Orthography, Revival and Change.

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

Re: Orthography, Revival and Change.

Post by Evertype » Sun Feb 13, 2011 1:13 pm

Morvil wrote:For byw you take the long vowel in bys, i.e. the vowel of English 'beer' (pronounced in the south-eastern way without sounding the 'r'), take away the [z] and replace it with [w] or the short 'u' in 'pull'.
For clew you take the long vowel in cres, i.e. the vowel of English 'bear' or 'bare' (pronounced in the south-eastern way without sounding the 'r'), replace 'r' in cres with 'l' in clew, take away the [z] and replace it with [w] or the short 'u' in 'pull'.
You have the same vocalic contrast in byw and clew as you have it in bys and cres.
It sounds as though you are describing [bɪːz] and [krɛːz] alongside [bɪʊ] and [klɛʊ]. What I hear from revivalists is [biːz] and [kreːz] alongside [biʊ] and [klɛʊ].

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

Re: Orthography, Revival and Change.

Post by Morvil » Sun Feb 13, 2011 2:21 pm

Tennven was asking how to distinguish between <yw> and <ew>. I assumed he wanted to know how to pronounce the contrast as recommended for KK and SWF/M for early Middle Cornish.

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

Re: Orthography, Revival and Change.

Post by Morvil » Sun Feb 13, 2011 2:25 pm

Evertype:
What I hear from revivalists is [biːz] and [kreːz] alongside [biʊ] and [klɛʊ].
What I hear from Revivalists is often [bɪz], [bɪs], [beɪz] and [kɹɛz], [kɹeɪz] and [bjʏʊ] and [klʏʊ], but I still wouldn't write them that way.

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

Re: Orthography, Revival and Change.

Post by Evertype » Sun Feb 13, 2011 2:33 pm

Morvil wrote:Tennven was asking how to distinguish between <yw> and <ew>. I assumed he wanted to know how to pronounce the contrast as recommended for KK and SWF/M for early Middle Cornish.
I find it perplexing that Albert and Ben equated this "early Middle Cornish" in the SWF with KK phonology, in part because no one uses it, and in part because there are plenty of people who use UC who also prefer "early Middle Cornish"; the SWF document does not recognize that there are two phonologies recommended for RMC, in addition to the phonologies recommended for RTC and RLC. (The phonologies for the UC/UCR/RLC RMC~RTC~RLC form a continuous spectrum while the phonology for KK RMC stands apart.)

It seems that since few if anyone uses KK's "recommended" phnology there is little point in attempting to re-inforce it by constant repetition. If Revivalists pronounce yw as [iʊ] and ys as [iːz], why should one be such a stickler for writing [ɪʊ] and [ɪːz]? At what point will realism begin to attract people?
Last edited by Evertype on Sun Feb 13, 2011 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Orthography, Revival and Change.

Post by Evertype » Sun Feb 13, 2011 2:43 pm

Morvil wrote:Evertype:
What I hear from revivalists is [biːz] and [kreːz] alongside [biʊ] and [klɛʊ].
What I hear from Revivalists is often [bɪz], [bɪs], [beɪz] and [kɹɛz], [kɹeɪz] and [bjʏʊ] and [klʏʊ], but I still wouldn't write them that way.
My point is that when we hear the long vowel we hear it as as [biːz] not [bɪːz]; yes, some people mistakenly pronounce a short vowel, but that is a different problem. (Of course writing regularly bys for short [bɪz] and bÿs for long [biːz](~[beːz] helps to alleviate that problem.)

Similarly, we may bear [kɹeɪz] instead of the preferred [kɹeːz], but this is something that can be improved. And yes, [kɹɛz] is a mistake, since the rule is that cres has a long vowel [kɹeːz]. And my point was that I don't see why you would prefer [kɹɛːz] since /kɹeːz/ is evidently the target ([eɪ] being an allophone of [eː]), and /e/ is realized mostly as [eː]~[ɛ].

Of course the big problem in the yw and ew words is that people are stressing the wrong mora of the diphthong, as /ju/ rather than /iw/ and /ew/. (At least everyone agrees about that.)

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

Re: Orthography, Revival and Change.

Post by factotum » Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:49 pm

Thanks again, Albert. I'm not surprised there are a few words which cross over in Breton. But given that the contrast between original /I/ and /E/ appears to have largely survived in Breton, it would not seem to be so outrageous to suggest that it still existed in Middle Cornish although obscured to some extent by the orthography. The merger of /Iw/ and /Ew/ (where /Ew/ had not changed to /Ow/) was probably the beginning of the almost general merger or /I/ and /E/ in Late Cornish. /i/ and /iw/ seem to have remained distinct throughout, at least when stressed. What I'm not yet clear about is exactly how /y/ developed. When stressed and long [y:] it appears to have unrounded to LC [i:], but in other cases (which exactly?) it was probably realised as [Y] unrounding to and ending as LC [e]. Has anyone tried to look at this in detail?

Pokorny
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Orthography, Revival and Change.

Post by Pokorny » Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:56 pm

Regarding the persistence of opposition between OC /ɪw/ and /ew/: apparently these fell together and were realised as [ɛʊ] in closed syllables early enough for the diphthong to become /ɔw/ in LC.
C.f. byw > bew, bywe > bewa but bewnans > bownans.
Where the nucleus of the diphthong was originally lengthened allophonically, early MC texts have <yw> and later MC as well as LC ones have <ew>. Where it was short to begin with, *all* MC texts have <ew> and LC has <ow>.

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

Re: Orthography, Revival and Change.

Post by Anselm » Sun Feb 13, 2011 11:28 pm

Arloedh Vreusydh, yn Trewarvenydh skant ny vydhons ow kampoella ken dra vyth ...
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

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

Re: Orthography, Revival and Change.

Post by Palores » Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:01 pm

Pokorny wrote:
Jackson's interpretation of this word's [KK klywes] history is quite surely incorrect.
..... in which case the KK spelling is also incorrect. I shall endeavour to get it changed.

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

Re: Orthography, Revival and Change.

Post by Palores » Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:07 pm

Pokorny wrote:

[quote]C.f. byw > bew, bywe > bewa but bewnans > bownans.

Is it signifcant that bewnans > bownans changed much later than clewes > clowes?

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

Re: Orthography, Revival and Change.

Post by Marhak » Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:10 pm

As far as we know - God knows how many more texts lie out there and yet to be discovered.

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

Re: Orthography, Revival and Change.

Post by factotum » Mon Feb 14, 2011 10:36 pm

Don't worry, Tim's probably busy writing them as we speak (any requests for subject matter?)

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

Another tj/dj

Post by Evertype » Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:27 pm

Palores wrote:Pokorny wrote:
Jackson's interpretation of this word's [KK klywes] history is quite surely incorrect.
..... in which case the KK spelling is also incorrect. I shall endeavour to get it changed.
Nicholas Williams pointed this out in 1995.

CJenkin
Posts: 1332
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 1:01 pm

Re: Orthography, Revival and Change.

Post by CJenkin » Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:48 pm

Palores wrote:Pokorny wrote:
Jackson's interpretation of this word's [KK klywes] history is quite surely incorrect.
..... in which case the KK spelling is also incorrect. I shall endeavour to get it changed.
If this is the case then it has an implication for speakers and result in different pronunciation than is being used by most at present. The point I made earlier was that the present pronunciation indicated by the spelling is largely what has been used since unified days. It would be good to see if there is any evidence of Nance rhyming Kl(y/e)w with tew.

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

Re: Orthography, Revival and Change.

Post by Evertype » Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:03 pm

Nance writes clew and tew.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests