[Spellyans] Spelling and linguistics - Yes

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Wed Jun 16 15:26:07 IST 2010


Dear all, 

   I share the sentiments, especially with Jan and Mina. It was always my impression that RLC is so much easier to learn. Just to grasp the basics and achieve relative functionality soon. The set of auxiliary verbs, phrases and idioms allows you to say a great deal in very little time, whereas it takes for ages to achieve the same kind of functionality in the literary RMC register, with all its complicated verbal inflections, that were even rarer in MC proper than portrayed in most UC and KK textbooks. Albert Bock, who teaches Breton at the university of Vienna also says that Breton confronts the students with many formal rules before they can achieve relative functionality and Breton verbal inflections are much more regular than the RMC paradigms with their multiple vowel alternations. 

   RMC is so difficult, that the learner has to resort to a pidginised “my-a-wra”-Kernowek to be able to say the most basic things, where RLC offers an elegant idiom, which is equally easy. The present tense with bos + ow + verbal noun is also chronically underused, preferring the present-future as a translation for the English simple present which just doesn’t always gel.   

   I wrote to Ray Edwards years ago to ask him if he would support my re-writing his otherwise very well structured KDL course to accommodate UCR and RLC users, but he declined. 

   What Chris and Craig point at is absolutely correct. The big downer for people wanting to use RLC was the inconsistency of the spelling and the many changes of the spelling system. I, too, liked the spelling in Tavas a Ragadazow very much, which was actually very close to what the UdnFormScrefys-group came up with when they presented KS1 – after recent re-viewing – a fine orthography, one that I would have enjoyed writing. This orthography was designed to deal with a colloquial and literary register and I still believe it did an excellent job, fantastically presented in the specification Michael wrote with Neil at his side. 

Dan

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Weatherhill
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 3:41 PM



“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”

 

==============

 

Chris Parkinson wrote: 

“Maybe because of the past spelling problems with RLC, Mina. I think the structure  and idiom of RLC/spoken Cornish should be fairly close to what Lhuyd and his contemporaries used and described. But the spelling needs to be what everyone can use now so learners can move on easily to read earlier Cornish texts and the whole body of 20th century literature. 

Chris”

 

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

 

> From: janicelobb at tiscali.co.uk <janicelobb at tiscali.co.uk>

> To: spellyans at kernowek.net

 

> 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

> 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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20100616/cb08895b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list