[Spellyans] Is there a future for the SWF?
craig at agantavas.org
Sun May 20 14:26:42 BST 2012
I have noticed in 'Desky Kernowek' that the only value given to long A
(as in <pras>) is the A of "hat" drawn out a little. But what about
the Late Cornish value? I pronounce this word with an A like the AI
of "fair". Same with the A of <da>, "good" (cf Pullen Day, for Pollyn
da, Sennen). Very similar t long E, in fact. Still heard in West
Penwith speech to this day, and it's unique to West Cornwall.
Where heavily stressed, it develops a "pitch-bend". Imagine the AI of
"fair" followed by a brief schwa, and you're somewhere near it.
On 20 Me 2012, at 14:17, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
> On May 17, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Nicholas Williams wrote:
>> Though Nance did change the spelling of the texts to make them
>> conform to his preconceived notions.
>> UC byghan is unattested in the texts (though not in place-names);
>> byhan or byan would have been better
>> UC Ywerdhon is unattested and should have been Wordhen
>> UC Kembry is unattested and should have been Kembra
>> UC Whevrer is unattested and should have been Whevrel.
>> Moreover, because Nance had no linguistic training, he did not seem
>> to have realised that the vowel in tus 'men' and dus 'come' were
>> different. This was apparent from the different reflexes in Late
>> Cornish: tees 'men' but des 'come'. As a result UC lacks the [oe]
>> vowel, that was already in Jenner's Cornish.
> Nance was aware of the distinction otherwise he wouldn't have given
> the UC variants ‹kes› and ‹cus› for "cheese", but ‹tus›
> only for "men, people".
> I like the idea of umbrella graphs in the SWF and KS: the
> orthography has ‹eu›, but people who say [e(ː)] read ‹eu›
> as /e(ː)/ and people who say [œ(ː)] read ‹eu› as /œ(ː)/.
> By the same token we could have the same principle applied to word
> final ‹dh› and ‹th›: write ‹th› where all agree on a
> voiceless realisation, but write ‹dh› where some pronounce the
> word with /θ/ and others with /ð/.
>> On 17 May 2012, at 13:23, Ray Chubb wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans