Page 16 of 17

Re: Enys Tresour dyllys in Kernowek

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 7:31 pm
by GanO
Whethel yn kever 'talentys' yma y'n Bybel, mars yu mas ow hof, ha'n try broder-ma a gafas talentys yn ertons dyworth aga thas.

An kensa anedha a spenas y ran yn ufer hag eth boghosek glan kens hyr.

An nessa a usyas y dalentys yn prederus fur hag o gyllys esel sowyn ascorus a'y gowethas.

Ha pyth adro dhe'n tressa anedha (‎אידיוט חסר תועלת —'Kÿth bar Bêlly' y hanow)? Dyeth mur o dhodho usya y dalentys man, hag ef a's encledhyas yn dan dhor ma nag o 'vas nanyl dhe dhew na dhe dhen na dhe vest vyth y'n bys. Mes ef eth yn rak, del o usyes dhodho, yn un groffolas hag yn un gyny del o pup huny aral ow qwastya y dermyn ow tyllo hag o trelya hag ow qwruthyl dafar a bup eghen rak aga Heskernewegoryon.

Herwyth y lavar y honen, "Fest yn ta a won pandra usy y'n brechtan hep res y vlasa: yma caugh, tra vyth saw caugh!"

'Goef, ellas, ogh ha tru, gwyn yn certan ef nyns yu,
Mes passyon tyn, joy wherow, payn hag anken na verow!'
…del scryfas Caradar (moy po le).

Re: Enys Tresour dyllys in Kernowek

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 7:40 pm
by Karesk
Keith's spelling system is not a "mockery". As far as I can understand, KK is a representation of a sound system most (perhaps not all) of which is generally accepted to have existed in Cornish at some time, and Keith's system is his offering of an attempt to refine KK. The argument, it seems to me, is about precisely what some of the sounds actually were and if and when they changed. I don't think that Keith's spelling will catch on in the modern language, any more than KS. But neither is a mockery. I would prefer to take both as honest attempts to express some individuals' perspectives on the language, and to take what I can from what these individuals offer. If some people prefer to see them as something to fight over, so be it - that, too, is part of life's rich tapestry I suppose!

Re: Enys Tresour dyllys in Kernowek

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 7:44 pm
by GanO
Carrek a scryfas, "Na wra hedna dha lettya dhort scrifa Shaggek, secund brassa mockyans an tavas (kens an scrifa-composter marow Saundrek heb mar."

Dha amuvyans yu nebes gwell es dha arsmetyk, del grysaf. Ty a dalvya leverel "Peswera brassa mockyans" wosa KK ha Saundrek hag FSS/K."
8-)

Re: Enys Tresour dyllys in Kernowek

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 7:59 pm
by Evertype
Karesk wrote:As far as I can understand, KK is a representation of a sound system most (perhaps not all) of which is generally accepted to have existed in Cornish at some time,
I would not agree. The fact that the proposed reconstruction is controversial is why hundreds of pages have been published showing how the evidence of the texts does not fit the theory. The phonological theory underlying KK has not accepted by academic researchers to have existed in Cornish, and indeed the recommended pronunciation of KK has not been taken up by speakers of the revived language (including the devisor of KK).

That is why more recent work has been in analysing the actual phonology of modern dialects (and that means the one attempted, even if there is L1 interference from English). In Skeul an Tavas this is the phonology which is described. It's the phonology that makes it possible for speakers of the revived language to understand one another—because it's the phonology they actually use.

KS does a better job at accurately representing that phonology than the SWF does.

Re: Enys Tresour dyllys in Kernowek

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:07 pm
by Karesk
Dha amuvyans yu nebes gwell es dha arsmetyk, del grysaf. Ty a dalvya leverel "Peswera brassa mockyans" wosa KK ha Saundrek hag FSS/K."
8-)[/quote]

Ni a wrug agan kammwrians marwel pan derrsyn ni yn kynsa lagha an dhrewydhyon na wrellen skrifa travyth.

Re: Enys Tresour dyllys in Kernowek

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:36 pm
by Anselm
Yma elvenn a wiryonedh y'n pyth a leverydh.
Yth yw meur y les (ha dedheurek fest, erbynn prederi) bones gwell gans nebes tus folsa blewennow yn kever skrifans agan yeth es gul oberow gwiw rag darlesa hy howsow.

Re: Enys Tresour dyllys in Kernowek

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:13 am
by Anselm
Res eth pub tra dhe gosel ... re gosel ...

Yn le kyn fe, yth harthas ki ...

Re: Enys Tresour dyllys in Kernowek

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:30 pm
by factotum
Ny wrug an ki travyth yn termyn an nos ...

Re: Enys Tresour dyllys in Kernowek

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:06 am
by Anselm
Mes pandr'o an 'dravyth' na wrug ev?

Re: Enys Tresour dyllys in Kernowek

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:20 pm
by factotum
Pur wir, yma'n fleghez marthyz kosel y'n eur-ma. Ke, mar pleg, ha gwelez pandr'a wrons i, yn unn govynn orte y hedhi ev.

Re: Enys Tresour dyllys in Kernowek

Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:42 pm
by Morvil
Evertype wrote:
Karesk wrote:As far as I can understand, KK is a representation of a sound system most (perhaps not all) of which is generally accepted to have existed in Cornish at some time,
I would not agree. The fact that the proposed reconstruction is controversial is why hundreds of pages have been published showing how the evidence of the texts does not fit the theory. The phonological theory underlying KK has not accepted by academic researchers to have existed in Cornish, and indeed the recommended pronunciation of KK has not been taken up by speakers of the revived language (including the devisor of KK).
This is not entirely true. There are academics who accept Ken George's phonology in part at least. Peter Schrijver, for example, accepts the theory of the two o-sounds (KK ‹o› : ‹oe›). Other academics have differing views on issues such as assibilation, pre-occlusion, vocalic alternation differing from the publications you are referring to. It is absolutely legitimate to have differing opinions on such matters. They become flaws only when dogmatically implemented in an orthography and I mean several co-called orthographic camps.
Evertype wrote:That is why more recent work has been in analysing the actual phonology of modern dialects (and that means the one attempted, even if there is L1 interference from English). In Skeul an Tavas this is the phonology which is described. It's the phonology that makes it possible for speakers of the revived language to understand one another—because it's the phonology they actually use.

KS does a better job at accurately representing that phonology than the SWF does.
I'm sure Ken George would claim the same thing about KK, Gendall about Modern Cornish, Tim Saunders about his one man orthography etc., etc., etc...

Re: Enys Tresour dyllys in Kernowek

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:07 am
by Anselm
Mes ny vern a vo 'degemmerys' agan yeth gans gwas an eyl po mab y gila. Ny a vydh orth hy devnydhya puptydh oll: ott dallethh ha diwedh an vater.

Re: Enys Tresour dyllys in Kernowek

Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 2:17 am
by factotum
The best evidence for /o/ vs /O/ (or as I prefer /U/ vs /O/) is the use of 'u' (and rarely 'oy') for the former in final *unstressed* syllables. The grapheme 'u' is available here because MC spells phonetically as far as its resources permit, so that /y, i, I/ neutralised in this position are all written 'y' so freeing up 'u' to represent /o/. This is further backed up by the choice of rhymes. If the 'two o's' remained distinct in this weak position it is most unlikely that they merged in stressed syllables. In stressed monosyllables digraphs such as 'oy' and 'ou' etc. are used for /o/ in some mss where the vowel is long. When short and stressed 'u' is often used for /o/. There is some confusion here but the distinction is statistically significant way beyond chance levels. It is a general property of the MC mss that they will not use digraphs for the stressed half-long vowels in polysyllables. As a result they have no 'machinery' to distinguish /o/ vs /O/ nor /I/ vs /E/. This is no surprise since this is a well known feature of Middle English spelling (but not pronunciation). LC texts probably need to be analysed on an individual basis, since each author spells differently, but do show some evidence for the '2 o's' remaining distinct.

Prag yma denvyth hwath owth argye adro dhe hemma??
Pam mae neb yn malu awyr am hyn o hyd??

Re: Enys Tresour dyllys in Kernowek

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 7:04 am
by Anselm
Gorthybow, mar pleg, war gartenn bost ...

Re: Enys Tresour dyllys in Kernowek

Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:18 pm
by Anselm
Karesk wrote:Keith's spelling system is not a "mockery". As far as I can understand, KK is a representation of a sound system most (perhaps not all) of which is generally accepted to have existed in Cornish at some time, and Keith's system is his offering of an attempt to refine KK. The argument, it seems to me, is about precisely what some of the sounds actually were and if and when they changed. I don't think that Keith's spelling will catch on in the modern language, any more than KS. But neither is a mockery. I would prefer to take both as honest attempts to express some individuals' perspectives on the language, and to take what I can from what these individuals offer. If some people prefer to see them as something to fight over, so be it - that, too, is part of life's rich tapestry I suppose!
Yma meur a wiryonedh y'n pyth a leverydh. Y'n gwettha prys, nyns yw an oll unnver genes.