kevin.blackburn1 at ntlworld.com
Mon Dec 14 19:33:44 GMT 2009
Don't forget though that German is a natural language, but has very strict rules, that are carried out to the letter - I was working in Frankfurt and witnessed the new rule that came in governing compound words, where the first finishes in -rr, and the second starts r-. The original rule said that all letters were retained, but the new rule said that in the case above, one r was lost. Overnight the Lufthansa cantene changed the 'tray-return' sign from 'Geschirrruckgabe' to 'Geschirruckgabe'. Impressive, but a bit OTT. No?
tel: +44 (0)1483 823888
mob: +44 (0)7791 193602
eMail: kevin.blackburn1 at ntlworld.com
Please consider the environment before printing this eMail - thanks
From: spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net [mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net] On Behalf Of Eddie Climo
Sent: 14 December 2009 18:22
To: Standard Cornish discussion list
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] -ssy-
I agree with Craig. *encrecya is, afaik, unattested; certainly, to my
eyes, it looks ridiculous.
We must beware of making a fetish of 'precision' where there is no
need for it. Our orthographic design needs to be REASONABLY phonemic
and REASONABLY unambiguous, but it most definitedly does not need to
be TOO phonemic and TOO unambiguous.
As Craig rightly says, natural languages do have their 'foubles and
irregularities', and we must be careful not to throw these quirks out
by too close an adherence to Rules.
The 'Befehl ist Befehl' defence did not suffice at the Nürnberg
Trials, and its linguistic analogue won't suffice for us either. For
instance, I see no need to make a spelling distinction in KS between
'yn' (preposition) and 'yn 5' (adverbial particle. Both are pronounced
the same, and the combination of context and the 5th-state mutation
are enough to distinguish them. Moreover, they are not distinguished,
afaik, in this way in the historical corpus.
There is no point in distinguishing [yn / in] when there are so many
other sets of similarly homophonous function words which are left
I also see no need for the diaeresis to mark [bys / bes] alternation
when there are so many other alternations which are left completely
unmarked. We don't mark [esa / era], [crysy / cryjy] etc. etc., so
there's no reason at all to single out [bys / bes] for special
Let us remember that we are designing an orthography, we are not
redesigning the Cornish language to fit in with any individual's pet
likes and dislikes in lexicon and idiom. That was what Ken George
tried to do, and his attempt was deservedly a dismal failure -- one,
moreover, which has caused immense damage to the Cornish language
Revival over the last quarter century.
We must make absolutely certain that we in this group do not fall into
a similar hubristic trap. As a general comment, I must say that I have
strong reservations about some of the features that seem to have been
adopted into KS, especially the prescriptive element that we hear from
some quarters on this forum.
However, I must also say that I really have lost track of just what KS
is supposed to be at the present time. It has been a very long while
since we had the last specification document on KS -- was it KS-16 a
year and a half ago? Micheal, as a matter of urgency, please let us
have an interim draft of the spec so we can see what is proposed for
KS now, even if it's only for private circulation within the
membership of this group.
After all, if I'm going to get up on my high horse and protest, I
should at least have some idea what it is I'm protesting about, eh?!
Eddie Foirbeis Climo
Spellyans mailing list
Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans