[Spellyans] "Late Cornish"

Janice Lobb janicelobb at gmail.com
Thu Nov 14 19:34:51 GMT 2013


I understand what you are saying Steve, but how would you cater for the
fact that some of us say "thera" rather than "yth esa", "lojowek" rather
tha "losowek" (hence the local name "Polly Joke") without using different
spelling? Evidence is there, in place names, etc. that pronunciation
evolved after Tudor times. Also /y>i/ simplifies the problem. What about
/y>e/?
Jan Lobb


On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Hewitt, Stephen <s.hewitt at unesco.org>wrote:

>  All I have to say to this, as a linguist, is that in no language that I
> know of with significant morphophonological and/or dialectal evolution is
> an orthography which is supposed to cater to various versions based on a
> later rather than an earlier version. This is the principal fault of KS.
> Much better to have, say, Tudor Cornish, as a main form, and give separate
> oral production rules for /œ > e/ and / y > i/ and pre-occlusion, without
> indicating them systematically in the orthography. This is precisely what
> Faroese has done extremely successfully.
>
>
>
> Steve Hewitt
>
>
>
> *From:* Spellyans [mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net] *On Behalf Of *Chris
> Parkinson
> *Sent:* 14 November 2013 18:36
>
> *To:* 'Standard Cornish discussion list'
> *Subject:* Re: [Spellyans] "Late Cornish"
>
>
>
> If revivalists paid even more attention to what is in the texts, they
> might realise that the distinction made between Middle and Late Cornish is
> not largely invented. It is the difference between spoken and written
> Cornish. There are indeed very few features in the seventeenth and
> eighteenth century texts that are not already present in earlier centuries.
> That is because people were of course speaking as well as writing Cornish
> throughout. The difference in orthography came about not only because of
> the loss of Glasney. It came about because after the loss of the living
> scribal tradition,   when the first revivalists were trying to record the
> language they heard, they  basically used the English spelling system. And
> a proportion of what they heard still being spoken had the normal
> characteristics of spoken language.  Nicholas lists many examples to show
> that Middle and Late Cornish are not different languages. Of course they
> aren’t different languages. They are varieties of the same language. And
> some of the examples he gives of ‘Late’ Cornish in the text have just those
> spoken characteristics I have listed elsewhere on this list. E.g. Davon>
> danon,  forth>for,  godh>gor (loss of fricatives) and the omission of the
> particle ‘ow’.  Nicholas believes there was no need to spell Middle and
> Late varieties of Cornish two separate ways. The proponents of RLC fully
> understand the significance of the spoken language and have no wish to
> divide the revival. We want to teach people to speak Cornish fluently and
> to this end need  to have an orthography that has the flexibility to enable
> us to do this.  SWF(L) is attempting to give us this. Unfortunately the
> proponents of KS see no need to do this, and they show no sign of trying to
> understand and respect what we are trying to do. I consider this to be
> great pity.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> *From:* Spellyans [mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net<spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net>]
> *On Behalf Of *Nicholas Williams
> *Sent:* 14 November 2013 12:24
> *To:* Standard Cornish discussion list
> *Subject:* Re: [Spellyans] "Late Cornish"
>
>
>
> If revivalists paid more attention to what is in the texts, they might
> realise that the distinction made between Middle and Late Cornish is
> largely invented.
>
> There are very few features in the seventeenth and eighteenth century
> texts, that are not already present in the sixteenth and earlier centuries.
>
> The difference in orthography came about because of the loss of Glasney,
> not because the language had changed.
>
> The proponents of RLC do not seem to have fully understand this and, in my
> view, unnecessarily divided the revival.
>
>
>
> SA is a Middle Cornish text but it shows features often associated with
> the 18th century:
>
>
>
> The scribe writes, for example:
>
> *ha e weth dir faith da ny* 'and also through our good faith' i.e.
> without *agan*, *agen*
>
>
>
> *rag ne geran cregy nanyle regardia gerryow Dew* 'for we do not either
> believe or regard the words of God' where *ne geran ny cregy* shows *nag*for
> *nyns*, *eran* for *eson* and *cregy* for *ow cregy*.
>
>
>
> *blonogath da a thew, disquethis theny, vgy setha in gwlas neff, vgy intyr
> dowla tvs an beis in tirmyn an sacrifice, the Canevar den gwyrrian a vo
> desyrius e gowis: Christ ew devethis, not dir subtelnath, bus openly
> the kenever a whelha ha vo o sevall rebta* 'the good will of God shown to
> us, who sits in the kingdom of heaven, who is in the hands of the men of
> the world at the time of sacrifice; for every righteous man who may wish to
> receive him Christ has come not by subtlety, but openly to everybody who
> sees and is standing by him'. Note* vgy setha* for *vgy ow setha*, *dowla
> for dewla*, *canevar den* not *pub den*, *pubonen*, *kenever* for
> *pubonen* and *bus* for 'but'.
>
> SA exhibits loss of i-affection in the pres-fut. *me a laver the gee* 'I
> tell you' SA 62
>
> SA also exhibits *pecar* for *kepar;*
>
> *gosowes* for *goslowes*: *Gosoweth pan drvge S. Ambros ow leverall* SA
> 62a
>
> and *gwiel* for *gul*.
>
>
>
>
>
> Pre-occlusion is first attested in BM and Borde (both 16th century).
>
> *levar* for *lyver* 'book' is first attested in PA (fifteenth century)
> and *teller* 'place' also in PA, where it is the normal form.
>
> *genama* 'with me' occurs in PA
>
> *danon* for danvon occurs in PA: *Thy gour hy a zanonas* 'She sent to her
> husband' PA 123a (usually 'emended' to danvonas).
>
> *dowthek* 'twelve' with *ow* for *ew* is first attested in PA and *clowes*'to hear' in BM.
>
> *for* for *forth* 'way' is attested in the Ordinalia
>
> forms like *gansans* 'with them' and *thethans*, *thothans* first occur
> in TH (ca 1555)
>
> the suffixed object pronoun is first recorded in PA: *arluth prag y hysta
> vy* 'Lord, why hast thou forsaken me?'
>
> *yrth* 'snow' is found in TH
>
> the present stem *gor*- 'to know' (e.g. *gorama* 'I know') is first
> attested in TH: *ny woryn pyscotter* 'we don't know how soon'.
>
>
>
>
>
> There is no need to continue.
>
>
>
> It is clear from the texts, that Middle Cornish and Late Cornish are not
> different languages. There was, I believe, no reason to spell them in two
> separate ways.
>
>
>
> Nicholas
>
>
>
>
>
> On 14 Nov 2013, at 10:26, Craig Weatherhill wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm happy to say that, from the point of view of historicity, much more
> sense is being applied to that subject than would have the case 5 or 6
> years ago, and my presence on the Panel, armed with my own researches, is
> proving to be worthwhile.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131114/a004adce/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list