<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">Before any discussion of how the SWF may need to be emended, could we first establish which pronunciation or varieties of pronunciation</span></font><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">we are going to use as our basis. The SWF specification does not adhere to the pronunciation of current speakers of revived Cornish, but</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">posits three differing forms, Middle Cornish, Tudor Cornish and Late Cornish. </span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">I have in the past been severely criticised for even suggesting the term Tudor Cornish, since such an entity never existed as a separate</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">form of the language. I meant it simply as a convenient way of referring to the foundation texts of UCR: Beunans Meriasek, Tregear and the Creation (we can now add BK).</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">I have never suggested that Tudor Cornish was an entity in itself.</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">Now, however, Bruch and Bock do just that, in order it seems to allow the pronunciation suggested for KK, which has both</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">half-length and long consonants. Since *no speaker* of revived Cornish has half-length or long consonants (I do not include either</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">bm, dn or lh here), can we please make it clear from the outset that any orthography for Cornish should attempt to represent</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">the language as it is spoken by *all* speakers, i.e. with only long and short vowels, and only one unmarked length for consonants?</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">Thus the a in tas is long and the a in tasow is short. There is moreover no difference between the n in jyn 'engine' and penn 'head' (if not pre-occluded).</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">If we insist on these two points at the outset, we are doing nothing new. We are merely accepting the sounds of Cornish as first</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">suggested by Jenner, and agreed by Nance, Caradar and Gendall.</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">The odd man out in this whole question is George, who posits a long m in kemmyn for example and half-length in tasow.</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">He does not, however, use his hypothetical pronunciation in his own speech and has indeed admitted that he does not. </span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">Revived Cornish (whatever orthography it uses) when spoken has no half-length and no long consonants. </span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">In which case the following "phonemes" mentioned in the Specification are merely "aspirational" and should be removed:</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">/l: m: n: r: k: p: t: x: s: T:/ (see the Spec. page 18 § 4.0. </span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">We cannot devise an accurate orthography if we need to distinguish in writing sounds which 1) did not exist in the traditional language and</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">2) certainly do not exist in contemporary speech and 3) do not even exist in the speech of those who claim that they do.</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">Would it not be a good idea before we start to be honest about the sounds of the revived language?</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Baskerville" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px;">Nicholas</span></font></div></body></html>