[Spellyans] RLC <h> for <gh>
weatherhill at freenet.co.uk
Thu Jun 26 23:03:48 BST 2008
KK phonology is very largely a fiction and a product of one person's
imagination. Which is why he has never, in 23 years, allowed public
inspection of the data which forms the basis of his theory.
Michael Everson wrote:
> At 15:42 +0000 2008-06-26, Jon Mills wrote:
>> Ultimately, it needs to be decided what the relationship is between
>> KS orthography and the pronunciation of Cornish.
> Which Cornish? :-)
>> If KS is intended to closely represent the pronunciation system of
>> Cornish, it must be phonemic in principle.
> It also has to be more, because there are dialect differences it must
> account for. <u> for instance represents /y/ and /i/, since one
> dialect has no /y/.
>> The phonemic system is the principal element of the phonological
>> system where orthography is concerned. An orthography that is not
>> theoretically sound is just waiting to be shot down.
> I'm not much of a linguistic abstractionist. I don't believe i've
> defined any "theory" for KS. I've looked at the data and worked with
> Neil and Nicholas and the rest of UdnFormScrefys to put something
> together that "does the job". Perhaps that matches a theory?
>> The reason that we do not like KK is that it is theoretically unsound.
> On several grounds. First, George reconstructs Cornish phonology as
> he thinks it ought to be, introducing phonemic geminates and three
> conditioned vowel lengths as the core of a system which all the
> evidence suggests had short or neutral consonants and two phonemic
> vowel lengths. Second, he insists on a theory that a one-to-one
> relationship between graphs is "good" and anything else is "bad".
> Third, he uses untraditional graphs which piss people off. (Thank
> goodness he did. It really let people dig their heels in against it.)
>> Umbrella graphs are being used to bridge dialectal variation not
>> allophonic variation. Nothing wrong with that per se.
>>> At what level of abstraction are you talking?
>> Phonemes are abstractions. Allophones are realisations.
> OK, but I'm not sure how this affects my task. Though KS 16 describes
> the phonemes and also uses IPA to show phonetic realizations. So
> maybe I took it into account.
>> > We have Revived Cornish and some pretty good
>> > recommended pronunciations that are actually
>> > feasible. What are you getting at? Starting from
>>> scratch and trying to reconstruct? Or?
>> Well, I hope that we do not have to start from scratch. We have some
>> recommended pronunciations, didactolects. Just how good, however
>> .... We do not seem to think much of KK's accompanying orthoepy.
>> Theories concerning the pronunciation of Cornish are in a state of
>> flux and are likely to remain so for the forseeable future. An
>> orthography is not going to be robust if it is founded on shifting
>> didactolects. A more stable foundation is needed.
> I think the phonology of KS is based on an analysis of what people
> are doing, with some corrections where we would like to encourage
> better pronunciation. For instance, we recommend a flapped /r/
> intervocalically for people who can manage it and the approximant
> elsewhere. Neil Kennedy has taught this to his students and it sounds
> good and is not unfounded in Cornish dialect. I don't know what
> *other* recommendations about /r/ we would like to make instead.
> As I see it UC recommendations are improved by UCR recommendations
> and those were improved by working with RLC speakers, studying Lhuyd,
> and making the effort we began in September 2006.
More information about the Spellyans