[Spellyans] UC/UCR

christian.semmens at gmail.com christian.semmens at gmail.com
Wed Nov 14 00:02:48 GMT 2012


Thanks Ewan,
However, the situation we have to deal with is not the establishment of UC/R as the future Cornish orthography, but preventing the SWF-K from becoming the future of Cornish. We have subdued KK phonology, but the SWF retains its aesthetic. UC is not part of this battle, it is already a casualty. Not dead, but so damaged as to be useless in this fight. If we win this battle it may survive, only may, as a viable form. If we loose, it remains the museum piece it currently is. Supported by a small faction. Smaller than Kk, perhaps smaller than SWF, on a par perhaps with the Modern Cornish forms. The fight is to make traditional orthographic forms the dominant form for the SWF. That is not UC. 
If we loose then "Official Cornish" will be KK style. Traditional forms will be relegated to academic study only. This is what we are fighting for and this is what KS was developed to help us avoid. We need KS to inform the SWF and not get bogged down in regressive talk of UC. Not here, and not yet. 
This is about the SWF. The UC fight is for another day.

Christian


On 13/11/2012 21:30 ewan wilson wrote:

Christian,
 
I take your point here about the vital necessity of persuading all of the validity of the presupposition that revived Cornish MUST be based on the 'traditional forms' if the language is finally to win recognition as historically 'authentic'. 
 I doubt many academic Celtic departments will look favourably upon a computer based construct some steps removed from the historic forms, any more than it has tended to look upon UC. In fact surely a KK type base will have even less validity in the eyes of the academics? 
Whether, as you rightly point out, anything approaching UC/UCR would be the ultimate outcome even if the 'historic forms' basis were to be adopted, is another matter. 
However, I am sure that in the meantime the various competing systems must be highly confusing to the everyday would-be user. Even some of us with a smattering of linguistic training find it all mind bogglingly complex at times and so on pragmatic grounds , if nothing else, feel it best to stick with the familiar- UC/UCR . 
I was intrigued by Ray's hint that he might one day produce a high powered apology for the traditionalist stance and speaking personally, I would find that both immensely fascinating and helpful, so plead with Ray seriously to undertake this task!! 
 
Ewan. 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Christian Semmens 
To: Standard Cornish discussion list 
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:38 AM 
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] UC/UCR 


We have a problem here. We cannot keep harking back to UC. UC is not even in this game.

UC is what it is, fixed, ossified even. Feel free to promote UC as "The Way Forward" after we have first established that the traditional forms are the way forward for Cornish, as currently this is very much in doubt.

This battle is the one we MUST win first, we can fight amongst ourselves later. I have no doubt that if we fail in this endeavour then traditional graphs will be lost to the mainstream and we will be forever stuck with this KK style orthographic parody that is being foisted on us today in the form of the SWF Main form. If this monstrosity becomes the 'Official' form of Cornish - and it is currently heir-apparent to that title - the Traditional graphs will then be nothing more than personal hobbies and historical footnotes.

Sadly I do not share Nicholas' view that reason will prevail and traditional orthographies will eventually win through. I think that potentially the SWF process is really significant to the future form of Cornish orthography, and if it is allowed to proceed the way it is currently going then it will result in the smothering of traditional orthographical forms by something that *looks* very like KK, and I don't think any of us wants that.

Christian




On 12 November 2012 21:59, Herbie Blackburn <kevin.blackburn1 at ntlworld.com> wrote:

I know this might be a stupid thing to say, and may be a daft and simplistic opinion, but…. 
  
How did Cornish ever get into the mess it appears to be in! 
  
When I first started studying Cornish in 1980 and obtained a copy of Nance’s English-Cornish / Cornish-English dictionary there seemed to be one truth. The language held within it seemed mostly self consistent and since then I have found it to be very much rooted naturally in the progression of Cornish from its earliest writing, through texts like the Ordinalia, BK, Jordan, etc. but also to have picked up and corrected / normalised things from Lhuyd, Rev. Williams, Pryce etc. 
  
Then when I first saw Nicholas Williams’s UCR Dictionary, I thought the future of Cornish was secure and resolved. 
  
So, I cannot believe how the legacy of Nance, and the fantastic effort of Nicholas are still being argued against, and the amount of negative effort that has been wasted. 
  
As I say, I know this is a simplistic view, and I’m not close enough really to judge, but…..is anyone able to sum up where they believe the Cornish language debate has got to, and the likely outcome? 
  
Regards 
  
An interested (very interested) outsider 
eMail: kevin.blackburn1 at ntlworld.com 
P Please consider the environment before printing this eMail - thanks 
 

_______________________________________________
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/20121114/c672151f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list