[Spellyans] Is there a future for the SWF?
ray at spyrys.org
Thu May 17 13:23:46 BST 2012
On 16 Me 2012, at 22:05, Craig Weatherhill wrote:
> Head on the block time.
> "Reduced to the status of a code. Every principle of sound and
> spelling....must be followed to its logical end and strictly
> Anyone remember those words? Written by P.A.S. Pool in "The Second
> Death of Cornish" about the excesses of KK.
> I worry that many of the debates and arguments on this group may be
> in danger of going too far down the same path. Must we codify every
> last thing, giving the language no room to breathe?
Could I also remind members of this list of what Nicholas said in
'Cornish Today' in 1995:
Of Kemmyn at 13.2 To draw up the phonemic inventory of a living
language is a difficult affair, and the end result may well not
satisfy other scholars in the field. To attempt to phonemicize a
language that has no traditional speakers is an even more hazardous
business, and requires exceptional linguistic expertise. It is not
obvious that the devisors of Kernewek Kemmyn satisfied these
conditions. It should be noted that the devisors of Unified Cornish
did not require such expert knowledge and skill. They after all were
content for the most part to let their sources speak for themselves.
Of Unified at 15.8 At no point did Nance attempt to elaborate
a scientific basis for the phonology of Unified Cornish. Indeed it is
doubtful whether he could have done so, even if he had wished. Instead
he let the phonology of Unified Cornish emerge piecemeal and in an ad
hoc fashion. His system is saved quite simply by the way that for the
most part he adhered to the spelling of the texts.
Agan Tavas web site: www.agantavas.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans