"Jowal Lethesow" dyllys in Kernowek

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

Post by Evertype » Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:29 pm

pietercharles said:I think it's "more central" because the paragraph is about where  the storm started,  how  it moved, where  it moved to and where  it ended up. 

I think the paragraph is about the storm. That is, the focus, the topic, of the paragraph is the storm. The storm is also the subject of the first sentence. That's the focus of the paragraph – the attributes of the storm.  The focus is different from the subject of the sentences, which is clearly 'the storm'.  Moreover when you 'front' the subject of a sentence what you get is a neutral statement more than one that emphasises.  So your  statement "It's the storm that's important, so, in typical Celtic fashion, it is fronted " is not accurate because 'fronting' the subject doesn't really emphaise any 'importance' it might have.But as the storm is the focus, there's no reason to have fronted anything else.

It's the focus that gets fronted in 'typical Celtic fashion', not the subject. Except that here the subject of the English sentence is also the focus of the paragraph.Beginners make this 'mistake' all the time.  They say 'ow hanow yw Jane', but whilst 'whose name it is' is clearly 'important', as you put it, it's not the focus of the sentence.

This I do not follow. Mícheál is ainm dom is unmarked, yes, as is Myhal yw ow hanow. Of course subject/object is less clear when the copula is concerned.I was taught two techniques…Well, this bit of discourse analysis does not seem to have roots in actual Celtic grammar as far as I can tell.

The other method is to emphasise different versions strongly in English with your voice to see which sound more appropriate:

'The summer storm  had been born in mid-Atlantic'  OR

'The summer storm had been born in mid-Atlantic '  OR

'The summer storm had been born in mid-Atlantic'

I don't see how any of these but the first makes any sense. The subject of the sentence, and the topic of the paragraph is The summer storm.Thanks for your explanation, but I don't see that it suggests that the first sentence ought to have been translated differently.

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

Post by Evertype » Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:37 pm

kio2 said:It is said



Personally, I like to remember that Tregear knew Cornish better than any of us, loanwords or not. Here, the translator has used the syntax of traditional Cornish.

So lets throw away all our texts, etc and just use Tregear and his Kernglish.Are you aware that both son and sownd are loanwords? I can't fathom your prejudice (except that you'll stop at nothing to try to show our publications in a bad light). Which English loanwords are acceptable to you in Cornish? Which ones are not? Which Latin loanwords are acceptable to you? Which ones are not? Do you have lists? Criteria for selection and rejection? Hm?

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

Post by Evertype » Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:46 pm

pietercharles said:

Tregear uses the verb 'observya'He uses it once only: ny a res

thyn sewya, observia, ha gwetha an tradicions an auncient egglos.You use other loanwords in -ya, don't you, PieterCharles? I see in Ken's new dictionary he includes servya as a "genuine" Cornish word (in bold type only) but he admits observya (in bold italic) only as an "assimilated loan". He distinguishes konsevya from the "assimilated loan" konsernya. Professya and konfessya are Cornish, but konfirmya is a loan. I don't mean to be obtuse... but really, how are these decisions made?

pietercharles
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:51 am

Post by pietercharles » Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:47 pm

Evertype said:




Thanks for your explanation, but I don't see that it suggests that the first sentence ought to have been translated differently.


Oh well, never mind. 
I didn't actually suggest that the first sentence 'ought to have been translated differently'.  I suggested that there might be a better translation.  A more sensitive one, as far as I'm concerned.  It's fine that you don't agree.
But I never expected you to understand nor to accept my explanation anyway.  Not in a million years.  It might be of some help to others though.
Ny vern, as we say in Cornish.  Ny vern.

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

Post by Evertype » Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:49 pm

I understood your explanation.

pietercharles
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:51 am

Post by pietercharles » Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:01 pm

Evertype said:


pietercharles said:
Tregear uses the verb 'observya'
He uses it once only: ny a res
thyn sewya, observia, ha gwetha an tradicions an auncient egglos.

Yes, we know he uses it once only.  So?  It's attested.  It's authentic.  What point are you trying to make?



Evertype also said:
You use other loanwords in -ya, don't you, PieterCharles?

Yes.  So?  What point are you failing to make?

And further:
I see in Ken's new dictionary he includes servya as a "genuine" Cornish word (in bold type only) but he admits observya (in bold italic) only as an "assimilated loan". He distinguishes konsevya from the "assimilated loan" konsernya. Professya and konfessya are Cornish, but konfirmya is a loan. I don't mean to be obtuse... but really, how are these decisions made?

I've no idea.  Are you asking me?  Why not e-mail Ken George and ask him?



pietercharles
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:51 am

Post by pietercharles » Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:10 pm

Evertype said:
I understood your explanation.


I beg to differ.  Your response shows that you clearly didn't understand.  But that's nothing unusual - it's very often the case that people believe they've understood something that they clearly haven't.
It's not a problem, Evertype, really it's not.  It's the outcome I expected.  Nay, I knew that would be the outcome.  Consequently you can probably guess that I wrote the explanation for others, not for you.
Don't worry about it.

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

Post by Marhak » Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:51 am

Which modern languages do not contain copious loan-words from others, especially if they have a majority language nation right next door?  Very few, I'd suggest.  Purism simply won't do – we have to accept historical recorded Cornish, warts and all.
If purism is the object, then why should any of us accept a spelling system for Cornish that looks like German?
I've said it before, Pieter - why don't you write in a way that the rest of us CAN understand?

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

Post by Marhak » Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:59 am

"Franglais" still persists among on-the-street French people, despite them.  And, besides, many French words are derived from Latin and Germanic (the Franks were a Germanic tribe).  Your point?

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

Post by Evertype » Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:32 am

pietercharles said:

Evertype said:

pietercharles said:

Tregear uses the verb 'observya'

He uses it once only: ny a res thyn sewya, observia, ha gwetha an tradicions an auncient egglos.



Yes, we know he uses it once only.  So?  It's attested.  It's authentic.  What point are you trying to make?

I doubt that he would have eschewed miras in favour of observya as the ordinary word for 'look'. It's kind of bullshìt for you to dismiss Tregear because he uses a particular loanword.

Evertype also said:



You use other loanwords in -ya, don't you, PieterCharles?



Yes.  So?  What point are you failing to make?



You're not cuter when you're obtuse, you know.Evidently you feel that Tregear is deficient in some way for his use of observya. Yet you use many other similar loanwords in -ya. What poisons this particular word for you?

And further:

I see in Ken's new dictionary he includes servya as a "genuine" Cornish word (in bold type only) but he admits observya (in bold italic) only as an "assimilated loan". He distinguishes konsevya from the "assimilated loan" konsernya. Professya and konfessya are Cornish, but konfirmya is a loan. I don't mean to be obtuse… but really, how are these decisions made?

I've no idea.  Are you asking me?  Why not e-mail Ken George and ask him?

Those were examples of words in -ya. Do you use them? George treats them differently. Do you agree with his treatment?

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

Post by Evertype » Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:38 am

kio2 said:Evertype said:kio2 said:It is said 

Personally, I like to remember that Tregear knew Cornish better than any of us, loanwords or not. Here, the translator has used the syntax of traditional Cornish. So lets throw away all our texts, etc and just use Tregear and his Kernglish.

Are you aware that both son and sownd are loanwords?I can't fathom your prejudice (except that you'll stop at nothing to try to show our publications in a bad light). Which English loanwords are acceptable to you in Cornish? Which ones are not? Which Latin loanwords are acceptable to you? Which ones are not? Do you have lists? Criteria for selection and rejection? Hm?



Well we have been using 'son'  for many years now in Revived Cornish regardless of orthography, and suddenly a publication appears using ' sownd' which  does not appear in any dictionary.  I would say the accepted practive in Revived Cornish is to use 'son'



Both son and sownd are words used in Cornish. Sowndya is attested also in Tregear. Tregear uses a particular phrase, clowys sownde a trompet, and in this case the translator chose to follow Tregear's example, with glôwas an sownd. Why should you consider this illegitimate? Surely it is good to imitate native Cornish speakers.

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

Post by Evertype » Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:42 am

pietercharles said:Evertype said:

I understood your explanation.



I beg to differ.  Your response shows that you clearly didn't understand.  But that's nothing unusual - it's very often the case that people believe they've understood something that they clearly haven't.

It's not necessary for you to be rude and condescending, is it? I understood. I was unimpressed and unconvinced by what you said that the sentence would be "better" translated as you had it. My sense for Celtic syntax is fairly well-developed, and I simply disagreed with you. It's not a problem, Evertype, really it's not.  It's the outcome I expected.  Nay, I knew that would be the outcome.  Consequently you can probably guess that I wrote the explanation for others, not for you.

You addressed me. If you were writing for others, you ought perhaps to have made it clear that you were intending to dismiss whatever I said. Don't worry about it.Hardly. Your games amuse, sometimes, but not really.

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

Post by Evertype » Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:44 am

marhak said:

I've said it before, Pieter - why don't you write in a way that the rest of us CAN understand?Because by playing a passive-aggressive game of discourse he feels self-important? It's just a guess. (Remember, he's saving the Revival from us, by exposing our lies.)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest