[Spellyans] Blejyow or Flowrys?
butlerdunnit at ntlworld.com
Sun May 30 22:52:50 BST 2010
I'm apt to agree with Craig and Janice that common sense tells us the corpus
of authentic, attested 'pre-Revival' Cornish is so slim that when we find
synonymous borrowed and 'pure' items it enriches the living language to
adopt both but perhaps bearing in mind some of these lexical items may have
more common currency over others. For some items we can possibly guess quite
accurately if it retained its common currency, for others it might well be
pure subjective guess-work. As Craig points out, it is dangerous to be too
dogmatic given the leanness of the surviving corpus. However I think
Nicholas has a point that if certain terms HAD clearly enough archaised by
the K.Kres period then we need to bear that in mind when reintroducing it
into the bloodstream as it were of the Revived tongue. However, as that
essay in one of the Cornish Studies issues observed, in a sense the Revived
language becomes what we make of it, as a living organism it cannot petrify!
Of course there are limits to the contention that the language is what the
user makes of it. If we stray too far from the 'Norm' and the core Rules we
end up in gibberish, I'd say.
My original point is that from my limited knowledge of the language I'd say
because Cornish does have a rich supply of borrowings ( possibly more
liberal than Welsh or Gaelic) it has the advantage of potential variety of
'registers' just like English but which I think 'purer' tongues may lack.
As for criticisms of Nance, it is all very well to point out his
idiosyncrasies and limitations but I very much doubt ANY orthography in ANY
language will ever be perfect though I suppose the English system is
particularly 'rough and ready'!!
Was Glanville Price a professional Celticist, by the way? I repeat- it is
sad that so few Celtic Depts actually give Cornish ( Traditional and
Revived) the attention it deserves.
Is Neil Kennedy still active in the Revival?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Weatherhill" <craig at agantavas.org>
To: "Standard Cornish discussion list" <spellyans at kernowek.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] Blejyow or Flowrys?
> Nance had his faults - we're all aware of that, BUT it took 40 years for
> anyone to notice. If I remember rightly it was Glanville Price who first
> brought this to attention, then the likes of Tim Saunders jumped on his
> bandwagon, etc. It is, though, unfair to blame Nance for what George did
> to Cornish. That was George's own choice - nothing to do with Nance.
> George was solely to blame, except for those who egged him on (back in
> those days, it was mostly Brown).
> I wondered why Loveday was so scathing of Price, until I realised that
> he'd been even more scathing of George than he ever was of Nance.
> The fact remains that without Nance (and Jenner before him) we wouldn't
> be participating in a revival today. So let's go a bit gentler on Nance.
> On 30 Me 2010, at 19:56, Eddie Climo wrote:
>> On 30 Me 2010, at 19:49, nicholas williams wrote:
>>> Nance didn't do that because of his idees fixes about what constituted
>>> "correct" Cornish. Nance's purism nourished later less scholarly purism
>>> and has, in my view, done the revival immense damage.
>> Look in the mirror, Nicholas, and say those words to yourself. Purism,
>> thy name is NJAW.
>> You might do the Revival 'immense harm' by slandering people like Mordon
>> and (by implication) Caradar, were it not for the fact that their place
>> in the history of our language's Revival is honoured and secure.
>> Rak meth dhys!
>> Eddie Climo
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> Craig Weatherhill
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans