[Spellyans] chi v chy

Michael Everson everson at evertype.com
Fri May 7 17:56:43 IST 2010


On 7 May 2010, at 17:27, Eddie Climo wrote:

>> 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.

Oh, please, please, please try to actually listen to what I am saying.

> Old Cornish was written, so it had scribes. It's Cornish, it's traditional, so we must include it within Tota Cornicitas.

Yes, it is part of Cornish. But its orthography is *outside* of the Glasney-based scribal tradition that our (and Jenner's and Nance's) orthography. Similarly, Lhuyd's orthography is outside of that scribal tradition. Neither Jenner, nor UC, nor UCR, nor KS1, nor KS uses the forms of the other orthographic systems. 

That's ALL I have been saying. I have not been rejecting Old Cornish, or Place-Names, or Archaeologia Britannica. All I have been saying is that even if CHI turns up in 68 place-names, that does not put CHI into the Glasney-based scribal tradition which is the source of the choices we made in designing KS1 and which have informed our examination of the SWF as we prepared KS. 

Please note that CHUY also turns up in one place-name; that does not put CHUY into the scribal tradition either.

> 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.

Who did any rejection? I was merely pointing out that all spellings are not equal. If an orthography is to have a coherent (and traditional) structure, some weeding simply must be done. Otherwise we might have hƿ or wh or hụ all contending as equals -- but they are not: hƿ and hụ are not part of the Glasney-based scribal tradition.

> 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.

This has nothing to do with anything I have said about "chy". 

> We must be exttemely careful lest we fall into the same trap ourselves: KS must NOT become the new KK!

Well that's not very friendly.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/





More information about the Spellyans mailing list