carrek wrote:m ow qwerthveurhe en town ober Nicholas, agan yeth a via gweth hebdho."
Yes, and then you accused him of pedantry.
Th erom ow kemeres y erviryansow onen hag onen.
As an aside, it seems to me that "Th'erof vy kemeres" is a more likely formulation than "Th'erom ow kemeres". Of course I might be mistaken.
Th erom owth usya gerlever Nicholas drefen y vos gerlever pur dha. Nag eus geryow lowr dhe erlever Ken.
The same principles Nicholas used in devising words in his very good dictionary are the ones he has applied in making this recent choice. But you are free to pick and choose.
Geryow ew usyes dres degvledhednow ha degvledhednow, ha tus ew gyllys usys gansans.
Lots of folks have used in kever
for a long time, too. That doesn't make it good Cornish.
Na vedn anjei puppres chanjya an fordh ujons ow cowsel drefen udn dhen dhe formya damcanieth nowyth. Drog ew genam mar nag ew da genes hedna, bus henn ew an fordh ew taclow.
I'm not bothered by the fact that you have an opinion. You are of course welcome to have an opinion. Beybel
is not just a matter of theory, however. Middle English bible
would have ended up as bîbla
in Cornish. Early Modern English would have ended up as beybel
Nag era edhom dhe nei chanjya an ger 'bibel'.
There wasn't any "need" for Ken George to change from othem
with [θ] to edhom
with [ð], but he did so on foot of a comment Kenneth Jackson made about a Breton word. You're using that word, evidently unaware that it is theoretically problematic. We prefer othem
. Are you going to complain about that?