craig at agantavas.org
Tue Jun 22 18:56:22 IST 2010
I'm concerned over one or two views that have been expressed re.
vocabulary. On one hand I'm hearing support for tota Cornicitas, and
on the other, I'm hearing that a word only attested in OCV and not in
the MC/Tudor texts shouldn't be used (stevel being an example that
immediately springs to mind; use rom instead is the advice). I don't
agree with this. Here's an example to illustrate why I think this way.
Dyek (SWF: diek), 'lazy' occurs on OCV as 'dioc', and not in MC at
all. Until the 80s, when Dick Gendall was the first to look at Late
Cornish in depth, it was being assumed that the word didn't survive
into MC. In fact, it must have survived into Late Cornish because it
turns up in dialect as 'jack'. So, if the word made it to Late
Cornish and dialect, it follows that it must have existed in MC. We
just don't have a text that features it and, let's face it, we only
have a fraction of the texts that must once have existed. Attestation
in MC texts supports the use of a word; absence from what survives of
the MC texts is not a reason for rejection. It only tells us that the
word isn't found in those few texts; not that it didn't exist.
For me, tota Cornicitas is essential.
I'm afraid that some words being put forward will never find use with
me. I don't see the point of 'valy' for "valley", when so many
Cornish words for different types of valley already exist. Nor am I
minded to reject lyw/liw (or however we're spelling it) in favour of
'color'. I want to write Cornish. I already know English.
More information about the Spellyans