Lyver Pejadow rag Kenyver Jorna - Cornish Daily Prayer

A new forum dedicated to Kernewek - the Cornish language, Cornish culture and the history of the Duchy of Cornwall
CowethasPeranSans
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:50 pm
Contact:

Post by CowethasPeranSans » Thu Apr 16, 2009 1:01 am


Evertype: Truru's "intuitions" based on what he sees in the living environment are what make him interested in the language, no matter how many Kammbronns you have tried to pepper the landscape with. Jenner understood what Truru and so many other people feel.


Should KK then be regarded as similar to 'trekies' learning 'Clingon' then? Whereas orthographies which have some sort of resonance with place names, ancient texts and the West Penwith dialect will inevitably have a more authentic feel to them, and consequently be seen as more authentic?

Is this, in a nutshell, what the whole argument over orthographies is about?



edited by: CowethasPeranSans, Apr 16, 2009 - 01:10 AM

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

Post by Morvran » Thu Apr 16, 2009 1:30 am


truru said:

... neither do I expect Cornish to look, sound or work anything like English, even dialect English. So why do you?



Who does? I don't. You're being rather patronising. I'm not trying to make Cornish look more English,



You don't need to, the 'traditional spelling' is already heavily anglicised.


however you are trying to make Cornish look less English.



I'm trying to reflect the true nature of the Cornish language (as far as that can be recovered, which is probably a lot farther than you think). Since Cornish is not English, making the spelling "more Cornish" cannot but make it "less English". While I would not go out of my way to do this just for the sake of it, without any other justification, there is perhaps an argument to be made, that if it looks clearly "un-English" then learners and readers will be reminded that it should also sound "un-English".


I'm not the one making assumptions on what I think it should have looked like 200 years ago.



I know what it looked like 200, 300, 400, 500 and a bit more, years ago. Everyone who might have read it then already knew how to speak Cornish, and how to pronounce every word. That is certainly not true today. So the way they wrote then is not suitable for today's conditions.


I want to write it as it did look like,



Fine if you're already fluent. Please go and study the original mss, they deserve all the attention they can get.


of course with necessary changes.



This then flatly contradicts your previous statement. Once you make changes you're not "writing it as it did look" because you're "writing it differently". So if you admit that in fact you don't really want to "write it as it looked then", but to write it differently, then the argument boils down to how and why it should be changed. That at least could be the basis of a valid discussion, provided it's based on informed, reasoned opinion rather than uninformed, personal likes and dislikes.


I don't see z's or kw's or hw's as necessary changes.



Whereas I do. I've explained my reasons, so have others. Often repeatedly and at length. The point I think is that these changes are designed for serious students and users of Cornish, and have been taken up with enthusiasm by most of them. People who want to read and write and pronounce continuous texts. If all you want to do is use a bit of decorative Cornish for a motto or letterhead, then it doesn't really matter, any old rubbish will do. It don't even have to be 'proper Cornish', look around at house/boat names etc. So use UC if you like for that sort of stuff. I don't care. Do professors of English complain about idiocies like "Ye Olde English Tea Shoppe". Of course not, they just laugh quietly. The point being that it's not supposed to be genuine archaic English, it's just supposed to look the part. And the same for most of the "token Cornish" you see around. However I don't see why non-speakers should impose this sort of nonsense on real Cornish language publications to be read by serious students and users.


I don't go around writing French without gender distinction just because it's a pain to have to learn the gender of every word. If I did that, people would wonder what on earth I was doing, with French there's a right way and a wrong way to spell it.



The spelling does however often show the gender, which is helpful, it's a part of that language. In fact French people often misspell words and forget or ignore simple rules like putting an '-e' on the end of feminine adjectives, and an '-s' on plurals etc. There is only "one right way" because they have an academy and a highly centralised education system that try to level out all local and individual variations. Like the teachers here criticising Cornish and other local accents.


Cornish however doesn't have a right way and a wrong way, it has many different ways that are right or wrong depending on your opinion.



Each system has more or less exact rules. If you want certainty use UC which cannot be changed for 1,000 years. However our knowledge and understanding of Cornish is growing all the time, so revisions are needed now and again. These should become smaller and less frequent as time goes on. A bit like fixing the bugs in a complex piece of software.


You think KK still looks too English, that's your opinion,



No, you're doing Michael's trick of putting words into my mouth.


so you want more change.



