Spellyans Watch -- Goelva Spellyans

A new forum dedicated to Kernewek - the Cornish language, Cornish culture and the history of the Duchy of Cornwall
pietercharles
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:51 am

Post by pietercharles » Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:33 am


Evertype said:
Superciliousness, thy pseudonym is PieterCharles.


And, given the evidence below (which is from just this one thread - there is plenty more, and worse, in nearly all the other language threads), one can only conclude that

Superciliousness and Hypocrisy thy pseudonyms are Evertype.


Evertype said:
; Oh look! Naïve folk etymology!; What Keith says...is a bunch of bull; Hee hee hee, Keith. Hee hee hee; Conan favours us frequently with pronouncements which pretend linguistic prowess; You really are a bore, Keith. As well as a boor; So I know a lot more about this than you do; Poor fellow. I feel sorry for you; Pathetic loser; What a splendidly mean-spirited smarty-pants answer; Poor Albert; Don't be naïve; You can play in whatever playground you want; What a sad little man you are; Typical smarm; He stoops to metaphor!; Your persistent cool hostility is ever so gracious; Your own SWF specification is, in fact, offensive; Poor dear "Pieter"



Evertype said:
By the gods, the Revival deserves better than this.


And it got you instead. Yndella yw an bys, huh? Yndella yw an bys.

Now, we're all trying to quieten things down here rather than start to inflame things again, so let's go back to trying. Only a little harder this time.

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

Post by Marhak » Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:25 am

And, predictably, "Pieter" repeats himself yet again: "We're all trying to quieten things down here rather than inflame things again". One only has to read through some his recent posts to see just how insincere that sentiment is.

"Let's go back to trying", he says. "Pieter", you've never stopped. You've been trying since Day One. Very trying.

Morvran
Posts: 2192
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:48 am

Post by Morvran » Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:32 am


Everson said:
Jenner ... distinguished /ø/ from /y/, for instance.



Ass yw henna pur goynt! Ny dhuryas naneyl /ø/ na /y/ byz yn termyn Kerneweg Diwedhez.

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

Post by Evertype » Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:04 am

You haven't read Jenner, have you?

Bardh
Posts: 1764
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:18 pm

Post by Bardh » Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:18 pm


morvran said:
[quote=Everson]Jenner ... distinguished /ø/ from /y/, for instance.



Ass yw henna pur goynt! Ny dhuryas naneyl /ø/ na /y/ byz yn termyn Kerneweg Diwedhez.[/quote]

Pur goynt, kepar dell leversis. Dhe woedhvos pandra esa war y dowl ytho?

R3D3
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 10:08 pm

Post by R3D3 » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:34 am

Williams: George less damaging to the revival than Nance!




At the risk of making myself even more unpopular, I would say that
George didn't really do the most damage to the revival.
The damage was done by Nance [howls of outrage from various quarters].
Nance was an antiquarian, not a linguist. He was meticulous as a
scholar, but when it came to the reconstruction of Cornish he had some
interlocking prejudices (?preferences) which ultimately did great
damage.

