[Spellyans] An Abecedary Kernowek
craig at agantavas.org
Mon Mar 30 11:24:43 IST 2009
Oh, well, we have to make the best of it and, in the meantime, get KS
as good as it can be, ready for the SWF review in 4 years time.
The problem, of course, is that the AHG was not given nearly enough
time to deliberate, following which too much was placed on Ben's and
Albert's shoulders in (again) too short a time. Hence we have a SWF
which is rather too confusing to learners because of inconsistencies.
Far too much time spent in bureaucracy and all too little for the
As you say, Dan's dictionary will have to remain faithful to what has
been agreed by the SWF process, and will be an essential publication
if we are ever to get Cornish into schools. I'm lucky enough to have
a first draft of that dictionary and am still amazed that Dan could
put it together so quickly. I realise that it is not the final
version, which I very much look forward to seeing.
With regard to preocclusion, I started out with Dick Gendall in Late
Cornish and have always preoccluded in speech so that where it applies
and where it doesn't tends to come naturally.
On 30 Mer 2009, at 10:50, <ajtrim at msn.com> wrote:
> Apparently, there is no evidence of pre-occlusion in the names of M
> & N. I asked for it to be considered for KS. It looks as though it
> has been rejected. I'm fine with that.
> If evidence were to appear, we would need two versions, as you say.
> The SWF often writes mm and nn where no pre-occlusion takes place.
> That is one of the "problems" with the SWF that KS is designed to
> "fix". If the SWF were satisfactory, we wouldn't need KS. Dan's SWF
> dictionary will record the SWF as it has been agreed; not as we
> would like it to be.
> Andrew J. Trim
> From: "Craig Weatherhill" <craig at agantavas.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 8:09 AM
> To: "Standard Cornish discussion list" <spellyans at kernowek.net>
> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] An Abecedary Kernowek
>> Absolutely, but what I'm getting at is that the alphabet has to
>> contain alternatives for M and N (i.e. BM and DN) to be complete.
>> By the way, Andrew and I came across an annoying problem with the
>> SWF which has commol but comolen. Surely the collective noun is in
>> error as the word does not preocclude. If not, then we have an
>> unnecessary complication for learners (why double M in one but not
>> the other?). I thought it was agreed that geminates would only
>> occur in stressed syllables where it is known that preocclusion
>> applies, e.g. dhymm/ dhybm; omma/obma.
>> On 29 Mer 2009, at 22:41, Michael Everson wrote:
>>> On 29 Mar 2009, at 22:19, Craig Weatherhill wrote:
>>>> With M and N we would have to have two entries for each: one for
>>>> the unpreoccluded form and one where preocclusion applies.
>>> Pre-occlusion could not apply to these words unless they were
>>> attested with pre-occlusion.
>>> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>>> Spellyans mailing list
>>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
>> Craig Weatherhill
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans