[Spellyans] 'to bury' in the Akademi's dictionary

Christian Semmens christian.semmens at gmail.com
Thu Apr 8 11:50:53 BST 2021


There does seem to be a difference of objective in both sides of the
argument, and I can see Dan's point of view here, but the most disturbing
aspect from my perspective is the basis of revised Cornish stemming fromm
KK. The acceptance that the claimed KK etymological basis for the spelling
system should inform the SWF assumes that this system has some foundation
in reality. Yet the examples Nicholas provides would seem to run counter to
this, particularly in the insistence on applying the front rounded sounds
of 'eu' where scripturally 'y' and 'e' are in free variation.

As I understood the SWF process, KK phonology was rejected or at least
depreciated, yet it is now being cast into the orthography. The danger here
being that the sounds of Cornish carried forward in dialect are being
replaced by sounds gleaned from other languages based upon little real
evidence, and that if they were used at all would be archaic and therefore
unsuitable, particularly for  late Cornish.

KK was created to present a particular phonology and pronunciation. That
phonology is not part of the SWF yet it is entrenched in the spelling. This
cannot have any other effect than distorting pronunciation and hampering
comprehension of the existing corpus.

To justify 'eu' I would need a more rigorously researched reason than
simply accepting because KG invented the letter combination it should
remain especially as Ken's system does not apply to the SWF.

Regards,
Christian.


On Thu, 8 Apr 2021, 09:06 Daniel Prohaska, <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com> wrote:

>
> On 07.04.2021, at 17:02, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com> wrote:
>
> Exclusion of actual experts is one of the reasons the SWF leaks so badly.
>
>
> Michael,
> I don’t think this is the case. I do understand why you took your and
> Nicholas’ exclusion personally - it was personal, and in my opinion
> completely unjustified. On the other hand, if the “other side” simply
> wasn’t magnanimous enough tolerate your participation and would have
> walked, we may not have had an SWF at all, and the situation might have
> continued as before, politically and orthographically - minus the funding.
> But to deny expertise to those who were present both in the Ad-Hoc group
> discussions and in the background in advisory capacity is quite rich and
> completely unjustified.
>
> Albert was a Bretonist.
>
>
> And a Cornicist... His bachelor thesis was on CW and he has published
> several articles and had more in preparation about Cornish historical
> phonology before his sad suicide, which hit me hard, as we had been close
> friends for almost 25 years.
>
>
> Ben was the world’s only speaker who used Ken George’s phonology. That
> doesn’t make either of then “neutral” really.
>
>
> Those are baseless implications and assumptions. I knew Albert very well
> and Ben to certain extent, personally, and they may have had strong
> opinions on some issues, but in no way were/are either incapable of
> thinking outside of the box, any more biased than any one of us would be,
> and a great deal more diplomatic than you… quite frankly… here’s some of
> that continental blunt honesty I was talking about yesterday ;-)
>
>
> hen the group UdnFormScrefys devised KS1, Albert and Ben devised KD
> (Kernowek Dasunys). KD was essentially KK with traditional graphs, though
> there were a few other changes made. The resulting SWF largely retained
> KK’s “etymological vowels” in unstressed syllables, which make the SWF, as
> far as I can tell, impossible to learn for the following reason alone
> (though there are many others).
>
>
> You can disagree with their approach, but you also know (I know you do!)
> that they were/are very much capable of compromise and viewing things from
> various persectives and especially, putting the cause of finding compomise
> before their respective egos.
>
> Because they devised KD, doesn’t mean they were particularly partisan
> toward it.
>
>
> How does anyone know when to write ⟨i⟩ and when ⟨y⟩ in unstressed
> syllables in the SWF? The answer is that they can’t, unless maybe they
> remember their Insular Latin and Breton and Welsh. Kernowek Standard solved
> this problem, and has rules for when to use ⟨i⟩ and when to use ⟨y⟩.
>
> If I recall, that was the first of the problems that we here on Spellyans
> collectively examined and solved.
>
> We were obliged to do that, because the SWF was not fit for purpose. It
> made certain assumptions about dialect forms which informed choices we had
> to make (such as marking the bÿs~bës class of words, and the disposition of
> [iː] and [ɪ] in stressed monosyllables outside of the bÿs~bës class). It’s
> a robust, legible, and teachable orthography which has now been used for
> some 2.4 million words in print.
>
> Michael Everson
>
>
> And you have done a wonderful job and produced beautiful books greatly
> enriching Cornish and its corpus. I greatly admire and applaud that. As far
> as the SWF goes, you didn’t even attempt to engage with it, you went off
> and did your own thing - which is perfectly acceptible - and Cornish all
> the richer for it. I for one, don’t deplore orthographical disunity
> anymore, or a failed attemt at standardisation. I have come to accept it,
> and accept that orthographical variation is part of Cornish. Maybe we will
> all eventually move closer together, maybe we won’t, but the former
> three-/four-way split of UC/R : KK : RLC has remained a three-way split,
> but all of  these orthographies already look and work more similarly than
> their previous “incarnations” … so perhaps this is progress after all.
>
> Respectfully,
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> On 7 Apr 2021, at 11:40, Daniel Prohaska <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com> wrote:
>
> No, Nicholas, you were deliberately excluded, or rather part of the
> majority organisations threatened to walk away if you or Michael were part
> of the Ad-Hoc group. Albert and Ben are/were hardly non-expert. Others were
> present in advisory capacity. Dan
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 7. Apr 2021, at 12:18, Nicholas Williams <njawilliams at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The name Akademi Kernewek was chosen to give the impression that it
> consisted of linguistic experts, like the Welsh Academy.
> The Akademi Kernewek however is a collection of enthusiasts without proper
> training in Celtic linguistics,
> language planning or orthographical design.
> The SWF was designed without academic input. Indeed the experts were
> deliberately excluded.
> The Akademi Dictionary continues this amateurish approach.
>
> The Akademi is now the problem.
>
> Nicholas Williams
>
> On 7 Apr 2021, at 11:00, Daniel Prohaska <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com> wrote:
>
> I don’t know why this name was chosen. Maybe because some of the
> participants have an academic degree?
> Dan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210408/b92fc2d9/attachment.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list