[Spellyans] Spelling and linguistics - Yes

Craig Weatherhill craig at agantavas.org
Wed Jun 16 14:40:58 IST 2010


When UCR first appeared, I saw it as the first realistic bridge  
between RMC and RLC.  I had persevered with RLC but the problem was  
that Dick would not make his mind up about a settled orthography.   
He'd say: "Right, this is it", then 6 months later change his mind,  
and he's still doing it.  It was doing my head in, and learners just  
couldn't hack it.  Just look at the bewildering difference between  
Tavas a Ragadazow (which I thought was a lovely orthography) and  
"Practical Modern Cornish" (to my mind, a terrible orthography) - only  
3 years between them.

I really do think that, if RLC had settled an orthography in the early  
90s, it would be way ahead of where it is now.

Craig



On 16 Efn 2010, at 13:06, Kernuack at aol.com wrote:

> Jan is totally right. I made this same point when I sent in my  
> submission to the Commission way back. RLC supporters would have  
> worked well with UCR - we always maintained this. the stumbling  
> block was always KK. My pupils have always attained a good degree of  
> spoken fluency after relatively few lessons. Why would nobody  
> listen? Mina
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: janicelobb at tiscali.co.uk <janicelobb at tiscali.co.uk>
> To: spellyans at kernowek.net
> Sent: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:59
> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] Spelling and linguistics - Yes
>
> This is what we in the Cussel have been saying until we are blue in  
> the face. RLC should be taught first as the colloquial/ 
> conversational form of Cornish, with simplified grammar and spelling  
> (authentic, naturally), progressing to the more literary forms of UC/ 
> UCR when the children (and adults) have become proficient in that.  
> I'm sure there would be far fewer drop-outs.
> Jan
>
> ----Original Message----
> From: brynbow at btinternet.com
> Date: 16/06/2010 9:09
> To: "Standard Cornish discussion list"<spellyans at kernowek.net>
> Subj: Re: [Spellyans] Spelling and linguistics - Yes
>
> 
> Thanks for the comments, Ewan. Literary Welsh indeed makes more use  
> of inflected verbs, but not, I think, to be particularly Latinate.  
> All the Celtic languages were quite highly inflected, just as was  
> Latin.  And they have become simplified in speech. (How did they get  
> so highly inflected in the first place?!)  Your description of the  
> difficulties of learning the UC of Nance makes the point. Nance's UC  
> produced few really fluent speakers. That is why Dick Gendall turned  
> to Late Cornish which Jenner also considered a legitimate part of  
> the heritage. As I said before, KK only tried to improve UC's  
> orthography to make it easier to get the pronunciation right. In  
> this he was unsuccessful because few follow all of his guidelines.  
> What really concerns me is the problem of what register should be  
> used in primary schools because it seems that this hasn't been  
> discussed. Maybe the Partnership's two new education officers are  
> thinking about it. Literary Welsh is not used in Welsh primary  
> schools. It was realised in the 50's and 60's that this didn't work  
> and steps were successfully taken to improve the situation.   
> Successful learners, and of course L1 speakers gradually come to  
> more literary versions of the language as they read more widely. So,  
> to come back to 'Spellyans',  if  an officially acceptable   
> orthography is not worked out for all aspects of RLC then as Craig  
> suggested, the SWF favoured by mainly KK followers, and the formal  
> language that goes with it, will take precedence in 2013. How many  
> fluent Cornish infants will come out of that? Or am I overstating  
> the case and being too negative? What do other people on this list  
> think? Michael, what do you think?
>
> Chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ewan wilson
> To: Standard Cornish discussion list
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] Spelling and linguistics - Yes
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

--
Craig Weatherhill





More information about the Spellyans mailing list