I don't "want" anything. I believe KK would better reflect the nature of Cornish if the /s/ and /z/ phonemes were distinguished, in the same way the dh and th are distinguished. I think the simplest and most obvious way to do that would be to write them as 's' and 'z'. Do you have a better suggestion?


I've never come across anyone who's seen Cornish and thought it was just misspelled English,



No? What about Late Cornish? What about some of the signs I referred to? Why do you think outsiders often spell Camborn as 'Cambourne' etc. etc.


so I see the changes you want as unnecessary and the reasons for them as weak.



Since you don't speak Cornish, teach it, read continuous texts in it, etc. that's hardly surprising. You are in no position to appreciate the advantages of these features, and so make judgements based upon superficial appearances. It looks unfamiliar, not like the Englished 'traditional' forms of placenames, or the UC which was almost the only Cornish to be seen for several decades. That is because Cornish is not English, it is, because of historical circumstances a 'foreign language' to the Cornish people today. Would you expect a foreign language to look familiar? You say that when you learn French you want to learn it as French, so why do you want your Cornish to be like English?


How you got the idea that people expect Cornish to look like English, considering they're in a completely different language family, is anyone's guess.



There you go, you've just contradicted yourself again. If it's a "completely different language" why do you object to it looking un-English? Is that not just what you'd expect?


I would imagine it's just more of your "ordinary Cornish people are too thick to know anything about linguistics" mentality.



It's not a question of being "thick" (although I admit some here do rather give that impression!) It's a question of being unable to make informed judgements about things they often know next to nothing about. Unfortunately, what with history having gone the way it did, the language being abandoned etc., we're left with the situation where every Cornish person and his/her dog, seems to think they should have a say in how the language is written, because it's "their language", when 99% of the time they don't know hardly any Cornish and don't understand the issues. But if they don't care about the finer points, and want something that "looks quaint and 'Cornish'" then UC will do nicely. I certainly can't see any point in UCR, KS, SWF/whatever.

A bit OT, but on the perils of using language as decoration, see here :
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=881
and note the reference to 'KK' at the top of the second column ;-)






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

Post by Morvran » Thu Apr 16, 2009 1:54 am


Evertype said:
I could say one thing, though. "Let me count the ways."



Please explain, I don't follow.


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

Post by Morvran » Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:09 am

Klingon was at least designed by a fully paid-up, qualified academic linguist. Some of his work has contributed to the revival of the Mutsun language of California.

User avatar
SalaciousCrumb
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:33 pm

Post by SalaciousCrumb » Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:25 am


IgnorantLittleTuss said:
Oh here we go another Klingon analogy, where does Everson dig these idiots up, to annoy us all on this forum.



Nine posts and you are insulting him already. You are an offensive little f4rt, gobblin' boy. As if your pathetic, ill informed, mewlings counted for anything anyway. You really are the boil on the arse of this forum, you vapid little tuss.

CowethasPeranSans
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:50 pm
Contact:

Post by CowethasPeranSans » Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:31 am


GOKY: Oh here we go another Klingon analogy, where does Everson dig these idiots up, to annoy us all on this forum.



Again, quite uncalled for nastiness. We do not pretend to be great experts in Cornish, but we are genuinely trying to understand the issues involved. Such personal attacks when we have done or wished you no harm are reprehensible.You should be ashamed of yourself, whoever you are as you are a disgrace to Cornwall and undermining your orthography lobby.

You chose not to send us your private email so we could enlist your help and put your claimed knowledge of the the language to better use.

The orthography lobby in Ireland are professional, helpful and polite - you should not be surprised if we chose to use their services rather than nasty, emotionally-damaged people like you who stay up late spouting vitriol as they have no friends and nothing better to do.

Do not be surprised, then, if we end up putting out material in KS if we cannot do business with other orthography proponants because of their personality problems.

Yn purra lel dhys



edited by: CowethasPeranSans, Apr 16, 2009 - 08:34 AM

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

Post by Evertype » Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:30 am


morvran said:
Klingon was at least designed by a fully paid-up, qualified academic linguist. Some of his work has contributed to the revival of the Mutsun language of California.


Um, no. Whilst Mark Okrand has a degree in linguistics, he works in a company that handles close-captioning for the hearing-impaired. Like many linguists, he does not work in academia. ~~~~

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

Post by Evertype » Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:45 am

Heh. I signed my post above as though this were Wikipedia. ~~~~ :-P

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

Post by Evertype » Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:48 am


morvran said:
[quote=Evertype]I could say one thing, though. "Let me count the ways."


Please explain, I don't follow.[/quote]

Why not answer my two questions first?

1) Will George's new dictionary implement a spelling change for Kernowek Kebmyn and add zeds?

2) What is the provenance of the image you sent?

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

Post by Evertype » Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:49 am


gokyreloaded said:
Oh here we go another Klingon analogy, where does Everson dig these idiots up, to annoy us all on this forum.

Ha'DIbaH! :evil:

truru
Posts: 444
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 12:52 pm
Contact:

Post by truru » Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:05 pm


morvran said:

however you are trying to make Cornish look less English.



I'm trying to reflect the true nature of the Cornish language



So you're on a crusade to show all those thousands of Traditional Cornish speakers and writers that they weren't actually writing "proper Cornish"?


(as far as that can be recovered, which is probably a lot farther than you think). Since Cornish is not English, making the spelling "more Cornish" cannot but make it "less English". While I would not go out of my way to do this just for the sake of it, without any other justification, there is perhaps an argument to be made, that if it looks clearly "un-English" then learners and readers will be reminded that it should also sound "un-English".



It's a foreign language, as you say, so why would anyone think it should sound like English? Dutch is the closest widely spoken language to English, do you think people expect it to sound English? Do people assume Welsh sounds like English just because it's close geographically? Not everyone is as assumptive as you Keith.


[quote]of course with necessary changes.



This then flatly contradicts your previous statement. Once you make changes you're not "writing it as it did look" because you're "writing it differently". So if you admit that in fact you don't really want to "write it as it looked then", but to write it differently, then the argument boils down to how and why it should be changed. That at least could be the basis of a valid discussion, provided it's based on informed, reasoned opinion rather than uninformed, personal likes and dislikes.[/quote]

I have seen the traditional texts and of course I recognise changes need to be made. If you would care to look back at what I wrote I was talking about necessary changes. Changes not based on "personal likes and dislikes" such as anti-English sentiment: "Cornish is quite different from English, surely it's good propaganda to make it look as different as possible, to drive home the point that Cornwall is a separate nation with it's own separate language, not just "naughty English"."


[quote]I don't see z's or kw's or hw's as necessary changes.



Whereas I do. I've explained my reasons, so have others. Often repeatedly and at length.[/quote]

And yet people still don't agree with them. What does that tell you?


The point I think is that these changes are designed for serious students and users of Cornish, and have been taken up with enthusiasm by most of them. People who want to read and write and pronounce continuous texts. If all you want to do is use a bit of decorative Cornish for a motto or letterhead, then it doesn't really matter, any old rubbish will do. It don't even have to be 'proper Cornish', look around at house/boat names etc. So use UC if you like for that sort of stuff. I don't care. Do professors of English complain about idiocies like "Ye Olde English Tea Shoppe". Of course not, they just laugh quietly. The point being that it's not supposed to be genuine archaic English, it's just supposed to look the part. And the same for most of the "token Cornish" you see around. However I don't see why non-speakers should impose this sort of nonsense on real Cornish language publications to be read by serious students and users.



Who wants "token Cornish"? You seem to be assuming (more assumptions) that I have no serious interest in learning Cornish fluently. You really should get your facts straight before you go mud slinging.

I have a serious interest in Cornish. Serious enough to spend far too much time on here showing my aversion to seeing it be dumbed down or turned into a conlang for really quite weak reasons.


[quote]I don't go around writing French without gender distinction just because it's a pain to have to learn the gender of every word. If I did that, people would wonder what on earth I was doing, with French there's a right way and a wrong way to spell it.



The spelling does however often show the gender, which is helpful, it's a part of that language. In fact French people often misspell words and forget or ignore simple rules like putting an '-e' on the end of feminine adjectives, and an '-s' on plurals etc. There is only "one right way" because they have an academy and a highly centralised education system that try to level out all local and individual variations. Like the teachers here criticising Cornish and other local accents. [/quote]

Thanks for the French lesson, I'd have been clueless without it.


[quote]Cornish however doesn't have a right way and a wrong way, it has many different ways that are right or wrong depending on your opinion.



Each system has more or less exact rules. If you want certainty use UC which cannot be changed for 1,000 years. However our knowledge and understanding of Cornish is growing all the time, so revisions are needed now and again. These should become smaller and less frequent as time goes on. A bit like fixing the bugs in a complex piece of software.[/quote]

Thanks for the explanation on what language revisions are, I'd have been clueless without it.


[quote]I've never come across anyone who's seen Cornish and thought it was just misspelled English,



No? What about Late Cornish? What about some of the signs I referred to? Why do you think outsiders often spell Camborn as 'Cambourne' etc. etc.[/quote]

Because "ou" is a usual English spelling, in Cambridgeshire the town is Cambourne. Down here the town is Camborne, if people hear the name they will assume it's spelt the same way as Eastbourne. Can they really be blamed for that? In Cornish the name is Cambron, which wasn't only used in late Cornish, as you well know.


[quote]so I see the changes you want as unnecessary and the reasons for them as weak.



Since you don't speak Cornish, teach it, read continuous texts in it, etc. that's hardly surprising. You are in no position to appreciate the advantages of these features, and so make judgements based upon superficial appearances. It looks unfamiliar, not like the Englished 'traditional' forms of placenames, or the UC which was almost the only Cornish to be seen for several decades. That is because Cornish is not English, it is, because of historical circumstances a 'foreign language' to the Cornish people today. Would you expect a foreign language to look familiar? You say that when you learn French you want to learn it as French, so why do you want your Cornish to be like English?[/quote]

You're still arrogantly assuming what I know and don't know about traditional Cornish or the revival. I know enough Cornish, know enough about the revival, and have studied enough other languages to make my conclusion that your concrete and asbestos orthography isn't necessary and is based on weak reasoning, and I don't see why generations of Cornish students 50 or 100 years from now should have to live with an orthography that's got the same historical integrity as Klingon or Lojban.

I still don't understand why you think I want Cornish to look like English. I don't want Cornish to look like English, I want Cornish to look like Cornish, and your KK 2.0 doesn't look like Cornish. How is the Cornish written by thousands of Cornish people hundreds of years ago any less "real Cornish" than your construction that wasn't written by any of them? It was still Cornish, no matter how many c's or wh's were in it, and I'll bet no English person came down and was able to understand it.


[quote]How you got the idea that people expect Cornish to look like English, considering they're in a completely different language family, is anyone's guess.



There you go, you've just contradicted yourself again. If it's a "completely different language" why do you object to it looking un-English? Is that not just what you'd expect?[/quote]

If it looked "un-English" to begin with then I'd have no problem with it. Why are c's, qw's and wh's inherently English, and kw's, z's and hw's inherently Cornish? C's qw's and wh's are Cornish because they were used in Cornish. Kw's and hw's aren't because they weren't used.

Keith you are assuming I have the same vision as you of KK and SWF/T or KS differences being some kind of English - Cornish tug of war. I don't care what graphs you think are inherently English and what graphs you think are inherently Cornish, Traditional Cornish is still Cornish, if it was traditionally written with Chinese characters and Webdings it would still be Cornish, and no amount of you trying to correct what you see as 1,000 years of Cornish writers' mistakes will change that.


[quote]I would imagine it's just more of your "ordinary Cornish people are too thick to know anything about linguistics" mentality.



It's not a question of being "thick" (although I admit some here do rather give that impression!) It's a question of being unable to make informed judgements about things they often know next to nothing about. Unfortunately, what with history having gone the way it did, the language being abandoned etc., we're left with the situation where every Cornish person and his/her dog, seems to think they should have a say in how the language is written, because it's "their language", when 99% of the time they don't know hardly any Cornish and don't understand the issues. But if they don't care about the finer points, and want something that "looks quaint and 'Cornish'" then UC will do nicely. I certainly can't see any point in UCR, KS, SWF/whatever.[/quote]

Well if future Cornish speaking generations were forced to rely on such "informed judgements" as yours then we'd all be doomed. Luckily for them and for the Cornish language you're not the only person around who's capable of making "informed judgements".

I thought the whole point of the revival was to get the average Cornish person interested in Cornish and return the language back to its status of a community language. Yet you seem to prefer that those ordinary Cornish people would just bend over and take what you dictate to them from your armchair, instead of being able to have an opinion themselves, no matter how much you think it deserves arrogantly dismissing.

Either you can keep Cornish as your basement weekend hobby or you can do what the rest of the revival is doing and help turn it into a real thriving community language. You can't have it both ways Keith, it's time to pick one.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests