[Spellyans] SWF (t) and Maga web site

Craig Weatherhill craig at agantavas.org
Thu Aug 9 21:26:46 IST 2012

Can I remind everyone that the Review is just 12 months away.  We are  
running out of time, and have have formulated no meaningful strategy  
for it.

I suggest that concentrate on this, and I also believe that it should  
be done on a closed list.


On 9 Est 2012, at 20:34, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> On Aug 9, 2012, at 6:36 PM, Nicholas Williams wrote:
>> We have been through all this many times. I don't object to <dh>, I  
>> object to <dh> after unstressed syllables as you know perfectly well.
> I know, I realise this. But this is according to your theory that  
> consonants are generally unvoiced in final position in unstressed  
> syllables. This is, however a theory, an informed opinion if you  
> will. There are just as informed opinions that this was not the  
> case. We argue theories until we are blue in the face, but that  
> doesn't change the fact that we will never know whether traditional  
> native Cornish speakers had voiced or voiceless consonants in this  
> position. There are the two major theories and the question is how  
> to deal with this when standardizing the orthography of Revived  
> Cornish.
>> My objection to the SWF is that it was not the work of linguists.
> Not true. While there were so-called amateurs who codified some  
> rules, the basis of their work were the extant orthographies of  
> Cornish which where put together by linguists. You know well that  
> there are no absolute proofs in many areas of historical linguistics  
> and you will find that even professional linguists argue about  
> varying theories and this is no different. Nicholas you know very  
> well that I greatly respect your work, but you too can never know  
> whether this particular feature of Cornish was in fact the way your  
> theory says it was.
>> I wasn't allowed in the room, nor was Michael. You weren't there.  
>> It was
>> a bad compromise devised by amateurs.
> There were a number of bad features, but there were also some that  
> one can work with. Some features will just have to remain open to  
> interpretation considering the fact that Cornish died out and we  
> cannot consult native speakers.
>> In the long term SWF/K or T at least in its present form has no  
>> future.
> It needs to develop and be corrected in many places, but apart from  
> the question of traditional graphs, I think we're on the right track  
> where most features are concerned. Others remain problematic and I  
> will agree with you on that.
> Dan
>> Nicholas
>> On 9 Aug 2012, at 17:13, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
>>> ‹dh› is legitimized  through Lhuyd and over a century of use in  
>>> Revived Cornish.
>>> ‹i› and ‹y› are used interchangeably in traditional Cornish,  
>>> bringing some kind of order into the distribution is desirable.
>>> final ‹v› occurs in Lhuyd.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
>> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20120809/8ee61f3f/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list