[Spellyans] Gavar etc

[Eddie Climo]

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  
with contempt.

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...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090413/6103d5b6/attachment.html>