[Spellyans] SWF questionable wordforms

Michael Everson everson at evertype.com
Thu Sep 11 10:35:47 IST 2008


On 11 Sep 2008, at 10:00, Jon Mills wrote:

> I agree that it isn't 1904. However a criticism frequently levelled  
> against revived Cornish orthographies is that the prescribed forms  
> lack legitimacy because they are unattested.

In orthography design one does NOT simply take any form that happens  
to be written down. It's a normalization based on the principles  
agreed for spelling. Lhuyd's <Kernûak> and <Kernowek> are not  
incompatible; Cornowek isn't "better": the Kern- is well attested even  
while Corn- may also be. <û> and <ow> are a matched set. <-ek> is  
productive and well-attested in itself.

> Are we reviving the Cornish language or creating a conlang? Attested  
> forms should not be ignored be cause they are inconvenient or at  
> odds with 20th century practice.

I don't think that we're "ignoring" attested forms.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20080911/6c880798/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list