[Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative
weatherhill at freenet.co.uk
Tue Feb 17 19:54:46 GMT 2009
They're not, Eddie. They are paranoid about any opposing point of
view - and therein lies the problem. Personally I am keep to keep the
language as simple as possible for the sake of the many who want to
learn but haven't yet been given the opportunity. In fact, does this
apparent distinction really address the faults that lie within the
SWF, which is what we are meant to be tackling?
On 17 Whe 2009, at 16:42, Eddie Climo wrote:
> As far as I recall, this distinction between 2p.pl. indicative and
> imperative is not made in French, Spanish or German, nor more
> relevantly perhaps in Welsh or Scots Gaelic.
> Since the citations strongly suggest that this distinction was not
> made historically, I see little virtue in recommending it for
> revived Cornish. Of course, it's a truism that the final decision is
> in the consensus amongst Cornish users, rather than being in the
> hands of our small group. But just as they are free to use whatever
> forms they choose, so are we free likewise to recommend or deprecate
> whatever we choose.
> The tension between these varying views of a language are completely
> natural and healthy. I'm at a loss to understand how some Cornish
> speakers are so paranoid about the idea.
> Eddie Foirbeis Climo
> - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -
> Dres ethom akennow byner re bons lyeshes
> Accenti non multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans