[Spellyans] Spelling and linguistics - Yes

ewan wilson butlerdunnit at ntlworld.com
Tue Jun 15 22:41:24 IST 2010


Well, Chris , I'm glad somebody has had the same idea about there being a parallel with the Welsh Literary- Colloquial division. To be honest, the Welsh I've learned has been the 'Gog' colloquial version. Looking at the more literary Welsh, it strikes me it maybe aspires to be more 'Latinate' with its more elaborate accidence, word order, etc whereas the colloquial has to some extent 'simplified'. 
I've just been galloping back through good, old Cornish Simplified and one is remnded by Lesson 17 of the sheer 'finickness' of the language with its various verbal particles, compounded by the quite complex mutation systems. These all have to juggled in ones head, along with a half decent stab at pronunciation and I have nothing but admiration for those who have managed it. However it is an impressive achievement of Nance and I think it desrves our best effort. The one ting that does go through my mind is would this really be the form of Cornish that Dolly Pentreath and the later users would readily recognise? Or would they more easily align with the Late Cornish of Gendall, et al? 
I think the one of the beauties of UCR is its ready assimilation of the actual Late(-ish!) English borrowings which far from diluting the language seem to give it added, distinctively Cornish pungency, oddly enough! 
I was watching a Scottish Gaelic TV programme this evening and it struck me the amount of English  two native speakers had to insert into their conversation eg, 'upside down', 'slug pellets', 'keeping up with the Jones's'( maybe this last is Welsh?!). Is this necessarily a sign of 'decay' or simple lack of advanced literacy? After all, travelling on a bus daily, one can hear lots of English conversation with fairly restricted vocabulary bases!!

Ewan.    
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Chris Parkinson 
  To: Standard Cornish discussion list 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 9:25 AM
  Subject: Re: [Spellyans] Spelling and linguistics - Yes


  Maybe I need to say now that an interest in linguistics certainly does not mean that I think KK was ever a good idea. What  I do think is that Ewan's thought is right and that UC is a literary form of the language and RLC is like the spoken form - of the same language, which corresponds to the picture in Welsh. KK is a different way of spelling UC. Isn't it? I'm not sure how UCR fits into this picture. But RLC needs to be written down, which raises problems. What for example is to happen to the verbal particle 'ow'? RLC leaves it out or reduces it to 'a'.  Would this be acceptable using SWF, or in using KS for that matter. Chris
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Christian Semmens 
    To: Standard Cornish discussion list 
    Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 9:01 AM
    Subject: Re: [Spellyans] Spelling and linguistics - Yes


    Hi Ray,

    It is amazing when you first try it.

    However, it does require full familiarity with the language to do it. And as Chris says, it certainly wouldn't help a learner pronounce English, not that English does a good job of that anyway! :)

    Christian



----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    _______________________________________________
    Spellyans mailing list
    Spellyans at kernowek.net
    http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Spellyans mailing list
  Spellyans at kernowek.net
  http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20100615/856afc05/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list