[Spellyans] Spellyans, KS, and reconstruction

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Sun May 20 14:29:49 IST 2012


On May 17, 2012, at 8:35 PM, Linus Band wrote:

> Okay, yes, I do understand that arguing over details of individual pronunciation might not be of utmost importance at the moment, as that takes a lot of time and the review is around the corner. Of course, a spelling that is open to multiple interpretation would be best, without being as random as the traditional texts are most of the time.

With all the differing theories and conjectural models around such a wide base is probably the best we can do at this point. 

> One of the most aggravating things about "reconstruction" in our context is it practically asks for every bloody KK spelling that turns up in the SWF to be examined. And when people do that, they make all sorts of assumptions. They assume that everyone else has read Jackson and Schrijver and whoever else. Not the texts, which are in Middle and Late Cornish. But those books are full of the reconstructions of linguists who aren't interested in *modern* forms of Cornish for the use of *modern* people. They are interested in reconstructing Brythonic and Proto-Brythonic and Proto-Celtic and the Italo-Celtic unity and so on back to the kurgans.
> 
> They might not be interested in the modern languages, but one must not dismiss their research merely on the basis of that.

Agreed.

> The field of historical linguistics has proven itself time and again (cf. de Saussure's laryngeal theory). Of course it is dangerous to base something merely on reconstructions, but I think that the analysis of texts and historical linguistics can and should complement each other.

Definitely.

> Even more so, I think that using all available tools constitutes good scholarship.

Yes.

> It is of course very important that there is a group of people that can analyse and critically evaluate each others work. One of the main problems with the introduction of KK as been that there were far too little people who could do just that. 

I think you're very right about that. Also, academics are used their work being reviewed and criticised and I think laypeople being criticised often take such criticism far too personally and overreact as a consequence. E.g. I never read any personal attack by Nicholas on Ken George, only his work and the results. But Nicholas' criticism was widely received as harsh personal criticism of Ken George in KK circles and partially by Gendall's supporters (though they kept out of the public arguing for the most part). This is unfortunate, because it would have made much more sense to discuss the separate issues more rationally and find common ground. But alas, we're only human, so things get personal. This even happens a lot in academic circles, so they're no better off either. ...

> The other aggravating thing is that those interested in the ramifications of the reconstructions of Jackson and Schrijver and George and whoever else is that they do not publish their work. They do not publish etymologies justifying their tinkering; they expect everybody to take it on faith. "Ah, yes, those fellows over there, they know their Brythonic, they're doing all the checking of the reconstructions just fine." But there aren't any publications showing the work.
> 
> Sorry, but this is simply not true. You should take a better look or ask people who work in the field where to find stuff before saying something like this.

Agreed.

> If they do not explain something in the text, then you will find the answer in a reference. Of course it is not light reading, but what do you expect, it's their job to research these things. And Jackson and Schrijver make for much easier reading than McCone or Kortlandt. We are lucky that the latter two mostly worked on Goidelic linguistics.

I think Michael means people who use Schrijver and Jackson, quote from the selectively, offering theories without comprehensively presenting their ideas in a paper. I'm guilty as charged, though that doesn't mean I won't get down to some work once I'm satisfied with a 0.1 completed edition of my dictionary… (when I'm about 85) … 
Dan

> Then, to conclude: I find KS a very elegant solution, good job! 
> (How's that for a compliment-sandwich?
> Oll an gwella,
> Linus
> 
> 2012/5/16 Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>
> The thing about reconstruction is that it's not 1904 any longer. There is a revived language, and it has been the goal of this group to serve a practical function, namely to *improve* the Standard Written Form which was, devised by 8 people after 5 days of discussion. To excerpt from the kernowek.net homepage:
> 
> > The “Outline of the Standard Written Form of Cornish” recognizes that adjustments will need be made to the Standard Written Form in order “to better serve the needs of the contemporary Cornish-speaking community”. While Cornwall County Council and other public bodies, now have an orthography they can use, the Standard Written Form has, in our view, shortcomings which make it less attractive to many for personal use. The range of “alternative traditional graphs provided for writers who would like to use more traditional spellings” is not yet extensive enough to permit truly authentic spelling. And more importantly, we in UdnFormScrefys perceive there to be linguistic inconsistencies and indeed errors in the specification. We believe that the general public requires an adapted version of the SWF in which these are rectified.
> > [...]
> > Outside of official contexts, Cornish users are of course free to write in any orthography they choose. In recognition of this and in anticipation of emendations to the Standard Written Form at a future stage of the Partnership process, we believe that discussion of corrections and improvements to the Standard Written Form should begin without delay. In the interim, we would like to offer the public an adapted version of the Standard Written Form for immediate use. We do not ourselves believe that recognized inconsistencies and errors should be taught, if they can be identified and put right.
> 
> One of the most aggravating things about "reconstruction" in our context is it practically asks for every bloody KK spelling that turns up in the SWF to be examined. And when people do that, they make all sorts of assumptions. They assume that everyone else has read Jackson and Schrijver and whoever else. Not the texts, which are in Middle and Late Cornish. But those books are full of the reconstructions of linguists who aren't interested in *modern* forms of Cornish for the use of *modern* people. They are interested in reconstructing Brythonic and Proto-Brythonic and Proto-Celtic and the Italo-Celtic unity and so on back to the kurgans.
> 
> Ken George didn't go back all that far. While occasionally he mentions some Brythonic form, mostly he re-spells Cornish because a form in the texts doesn't look like something in Breton. Was there a *Meurth? The texts don't show evidence for it.
> 
> The other aggravating thing is that those interested in the ramifications of the reconstructions of Jackson and Schrijver and George and whoever else is that they do not publish their work. They do not publish etymologies justifying their tinkering; they expect everybody to take it on faith. "Ah, yes, those fellows over there, they know their Brythonic, they're doing all the checking of the reconstructions just fine." But there aren't any publications showing the work. Eric Hamp used to publish paragraphs about individual etymologies. Fascinating stuff. Made his case. Do we have this in Cornish linguistics? No. Are changes being made already to the SWF in light of such unpublished work? It appears so, at least in the background.
> 
> In Spellyans we have worked since 2008 in an endeavour to meet the brief quoted above. We didn't wait five years for... whomever to use the SWF and find out what is wrong with it. It was obvious from the publication of the SWF spec what was wrong with it. It had a Traditional Form that used non-Traditional graphs (the ban on final -y in stressed monosyllables). It shifted ambiguity from ‹u› to ‹o›. It introduced ambiguity between the bÿs/bës words and the bys and res words. It omitted the useful graphs ‹ai› and ‹au› for a set of loanwords. It imposed KK's etymological vowels, particularly difficult in unstressed final syllables (kegin v. kegin). It lacked a phonotactic rationale for its use of -dh/-v in unstressed monosyllables. Its distribution of ‹i› and ‹y› was entirely arbitrary (unless one had learnt KK).
> 
> From the end of the first month after announcing Spellyans we had 27 members; we now maintain 51 observers. People like Albert Bock and Ben Bruch and Tony Hak, who are concerned with (i.e. in positions of authority concerning) the SWF, do not participate, and do not observe as members. They don't see the discussion: they don't engage with the Traditionalist community. Have they read any of the publications in KS? I wouldn't know.
> 
> What is an orthography for? A Cornish orthography that has all this etymology built into it... is... to help people do what? To learn Cornish? Or to use the Cornish they've learnt to bolster their investigations into Brythonic?
> 
> Have we done a good enough job? Is there a list of etyma that we still need to argue about? Are there serious shortcomings that render KS unworthy of academic support?
> 
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120520/4ce49555/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list