“Skeul an Tavas” -- Corslyver rag Skeul an Yethow dyllys gans Agan Tavas ha gans Evertype

A new forum dedicated to Kernewek - the Cornish language, Cornish culture and the history of the Duchy of Cornwall
User avatar
factotum
Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:15 pm

Post by factotum » Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:14 pm

"The graphs [sic] (leg. graphemes) ... are offered ..." Oh, how generous. Let us all kneel and give heartfelt thanks, three times daily, facing Dún na nGall, for the boundless bounty of Evertype. As if! As if he had any power to give or to withhold choices to us. Who the devil does this man think he is? As far as I know no one has ever appointed him to speak on their behalf. The Partnership take little if any notice of him. He is welcome to advise, but if he can't back his advice with sound reasoning then we are fully welcome to ignore it.
The Partnership of course are appointed by Cornwall Council, and so their advice is likely to stand in official circles (but not necessarily beyond). They are free to rule however the like. If they wish to to rule that in future in the SWF pysk should be spelled ghoti that is entirely within their remit -- although it would make them a laughing stock.
It is within their power to allow the word for 'tongue' to be spelled in its Tudor and Late form tavas rather than its earlier form taves, but to single out this one word for special treatment makes no linguistic sense, not unless they allow equivalent spellings, for words such as lowan, gwydhan(n),  edrak ... and many dozens more. This is just conlanging, and brings the SWF into disrepute.
Unfortunately, outsiders do not make fine distinctions between different forms, so this sort of thing is likely to rebound on the Revival as a whole. Remember we are still getting regularly tarred with the "made-up language" brush.








pietercharles
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:51 am

Post by pietercharles » Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:42 pm


marhak said:
When it comes to curmudgeonly comment re 'Skeul an Tavas', I just knew – well before the event – that any such comment would have to come from Keith – whose entire constructive input to the Cornish revival has been . . . er . . . nil.  Guess what?  I was right.


No you weren't right, marhak!  Your memory's playing up! 
"Keith" is not the only one who has used the publication of 'Skeul an Tavas' as an excuse for making a curmudgeonly comment.  In fact, the very first  person to do so was YOU!  You yourself!!
Don't you remember?  In another thread.   I've just found it for you:

marhak wrote in a curmudgeonly manner:
"The course...replaces the archaic, way out-of-date Grade courses (and not before time)."

User avatar
Evertype
Posts: 3167
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:29 am
Contact:

Post by Evertype » Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:56 pm


factotum said:
“The graphs [sic] (leg. graphemes) … are offered …” Oh, how generous. Let us all kneel and give heartfelt thanks, three times daily, facing Dún na nGall, for the boundless bounty of Evertype. As if! As if he had any power to give or to withhold choices to us. Who the devil does this man think he is? As far as I know no one has ever appointed him to speak on their behalf. The Partnership take little if any notice of him. He is welcome to advise, but if he can't back his advice with sound reasoning then we are fully welcome to ignore it.


1. I mean graphs, not graphemes. 
2. That's the best you can do, Keith? A contrived attack on a verb? Sheesh. Kernowek Kebmyn fails to offer people who pre-occlude the option to write it, does it? Well, KS1 did, and KD did, and the SWF does, and KS does.
3. I don't live in Donegal.
4. I think I am, amongst many other things, book publisher of Cornish language books who takes an interest in phonology, in writing systems, and typography.
5. Actually, Agan Tavas appointed me to speak on their behalf in the AHG, but the Cowethas and Kesva would not permit it.
6. I'm fairly sure the Partnership notices me, as their monthly publication often carries notices of my books. 

pietercharles
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:51 am

Post by pietercharles » Sat Aug 29, 2009 10:03 pm


marhak said:
Yes, Pieter – when people involved in the langauge revival, in whatever way, see statements such as:  “In KS we do not use this” or “In KS we allow for this and that”. they will indeed recognise it for what it is.  Honesty, straight and unadulterated – which the revival hasn't seen too much of in recent decades.


I think we're in agreement again, marhak!   People will judge for themselves, and, as you say, recognise it for what it is.
People involved in the language can, do and will judge for themselves whether calling an orthography "Kernowek Kebmyn" when it has been called "Kernewek Kemmyn" for years (and everyone knows it by that name) results from a writer's steadfast adherence to a set of orthographic rules, or whether it results from some other, maybe less honorable, motive.
A straw poll in the pub a few months ago didn't lend much support to the old 'orthographic rules' theory, but that might change as time wears on.
To think we've agreed twice now in as many days! 

User avatar
factotum
Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:15 pm

Post by factotum » Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:21 pm

A 'graph' is a specific letterform, for instance the realisation of the letter 'a' in a particular font. Or indeed a particular written or printed example of the letter 'a', no two of which outside the digital realm will ever be exactly identical. However all versions of the 'letter a' in the Roman alphabet are equivalent from the point of view of communication, uppercase, lowercase, italic, bold, handwritten, morse-code, semaphore, even (God help us!) Comic Sans. Together they constitute a  'grapheme'  -- a written unit of communication, analogous to a phoneme in spoken language. Likewise a 'graph' corresponds to a 'phone'. Why am I telling this to a World Expert, it's 'Linguistics 101' is it not?


User avatar
factotum
Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:15 pm

Post by factotum » Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:31 pm

I've never been entirely clear as to the status of the AHG members. Whether delegates of particular organisations, or simply a number of people somehow selected to (a) represent all views, and (b) likely to be able to come to some sort of agreement before hell freezes over. Nor whether they were supposed to be working from a brief, or simply free to decide for themselves (like MPs).
Can anyone clarify?




