[Spellyans] SWF principles
everson at evertype.com
Fri Jun 27 10:34:10 IST 2008
At 18:28 -0600 2008-06-26, Terry Corbett wrote:
>Craig, I think that is a very good definition.
>Does anyone know what is meant by "Traditional
>Cornish" as used in the SWF principles?
They don't capitalize "Traditional Cornish" as we
do. What I mean by that is the written record we
have. Now, we use that written record to inform
Revived Cornish. As we learn more about it, we
modify our recommendations. Nance didn't
recognize the phoneme /ø/; UCR put that right,
and KK also implemented it.
(As far as I know one of the ways we know that
/y/ and /ø/ which were distinct is that the
former falls togethere with /i/ and the latter
with /e/ in RLC. Does this not imply that <puns>
'pound' ought to be <peuns> because in RLC is it
>I don't understand what they mean by "pronunciation of traditional Cornish."
All we *know* about that is what Lhuyd gives us.
The transcriptions in the SWF specification
suggest that the authors are supporting George's
reconstructions. Is this lip-service? I don't
know. In our orthography (KS) we cannot support
>Where in the continuum of Cornish does this
>begin? I can't imagine that anyone would propose
>that it includes Old Cornish.
Everybody agrees that Old Cornish is a different
language. One of the troubling things in the SWF
specification is its undefined use of the word
>How is this pronunciation to be determined? KK
>advocates will insist that KK pronunciation is
>"traditional" even if the spelling is not.
KK recommended pronunciation is not used by the
majority of KK writers, including Ken George.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
More information about the Spellyans