everson at evertype.com
Wed May 15 00:40:03 IST 2013
On 14 May 2013, at 23:37, Deiniol Jones <deiniolabioan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Obviously, this is just personal experience speaking, but as it happens I'm in disagreement here. As a Welsh speaker who's studied Breton and made a fairly in-depth study of Gaulish, Proto-Celtic and in particularly how the latter becomes the modern Brythonic languages, I have to say yes, it does help. Significantly. While my active production of Cornish might be on the scant side (I've not made a serious study of the language for several years- but even so working through Clappya Kernowek was made easier by my knowledge of the related languages and their common parent), I have fairly good passive comprehension of Cornish solely from knowing about Proto-Brythonic. It would not be at all inaccurate to say that I learnt to read Cornish from Nicholas Williams and Kenneth Jackson.
I don't believe for a minute that the etymological value you got from the fact that Brythonic languages are related had anything to do with the specific reconstructions of **final unstressed syllables**.
And even if it does help you, you'd be less than 99.8% of people who want to learn Cornish. They deserve a system that is an actual system, not a system based on a hypothetical relationship to two other systems seen through the lens of a reconstructed language predating all of them by centuries.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
More information about the Spellyans