everson at evertype.com
Sun Nov 21 00:37:17 GMT 2010
On 20 Nov 2010, at 22:46, nicholas williams wrote:
>> Why can it not write <bolonjedh> [bɔˈlʊnʤəθ] and <bolonjedhek> [ˌbɔlənˈʤɛðək]
> Because, Dan, the form *bolonjedh is not found. The forms in Lhuyd are:
> volyndzheth AB: 224; volenegeth AB: 222.
> Gwavas who uses <dh> in other words writes bonogath BF: 45.
> *bolonjedh is not attested.
I called KK a house of cards once. The only reason we are even talking about this is Ken George's cringing before Breton and Welsh. Because of temporal constraints, and a team of fluent non-linguists during hostile negotiations, that got built into the SWF. Of course, this doesn't make it right.
Dan, your motivations are good, I am sure. You want to work "within the process". But the process has introduced linguistic features not found in Cornish into the orthography..
Inclusiveness is all very well. But the integrity of the Cornish language is more important than whether people may have learnt from books propounding a mistaken theory.
The example above shows, I'm afraid, that the tack you are taking is going the wrong direction -- away from Cornish.
I do not say this rashly, or without consideration. I have been working with Cornish since we started to put the UCR dictionary together. I have listened to the view you've put across, and in looking at the evidence together with Nicholas I just don't believe that Lhuyd's material supports the view that you have been espousing over the past few days.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
More information about the Spellyans