[Spellyans] Goat

Clive Baker clive.baker at gmail.com
Sun Apr 12 11:06:12 BST 2009

I watch these postings with great interest, and sometimes great humour, and
rarely enter the affray on this forum. However, I feel I must question a
couple of things I see.

Firstly, as I have seen it, since the attendance of those first heady days
at Tremough, the whole purpose of the SWF was to reach a compromise, between
UC/UCR, KK, and LC using KD as the basis of that compromise... albeit that
whole purpose was usurped by "Bill and Ben" and altered more in favour of
KK. That said and done, the basic compromise still is the desired aim... or
am I missing something here?

Secondly I understood that KS was our attempt to correct those errors
within the SWF that had shortcomings... no-one mentioned to me that we were
throwing away the compromise theme that was so important to everyone ( at
least they *all *seemed to mumble something about that)

Lastly... you all (or most of you) know me as coming from the UC/UCR camp,
and all my arguments with any of the other forms of Cornish is that each of
us should be fair to the others in our representations... for instance: if
we have joint events as we regularly do these days, equal space and equal
opportunity must be given to all forms of the language.

The goodwill is there from the general Cornish speaking populus, based on
the SWF agreement, and if we are to carry KS to its ultimate conclusion,
then we must not forget its origins, nor the required support of those who
use the language, whatever their colour, creed, religion or sexual

UC/UCR rightly or wrongly used gavar and so did everyone  learning any
Cornish during the greater part of the last century including most of our
experts here until KK was invented. I see little account taken of that
fact... yes Nicholas uses "gavar".. and Michael supports "gavar"( whilst
everyone seems to howl, he's just anti KK) I think that most of us are, else
why would be here for God's sake!! So don't throw away the thousands who
have learned any Cornish at all since the 1920's with the washing. Keep them
with you..
 I await the responses with interest
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Craig Weatherhill <craig at agantavas.org>wrote:

> Plus historic place name evidence: gaver 4; gavar 0.
> Craig
> On 10 Ebr 2009, at 12:15, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2009, at 11:30, Owen Cook wrote:
>> I'm weighing in late, but I completely agree with Dan, Jon and Craig on
>>> this word. I see nothing wrong with 'gaver'. It's textually attested in the
>>> scribal tradition,
>> How specifically do you define this here?
>> while 'gavar' is not.
>> I don't accept this interpretation. The scribal tradition attests the
>> following for 'speech'.
>> lavar x43 (PA x1, PC x1, TH x4, BK x8, CW x21, Late x7)
>> lauar x73 (CF x2, PA x8, OM x15, PC x26, RD x22)
>> laver x12 (PC x1, BM x1, SA x3, BK x7)
>> lauer x19 (OM x1, BM x18)
>> All of this shows that the scribal tradition admits both -ar and -er
>> (favouring the former).
>> It is true that the texts offer us very few examples of 'goat'
>> gaver x2 (OM x1, BM x1)
>> gauer x1 (BM x1)
>> I don't believe it is credible to suggest that "lavar" and "gavar" did not
>> rhyme. And I do not believe it is credible to suggest that if goat occurred
>> more frequently that "gavar" or "gauar" would never have occurred.
>> It clearly indicates the intended pronunciation. If we absolutely must see
>>> this spelling as an olive branch to KK -- oh, terror! -- then it is
>>> certainly an olive branch we can extend without scruple.
>> My interest in offering MORE olive branches has pretty much dwindled at
>> this point. If they had allowed is to keep the PROMISED olive branch (text
>> in the SWF permitting publishers to use diacritics) I might be inclined to
>> agree now. They engineered it so that we had to make that major derogation.
>> In light of that, <eu> and all the other changes we made was enough of an
>> olive branch. It's not as though they're giving us anything.
>> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
>> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
> --
> Craig Weatherhill
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090412/29180a7e/attachment.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list