[Spellyans] Goat

Craig Weatherhill craig at agantavas.org
Sun Apr 12 18:01:17 IST 2009


Great to see you yesterday, Clive, and glad I could introduce you and  
your good lady to my four-legged drinking partner.  Great guy, isn't  
he?  Wonderful, gentle but cheeky old horse.  Fabulous old fella.

KS is our attempt to correct the SWF faults and is indeed our  
compromise form.  Do remember that we have introduced to it such  
graphs as <-wgh>, <eu> and even <mm/nn> ( when stressed and where LC  
pre-occlusion is expected).  In some publications, KS actually writes  
the pre-occlusion, showing that we will honour LC traditions, and so  
the choice to use either is allowed for ('Alys" does the former; 'Adro  
dhe'n bys' does the latter).  So is the choice between, say, 'yth esa'  
and 'thera'.  UC ad UCR are only just under the surface of KS.  They  
form its backbone while the much feared diacritics only tell you if a  
vowel isn't pronounced as expected, or if there is a choice in  
pronunciation (like the bys/bes words).

Remember, too, that among those on the team who put KS together were  
UC users, UCR users, KK users and LC users.

Propaganda from the KK hardcore will tell you that KS has been set up  
to undermine the SWF.  No, it hasn't.  It's there to strengthen it.  I  
know that sometimes, things get a little fierce (but still courteous)  
- on some matters there are strong opinions either way.  These have to  
to be individually researched and debated.   They also said (today, in  
fact on C24) that UCR was devised to destroy UC.  No, it wasn't.  It  
was meant, and acted, as a gentle, sensitive correction of the type  
that Peter Pool envisaged when he wrote 'The Second Death of  
Cornish'.  I think Peter would have applauded UCR which, in my view,  
strengthened UC.

Craig



On 12 Ebr 2009, at 11:06, Clive Baker wrote:

> 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 orientation.
>
> 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
> Clive
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

--
Craig Weatherhill





More information about the Spellyans mailing list