Spellyans

A new forum dedicated to Kernewek - the Cornish language, Cornish culture and the history of the Duchy of Cornwall
User avatar
Evertype
Posts: 3167
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:29 am
Contact:

Re: Spellyans

Post by Evertype » Sun Feb 06, 2011 7:43 pm

factotum wrote:Procurya (a word I've never seen used in Cornish myself) occurs once only in Tregear.
That's right. This is what Williams says about this:

"This word is attested once in Tregear’s Homilies: may halla eff bos lene a vercy the procuria mercy rag pehosow an bobyll ‘that he might be full of mercy to procure mercy for the sins of the people’ TH 13. After his entry George adds a note: “N.B. Use kavoes or gwaynya.” In English the word ‘procure’ has some technical senses, in particular ‘to get for immoral purposes, to pimp’. If, God forbid, one were talking or writing about such matters in Cornish, gwaynya ‘to win’ would be quite wrong and cafus ‘to get’ (Kernowek Kemyn kavoes) not specific enough. From the linguistic point of view, I should rather say Yth esa ow procurya mowysy rag horyans ‘He was procuring girls for prostitution’ to Yth esa ow cafus mowysy rag horyans, which is less clear. I certainly would not say Yth esa ow quaynya mowysy ‘He was winning girls’ in such a context. George’s note is quite out of place."
A couple of lines above he uses the English word 'according' and a couple of lines after the word 'captivite'. So these should also be recommended for use in Revived Cornish?
I don't have anything against captyvyta or acordyng dhe. (Note the prepositional government there.) Part of what makes Cornish Cornish is its flexibility in assimilating loanwords. Who are you to reject words attested in traditional Cornish?

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

Re: Spellyans

Post by Evertype » Sun Feb 06, 2011 7:56 pm

Palores wrote:So far as one can tell, the unstressed vowel in termyn was not schwa in Late Cornish. It was nearly always spelled <e>.
Both termyn and termen are /termən/ whether the schwa is realized as schwa or schwi. How it was written is irrelevant. In English, written may be [ˈɹɪtᵻn] or [ˈɹɪtən] or [ˈɹɪtn̩]; it is the same principle. I note that Gendall gives both termen and termin.

Interesting that you say that the vowel was not schwa because of the way that it was spelled. Of course the orthography had no way of writing ə. But more likely you're just confused about the difference between phonology and orthography.

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

Re: Spellyans

Post by Evertype » Sun Feb 06, 2011 8:04 pm

factotum wrote:Michael : If as you claim, there was no longer an /I/ phoneme in Middle Cornish, then you would have no need go running around putting silly marks on the 'y's in your 'bys' words. The fact that you do is part of the evidence for there being three distinct vowels /i/ vs /I/ vs /E/. You are simply not making sense.
Incorrect. And this has been explained to you many times.

mis [miːz] rhymes with bÿs [biːz] and does not rhyme with bys [bɪz]. And mis [miːz] also does not have a dialect alternation *[meːz]. But since bÿs does have a dialect alternation bës [beːz], we allow the pair bÿs~bës so that people may write the form they prefer but (since this belongs to a very large class of words) the orthography also signals the alternation to speakers of the other dialect, to aid in comprehension.

If you were to read Treasure Island, Keith, you would find mostly bës forms, because that's what Nicholas prefers. But you'll recognize them as what you would write bÿs, were you to write in the same orthography.

This isn't very hard. Your inability to fathom it must be wilful.

Palores
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 2:21 pm

Re: Spellyans

Post by Palores » Sun Feb 06, 2011 8:38 pm

Both termyn and termen are /termən/ ... How it was written is irrelevant.
I shall not pursue this in this forum. I can see that I am dealing with someone with a closed mind.

User avatar
Anselm
Posts: 1566
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:04 pm

Re: Spellyans

Post by Anselm » Sun Feb 06, 2011 8:54 pm

Yn-hwir ny dal mann. Ny vern assaya denya gwas na woer agan yeth ni dhe brederi yn hy hever herwydh reson ha skians.
Anselm

'Against a promontory my ship' Rump L. Stiltz-Kinn

'With regret I feel that unless you have a serious change of heart your presence at the Mennaye on Cornish Pirates match days is no longer desired.'
Rod Coward
CEO
Cornish Pirates

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

Re: Spellyans

Post by factotum » Sun Feb 06, 2011 9:08 pm

Not simply closed but completely illogical and self-contradictory. And Tim, I can only refer you to the history of Welsh spelling in the C19. The confusion sown by Owen-Pugh was only finally brought to an end once a proper logical and scientific study had been made of the language and its history. Without such one person's crack-pot theory was no better than another's. The same will probably be true for Cornish, although since Williams has done a good job in promoting pseudo-science, and indeed further splitting the Revival we can look forward to a good few more decades of chaos before things settle down. During this period the Revival will be weakened and may even go backwards as is probably happening already.

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

Re: Spellyans

Post by factotum » Sun Feb 06, 2011 9:11 pm

The Williams citation for 'procurya' is different from the one I found, so it probably occurs twice in TH.

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

Re: Spellyans

Post by factotum » Sun Feb 06, 2011 9:21 pm

I reject the Tregearisms cited because 'according' is a plain English word adding nothing to Cornish 'herwydh', and 'captivite' is simply the English word 'captivity' lifted out of Bonner with the spelling almost unchanged (Bonner 'captivitie'). We are bound to drop English words into our Cornish now and again, some will be a passing fad, and some my find a lasting place in the language. The point is there is nothing special about most of the English words in TH, no reason to use them or avoid them as against any other English word -- they have no special status. Last night on S4C I heard several Welsh speakers slip the word 'fantastic' into their fluent Welsh. (Or ffantastig maybe?) We could do the same in Cornish if we thought it extended the language somehow. It wouldn't matter one jot that Tregear happened not to use it.

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

Re: Spellyans

Post by factotum » Sun Feb 06, 2011 9:54 pm

Micheal is forever telling us that "Cornish is not Breton" and "Cornish is not Welsh", true, though it resembles those languages in many important respects. However it most certainly is not English, so English pronunciation habits cannot be used as evidence for how Cornish ought to be pronounced. Rather the opposite, they point up habits that we need to take care not to carry over into Cornish. Btw. I don't see any evidence in Late Cornish verse to suggest that all unstressed vowels are identical. Indeed the rhymes are a good deal better than I would have expected, and show almost without exception, only the regular mergers. E.g. /E/ and /I/ merge in stressed syllables as 'ea', but in unstressed finals /I/ > 'e', whereas already before 1600 /E/ > 'a'.

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

Re: Spellyans

Post by factotum » Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:09 pm

Where in the corpus does _mis_ (or similar) rhyme with _byz_ (or similar)? Admit it, you're just making it up.

An unstressed word like _byz_ ('as far as, up to') cannot rhyme with anything, because unstressed words can't be used as rhymes in Cornish (or Welsh or Breton), you simply haven't clue what you're on about.

The change from _byz_ to _bez_ ('beaze' etc.) took place sometime a little after 1600. It is a difference of time, not of place (dialect). This is not the first time you and NJAW have confused the two (e.g. re 'preocclusion'). Can anyone still have any confidence in your knowledge of this field?

I could no doubt read Williams' Muddle Cornish, since I can read the original MC and LC texts --- I already know the language pretty well. That is not the point, I am scarcely a typical reader.

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

Re: Spellyans

Post by Evertype » Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:42 pm

Palores wrote:
Both termyn and termen are /termən/ ... How it was written is irrelevant.
I shall not pursue this in this forum. I can see that I am dealing with someone with a closed mind.
I guess I can tell I'm dealing with a scaredy-cat.

It does not take a "closed mind" to observe that MC and LC orthographies were based on different principles, and it does not take a "closed mind" to be able to read the texts and interpret them. The phonology of traditional Cornish was worked out by Jenner, and if you don't believe me, just read it. I know what he did, because I studied his texts very closely as I prepared a new annotated edition of the Handbook. By and large, the phonology which Jenner recommended is the same one which we now recommend, and it is completely compatible with the way in which Revivalists speak Cornish today, though in many cases their vowels are less pure than they ought to be.

Attempts in the mid 1980s to "reconstruct" a phonology "untainted" by Old English, Middle English, or Early Modern English (or Cornubo-English) phonology failed to bear any fruit. Nobody speaks with geminate consonants or with half length. The inventor of the system doesn't do it, and the leading teachers don't do it, and neither do the students. Keith bemoans the fact that teachers are bad and that's why the students aren't speaking like beautiful pure Brythonic people who lived in a world without Saxons.

You folks were running the Revival for two decades. They were your bad teachers. It's your failure. Time to give it up. You don't get more time to sell a bogus phonology that you yourselves don't even use. Nobody wants it.

(Keith, if you do use this phonology, prove it with a recording.)

What the Revival needs is not a lame insistence that the failed theories of the mid-1980s were correct. (Cornish Today and Writings on Revived Cornish and Towards Authentic Cornish put that fantasy to bed anyway.) It needs a re-assessment of the direction of the Revival. Pretending that English didn't influence Cornish phonology is pointless, and anyway it makes sense to take advantage of English phonology of all of the learners of Cornish as a basis for improving pronunciation in an achievable way.

Palores won't do that, though. Because I've got a closed mind. Palores will just dig those heels right in, and insist that the failed experiments of the mid-1980s really were right despite the failure of the Revival to recognize their genius.

But I've got a closed mind. :roll:

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

Re: Spellyans

Post by Evertype » Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:47 pm

factotum wrote:Where in the corpus does _mis_ (or similar) rhyme with _byz_ (or similar)? Admit it, you're just making it up.

An unstressed word like _byz_ ('as far as, up to') cannot rhyme with anything, because unstressed words can't be used as rhymes in Cornish (or Welsh or Breton), you simply haven't clue what you're on about.
Disingenuous twaddle.

mis [miːz] 'month' rhymes with bÿs [biːz] 'world' and does not rhyme with bys [bɪz] 'until' in the Revived Language, except for those people who say bës [beːz] 'world'.
The change from _byz_ to _bez_ ('beaze' etc.) took place sometime a little after 1600. It is a difference of time, not of place (dialect).
Williams put that theory to rest in Towards Authentic Cornish.

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

Re: Spellyans

Post by Evertype » Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:50 pm

factotum wrote:The Williams citation for 'procurya' is different from the one I found, so it probably occurs twice in TH.
Procuria once, procurijs once.

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

Re: Spellyans

Post by factotum » Mon Feb 07, 2011 12:14 am

"Disingenuous twaddle." Bollocks, Michael (It's so nice to debate with a real professional linguist)

"mis [miːz] 'month' rhymes with bÿs [biːz] 'world' and does not rhyme with bys [bɪz] 'until' in the Revived Language, except for those people who say bës [beːz] 'world'."

On no it doesn't. You're making it up, making up your own Cornish, a made-up language (now where have I heard that?)

OK, Revived Cornish has to be "made up" to some extent, but we make it up with reference to the historical language, you just make it up as you like. If Michael Everson says _byz_ rhymes with _mis_ then it does, 'cus he's got a brain the size of a planet and once did a course in Indoeuropean. I hereby decree that henceforth 'cat' shall rhyme with 'dog' and Cornwall shall be a free nation and rule the world.

Makes as much sense!

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

Re: Spellyans

Post by Evertype » Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:49 am

factotum wrote:
Evertype wrote:mis [miːz] 'month' rhymes with bÿs [biːz] 'world' and does not rhyme with bys [bɪz] 'until' in the Revived Language, except for those people who say bës [beːz] 'world'."
On no it doesn't. You're making it up, making up your own Cornish, a made-up language (now where have I heard that?)
It most certainly does so rhyme. I know many good speakers of Cornish. RMC speakers amongst them all rhyme mis 'month' and bÿs 'world' (with [iːz]). RTC and RLC speakers amongst them rhyme res 'necessary' and bës 'world' (with [eːz]).
OK, Revived Cornish has to be "made up" to some extent, but we make it up with reference to the historical language, you just make it up as you like.
I didn't make this up. I describe it.

And anyway, your disingenuous twaddle is not diminished by your trying to come up with a red herring. You know perfectly well that Nance wrote mȳs [miːz] 'month' and bȳs [biːz] 'world' (citing beys, bēs [beːz]) right alongside bys [bɪz] 'until'.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests