[Spellyans] UC/UCR

[Ray Chubb]

No we shouldn't get bogged down in UC/UCr on this forum except from  
the point of view of countering those on this forum who want KS to  
replace everything that went before in the same way that there are  
people who want the SWF to replace everything that went before.

Ewan is perfectly correct, if the Cornish revival is to have any  
credibility with academia we must have something that at least has the  
same aims as UC/UCr.

On 14 Du 2012, at 07:35, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> UC still has it's place in the current SWF where the rule of vocalic  
> alternation of ‹y ~ ‹e› ›is concerned. SWF follows UC by rule in  
> such cases. Maybe there are similar defaults that could be employed,  
> but please let's not turn back the clock or re-invent the wheel.  
> People wanted a more transparent orthography than UC which is why KK  
> had such a pick-up after it was suggested to learners it had such  
> high one-to-one spelling-to-sound relationship. Of course we now  
> know how hard it is to achieve the recommended pronunciation of KK.
> Dan
>
>
>
> On Nov 14, 2012, at 1:02 AM, christian.semmens at gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Thanks Ewan,
>> However, the situation we have to deal with is not the  
>> establishment of UC/R as the future Cornish orthography, but  
>> preventing the SWF-K from becoming the future of Cornish. We have  
>> subdued KK phonology, but the SWF retains its aesthetic. UC is not  
>> part of this battle, it is already a casualty. Not dead, but so  
>> damaged as to be useless in this fight. If we win this battle it  
>> may survive, only may, as a viable form. If we loose, it remains  
>> the museum piece it currently is. Supported by a small faction.  
>> Smaller than Kk, perhaps smaller than SWF, on a par perhaps with  
>> the Modern Cornish forms. The fight is to make traditional  
>> orthographic forms the dominant form for the SWF. That is not UC.
>> If we loose then "Official Cornish" will be KK style. Traditional  
>> forms will be relegated to academic study only. This is what we are  
>> fighting for and this is what KS was developed to help us avoid. We  
>> need KS to inform the SWF and not get bogged down in regressive  
>> talk of UC. Not here, and not yet.
>> This is about the SWF. The UC fight is for another day.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> On 13/11/2012 21:30 ewan wilson wrote:
>>
>> Christian,
>>
>> I take your point here about the vital necessity of persuading all  
>> of the validity of the presupposition that revived Cornish MUST be  
>> based on the 'traditional forms' if the language is finally to win  
>> recognition as historically 'authentic'.
>>  I doubt many academic Celtic departments will look favourably upon  
>> a computer based construct some steps removed from the historic  
>> forms, any more than it has tended to look upon UC. In fact surely  
>> a KK type base will have even less validity in the eyes of the  
>> academics?
>> Whether, as you rightly point out, anything approaching UC/UCR  
>> would be the ultimate outcome even if the 'historic forms' basis  
>> were to be adopted, is another matter.
>> However, I am sure that in the meantime the various competing  
>> systems must be highly confusing to the everyday would-be user.  
>> Even some of us with a smattering of linguistic training find it  
>> all mind bogglingly complex at times and so on pragmatic grounds ,  
>> if nothing else, feel it best to stick with the familiar- UC/UCR .
>> I was intrigued by Ray's hint that he might one day produce a high  
>> powered apology for the traditionalist stance and speaking  
>> personally, I would find that both immensely fascinating and  
>> helpful, so plead with Ray seriously to undertake this task!!
>>
>> Ewan.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Christian Semmens
>> To: Standard Cornish discussion list
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:38 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] UC/UCR
>>
>> We have a problem here. We cannot keep harking back to UC. UC is  
>> not even in this game.
>>
>> UC is what it is, fixed, ossified even. Feel free to promote UC as  
>> "The Way Forward" after we have first established that the  
>> traditional forms are the way forward for Cornish, as currently  
>> this is very much in doubt.
>>
>> This battle is the one we MUST win first, we can fight amongst  
>> ourselves later. I have no doubt that if we fail in this endeavour  
>> then traditional graphs will be lost to the mainstream and we will  
>> be forever stuck with this KK style orthographic parody that is  
>> being foisted on us today in the form of the SWF Main form. If this  
>> monstrosity becomes the 'Official' form of Cornish - and it is  
>> currently heir-apparent to that title - the Traditional graphs will  
>> then be nothing more than personal hobbies and historical footnotes.
>>
>> Sadly I do not share Nicholas' view that reason will prevail and  
>> traditional orthographies will eventually win through. I think that  
>> potentially the SWF process is really significant to the future  
>> form of Cornish orthography, and if it is allowed to proceed the  
>> way it is currently going then it will result in the smothering of  
>> traditional orthographical forms by something that *looks* very  
>> like KK, and I don't think any of us wants that.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>>
>> On 12 November 2012 21:59, Herbie Blackburn <kevin.blackburn1 at ntlworld.com 
>> > wrote:
>> I know this might be a stupid thing to say, and may be a daft and  
>> simplistic opinion, but….
>>
>>
>>
>> How did Cornish ever get into the mess it appears to be in!
>>
>>
>>
>> When I first started studying Cornish in 1980 and obtained a copy  
>> of Nance’s English-Cornish / Cornish-English dictionary there  
>> seemed to be one truth. The language held within it seemed mostly  
>> self consistent and since then I have found it to be very much  
>> rooted naturally in the progression of Cornish from its earliest  
>> writing, through texts like the Ordinalia, BK, Jordan, etc. but  
>> also to have picked up and corrected / normalised things from  
>> Lhuyd, Rev. Williams, Pryce etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then when I first saw Nicholas Williams’s UCR Dictionary, I thought  
>> the future of Cornish was secure and resolved.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, I cannot believe how the legacy of Nance, and the fantastic  
>> effort of Nicholas are still being argued against, and the amount  
>> of negative effort that has been wasted.
>>
>>
>>
>> As I say, I know this is a simplistic view, and I’m not close  
>> enough really to judge, but…..is anyone able to sum up where they  
>> believe the Cornish language debate has got to, and the likely  
>> outcome?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>>
>> An interested (very interested) outsider
>>
>> eMail: kevin.blackburn1 at ntlworld.com
>>
>> P Please consider the environment before printing this eMail - thanks
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
>> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
>> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
>> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

Ray Chubb

Portreth
Kernow

Agan Tavas web site:  www.agantavas.com


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20121114/3cebe7ef/attachment.htm>