He was quintessentially obscurantist. He hated water in pipes and
preferred drawing it from the well. He loathed telegraph poles because
they spoilt the view and because they were new-fangled.
In a word Nance was anti-modern. This is reflected in Unified Cornish.
Instead of developing Jenner's Cornish, based on the later materials
but using the
earlier sources (a process later I described as tota Cornicitas)
Nance went back deliberately to the fifteenth century. His foundation
text was the Passion Poem, the most archaic and indeed obscure piece
of writing in Middle Cornish. This was consonant with Nance's
preferences, but it did mean that the revival was backward looking and
archaising.
To make matters worse Nance preferred the invented word or the word
found only in Old Cornish (12th century) to the ordinary word in the
Middle and Late periods, because such later items were too English. As
a result for years the revival has been saddled with
stevel 'room', kenethel 'nation', enep 'face', avon 'river', mil
'animal', etc. when the actual words used were rom, nacyon, fâss,
ryver, and best, etc.
Caradar wanted to writes clowes, cowsel because such forms were
commoner than clewes, kewsel. Nance overruled him.
Nance regarded pre-occlusion as a late corruption and banned it from
UC, even though it was all around him in the toponymy of West
Cornwall. And preocclusion was in Lhuyd, whose phonology Nance used
for UC.
Nance knew perfectly well about anodhans, gansans, etc. but didn't
allow them. He knew about forms like ma's teffons in y'm bus but
wouldn't countenance them.
Nance wanted his Cornish to be a complete, compact perfect language at
once wholly Celtic and wholly medieval. He invented whole paradigms,
which were unnecessary since traditional Cornish used auxiliaries. He
disliked me a vyn mos 'I will go' presumably because it was based on
English. Thus nowadays, 50 years after Nance's death, revivalists are
saying Eus meur a dus a vyn desky Kernowek?'for 'Are there many people
who want to learn Cornish?' when the sentence actually means 'Are
there many people who will learn Cornish?' 'who want to learn Cornish'
is a garsa desky Kernowek. Revivalists are still saying me a drig dhe
Gambron 'I live in Camborne' when traditional Cornish would have said
Yth ov vy trigys in Cambron. This is one of Nance's mistakes.
Me a drig means 'I shall dwell'. Nance also coined the wholly spurious
mos ha bos 'become'.
I suspect that Nance adopted me a drig 'I live' because he thought the
present-future was mostly present. In fact it is mostly future and the
unmarked present is made by bos and the participle, e.g. Nyns esos ov
attendya an laha 'You do not pay attention to the law' BM 848. In fact
this periphrastic form is universal in TH and SA. Because he failed to
notice this, Nance made a drig mean 'dwells' not 'will dwell' as it
does always in traditional Cornish.
Nance does not seem to have allowed fatell, tell, dell, introducing
indirect speech even though it is found as early as the Passion Poem.

I suspect that Nance used in kever with nouns, because Breton e keñver
is so used. But there are further points for which there really was no
excuse. Nance didn't distinguish the vowel in deus 'come' for that in
a dus 'of people', though Jenner did. Caradar even suggested that the
preterite of bos be written bue (as it is in the texts; cf. UCR).
Nance ignored the suggestion.
Nance didn't notice that in the texts -gh occurs at the end of a
syllable, but h at the beginning. So he wrote fleghes and arghans.
This latter he used for 'money', because mona (the actual word in
Middle and Late Cornish) was too like English 'money'. So revivalists
say arkanz 'money' with sound substitution, where neither the
phonology nor the word itself is correct.
If one reads Lyver an Pymp Marthus Seleven one is struck how precious,
quaint and full of inversion is Nance's prose style. It is quite
unlike the down to earth, workmanlike prose that Caradar wrote. I
wonder whether Nance really expected people to use his sort of Cornish.
In fact for the most part they didn't. That is why even now so few
people are really fluent, and this has nothing to do with the spelling
wars. In spite of George's Bretonising and aspirational phonology, all
speakers of revived Cornish have the same sound system, and it is
pretty much the phonology of English.
In this respect George's influence on the revival has been minimal.
The only way in which he has affected it is by his a priori spelling,
which survives in part in SWF M. In the long term these a priori
features will disappear. Unfortunately the Nancean idioms will persist.
The real difference is that everybody, including George, accepted
Nance's morphology and syntax, but George's spelling (and its
aspirational phonology) was clearly a construct and thus subject to
constant criticism.

In my dictionary (which was written at the end of the last century, I
followed Nance, because I had learnt from him and from Caradar and UC
was my yardstick. It is only by reading the texts again and again that
I have gradually come to realise just what a large distance there is
between Nancean UC and traditional Cornish. It is to Gendall's credit
that he also realised that and mined the late sources. Whether his
English based spelling was sensible is another matter.

Nicholas


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

Post by Marhak » Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:51 am

Another stalker or the same one? You aren't Reeves, are you, Droid?

R3D3
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 10:08 pm

Post by R3D3 » Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:09 pm

If reading a public website makes me a stalker then everyone on the internet is one.  It was an interesting opinion piece worthy of a wider readership. 

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

Post by Marhak » Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:10 pm

I was jesting.

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

Post by Morvil » Sat Jul 18, 2009 7:22 pm

Williams does criticise Gendall's Revived Late Cornish to a certain extent, but nowhere near as vehemently as he does Kernowek Kemmyn. Reeves was someone who repeated this, but read Cornish Today and you will see that RLC wasn't so harshly criticised. I agree that looking at the texts for guidance concerning syntax and grammar is important.

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

Post by Marhak » Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:34 am

That proverb, Dan, has been painted in gold on the beams of the Fountain Inn, Newbridge, for the last 10 years.  Guess who painted it up there.
I have, by the way, seen rather harsher words about RLC in editions of Agan Yeth.

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

Post by factotum » Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:35 am

Nothing much of note during the past two or three months, but this recent quote by Michael Everson is perhaps worth repeating here :
"We base our spelling on the recommended pronunciation of Revived Cornish, not just on the graphs of the texts. UC and UCR were such a normalization, but SWF and KS are "phonetic" orthographies."
To me this smacks of the blind leading the blind, and blows their much vaunted "authenticity" criterion right out of the water.
Discuss?

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

Post by Evertype » Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:48 am

Keith attempted another smear:

Nothing much of note during the past two or three months, but this recent quote by Michael Everson is perhaps worth repeating here :"We base our spelling on the recommended pronunciation of Revived Cornish, not just on the graphs of the texts. UC and UCR were such a normalization, but SWF and KS are "phonetic" orthographies."To me this smacks of the blind leading the blind, and blows their much vaunted "authenticity" criterion right out of the water.Discuss?

It only shows that you don't understand some of the concepts very well. "Authenticity" does not mean "spell a word only as it is found in the texts". Say, for instance, that a word *neven is attested once only in the corpus, as *neuen, but that from etymological knowledge, rhymes or whatever we know the word must be *[ˈnɛvən] and not **[ˈnœən] or **[ˈniʊən] or the like. We know that intervocalic -v- is attested in other words, so there is nothing inauthentic about using it the spelling neven. Some have tried a reductio ad absurdum argument by saying that we only admit individual spellings which are found in the MSS. That, of course, is not what we or anyone does.The SWF (largely) and KS both have a close link between orthography and pronunciation. It is simply a fact that KS orthography reflects the recommended pronunciation, which is in fact, not in theory, based in the reality of the phonology of Revived Cornish. Not "Cornish with a bad accent using English vowels"; we all know that many speakers do not use "pure" vowels, and that they ought to. You and I agree on that, I should think. We differ, however, in that you and George seemed to (have) want(ed) Revivalists to introduce geminate consonants and half-length into their speech, and to distinguish [iː] and [ɪː], and [oː] and [ɔː]—which few if any of them can succeed in doing. Ken (for instance) doesn't make these distinctions at all when he speaks. Nor does Jori (though he does roll his r's richly for a good "foreign" flavour). Nor does Loveday. Nor does Polin. I haven't heard you. I and others believe that the phonology which you wish to promulgate is inauthentic and impractical. A "phonetic" or "phonemic" orthography which describes that orthography is therefore not suitable for representing Neo-Cornish. In these terms, KK is simply inaccurate. We don't need an orthography that represents a construed phonology that no one uses anyway (and twenty years of trying to spread that phonology has ended in failure). We need a phonology that represents accurately a plausible and achievable (and improvable) phonology—and taking Revived Cornish as a basis for this (inclusive of RMC and RTC and RLC) is the right way to do it. That's what people speak; that's what learners hear. So much for your stooping to metaphor. "The blind leading the blind" makes you sound nice and clever, but it doesn't apply here. It's just an attempt at a smear. The recommended phonology of KS reflects what people actually use. It's not a fantasy.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests