[Spellyans] 'special'

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Wed Jul 27 16:58:54 BST 2011

I am aware that you asked that UCR entries ought not be quoted back at you,
and I respect that you would have done things differently now, but you too,
write UCR <tymber>, and I'm assuming out of the same rationale that SWF
does. TC (Traditional Cornish) tvmbyr, tumbyr is surely a loan from English
timber. We know that [?] > [?] in Cornish and can assume that the above TC
spellings are likely a hypercorrection or back-spelling of <u> or <v> for
unrounded [?]. 
We simply have to decide what we want to do. Do we want to spell as the
scribes did, warts and all, then we are obliged to use only authentic,
attested spellings (cf. http://kernowek.com/), or do we want to standardise
the textual spellings, then we have to move away from some of the attested
spellings to remains systematic, or do we want to spell more or less
phonemically, largely following the scribal conventions of the 15th and 16th
centuries, then we have to move away from some of the textual spellings
considerably, if we want to arrive at a more or less acceptable phonology? 
Since the phonology and stage of development of the language is disputed for
the early Middle Cornish period, we also need some leeway to allow for
different preferences within the RC community. It doesn't help to 'enshrine'
one or the other linguist's, be it yours or Ken George's or others', theory
in an orthography for Revived Cornish, but to be inclusive of RMC and RLC
users alike, we need an orthography from which several pronunciations can be
derived that can be considered 'likely', 'authentic', 'according to
evidence', or at least not 'contradicting the evidence'. This is a difficult
task, but the nature of sensible and informed compromise.
Personally, I would have been happy with an orthography that standardises
the textual spellings (like UCR), or follows the less disputed phonology of
a more progressive, developed Cornish language from a later period (such as
KS1), but alas, this is not what the Cornish users wanted. They came up with
a compromise. A compromise that in the light of its overhasty development,
lack of equal expertise from all sides and the history of the orthography
debate, has some flaws that still need to be worked out, but is in the
process of doing so. I'm sure KS2 can inform this process, but I cannot see
it being taken on board by all involved as it is now. There also has be some
room for compromise there. But maybe we'll end up like Norway . NO! Not the
dreadful bombing and murderous shoot-out (those poor people, may they rest
in peace), but the Nynorsk and Bokmal dichotomy. 

From: spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net [mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net]

On Behalf Of nicholas williams
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 2:02 PM
To: Standard Cornish discussion list
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] 'special'
"It looks, though, as if they hadn't. They don't spell like the texts.
The glossary s.v. timber gives tymber. This is attested once CW 2283. 
The texts also have tvmbyr OM 2479, tumbyr OM 2484.
The glossary doesn't mention tumbyr.
On 2011 Gor 27, at 12:15, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

The compilers of the SWF glossary have read and continue to read the texts."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20110727/37fd9e19/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Spellyans mailing list