[Spellyans] More on bys/bes words and diacritical marks
everson at evertype.com
Mon Jul 14 16:22:58 IST 2008
At 14:01 +0000 2008-07-14, Jon Mills wrote:
>I did not mention [e:] and [i:]. What I said
>was, that in traditional Cornish <i>~<y>~<e>
>might either represent dialectal or allophonic
And I said I didn't believe that was an across-the-board phenomenon.
>You appear to be saying that you do not care
>what the phonology of traditional Cornish
>You say, "No dialect of Revived Cornish has
>[mi:z ri:z di:d] or [me:z re:z de:d]. No free
>variation is in current use." How do you know
I have ears.
>Perhaps what you are referring to are the
>recommended orthoepies that accompany the
>various current didactolects of Cornish.
People who speak Revived Cornish have learnt from
the recommended pronunciations given by Nance and
Williams and George and Gendall, yes. The end
result is a dialect difference amongst
Revivalists, where [mi:z re:z di:d] and [mi:z
re:z de:d] form significant classes. The SWF
recognizes this as do we.
>Correct me if I'm wrong, the difference between us seems to be this:
>- I prefer a largely traditional orthography
>that has been minimally regularised;
>- you prefer an orthography that has as its
>basis several current pedagogical orthoepies:
>"KS is descriptive of Revived Cornish".
I don't follow this. In the first place "has been
minimally regularized" begs a lot of questions
because we have two major streams of Traditional
orthographic practice: the Glasneyan stream and
the Lhuydian stream. Since there are two there's
no single base from which to "minimally
regularize" anything. And "minimally regularized"
might well have more ambiguity in it than people
Your proposition also uses both "orthography"
(correct spelling) and "orthoepy" (correct
pronunciation) with regard to what you suggest
that I prefer, but it says nothing about
"orthoepy" in terms of what you prefer. So the
propositions aren't equivalent.
I prefer traditional graphs, and KS was based on
those, taking Jordan as a jump-off point since
his text stands mid-way between the ends of the
Middle-Late continuum and is representative of
the end of the Glasneyan tradition. When we (a
large group) devised KS, we had a care for the
current pronunciations of Revived Cornish. As
regards <dÿdh> and <dëdh> we considered at first
that it might be possible to stick to Lhuyd and
recommend only the latter. That was in our early
development phase; it became clear quite quickly
that this was a non-starter for UC and KK users.
SWF <mis>, <bys>, <res>, <bys>~<bes>
KS: <mis>, <bys>, <res>, <bÿs>~<bës>
The last pair in the former is ambiguous. Compare
(using diaereses for UCR macrons):
UCR <mys>, <bys>, <rês>, <bys>
NK: <mîz>, <biz>, <rêz>, <bêz>
KS offers a solution here. I don't know what you would recommend otherwise.
>I rejected KK some years ago because it is based
>on conjectural and, in places proveably
>The SWF gives us a so-called 'Traditional' form
>which is not all that traditional.
We're here to put some that right as far as is possible and practical.
>In fact, the Traditional Late Cornish SWF does
>not resemble Late Cornish orthographic practice
>very much at all.
Because Glasneyan normalization and Lhuydian
normalization are not very compatible.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
More information about the Spellyans