[Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative

Craig Weatherhill 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
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

More information about the Spellyans mailing list