[Spellyans] a denewen "aside"
craig at agantavas.org
Thu Feb 11 15:36:27 GMT 2010
As far as I'm concerned, Trond is what went wrong with the SWF process.
You'll recall that Commissioners' recommendation, to which consensual
agreement was given (I write the important part in capitals): "a
compromise somewhere between KK and KS, BUILDING ON KD, BUT WITH AN
INPUT FROM KS".
This never happened. In fact, this process was already ongoing
between KS and KD, with some considerable success, but it was never
allowed to continue.
I'll remind you all of another of the Commissioners' recommendations:
'the k/c issue seems to be hotly debated. . . Here KK has <k> only.
There is,of course, no minimal pair between <k> and <c>. But the
medieval practice (known from English and Scandinavian) has a phonetic
base: the <k> is palatal, and the <c> is velar. Since it has the
support of both articulatory phonetics (if not phonology), historical
tradition and, not least, our knowledge of English, changing what has
been called the 'German' '<k> only' policy into velar <c> and palatal
<k> SHOULD BE SEEN AS A SMALL COMPROMISE FOR KK USERS. We understand
that the <k> may have become some sort of shibboleth after 20 years of
proud use of <k> across the board, BUT THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE THAT
DESERVES TO BLOCK CONSENSUS. CORNISHMEN USED THE <c>, IT IS EASY TO
USE THE <c>, AS ALL KNOW HOW TO USE IT AND, IF IT HELPS THE
REVITALISATION, THEN IT IS REALLY NEEDED. AS WE SEE IT, THIS IS THUS
NOT A BIG 'LOSS' FOR KK; AND NO PEDAGOGICAL PRINCIPLE IS VIOLATED."
That, as I say, is what received consensus agreement but, when it came
to the AHG meetings, these recommendations were totally ignored by its
Chairman who, again in my view, did not have the authority to do so,
or to make KK the default system.
I think that, had we known for certain what was actually going on
within the AHG part of the process, it would have been halted there
and then, with insistence that the agreed recommendations be strictly
On 11 Whe 2010, at 15:11, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 11 Feb 2010, at 14:35, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
>> While <tenewen> is not the exclusive spelling, it is by far the
>> most frequent, and across the widest distribution of the texts.
> That still doesn't mean it's the best one; frequency is not a
> sufficient argument on its own.
> For this word, the fact that -e- appears under stress is a *good*
> and *linguistic* reason to spell it tenewen. It is entirely
> consistent with our spelling colon/colonow rather than colan, for
> I do not believe that etymological reconstruction is a sufficient
> linguistic reason to change from traditional spellings -- not when
> it is merely cosmetic. Remember, it was George who changed from
> traditional spellings in 1987.
>> I meant the Middle Cornish attestations of <a denewen> were all
>> with final –en. I didn’t mean all attestation of <tenewen> and
>> their derivatives.
>> The LC attestations usually show an intrusive <r>, such as Lhuyd’s
>> <terneụan>, so I have added an SWF/L variant <ternewen>.
> Is the variant with -r- used in RLC?
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans