<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On 27 Jul 2008, at 09:57, Eddie Climo wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div>. . ..</div><div>However, it would not really be suitable for a more formal situation like, say, the Chancellor of the Welsh Parliament in his Budget Speech (and I'm inventing these anglicisms!):</div><blockquote type="cite">"Rwy'n wantio reducio domestic spending gan five percent yn y financial year nessa."</blockquote></blockquote><br></div><div>I should have added that the Chancellor would be much more likely to say something rathery formal such as:</div><div><blockquote type="cite">Y mae genef eisaiau gostwng teuliau cartrefol gan pymp y cant yn y flwyddyn gyllidol nessa.</blockquote><br></div><div>. . . while, if he spoke in the bank using the same formal style, he might have said:</div><div><blockquote type="cite">Bore da. Yr wyf ewyllys trosglwyddo arian o'r acównt treigl [?] i'r acównt cynilion, os gwelwch yn dda.</blockquote>. . . instead of the macaronic 'Wenglish' that I heard. Much more formal, hardly any obvious anglicisms (save for <i>'acównt')</i>, but hardly what one would expect to hear in everyday situations.</div><div><br></div><div>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</div><div>The main point is that <b>*both*</b> registers or styles coexist in modern Welsh, and I fancy native speakers choose which one to use to suit particu;ar circumstances, or personal preferences. We do the same in English, of course, when making choices between, say, everyday words like <i>'word, pronunciation, meaning'</i> and more formal terms such as <i>'lexeme, orthoepy, semantic domain'.</i></div><div><br></div><div>We can do no less than grant users of Revived Cornish the same freedom of choice. Instead of prescriptive censorship of 'undesirable' lexemes, our dictionaries should aim for inclusivity, but offer advice and guidance.</div><div><br></div><div>As Michael said,</div><div><blockquote type="cite">People are free to do what they want.</blockquote>But they depend on language reference books to inform their choices. If those books exclude parts of either the historical or the Revived language, those choices are circumscribed. KK fell into precisely that trap, as is too well known to need belabouring again; we must ensure that KS does not make a similar mistake!</div><div><br></div><div>This sort of informed choice can already be seen to some extent, of course, in existing Cornish dictionaries. Williams 2006 lists some entries as 'abusive', such as:</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Common Cornish. </div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Kernowek Kemyn; (abusive) fug-Gernewek; "Kennywek"</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">. . ..</blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div>cow.</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>bugh . . ..</blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>(abusive term for woman) drogvenen; gast.</div></blockquote><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>. . .</div>woman.</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>benen . . .. benenryth . . ..<br></div></blockquote></div></div><div><br></div><div>In a similar way, Williams marks other entries as <i>disputed use, offensive, pejorative, slang etc.</i></div><div><br></div><div>Such entries are, in my opinion, just about perfect: the reader is given all the information needed to make an informed choice between neutral terms like <i>'Kernewek Kemyn; benen'</i> and the abusive <i>'fug-Kernewek; gast'</i>.</div><div><br></div><div>We can also see that he includes the words he has deprecated on this thread, along with the ones he prefers:</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>face</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>fas; bejeth; vysach; gruef; enep</div><div>nation</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>nacyon; kenedhel; gwlas</div><div>valley</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>nans; valy</div><div>etc . . ..</div></blockquote>Such inclusivity is admirable, and all that is lacking, perhaps, is some indication of the relative qualities and merits of each entry, to help readers make an informed choice.</div><div><br></div><div>yn lel,</div><div><br></div><div>Eddie</div></body></html>