[Spellyans] Gavar etc
eddie_climo at yahoo.co.uk
Mon Apr 13 21:44:34 BST 2009
This messages seems to have gone astray on the 1st time of sending.
Let's try a 2nd time ...
On 13 Ebr 2009, at 10:42, Clive Baker wrote:
> ... I am sure you will just end up with mass derogation whichever
> form wins out, if we do not take into account current and the last
> 80 odd years practice.
My a wra unverhe yn tyen gans hedna, Clive.
The Cornish language has developed over the 90-odd since the
introduction of UC. With the sole exception of KK (for obvious and oft-
stated reasons), I believe we need to respect the scholarship of
scholars such as Jenner, Nance, Smith, Hooper and those of their
generation, as well as that of those who are still with us.
Tora Cornicitas has to include both the historical corpus and the
revived one as well. The only exception is spurious forms like KK and
Saundrek, whose creators explicitly turned their backs on both the
historical corpus and the Revived (mostly UC) corpus, and treated each
Thus, Revived Cornish (whether of the MC or LC flavour) has moved on
from being no more than a resuscitated version of the linguistic
status quo ante of some centuries past. Not only are there, of course,
new words for new concepts and new technology, but some idiomatic
usages have changed as well. This is a perfectly normal part of the
evolutionary history of a language, and the fact of Cornish being a
revived language (pace some naysayers, both on and outwith this forum)
does nothing to change that fact.
Let one example stand for all. 'Gwyr' is attested as both adjective
and noun. 'Yn' is attested as both prepostion (with no mutation), and
as adverbial particle (with 5th state mutation in the following adj.).
Thus there can be no *grammatical* argument against a form such as the
adverbial phrase 'yn whyr'. It may be valid to say that the idiom is
not attested in the historical corpus. But, as we know, idioms change
over time: the Beatles being known as 'The Fab Four' had absolutely
nothing whatsoever to do with Aesop's Fables.
The idiom 'yn whyr' is amply attested over several generations of RC
speakers and writers, and has (in my opinion) earned its place in the
contemporary vernacular as a valid idiom. Those who disfavour such
usages are free to choose not to use them, but they would err in
labelling them 'wrong', 'unattested' or 'unidiomatic'.
All those generations of (revived) linguistic development cannot
simply be disregarded.
Like KK before it, Spellyans would disregard it at its peril!
Eddie Foirbeis Climo
- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -
Dres ethom akennow byner re bons lyeshes
Accenti non multiplicandi praeter necessitatem
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans