[Spellyans] attestations

Eddie Climo eddie_climo at yahoo.co.uk
Sun Jul 27 14:06:14 IST 2008

On 27 Jul 2008, at 09:57, Eddie Climo wrote:
> . . .
> However, it would not really be suitable for a more formal  
> situation like, say, the Chancellor of the Welsh Parliament in his  
> Budget Speech (and I'm inventing these anglicisms!):
>> "Rwy'n wantio reducio domestic spending gan five percent yn y  
>> financial year nessa."

I should have added that the Chancellor would be much more likely to  
say something rathery formal such as:
> Y mae genef eisaiau gostwng teuliau cartrefol gan pymp y cant yn y  
> flwyddyn gyllidol nessa.

.. . . while, if he spoke in the bank using the same formal style, he  
might have said:
> Bore da. Yr wyf ewyllys trosglwyddo arian o'r acównt treigl [?] i'r  
> acównt cynilion, os gwelwch yn dda.
.. . . instead of the macaronic 'Wenglish' that I heard. Much more  
formal, hardly any obvious anglicisms (save for 'acównt'), but hardly  
what one would expect to hear in everyday situations.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The main point is that *both* registers or styles coexist in modern  
Welsh, and I fancy native speakers choose which one to use to suit  
particu;ar circumstances, or personal preferences. We do the same in  
English, of course, when making choices between, say, everyday words  
like 'word, pronunciation, meaning' and more formal terms such as  
'lexeme, orthoepy, semantic domain'.

We can do no less than grant users of Revived Cornish the same  
freedom of choice. Instead of prescriptive censorship of  
'undesirable' lexemes, our dictionaries should aim for inclusivity,  
but offer advice and guidance.

As Michael said,
> People are free to do what they want.
But they depend on language reference books to inform their choices.  
If those books exclude parts of either the historical or the Revived  
language, those choices are circumscribed. KK fell into precisely  
that trap, as is too well known to need belabouring again; we must  
ensure that KS does not make  a similar mistake!

This sort of informed choice can already be seen to some extent, of  
course, in existing Cornish dictionaries. Williams 2006 lists some  
entries as 'abusive', such as:
> Common Cornish.
> 	Kernowek Kemyn; (abusive) fug-Gernewek; "Kennywek"
> . . .
> cow.
> 	bugh . . .
> 	(abusive term for woman) drogvenen; gast.
> . . .
> woman.
> 	benen . . . benenryth . . .

In a similar way, Williams marks other entries as disputed use,  
offensive, pejorative, slang etc.

Such entries are, in my opinion, just about perfect: the reader is  
given all the information needed to make an informed choice between  
neutral terms like 'Kernewek Kemyn; benen' and the abusive 'fug- 
Kernewek; gast'.

We can also see that he includes the words he has deprecated on this  
thread, along with the ones he prefers:
> face
> 	fas; bejeth; vysach; gruef; enep
> nation
> 	nacyon; kenedhel; gwlas
> valley
> 	nans; valy
> etc . . .
Such inclusivity is admirable, and all that is lacking, perhaps, is  
some indication of the relative qualities and merits of each entry,  
to help readers make an informed choice.

yn lel,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20080727/432749c5/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list