[Spellyans] SWF

[Nicholas Williams]

You say his "form of Cornish", but nobody actually speaks it. They use
Unified pronunciation with a spurious, misleading and unhistorical
spelling. I doubt whether KK actually merits the term "Cornish".
Inclusivity should in my view not mean including error.
Moreover appeasing KK users has proved pointless over the last twenty + years.

We need an orthography that is phonetic, unambiguous and as
traditional as possible. KK certainly wasn't that, nor is either form
of the SWF at present.

Until revived Cornish gets a satisfactory orthography it cannot
prosper. The SWF is not, in my view, satisfactory.

Following Craig's advice I intend in the next year or so to write
comprehensively about the errors in the SWF.


Nicholas

On 11/17/10, Daniel Prohaska <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicholas Williams
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 9:12 PM
>
>
>
> “The spelling is not the same. I always write screfa as do the Middle and
> Late texts so often. After all Lhuyd writes skrepha. George's opinion on
> this matter is not a theory but a hypothesis which is not borne out by the
> facts.”
>
>
>
> There are also the following spellings for the verbal noun (I have excluded
> the e-spellings, and listed the y~i spellings only):
>
>
>
> scrife (PA)
>
> scrife (PC)
>
> scriffa (TH)
>
> scriffa (TH)
>
> scryffa (TH)
>
> scryfa (SA)
>
> skreifa (T.Boson)
>
> skreefa (N.Boson)
>
> skrîfa (Lh)
>
> scrifa (Pryce)
>
>
>
> For the verbal adjective:
>
> scriuit (VC)
>
> scrifys (PA)
>
> scryfys (PA)
>
> scrifis (PA)
>
> scryfis (PA)
>
> scryffys (OM)
>
> scrifys (PC)
>
> scryfys (PC)
>
> scrifys (RD)
>
> scriffes (TH)
>
> scriffes (TH)
>
> skryffes (TH)
>
> scriffys (TH)
>
> scriffis (TH)
>
> scryffys (TH)
>
> scryfys (TH)
>
> scryfys (SA)
>
> scryffes (CW)
>
> skryffes (CW)
>
> skryves (CW)
>
> scriffez (N.Boson)
>
> skreefez (N.Boson)
>
> scriffas (J.Boson)
>
> skrifyz (Lh)
>
>
>
> 1st sg. pres.-fut.:
>
> scrifaf (PC)
>
>
>
> 2nd sg. pret.:
>
> scrifys (PC)
>
> scrifis (PC)
>
>
>
> 3rd sg. pret.:
>
> scryfas (PA)
>
> scrifas (PA)
>
> scryffas (PA)
>
>
>
> So, yes, I believe alternative views are possible.
>
>
>
> “You, Dan, don't believe George on the question of length any more than I
> do, so don't pretend that the two opinions are on equal footing. All the
> evidence suggests that half-length had been lost in Middle Cornish.”
>
>
>
> I’m not pretending, I just respect the SWF’s principle of inclusivity. If
> people want to use half-length then they should be able to. Yes, you are
> right, I don’t think KG’s solution of the Cornish quantity system is right,
> but that’s an opinion. Albert has recently mention an interesting point
> looking at the quantity system of northern Welsh dialects, where vocalic
> length in polysyllabic words was lost in the low and mid vowels, but
> retained in the high vowels.
>
>
>
> “Clutching dogmatically cuts both ways.”
>
>
>
> Yes, it does, and I don’t like it – either way.
>
>
>
> “The KK people have been insisting that there was half-length for years
> without actually using it--and that includes the inventor himself. If that's
> not dogmatic, what is?”
>
>
>
> That doesn’t mean that we have to make the same mistake.
>
>
>
> “I merely suggested returning to the position of Nance and Caradar. Polin
> Pris was a firm advocate of KK but when confronted by Albert in the LWG
> about half-length, asked "What's half-length?"
>
>
>
> I know. Funny, innit?
>
>
>
> “The spelling of RC should not pander to mistakes.”
>
>
>
> Looking at the many attestations with <i> or <y>, a spelling such as
> <scrifa> cannot be considered a mistake.
>
>
>
> “I am very opposed to KG's position because I think he has done the revival
> massive damage. You weren't at the LWG where everybody was prepared to
> compromise except one person. Nor were you at Tremough when KG insisted that
> Trond refer to him publicly as a fellow linguist as the price for agreeing
> to the SWF. Trond did so, and apologised to me afterwards for it. But KG
> reneged on his word and still refuses to accept the SWF.
>
> Nicholas”
>
>
>
> We also need to deal with the fact that he and his form Cornish has support.
> We can also not expect every Cornish learner to be a linguist. I believe we
> have to correct the mistakes from within without frightening anybody away.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On 11/16/10, Daniel Prohaska <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com> wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: Nicholas Williams
>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 11:48 AM
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> ”All power to your elbow, Dan. But please spare a thought for those people
>
>> who cannot in conscience use the SWF either M or T. I cannot write <iw> in
>
>> dyw, because I have read all the Cornish texts and know it doesn't occur
>
>> anywhere. I cannot write chi, ki, bri because I know such forms are
>
>> virtually unknown. I cannot write genev, orthiv, warnav because I know
>> such
>
>> forms are Lhuydian inventions based on Welsh and are unknown in
>> traditional
>
>> Cornish.”
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> That’s fine, if that is your opinion. I don’t think it’s all that
>> difficult.
>
>> Since <i> and <y> have been redistributed both in KS and SWF I see little
>
>> problem with writing <iw>, even if it does not occur in MC. Note that <iu>
>
>> occurs in Lhuyd though who distinguishes it from <eu> found in etyma that
>
>> frequently have <yw> in MC. If you can stand the general redistribution of
>
>> <i> and <y> I don’t see what the problem is bearing with <iw> if it’s
>
>> useful.
>
>>
>
>> I, too, don’t like <chi, ki, bri> etc. and would much rather be allowed to
>
>> write <chy, ky, bry> - this is definitely something the people who prefer
>
>> SWF/t will need in 2013, if the SWF : SWF/t dichotomy is to continue.
>
>>
>
>> I think we could propose to write <f> in <genef, orthif, warnaf> by
>> spelling
>
>> [f] as <ff>, [v] as <v> and using <f> as an umbrella graph for [v] and
>> [f].
>
>> This would work for secondary lenition, initial voicing in LC as well as
>
>> word final traditional <f> which can be either [v] or dropped.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> “So what am I supposed to do? Do you think I should write SWF/T — an
>
>> orthography for Cornish devised by people who know Cornish less well than
>> I
>
>> and who for the most part don't understand the linguistic arguments and
>> have
>
>> never read the texts?”
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> I would like to see RC as close to traditional Cornish, too, but it has to
>> a
>
>> certain extent become its own thing. The texts always have to be our main
>
>> corrective, I agree, but there are some practical considerations we have
>
>> accepted for RC such as writing <dh> and <j>. And while KK went over the
>> top
>
>> with these “practical” characteristics, we have learnt from it that many
>
>> people don’t so much care for the traditional texts as much as having (or
>> at
>
>> least believing so) a solid guide to pronunciation for RC. These
>> sentiments
>
>> need to be considered.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> “I have no choice but to avoid the SWF. The SWF has two merits. 1. it is
>> not
>
>> as erroneous as KK (with its specious phonology—unused by anybody). 2.
>> Since
>
>> it is not KK, it has removed George's ability to dictate to the revival.”
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Sorry Nicholas, this is too much anti-George for my taste. We’ve got what
>
>> we’ve got for now. There is the upcoming 2013 adjustment and I’m sure if
>
>> errors can be pointed out, they can at any time be addressed discussed and
>
>> in the spirit of consensus and reasoned argument, implemented.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> “It is far from perfect however, and where it is mistaken it does not
>
>> resemble the texts. In this respect it differs notably from UC and UCR.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Until the SWF is emended I won't use it.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Finally I don't think the Cornish people should be compelled to "live
>> with"
>
>> an orthography that is neither traditional nor correct.
>
>>
>
>> Nicholas”
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Correct is a matter of interpretation of the data. None of us possess the
>
>> absolute truth about what traditional Cornish phonology was at a given
>> time.
>
>> We must not make the mistake of dogmatically clutching to our pet theories
>
>> if problems with them are pointed out. Also, in an orthography of RC there
>
>> can be room for considerable variation in pronunciation while sticking to
>> a
>
>> standard spelling, thus even mutually exclusive theories underlying the
>
>> phonology can be orthographically represented to allow adherents of the
>
>> various schools of thought to read their Cornish in their pronunciation,
>
>> e.g. a follower of George’s phonological theories will read <scrifa> as
>
>> [ˈskriˑfa] while somebody who espouses your theories can say [ˈskrɪfə] or
>
>> [ˈskrɛfə]. The spelling is the same.
>
>>
>
>> Dan
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Spellyans mailing list
>
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
>
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>
>