[Spellyans] Is there a future for the SWF?

Hewitt, Stephen s.hewitt at unesco.org
Tue May 15 14:21:22 IST 2012


Such an approach will inevitably lead to a complete mishmash, sometimes
allowing older forms if attested, but taking only later forms if that is
all that is attested.

 

The various historical phases of Breton and Welsh are both there for
comparative purposes; in a language as relatively poorly documented as
Cornish, surely every available piece of evidence should be used. I
would have thought plausibly reconstructed forms should be allowed. If
members of this list cannot agree on the basic goalposts, what is the
point?

 

Steve Hewitt

 

From: spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net
[mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net] On Behalf Of Nicholas Williams
Sent: 15 May 2012 15:05
To: Standard Cornish discussion list
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] Is there a future for the SWF?

 

Hear! Hear! And the same is true for 'March' and 'Tuesday'. These should
be spelt in the revived language with the attested vowel:  mis Merth and
de Merth. Anything else is speculative rather than authentic.

 

Nicholas

 

On 15 May 2012, at 12:25, Jon Mills wrote:





And even if scholars were to agree today regarding such a conjecture,
ideas of this nature are likely to change at some point in the future.
Thus we are building castles on the sand if we construct our orthography
on such conjectural reconstruction of phonology. The Cornish
attestations all have <e> or <ea>. It is better, therefore, to spell
this word <cledh>.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20120515/d50933b9/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list