[Spellyans] SWF review results.

Nicholas Williams njawilliams at gmail.com
Mon Apr 7 12:41:20 IST 2014


Later pronunciation?
Pre-occlusion is often considered a late pronunciation, but is attested in BM (1504) and Borde (1547).
Perhaps you are referring to the rhotacisation of -s-, e.g. Ne geranny ow kemeras hemma rag common
bara ha dewas SA 63a (ca 1560)
Or perhaps to the loss of th after r, i.e. forth > for' e.g. lemmyn yn mes a pup for PC 2418 (early 15th century)
Or to bus for mes: not only e touchia, bus e thibbry SA 60a
Or pecar for kepar: ha pecar a ruk an nethewan SA 61.

My point is simply this: the periodisation of Cornish as MC and LC is spurious. The differences are questions of orthography
only. There is very little in the later language that is not in the earlier. 
To base the revived language specifically upon Rowe, Boson, Gwavas, etc., I believe, was a mistake.
Nance opted for PA as his foundation text probably because he liked the medieval and quaint.
Some of the proponents of the later texts believed that MC and LC were different languages. They are not.
The sensible basis for the revival is that period when Cornish was still complete and a community language,
but at its latest and therefore most recent point. That means using TH, SA and CW as our foundation texts
but drawing from all the surviving resources as needed (tota Cornicitas).

Nicholas 

On 7 Apr 2014, at 12:06, Janice Lobb wrote:

> I'm also really more interested in what the later spellings, whether English-based or not, seem to tell us about later pronunciation

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20140407/cd3422c7/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list