[Spellyans] Goat

[Daniel Prohaska]

Craig wheg, 

I was very impressed with your “A Concise Dictionary of Cornish
Place-Names”. I’d have no problem if it were accepted into the SWF one to
one. In fact I wrote an e-mail to Jenefer Lowe yesterday stating my interest
to participate in the working groups and since we were allowed to make
recommendations, I recommended you as a specialist on place names. I hope
you don’t mind.  

I completely agree with you, that JL needs to publish the minutes and that
Trond’s rulings have to be publically accessible in some way, at best as an
addendum to the SWF spec. 

Yehes da, sos, 

Dan

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Weatherhill
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 10:39 PM



I think it is time I asked Jenefer for a copy of Trond's rulings (if  

such a thing exists), and I will do so tomorrow.  If it does exist,  

then we have something to work to, but, if it does not exist, then  his  

alleged 'rulings' don't count.  Either way, we have to know.  I need  

to know that we have closure on this, and I'm pretty darned sure that  

may others want to know, too.

 

If Trond's rulings are a matter of record, then KS knows where it has  

to go, and the areas it cannot push past.  Until now, though. we  

simply don't know.

 

I'm not here to rock the boat, but I do have to know that the boat is  

seaworthy.  Dan, I would be very happy to read your assessment of my  

place name recommendations as given in 'A Concise Dictionary of  

Cornish Place-Names'.  I know that Michael and Nicholas are happy with  

them, but I'd very much like to hear other (wide-thinking) opinions.

 

Craig

 

 

On 12 Ebr 2009, at 12:43, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

 

> From: Clive Baker

> Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 12:06 PM

> 

> “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?”

> 

> Dhis lowena, Clive!

> I’m not quite sure who you’re referring to when you say “the whole  

> purpose was usurped by ‘Bill and Ben’” beyond the flower pot men  

> reference. According to the first hand report I go from Albert Bock  

> KD was the basis at the first AHG meeting and Ben Bruch (do you  

> consider him the “Ben”, I wonder) tried to focus everyone on the KD  

> foundation several times, but failing. It was Albert’s impression  

> that the KD spec was either not knon enough to the AHG members, or  

> they didn’t care about it, so it shifted towards KK.

> Mind you, KD was very similar to KK in many respects. The only  

> linguistic difference was that is had fewer instances of <oe> and  

> <ù> for the short u-sound. It also marked irregular stress with an  

> acute accent. Apart from that, the differences to KK were cosmetic,  

> mainly in the form of using <c> as well as <k> and <qu> for KK <kw>  

> and <h> medially instead of <gh>.

> Since some of these choices were, in fact incorporated into the SWF,  

> at least as “traditional” forms, I don’t think the commission’s  

> recommendations has been overruled or usurped. It simply was a  

> matter of unfamiliarity with the KD specon part of some AHG members,  

> which I think is a real shame. I would have felt obliged to look at  

> the spec in great care, if had been a member of the AHG, for the  

> sake of responsibility towards the language and the commission’s  

> recommendation.

> Anyway, the KD issue is in the past, and I don’t feel it necessary  

> to lament over the AHG’s failing. Since KD was so much closer in  

> many ways to KK than the SWF is to KK (except for the superficially  

> visible “main” form graphs), I think the SWF actually meets the  

> criterion of being based on a number of ideas which were presented  

> in KD.

> 

> “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.”

> 

> As far as the SWF goes, there is a set of specification that has  

> been decided upon and anyone working with the intention of writing  

> in the SWF will have to stick to that, or it simply isn’t the SWF.

> 

> “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 orientation.”

> 

> I’m a hundred percent with you on that! I see KS as an idealised  

> version the “traditionalists” have of an SWF, however, it is not the  

> SWF. Maybe some features of KS can be worked into the SWF when it is  

> reviewed in 2013, valuable experience from the great publishing work  

> that is being done in KS, and other features, too.

> 

> “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.”

> 

> Gavar is by all means not wrong. It is an authentic, attested form  

> that suggests the correct pronunciation in Revived Cornish. Having  

> said that though, it is not in the SWF. The SWF rules specify gaver.  

> Anyone can harp on about Trond’s ruling not having been in the SWF  

> spec, but it has to have been part of the minutes taken at the first  

> two AHG meetings. I suggest writing to the Cornish Language officer  

> (Jenefer Lowe) and asking for publication of these minutes. Why this  

> wasn’t done sooner, I don’t know.

> Gaver is but one word, a more interesting question to me on a  

> systematic level, is how to handle words that can be classed with  

> gaver, namely words that have a so-called epenthetic vowel in the  

> unstressed syllable. This means that at some point in the history of  

> Cornish the monosyllabic word *gavr got an extra syllable by way of  

> inserting an extra vowel: *gavXr. How, on a systematic level are we  

> to specify the vowel graph used in the SWF, without saying, do it as  

> it is done in KK, that is if you find fault in what Ken George  

> decided for KK. We have words such as *pobl, *marw, *lavr and *lyvr.  

> How do we spell these words and words that can be classed alongside  

> them, hwo do we spell *pobXl, *marXw, *lavXr and *lyvXr.

> I think the Cornish speakers and the textual attestations are pretty  

> much decided where *marXw and *lyvXr are concerned. They ought to be  

> marowand lyver (that is if you don’t want to write Late Cornish  

> lever). What rules can we attach to this decision? Either we say X =  

> o before w, and X= e before r, for example. That gives us *pobXl,  

> marow, laver andlyver. What to do with *pobXl? What should the rule  

> be? X = o? X = e?

> This is something which could be talked about and worked out for the  

> SWF specifications following the 2013 review.

> 

> “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.

> Clive”

> 

> Michael and Nicholas certainly take this into account. I cannot,  

> because I feel bound to the specification of the SWF and the rulings  

> in the AHG meetings. I don’t think spelling gaver and laver throws  

> away what has been learnt since the 1920s. But this is just my  

> opinion.

> Yehes dad his,

> Dan

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20090413/32754b5a/attachment.htm>