[Spellyans] An SWF glossary & Unified versus SWF
butlerdunnit at ntlworld.com
Tue Jun 8 22:39:26 IST 2010
I think you have hit the nail on the head for why many of us are instinctivelt attracted to UC ( and UCR, for that matter!) Its grammar and orthography IS largely a standardising exercise and combined with UCR's vocabulary enrichment one feels it really is reflecting how the language worked and was used.
As for the large corpus of UC literature it would seem silly deliberately to cut oneself off from it by going for a quite altered orthography. However I must also be honest and say I find the idea of the Late Cornish very appealling too. Lots of hard research have gone into it and one senses it IS the language of the later speakers with whom it is putting us in touch.
Would others agree that in some ways the UC/UCR- LC distinction parallels the difference we find in Welsh between the Colloquial and the Literary registers, or is there a bigger gulf?
Anyway, it's good to know that if I continue with UC/UCR ( my own favourite, I guess) it won't all be for nothing.
Anyone have experience of the old Llawlyfr Cernyweg Canol by Lewis? I know it's in Welsh but is it any good in its analysis of MiddleCornish, and how does it tie in with UC? Or is it largely a waste of money?
----- Original Message -----
From: Eddie Climo
To: Standard Cornish discussion list
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] An SWF glossary & Unified versus SWF
On 8 Efn 2010, at 16:29, Ray Chubb wrote:
Unified should not be looked at from a totally linguistic point of view.
Agreed, but UC can stand up to such scrutiny. The group of people who collaborated on designing UC were fine linguists who crafted well. Moreover, their hearts were in the right place: not for them the factional back-stabbing we've seen far too much of over the last quarter century.
Nance's original aim of using an orthography based on historical Cornish at its zenith, simply standardising out some irregularities, is still a valid one and will remain an attractive one to future generations who have put some thought into which form of Cornish they are going to learn.
Indeed. Unlike some forms of Revived Cornish, UC has stood the test of time, and given Kernewegoryon over 80 years of valuable service. It is, in my opinion, the classic form of revived Middle Cornish, and is as valid now as it was when launched all those years ago. Its designers have earned an honoured place in the history of our language, unlike some of today's wannabes.
Moreover, it has a massive literature that has built up over that period, and the reality is that —despite the efforts of modern bowdlerisers and plagiarists in the KKesva, and elsewhere— most of it will never be republished in any other orthography. Anyone who aspires to 'Tota Cornicitas' cannot simply wish that corpus away.
In the face of this large corpus of UC, Kernewegoryon now and in the years to come will be obliged (at the very least) to read UC, even if they choose not to write it.
Perhaps the same might be said by future generations (post 2013) about the substantial (and growing corpus) of KS literature that is currently being created.
Therefore Christian's opinion that Unified will only last until the current users die out could well be mistaken.
I very much suspect it is mistaken. I, for one, love UC and will continue to study and write in it.
Gwren ny perthy cof a un poynt a skyans a glewas Jowan Chy an Horth y'n whethel mur y vry:
"Kemer wyth na wreta gasa an forth coth rak an forth noweth."
Eddie Foirbeis Climo
- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -
Dres ethom akennow byner re bo lyeshes
Accenti non multiplicandi praeter necessitatem
Spellyans mailing list
Spellyans at kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans