[Spellyans] cledh etc

Christian Semmens christian.semmens at gmail.com
Fri Jan 18 10:46:52 GMT 2013


Ken may well feel this, but the question is, how much of the revival wants
to place pronunciation at this very early period?

The further back in time you go the less reliable are your attempts at
synthesizing a pronunciation. This far back and the sounds are little more
than guesswork, educated guesswork at the very best. With later
pronunciation you are on much firmer ground. Also, once again, KK is not
the SWF, and the KK phonology is not the phonology of the SWF.

The SWF, along with most of the revival, attempts to use a sound system
based in the 16th century and later, after the general unrounding of this
sound, so why attempt to present the mediaeval form in the spelling? What
is the benefit of presenting a spelling system that leans towards a
phonology that was rejected?

I would be extremely surprised if the revival had a majority of proponents
for mediaeval pronunciation. For

Christian

On 18 January 2013 08:31, Hewitt, Stephen <s.hewitt at unesco.org> wrote:

>  I agree completely,****
>
> Steve****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net [mailto:
> spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net] *On Behalf Of *Linus Band
> *Sent:* 17 January 2013 13:35
>
> *To:* Standard Cornish discussion list
> *Subject:* Re: [Spellyans] cledh etc****
>
> ** **
>
> Even though if we agree that the unrounding already took place in the 15th
> century, we cannot conclude that the SWF should therefore contain -e-
> instead -eu-, because Ken George aims to revive the language as spoken
> around 1500. What we are forgetting is that Ken George (and surely others)
> is convinced that the unrounding had not taken place yet around 1500, but
> rather later. ****
>
> The fact is that there is a part of the revival that would like to
> pronounce old  */ø/ as [e(ː)] and another part that prefers the older sound
> [ø(ː)], and the SWF has to accommodate both.****
>
> ** **
>
> Linus****
>
> ** **
>
> 2013/1/17 Christian Semmens <christian.semmens at gmail.com>****
>
> From the evidence relating to cledh, would it suggest that the front
> rounded vowel sound in Cornish was in retreat in the early 15th century.**
> **
>
>
> If that were so, would it not be fair to say that the SWF etymological
> spelling is helpful to *pronunciation* only if you wish to target a
> projected mediaeval pronunciation and as such more relevant to old Cornish
> than the period the revival professes to be interested in?****
>
> ** **
>
> On 17 January 2013 09:39, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com> wrote:***
> *
>
> On 17 Jan 2013, at 08:28, "Hewitt, Stephen" <s.hewitt at unesco.org> wrote:
>
> > Which I think is wonderful.
> >****
>
> > But in this group, further changes appear to be being discussed…
>
> Can you be more specific?****
>
>
> 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****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130118/bdc3a8b0/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list