[Spellyans] cledh etc

Janice Lobb janicelobb at gmail.com
Fri Jan 18 13:13:27 GMT 2013


Any sort of "petition" (do you mean "survey"?) would be statistically
useless - impossible to get an unbiased sample


On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Linus Band <linusband at gmail.com> wrote:

> I also prefer Late Cornish phonology over the Middle Cornish one, but
> still there are those that do not agree. About 'those', I often see the
> argument that "most people don't use this or that" (in this case: Middle
> Cornish phonology). That is probably true in the sense that it is
> relatively hard for English speakers to get to grips with the exact sounds
> they are striving after, but still I believe that many make an effort of
> sounding /y/ different from /i/ and /ø/ from /e/ and therefore believe in
> the written distinction between these phonemes. What I would like to know
> now is the EXACT numbers of users for both MC, Tudor Cornish and LC. From
> internet visibility alone I myself get the feeling that the balance is more
> towards the MC pronunciation group. The problem with counting them would of
> course be that many learners don't know that there is more than one
> dialect, but the more experienced speaker would know. I think that a
> petition would be useful. Then we'd really know what most people do and
> don't do. Perhaps that would be something for MAGA to do?
> And to keep this discussion on track: I still agree with Dan and am
> therefore a proponent of using historical linguistics (diligently) to
> ascertain the sounds that we are looking at, and therefore advocate the
> writing of *cleudh*.
>
> Linus
>
>
> 2013/1/18 Christian Semmens <christian.semmens at gmail.com>
>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130118/99e06416/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list