[Spellyans] the suffix -el

Clive Baker clive.baker at gmail.com
Sat Mar 4 19:25:02 GMT 2017


Whilst not an expert in the structure and original fine grammatic detail,
it seems to me as a teacher and user of Cornish, what I use MUST be as
correct and similar to that which native speakers would have used, to the
best of our knowledge to date. Anything else is a  lie and not Cornish...an
invention plainly...there are basic rules which we must obey...
M father drummed into me "BE TRUE TO THINE OWN SELF"... a good case for
that is now!
kemereugh wyth
Clive

On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Nicholas Williams <njawilliams at gmail.com>
wrote:

> In further defence of the suffix -el Dr George has mentioned, albeit
> without citing any examples,
> that -el, -yel appears as a suffix in place-names. This is certainly true,
> and one thinks immediately
> of Lostiwithiel. It must be admitted that in such cases the suffix is by
> the MC period a bound morpheme
> which is not productive in the language as a whole.
> Dr George believes that the presence of -el or -yel in such toponyms “has
> given the green light” to the extension
> of -el as a productive suffix in the revived language. It could be argued
> against such a view
> that the use as a productive suffix of a formant that is fossilised by the
> MC period and therefore no longer seen as a suffix is at best unwise.
> Moreover one might suggest that the promiscuous use of -*el in the revived
> language distances it still further
> from traditional Cornish.
> Perhaps one might class *-el alongside other doubtful features that have
> been recommended for the language in the past.
> As random examples one might cite:
>
> 1. Ywerdhon, Iwerdhon ‘Ireland'
> 2. *kerentja ‘love’, *gantjo ‘with him’, *gallodjek ‘powerful’, etc.
> 3. bywnans ‘life’ and klywes ‘to hear’
> 4. spellings like *hwyja, *hweg, *hwans, etc.
> 5. unattested spellings like *piw, *gwiw
> 6. the use of huni in such expressions as an huni bras ‘the big one’, etc.
> 7. *gos ‘is known’
> 8. *yalgh ‘purse’.
>
> Indeed the following paragraph from the website of the Akademi Kernewek is
> good example of how
> far some forms of the revived language deviate from anything in the
> traditional language:
>
> *Akademi Kernewek yw aswonys gans Konsel Kernow avel an korf diambosel
> omgemeryek  *
> *rag towlennans an korpus a Gernewek, desedha savonow rag an yeth,
> displegya an gerlyver *
> ha komposa hwithrans. *Akademi Kernewek a'n jeves Bord ha peswar panel,
> gans kettep panel lown arbennek*
>
> Given that some people criticise revived Cornish on the grounds that it is
> a concocted language,
> it could be argued that anything which takes the revived language further
> from its sources in the texts is to be
> avoided, less revived Cornish be increasingly seen as a conlang.
>
> When I was recently in Penzance this point was several times put to me,
> namely that revived
> Cornish was artificial, made up or concocted. Anything which might add to
> this criticism
> is probably best avoided.
>
> What do others think?
>
> Nicholas
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170304/619b11df/attachment.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list