[Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative

nicholas williams njawilliams at gmail.com
Mon Feb 16 12:32:12 GMT 2009


The texts written by native speakers should really be our only warrant.
To invoke revivalist practice is not, I believe, legitimate, since it  
opens the door
to many mistakes.
Revivalist practice would legitimate yn kever *'about' with nouns,  
huny to mean 'one',
the use of nefra in the past, etc., etc.

Until there is a community of really fluent speakers of Cornish (many  
of them natives)
revivalist practice cannot properly be used as an argument.

The curious thing is that PA uses -ough for the 2nd imperative but UC
has -eugh. Given Nance's particular fondness for PA as a basic text
the UC -eugh ~ -ough distinction is odd. Perhaps Nance just wanted
levereugh, for example, to have the same ending as gwreugh.


Nicholas

On 16 Feb 2009, at 12:15, Ray Chubb wrote:

> Using owgh forms takes no account of custom and practice in the  
> revival over the past 100 years.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090216/3b005b18/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list