[Spellyans] Suffix -yeth in KS

Tue Jun 4 09:36:35 BST 2013

The Borlase document (currently being conserved) has plenty of K words
listed (presumably influenced by Lhuyd) - I noticed them when I read a bit
of it on the radio.
Jan

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Craig Weatherhill <craig at agantavas.org>wrote:

> This does not fill me with confidence.  Jenefer needs to get a grip and
> realise that there are more people involved in the language than the old KK
> crew, many of whom have vanished.  For several years now, who has heard
> anything from the likes of Keith Bailey, Pawl Dunbar, Wella Brown or Graham
> Sandercock?  Even Bailey's not happy with KK and has contrived his own
> orthography (which only even he himself actually uses).
>
> The old KK guard has vanished.  I've found, through my  continuing
> involvement with the Signage Panel, that even KG himself is open to
> reasonable argument.  Jenefer needs to understand this.
>
> Between SWF (Main) and trad. Cornish, there are only 4 serious
> differences: K/C;  HW/WH; KW/QW and -I/_Y.  (KS/XS is very minor
> [boks/box]).  Other considerations are relatively minor.  If we could
> compromise on those major orthographical points, then we're well on the way
> there.
>
> My own opinions (even though i may not like some of my own conclusions)
> are as follows:
>
> K/C.  There is plenty of historical precedent for K used where is C is
> often written.  In which case (reluctantly) accept.
>
> HW/WH.  In my view, there is no precedent for HW, therefore only WH is
> acceptable.
>
> KW/QW:  Absolutely no precedent for KW.  QU is very English.  QW was good
> enough for Jordan and Jenner, so should be good enough for us.
>
> Final --I/-Y:  Lots of precedent for -I in Late Cornish, so accept.
>
> That way, of the four major differences, the KK side loses/retains two and
> the trad. side loses/retains two.  Compromise is achieved.  Remember that
> SWF should achieve a compromise between Trad, Cornish users (Middle, Tudor,
> Late) and KK.  We can't move ahead without that, and we HAVE to get a
> Standard Cornish into schools, sooner rather than later.
>
> If we do not, then Cornish dies.  Full stop.  (And don't any of you dare
> call the above "horse-trading."  I know more about that than any of you!)
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>
> On 2013 Efn 3, at 19:25, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
>
> > I asked Jenefer about it and she said a more complete list of issues
> will be put together. On the other hand, absolutely nothing is discussed in
> the corpus-group forum, which is sad considering the importance of the SWF
> Review.
> > Dan
> >
> > On Jun 3, 2013, at 8:13 PM, Craig Weatherhill wrote:
> >
> >> The Review, like the AHG, doesn't strike me as being well organized or
> thought out.  There's a list of relevant points on the MAGA site of you
> know where to find it, but that doesn't give any real detail of the points
> being raised.  Poor, so far.
> >>
> >> Craig
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2013 Efn 3, at 17:40, Michael Everson wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 3 Jun 2013, at 16:00, Daniel Prohaska <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Perhaps you can answer my question. Reading "Devocyon dhe Greryow" I
> saw that KS spells the suffix (SWF) -ieth as -yeth which suggests a
> pronunciation [jəθ] in words such as ‹mythologyeth, mainoryeth, Bùddyeth,
> canybalyeth, chromotografyeth, damcanyeth, kevarhewyeth, kevrinyeth,
> plansoryeth, radicalyeth, Satanyeth, technologyeth›. The SWF pronunciation
> is [ˈiːəθ], i.e. with two syllables and long stressed /i/, which is not
> only a continuation of KK, but also UC and UCR, e.g. ‹medhygyeth›, which is
> written ‹medhygȳ•eth› in dictionaries which also indicates disyllabicity
> and a long stressed /i/. Why does KS write ‹yeth› and not ‹ieth›?
> >>>
> >>> Both Devocyon and Alys were written while the system was still being
> discussed; it was not until the Beybel Sans was published that all the bugs
> were worked out. (Obviously we do not pretend to perfection.) In point of
> fact those spellings in Devocyon were probably influenced by UCR.
> >>>
> >>> In the Beybel's front matter ‹sonieth› occurs and in the text
> ‹dewynieth› occurs with some frequency. ‹wasonieth› occurs once. ‹yeth›
> occurs only in ‹lynyeth› where it means [jəθ] (as it does in UC).
> >>>
> >>> In Desky Kernowek §0.3.2 it can be seen that we write ‹teknologieth›.
> The words ‹sonieth›, ‹prydydhieth›, ‹bardhonieth› occur in DK as well.
> >>>
> >>> I have not checked all of our other texts for consistency; there may
> of course be errors. But KS writes ‹ieth› in these words.
> >>>
> >>>> Why is ‹Renêssans› thus spelt, when KS could also spell *Renaissans
> yielding the same pronunciation and be closer to English and French from
> which the word is borrowed?
> >>>
> >>> Again, Devocyon is an older text. In general the choice between ‹ê›
> and ‹ai› is relatively straightforward, but there are always edge cases. In
> the UCR dictionary the word wasn't borrowed into Cornish at all; it is
> listed in italics as an unassimilated loanword. Whether this word should be
> ‹Renaissans› or ‹Renêssans›… well, I don't know. Either suits. There aren't
> really any derivatives that are affected. I think we would favour
> ‹Renaissans› however, remembering that Devocyon is from a work-in-progress
> stage (and was a particularly difficult book to translate, too).
> >>>
> >>>> What would be the modalities for propsing spelling changes in KS,
> >>>
> >>> I have no idea what you mean by "modalities".
> >>>
> >>> Any change would need to be justified, of course. A change from
> ‹Renêssans› to ‹Renaissans› can be proposed on grounds of consistency with
> KS's use of ‹ai› in a certain class of loanwords. Otherwise, however, the
> change doesn't solve any problem in pronunciation, and is only cosmetic. As
> the word is rare in Cornish of any kind (Devocyon is hardly a typical
> text), making this change has little effect on readers.
> >>>
> >>> One might (for instance) argue to change ‹sêsya› to ‹saisya› in the
> basis of Old French "saisir". This, I think, would be rejected on two
> grounds. First, we believe that most loanwords into Cornish came from
> English, not French, and the typical Middle English spelling is "seisen"
> (MED: Also seise, seize, saise, sese(n, sesse, sesi(e, seas(s)e, (chiefly
> early) seisi, saisi & ces(s)e; p. seised(e, etc. & sezed, seasod, ceased;
> ppl. seised, etc. & iseis(e)d, isesed, seisit.) So the use of ‹ê› here is
> well-justified. In addition, this is a fairly common word, and since the
> change of ‹sêsya› to ‹saisya› solves no problem, it would be better not to
> make the change. (Of course, a quick check of the texts shows no instance
> of ‹sais› but does show ‹sesya› 2x and ‹sesyogh› 1x.
> >>>
> >>>> also in the light of the SWF Review? Will KS follow such changes
> where they make sense to you and Nicholas?
> >>>
> >>> As there is no way of knowing what (if any) changes to the SWF will
> come out of the SWF Review, or whether any of them will be improvements to
> the SWF, there is really nothing to say at this time.
> >>>
> >>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20130604/43b99468/attachment.htm>