User avatar
factotum
Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:15 pm

Post by factotum » Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:35 pm

Michael, your concern for the poor unrepresented Kernewegoryon who preocclude is touching. How many do you think there actually are? How many of those feel the need to express their speech impediment in writing? And how many of them would ever use KK in any case?


User avatar
Evertype
Posts: 3167
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:29 am
Contact:

Post by Evertype » Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:21 am


Keith, I use the word “graph” when I mean the word “graph”, and I use the word “grapheme” when I mean the word grapheme. You are welcome to visit the page on my website which is a bibliography of over 200 successful proposals to encode writing systems and characters; read all of them and then come back and explain to me why you feel you need to try to instruct me about the terminology of writing systems. 

User avatar
Evertype
Posts: 3167
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:29 am
Contact:

Post by Evertype » Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:26 am


factotum said:
I've never been entirely clear as to the status of the AHG members. Whether delegates of particular organisations, or simply a number of people somehow selected to (a) represent all views, and (b) likely to be able to come to some sort of agreement before hell freezes over. Nor whether they were supposed to be working from a brief, or simply free to decide for themselves (like MPs).
Can anyone clarify?


What the hell kind of dodge is this? You accuse me of not being appointed to speak on anyone's behalf. I point out that in the very AHG Process itself I was appointed by one of the constituent parties of the CLP, and I point out that your "side" disenfranchised Agan Tavas by bullying tactics which obliged them to choose someone else for my spot on the AHG. Your response is to wonder about the AHG "in general"? Wow. They must have really cut you off. 

User avatar
Evertype
Posts: 3167
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:29 am
Contact:

Post by Evertype » Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:27 am


factotum said:
Michael, your concern for the poor unrepresented Kernewegoryon who preocclude is touching. How many do you think there actually are? How many of those feel the need to express their speech impediment in writing? And how many of them would ever use KK in any case?


Your disrespect for and dismissal of pre-occlusion disgusts me. Shame on you! You are no friend of Cornish.

User avatar
factotum
Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:15 pm

Post by factotum » Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:22 am

Sorry, Micheal, I must be more understanding of those with disabilities.
I know you believe your were appointed to represent AT on the AHG, and we all know you were manipulating one of the actual AHG members by remote control. What I was asking (of anyone who might actually know) was whether the Partnership saw things in that light. Did they in fact view your name when it was put forward as the chosen one of AT, or did they simply put it in the hat, with all the other names that had been suggested? Was the person who acted as your proxy seen as a delegate, indeed was the group as a whole seen as delegates, or simply as a representative selection of independent individuals representing their own differing perspectives. I've heard it all ways. Does anyone really know what the official line was, or indeed was it left vague on purpose -- yet another political fudge?


User avatar
Marhak
Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:46 am

Post by Marhak » Sun Aug 30, 2009 4:43 am

Had you involved yourself in the process, Keith, you wouldn't have to ask those questions.  It was your choice not to participate and, indeed, to distance yourself from it.  In which case, you deprived yourself of the right to question the process, in the same way as those who don't bother to vote have no right to moan about the elected government.
Your dismissal of pre-occlusion - a natural development of Cornish while still a community vernacular - as a 'speech impediment' shows amazing ignorance.  On the same basis, should we also reject early medieval assibilation - another peculiarity of Cornish development not shared by other Brythonic languages - on the same terms?  Go back to using 'nant, pont, arghant, etc."?  Was that also a 'speech impediment'?  Your attitude is quite unbelievable.

User avatar
Marhak
Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:46 am

Post by Marhak » Sun Aug 30, 2009 4:57 am

I do wonder about your thought processes at times, Pieter.  In what way was my comment regarding Grade-type exams a curmudgeonly comment about 'Skeul an Tavas'?  Nor, in my view, was it curmudgeonly.  The Grade exams are outdated and outmoded.  They're half a century out of date.  Education has moved on since the original Language Board introduced them.  The Languages Ladder is the current process of examination/education and it took the Partnership to realise that because the Board didn't.  That's not curmudgeonly comment.  It's fact.

Morvil
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 6:30 am

Post by Morvil » Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:07 am


factotum said:
“It is within their power to allow the word for 'tongue' to be spelled in its Tudor and Late form tavas rather than its earlier form taves, but to single out this one word for special treatment makes no linguistic sense, not unless they allow equivalent spellings, for words such as lowan, gwydhan(n),  edrak … and many dozens more. This is just conlanging, and brings the SWF into disrepute."


I agree with you where tavas ~ taves is concerned. It's quite unnecessary. Nevertheless, many people have a strong view on this, I suspect because of the name of the organisation "Agan Tavas". Taves has the "correct" etymological vowel, the familiar alternation taves ~ tavosow and can be pronounced with schwa /"tav@s/.
Your mock-reconstruction *gwydhan(n) is, of course, incorrect, because it would be *gwedhan in the SWF. Again, I agree in as much as SWF gwedhen can be pronounced /"gweD@n/.
Incidentally, lowan, or SWF lowen, is in the same lexical set as the word for "Cornish language": Kernowek. The development of stressed ow before a vowel is /"u:.@/ in Late Cornish which is why we find spellings like looan, lûan (for earlier lowen) and Curnooack and Kernûak (for earlier Cornowok).
Nance assumed ew to be an earlier stage, as in clewes and later clowes, but the diphthong was never monophthongised in Late Cornish, where we find klouaz (dotted-u) and klyuaz (dotted-y, dotted-u). There are two lexical sets here the clewes-words with ew > ow and the lowen-words with ow (which become /u:/ before a vowel). Kernowek is clearly in the latter set and the historical form. Kernewek is a mistaken reconstruction, however popular it has become.




Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests