are totally opposed to the SWF.
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 12:30 pm
Try asking the children what they think and what they want.
They want mobile phones with endless gadgets, Facebook and Bebo, XBox 360s, fake tans. Cornish language? Most couldn't give a s**t. What the few who take it up will want is consistency. What parents will want is consistency. One of the major reasons we have the SWF is to give consistency. Tell children and parents that there are still arguments over spelling and they'll wisely drop the language like a plutonium pasty.
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 12:31 pm
t happens to be Michael and Eddie and not the great gods of KK)
as usual he misses the point,(boy I hate repeating myself), but if Everson and the Clown had produced the material in the SWF/T , I don't think you would have heard us complaining.
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 1:15 pm
So. to sum up the publications in/on Cornish that have been produced over the last few years by some of our contemporaries, we have (in round figures):
'goky' Reeves = 0
'morvran' Bailey = 0 (over 16 years)
Evertype = quite a lot
Nicholas Williams = quite a few
Craig Weatherhill = several
Eddie-C = 2
Now, do tell us who's supporting the Revival, and who's just making lots of noise. The well-known observation by Mark Twain would need modifying to fit these drones who produce nothing but lies and disinformation against those who do produce the resources:
"I just love work, I could watch people work, for hours ... and tell them how they were doing it all wrong."
ps. I understand that when Keith submitted his KK translation of Lisa Storey's delightful "Ciorstaidh agus Granaidh a' dol air chuairt" (Kirsty and Granny go for a walk), it had to have quite a few glaring errors corrected by the proof [
] reader before it was fit to print (in UC); and I'm not talking about the spurious KK orthography he favoured, either.
This is what proof-readers are for. Keith had them, and needed them for his Cornish book. I had them, and needed them, for every one of my books in English, Welsh, Scots Gaelic and now Cornish. So what? It's normal practice in the world of publishing.
We might note, by the way, that Keith's Scots Gaelic and Welsh are not very good(although he's good enough with a dictionary perhaps to fool those who are unfamiliar with the languages). His English is badly flawed, as we can all see for ourselves in his postings here on C24.
But his Cornish is flawless. His opinions about Cornish are beyond dispute. His expertise in linguistics is supreme. He is a National Treasure for the revival.
edited by: Eddie-C, May 05, 2009 - 02:55 PM
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 1:39 pm
it had to have quite a few glaring errors corrected by the proff reader before it was fit to print
Is your proff (sic) reader on holiday?
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 2:00 pm
Evidently so! I blame this dyxlesic beykoard, myslef!
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 3:25 pm
Do you suggest that there is something improper about a person having "a close special relationship" with a publisher, Little Weasel? It seems to me that most successful authors enjoy such a relationship.