[Spellyans] chi v chy
eddie_climo at yahoo.co.uk
Fri May 7 17:27:41 IST 2010
On 7 Me 2010, at 07:42, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 6 May 2010, at 22:22, Craig Weatherhill wrote:
>> So what's your objection to the 'adventitious' KK graph? (I know
>> what mine is and I adhere to it).
> Old Cornish orthography is not within the scribal tradition which is
> the source of what we understand as traditional orthography.
Who is this 'we' you keep referring to, Michael? As a student of
Celtic languages for the last 30 years, and of Cornish for the last 4,
that 'we' doesn't include me.
Old Cornish was written, so it had scribes. It's Cornish, it's
traditional, so we must include it within Tota Cornicitas.
The historical corpus of traditional Cornish is so scanty and
incomplete that we cannot afford to reject any of it for a priori
reasons of dogma. That's precisely the trap Ken George fell into with
regard to Late/Modern Cornish — and, of course, those bits of
perfectly traditional Middle Cornish which he didn't like.
We must be exttemely careful lest we fall into the same trap
ourselves: KS must NOT become the new KK!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans