From njawilliams at gmail.com  Mon Feb  2 07:42:35 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 07:42:35 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
Message-ID: <6C9274CC-708F-4E81-9AA6-62877D2A1517@gmail.com>

When in Lostwithiel on Saturday last for the Keskusulyans
I saw a notice bearing the legend in the SWF and in English:

Megi difennys - No smoking.

In the Cornish the vowel <i> in Megi and in
difennys have the same value as the <y> in difennys.
So 'to smoke' is megi but, say, 'smoked salmon'
in the SWF would be sowmen megys. Why
does the SWF use different vowels for the same sound?
Presumably because KK did and KK was based on
Breton. But in Breton the pronounciation of
-i? of the verbal noun and -et of the verbal adjective
are very different. In Cornish they have the same vowel: [I].
Shouldn't the SWF really write:
megi, megis, difennis or megy, megys, dyfennys?
The second series are the spellings of KS.

Nicholas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090202/95e59a49/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Mon Feb  2 08:17:37 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 08:17:37 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] =?iso-8859-1?q?c=F9sul?=
Message-ID: <31EFCC86-DFA3-48B7-B403-D5AC0B4CD82F@gmail.com>

Michael very kindly bought me a copy of George's Gerlyvrik in  
Lostwithiel
and I have been examining it with some interest.

My attention was drawn to the two entries
kusul 'advice' and kusulya 'advise'.
In these two etyma, apparently, the first <u> is to be pronounced [u]  
and the second
is [y]. There is no way of telling that the identical graph
bears two differing values in both these words.
It would seem that these two items are further examples in KK of a  
failure to
achieve the "phonemic perfection" claimed for the orthography.
That, however, is a detail.

More importantly, I notice that the pronunciation given for kusul and  
kusulya
has a voiced sibilant [z] for the <s> in both kusul and kusulya.
I wonder whether this can really be justified.

The word is derives from Latin consilium and one would
expect the reflex of Latin -ns- in Cornish to be [s] rather than [z].
The scribes of traditional Cornish seemed to believe that
the segment was voiceless. Look at the following examples:

ADVICE
Cucell a Nice 'the Council of Nicea' SA 65a
cussyllyow (plural) CW 627

ADVISE
cussyllyough PC 1807
y cussylyaf RD 569
cossyllya CW 670
cossyllyas CW 771.

These spellings seem to suggest that the sound was [s] rather than [z].

Neil's orthography writes <cussel>, cf. Cussel an Tavaz.
Which closer to the pronunciation than KK <kusul>. Dan's dictionary has
kusul/cusul and kusulya/cusulya for the SWF and in both cases he  
suggests that the medial
<s> is to be pronounced [z]. This pronunciation is presumably  
inherited from KK (and UC) and is probably not
to be recommended. KS writes <c?ssul> and <c?sulya> and pronounces both
as they are spelt, i.e. with a voiceless [s].

Nicholas

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090202/04e077bc/attachment.htm>

From s.hewitt at unesco.org  Mon Feb  2 08:25:33 2009
From: s.hewitt at unesco.org (Hewitt, Stephen)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 09:25:33 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] =?iso-8859-1?q?c=F9sul?=
In-Reply-To: <31EFCC86-DFA3-48B7-B403-D5AC0B4CD82F@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401B9@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>

I know "Cornish isn't Breton", but in Breton (etymological and interdialectal orthographies) <kusul, kusulia?>, ("unified" orthography) <kuzul, kuzulia?> "advise" is pronounced /'kyzyl, ky'zylja/, with an /y/ vowel in both syllables and a voiced /z/, despite the derivation from Latin "consilium" or French "conseil". Another word in which such voicing takes place is (Treger dialect, not generally included in dictionaries) <kousanti?> /ku'z?nti/ "accept, agree" < Fr. "consentir".
 
Steve Hewitt

-----Original Message-----
From: spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net [mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net]On Behalf Of nicholas williams
Sent: 02 February 2009 09:18
To: Standard Cornish discussion list
Subject: [Spellyans] c?sul


Michael very kindly bought me a copy of George's Gerlyvrik in Lostwithiel 
and I have been examining it with some interest.


My attention was drawn to the two entries
kusul 'advice' and kusulya 'advise'.
In these two etyma, apparently, the first <u> is to be pronounced [u] and the second
is [y]. There is no way of telling that the identical graph
bears two differing values in both these words.
It would seem that these two items are further examples in KK of a failure to
achieve the "phonemic perfection" claimed for the orthography.
That, however, is a detail.


More importantly, I notice that the pronunciation given for kusul and kusulya
has a voiced sibilant [z] for the <s> in both kusul and kusulya. 
I wonder whether this can really be justified.


The word is derives from Latin consilium and one would
expect the reflex of Latin -ns- in Cornish to be [s] rather than [z].
The scribes of traditional Cornish seemed to believe that
the segment was voiceless. Look at the following examples:



ADVICE

Cucell a Nice 'the Council of Nicea' SA 65a
cussyllyow (plural) CW 627


ADVISE

cussyllyough PC 1807

y cussylyaf RD 569

cossyllya CW 670
cossyllyas CW 771.


These spellings seem to suggest that the sound was [s] rather than [z].


Neil's orthography writes <cussel>, cf. Cussel an Tavaz. 
Which closer to the pronunciation than KK <kusul>. Dan's dictionary has
kusul/cusul and kusulya/cusulya for the SWF and in both cases he suggests that the medial
<s> is to be pronounced [z]. This pronunciation is presumably inherited from KK (and UC) and is probably not
to be recommended. KS writes <c?ssul> and <c?sulya> and pronounces both
as they are spelt, i.e. with a voiceless [s].


Nicholas



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090202/764abda6/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Mon Feb  2 08:29:19 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 08:29:19 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] =?iso-8859-1?q?c=F9sul?=
In-Reply-To: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401B9@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
References: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401B9@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
Message-ID: <3F2B39FA-51EB-44EA-A1B4-D53C41722374@gmail.com>

But the spellings of the scribes seem to indicate that the word has  
[s] in Cornish, not [z].
As you say, Cornish is not Breton.

On 2 Feb 2009, at 08:25, Hewitt, Stephen wrote:

> <kusul, kusulia?>, ("unified" orthography) <kuzul, kuzulia?>  
> "advise" is pronounced /'kyzyl, ky'zylja/,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090202/28634677/attachment.htm>

From j.mills at email.com  Mon Feb  2 08:37:09 2009
From: j.mills at email.com (Jon Mills)
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 08:37:09 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] =?iso-8859-1?q?c=F9sul?=
Message-ID: <20090202083709.C6487105CE@ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com>

Lhuyd writes this item with an <s> not a <z>: Ky&#775;ssyl [50c],
ky&#775;ssy&#775;l [242c],
Pl:  kysylgou [242c]
 Jon

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Hewitt, Stephen"
  To: "Standard Cornish discussion list"
  Subject: Re: [Spellyans] c?sul
  Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 09:25:33 +0100

I know "Cornish isn't Breton", but in Breton (etymological and
interdialectal orthographies) <kusul, kusulia?>, ("unified" orthography)
<kuzul, kuzulia?> "advise" is pronounced /'kyzyl, ky'zylja/, with an /y/
vowel in both syllables and a voiced /z/, despite the derivation from
Latin "consilium" or French "conseil". Another word in which such voicing
takes place is (Treger dialect, not generally included in dictionaries)
<kousanti?> /ku'z?nti/ "accept, agree" < Fr. "consentir". Steve Hewitt

  -----Original Message-----
  From: spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net
  [mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net]On Behalf Of nicholas williams
  Sent: 02 February 2009 09:18
  To: Standard Cornish discussion list
  Subject: [Spellyans] c?sul

  Michael very kindly bought me a copy of George's Gerlyvrik in
  Lostwithieland I have been examining it with some interest.
  My attention was drawn to the two entrieskusul 'advice' and kusulya
  'advise'.In these two etyma, apparently, the first <u> is to be
  pronounced [u] and the secondis [y]. There is no way of telling that
  the identical graphbears two differing values in both these words.It
  would seem that these two items are further examples in KK of a
  failure toachieve the "phonemic perfection" claimed for the
  orthography.That, however, is a detail.
  More importantly, I notice that the pronunciation given for kusul and
  kusulyahas a voiced sibilant [z] for the <s> in both kusul and
  kusulya. I wonder whether this can really be justified.
  The word is derives from Latin consilium and one wouldexpect the
  reflex of Latin -ns- in Cornish to be [s] rather than [z].The scribes
  of traditional Cornish seemed to believe thatthe segment was
  voiceless. Look at the following examples:
  ADVICECucell a Nice 'the Council of Nicea' SA 65acussyllyow (plural)
  CW 627
  ADVISEcussyllyough PC 1807y cussylyaf RD 569cossyllya CW 670cossyllyas
  CW 771.
  These spellings seem to suggest that the sound was [s] rather than
  [z].
  Neil's orthography writes <cussel>, cf. Cussel an Tavaz. Which closer
  to the pronunciation than KK <kusul>. Dan's dictionary haskusul/cusul
  and kusulya/cusulya for the SWF and in both cases he suggests that
  the medial<s> is to be pronounced [z]. This pronunciation is
  presumably inherited from KK (and UC) and is probably notto be
  recommended. KS writes <c?ssul> and <c?sulya> and pronounces bothas
  they are spelt, i.e. with a voiceless [s].
  Nicholas


_______________________________________________
Spellyans mailing list
Spellyans at kernowek.net
http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net



_____________________________________
Dr. Jon Mills,
School of European Culture and Languages,
University of Kent

-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090202/d0299561/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Mon Feb  2 08:44:31 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 08:44:31 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] =?iso-8859-1?q?c=F9sul?=
In-Reply-To: <20090202083709.C6487105CE@ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com>
References: <20090202083709.C6487105CE@ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com>
Message-ID: <4E20FF82-8D95-4FD1-9268-BA82EC1CE8E9@gmail.com>

Thank you for that, Jon.
There can be no doubt that the word for 'advice, counsel' has a  
voiceless [s]
and that both the Gerlyvrik and Dan's dictionary are in error on the  
point.

Nicholas.

On 2 Feb 2009, at 08:37, Jon Mills wrote:

> Lhuyd writes this item with an <s> not a <z>: Ky?ssyl [50c],  
> ky?ssy?l [242c],
> Pl: 	kysylgou [242c]
>  Jon

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090202/24d867e3/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Mon Feb  2 08:54:32 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 08:54:32 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] consel
Message-ID: <842A44F4-FD06-432D-8854-EBA6AE1BC36B@gmail.com>

Further on the Cornish word for 'counsel/council'

The new unitary authority in Cornwall will no doubt be called Consel  
Kernow/Konsel Kernow in Cornish.
There are three problems with such a title.

In the first place the word *consel does not appear to be attested.
conseler occurs four times in the Ordinalia and conselar once.
*Consel seems to have been derived from it by Nance.
Nance [1938] cites MC (i.e. Pascon agan Arluth) as his source for  
consel, but
I have been unable so far to find *consel in the poem.

In the second place it is clear from the texts that the
Cornish for 'council' (Latin concilium) is the same as
the word for 'counsel' (Latin consilium). We have the two
examples in SA:

Kvsell a(n) Nice SA 65a
Cucell a Nice SA 65a.

Both refer to the Council of Nicaea of AD 325.

Kusul/Cusul (KS C?ssul) would be a more authentic word to use than  
Konsel/Consel.

The third problem is that the sequence -ns- between vowels
is pronounced -nz- in such words as ankombrynsi, ankensi,
ganso, gensi, in the SWF but in this word it must be
-ns-. Why is Konsel not ['konz at l]? If the SWF wanted to
be phonetic, it would surely write Koncel/Concel Kernow.
The SWF also writes <avonsyans> [the word was so spelt
on a display at the Keskusulyans] whereas KS writes <avauncyans>,
which is a properly phonetic spelling.

Nicholas

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090202/92bae59b/attachment.htm>

From daniel at ryan-prohaska.com  Mon Feb  2 15:15:35 2009
From: daniel at ryan-prohaska.com (Daniel Prohaska)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 16:15:35 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] =?windows-1252?q?c=F9sul?=
In-Reply-To: <31EFCC86-DFA3-48B7-B403-D5AC0B4CD82F@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090202151538.A618013BC067@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>

Nicholas a scrifas:

?Dan's dictionary has kusul/cusul and kusulya/cusulya for the SWF and in
both cases he suggests that the medial <s> is to be pronounced [z]. This
pronunciation is presumably inherited from KK (and UC) and is probably not
to be recommended.?

 

I should have realised this, especially since I know Revived Late Cornish
always had <cussel>. I will correct this error immediately in the
dictionary. I wonder, if the stressed vowel isn?t /y/, but /U/, how to spell
this in the SWF. The only graph I?d be allowed to use would be <o>, thus
<kossel>~<cossel>.

Dan 

 

  _____  

From: nicholas williams
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 9:18 AM

?Michael very kindly bought me a copy of George's Gerlyvrik in Lostwithiel
and I have been examining it with some interest.

My attention was drawn to the two entries kusul 'advice' and kusulya
'advise'. In these two etyma, apparently, the first <u> is to be pronounced
[u] and the second is [y]. There is no way of telling that the identical
graph bears two differing values in both these words. It would seem that
these two items are further examples in KK of a failure to achieve the
"phonemic perfection" claimed for the orthography. That, however, is a
detail.

More importantly, I notice that the pronunciation given for kusul and
kusulya has a voiced sibilant [z] for the <s> in both kusul and kusulya. I
wonder whether this can really be justified.

The word is derives from Latin consilium and one would expect the reflex of
Latin -ns- in Cornish to be [s] rather than [z]. The scribes of traditional
Cornish seemed to believe that the segment was voiceless. Look at the
following examples:

 

ADVICE

Cucell a Nice 'the Council of Nicea' SA 65a

cussyllyow (plural) CW 627

 

ADVISE

cussyllyough PC 1807

y cussylyaf RD 569

cossyllya CW 670

cossyllyas CW 771.

 

These spellings seem to suggest that the sound was [s] rather than [z].

 

Neil's orthography writes <cussel>, cf. Cussel an Tavaz. Which closer to the
pronunciation than KK <kusul>. Dan's dictionary has kusul/cusul and
kusulya/cusulya for the SWF and in both cases he suggests that the medial
<s> is to be pronounced [z]. This pronunciation is presumably inherited from
KK (and UC) and is probably not to be recommended. KS writes <c?ssul> and
<c?sulya> and pronounces both as they are spelt, i.e. with a voiceless [s].

Nicholas?

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090202/63f20fc9/attachment.htm>

From daniel at ryan-prohaska.com  Mon Feb  2 15:15:35 2009
From: daniel at ryan-prohaska.com (Daniel Prohaska)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 16:15:35 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <6C9274CC-708F-4E81-9AA6-62877D2A1517@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090202151540.6047413BC072@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>

Nicholas, 

Yes, you?re right. This is an unfortunate inheritance from KK in the SWF.
Ken George even says that unstressed KK <i>, <y> and <u> are pronounced the
same.

Dan

 

  _____  

From: nicholas williams
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 8:43 AM

?When in Lostwithiel on Saturday last for the Keskusulyans I saw a notice
bearing the legend in the SWF and in English: Megi difennys - No smoking.

In the Cornish the vowel <i> in Megi and in difennys have the same value as
the <y> in difennys. So 'to smoke' is megi but, say, 'smoked salmon' in the
SWF would be sowmen megys. Why does the SWF use different vowels for the
same sound?

Presumably because KK did and KK was based on Breton. But in Breton the
pronounciation of -i? of the verbal noun and -et of the verbal adjective are
very different. In Cornish they have the same vowel: [I]. Shouldn't the SWF
really write:

megi, megis, difennis or megy, megys, dyfennys? The second series are the
spellings of KS.

Nicholas?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090202/9a11909a/attachment.htm>

From everson at evertype.com  Mon Feb  2 15:30:10 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 15:30:10 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] =?windows-1252?q?c=F9sul?=
In-Reply-To: <20090202151538.A618013BC067@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
References: <20090202151538.A618013BC067@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
Message-ID: <BA4F2CFD-01C7-4BBE-B155-FEB2F2BBC17A@evertype.com>

On 2 Feb 2009, at 15:15, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> I should have realised this, especially since I know Revived Late  
> Cornish always had <cussel>. I will correct this error immediately  
> in the dictionary. I wonder, if the stressed vowel isn?t /y/, but / 
> U/, how to spell this in the SWF. The only graph I?d be allowed to  
> use would be <o>, thus <kossel>~<cossel>.

In this matter, Dan, I believe you should retain the ambiguous <u> and  
write <kussel>~<cussel>. We do write <c?ssul>. Also the /y/ comes back  
in the final syllable in derived forms (c?ssulya not c?sselya) so the  
ending should be {-ul>.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From njawilliams at gmail.com  Mon Feb  2 15:32:04 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 15:32:04 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] =?windows-1252?q?c=F9sul?=
In-Reply-To: <20090202151538.A618013BC067@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
References: <20090202151538.A618013BC067@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
Message-ID: <9EB8563C-A4E9-4EE0-8F7F-16DBE7495458@gmail.com>

Diacritics are the best solution but were ruled out by the AHG.
So until any possible revision the SWF is stuck with ambiguity.

On 2 Feb 2009, at 15:15, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

>  I wonder, if the stressed vowel isn?t /y/, but /U/, how to spell  
> this in the SWF. The only graph I?d be allowed to use would be <o>,  
> thus <kossel>~<cossel>.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090202/6807dc70/attachment.htm>

From everson at evertype.com  Mon Feb  2 16:01:12 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 16:01:12 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] =?windows-1252?q?c=F9sul?=
In-Reply-To: <9EB8563C-A4E9-4EE0-8F7F-16DBE7495458@gmail.com>
References: <20090202151538.A618013BC067@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
	<9EB8563C-A4E9-4EE0-8F7F-16DBE7495458@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55F328B5-D7F2-44F5-8374-3D8C35675059@evertype.com>

On 2 Feb 2009, at 15:32, nicholas williams wrote:

> Diacritics are the best solution but were ruled out by the AHG.
> So until any possible revision the SWF is stuck with ambiguity.

It would be WORSE to create additional deltas to KS by re-writing /u/  
as <o>.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From njawilliams at gmail.com  Mon Feb  2 16:24:08 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 16:24:08 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <20090202151540.6047413BC072@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
References: <20090202151540.6047413BC072@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
Message-ID: <2D380415-A0AD-4EF5-8DC0-4CC947A9A277@gmail.com>

In a phonemic spelling they would be written in the same way.

Incidentally George himself pronounces the Cornish word for 'lord'
with a short unstressed [U] and a voiceless final segment,
i.e. exactly as does KS with its <arl?th>.  I suspect that most
speakers (of whatever school) have a voiceless th in this word.
Moreover Lhuyd spells the spoken Cornish form as <arleth> with a
voiceless final.
Why then does the SWF
write <arludh> with a voiced final?

Nicholas

On 2 Feb 2009, at 15:15, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> Ken George even says that unstressed KK <i>, <y> and <u> are  
> pronounced the same.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090202/abfa35a6/attachment.htm>

From j.mills at email.com  Tue Feb  3 08:38:33 2009
From: j.mills at email.com (Jon Mills)
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 08:38:33 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
Message-ID: <20090203083833.44E66326774@ws1-8.us4.outblaze.com>

However Lhuyd writes arl&#7909;dh [128a] and arlydh [108c].Jon

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "nicholas williams"
  To: "Standard Cornish discussion list"
  Subject: Re: [Spellyans] i ~ y
  Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 16:24:08 +0000

  In a phonemic spelling they would be written in the same way.
  Incidentally George himself pronounces the Cornish word for 'lord'with
  a short unstressed [U] and a voiceless final segment, i.e. exactly as
  does KS with its <arl?th>.  I suspect that mostspeakers (of whatever
  school) have a voiceless th in this word.Moreover Lhuyd spells the
  spoken Cornish form as <arleth> with avoiceless final.Why then does
  the SWFwrite <arludh> with a voiced final?
  Nicholas
  On 2 Feb 2009, at 15:15, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

    Ken George even says that unstressed KK <i>, <y> and <u> are
    pronounced the same.



  _______________________________________________
  Spellyans mailing list
  Spellyans at kernowek.net
  http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net



_____________________________________
Dr. Jon Mills,
School of European Culture and Languages,
University of Kent

-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090203/a6c167d7/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Tue Feb  3 09:06:49 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 09:06:49 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <20090203083833.44E66326774@ws1-8.us4.outblaze.com>
References: <20090203083833.44E66326774@ws1-8.us4.outblaze.com>
Message-ID: <16194E0B-A995-490E-B83C-9FA288CE02C3@gmail.com>

He also writes <menedh> on page 230c, but I seriously doubt whether he  
ever heard
a voiced final consonant. The word would have been mene' by his day.
He also writes <diuadh> 'end' but he heard <diua>; cf. Rowe's dua.

Nicholas

On 3 Feb 2009, at 08:38, Jon Mills wrote:

> However Lhuyd writes arl?dh [128a] and arlydh [108c].
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090203/ea6f6ee4/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Tue Feb  3 09:10:02 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 09:10:02 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] days of the week
Message-ID: <A2876AA1-1486-40F2-B2F5-B267FB3062D5@gmail.com>

I have recently collected the following examples of the adverbial  
forms of the days of the week from the texts:

SUNDAY
Dewsull blegyow PA 27a; Dezil  AB: 54c; De Zil JBoson; Dezil Gwavas  
MS ; da zeel JTonkin  [KS De Sul/De Zul]

MONDAY
De l?n  AB: 54c [KS De Lun]

TUESDAY
De [or Dedh] Merh AB: 28c; De merh: AB: 54c [KS De Merth]

WEDNESDAY
dumerher BM 2254; De marhar AB: 54c  [KS De Merher]

THURSDAY
deyow hablys PA 41c; duyow hamlos PC 654; deth yov BM 1472; deyow BM  
3159; deow habblys SA 66; De Ieu AB: 54c [KS De Yow]

FRIDAY
dugwener BM 120; Du guener BM 4316; du guener BM 4318, 4321, 4420; De  
guenar AB: 54c  [KS De Gwener]

SATURDAY
De Zadarn AB: 54c [KS De Sadorn/De Zadorn].

In the light of the above it seems odd that in Dan?s SWF dictionary  
the first element in all
is <dy?> rather than the attested <de> or <du, dew>.
There is, as far as I can see, no warrant at all for a spelling with  
<y>,
nor is there any justification for the apostrophe.
We must assume that the inauthentic spellings with <dy?> have been  
taken holus bolus from the ?etymological? spellings of KK.
One can only hope that these items will be revised in the SWF after  
five years.

Nicholas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090203/fef9491a/attachment.htm>

From craig at agantavas.org  Tue Feb  3 10:20:13 2009
From: craig at agantavas.org (Craig Weatherhill)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 10:20:13 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] days of the week
In-Reply-To: <A2876AA1-1486-40F2-B2F5-B267FB3062D5@gmail.com>
References: <A2876AA1-1486-40F2-B2F5-B267FB3062D5@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F45ECA0A-3FF3-4DB1-8BEC-7E33BC68D393@agantavas.org>

Nor can I see any justification for <Meurth>, unless someone else can  
see one..

Craig

On 3 Whe 2009, at 09:10, nicholas williams wrote:

> I have recently collected the following examples of the adverbial  
> forms of the days of the week from the texts:
>
> SUNDAY
> Dewsull blegyow PA 27a; Dezil  AB: 54c; De Zil JBoson; Dezil Gwavas  
> MS ; da zeel JTonkin  [KS De Sul/De Zul]
>
> MONDAY
> De l?n  AB: 54c [KS De Lun]
>
> TUESDAY
> De [or Dedh] Merh AB: 28c; De merh: AB: 54c [KS De Merth]
>
> WEDNESDAY
> dumerher BM 2254; De marhar AB: 54c  [KS De Merher]
>
> THURSDAY
> deyow hablys PA 41c; duyow hamlos PC 654; deth yov BM 1472; deyow BM  
> 3159; deow habblys SA 66; De Ieu AB: 54c [KS De Yow]
>
> FRIDAY
> dugwener BM 120; Du guener BM 4316; du guener BM 4318, 4321, 4420;  
> De guenar AB: 54c  [KS De Gwener]
>
> SATURDAY
> De Zadarn AB: 54c [KS De Sadorn/De Zadorn].
>
> In the light of the above it seems odd that in Dan?s SWF dictionary  
> the first element in all
> is <dy?> rather than the attested <de> or <du, dew>.
> There is, as far as I can see, no warrant at all for a spelling with  
> <y>,
> nor is there any justification for the apostrophe.
> We must assume that the inauthentic spellings with <dy?> have been  
> taken holus bolus from the ?etymological? spellings of KK.
> One can only hope that these items will be revised in the SWF after  
> five years.
>
> Nicholas
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

--
Craig Weatherhill




From everson at evertype.com  Tue Feb  3 10:29:23 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 10:29:23 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] days of the week
In-Reply-To: <F45ECA0A-3FF3-4DB1-8BEC-7E33BC68D393@agantavas.org>
References: <A2876AA1-1486-40F2-B2F5-B267FB3062D5@gmail.com>
	<F45ECA0A-3FF3-4DB1-8BEC-7E33BC68D393@agantavas.org>
Message-ID: <20600AE9-D318-41C7-91E4-C7BC638616EC@evertype.com>

On 3 Feb 2009, at 10:20, Craig Weatherhill wrote:

> Nor can I see any justification for <Meurth>, unless someone else  
> can see one..

Breton Meurzh?

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From njawilliams at gmail.com  Tue Feb  3 10:58:47 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 10:58:47 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] days of the week
In-Reply-To: <F45ECA0A-3FF3-4DB1-8BEC-7E33BC68D393@agantavas.org>
References: <A2876AA1-1486-40F2-B2F5-B267FB3062D5@gmail.com>
	<F45ECA0A-3FF3-4DB1-8BEC-7E33BC68D393@agantavas.org>
Message-ID: <6FD9F5D3-37A5-4150-9BFE-35CB81296607@gmail.com>

Meurth is KK. The SWF has Merth.

Nicholas

On 3 Feb 2009, at 10:20, Craig Weatherhill wrote:

> Nor can I see any justification for <Meurth>, unless someone else  
> can see one..




From njawilliams at gmail.com  Tue Feb  3 12:11:39 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 12:11:39 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] Pension
Message-ID: <3AFDCAF3-B727-4167-8804-66995E681080@gmail.com>

I notice that the Gerlyvrik for 'pension' has the term
GOBER-OMDENNANS. With the hyphen this looks
as though it should mean something like 'withdrawing/retiring with  
payment/reward'.
Of course it actually means gober 'payment' + omdennans 'retirement'  
i.e.
'retirement pension', The hyphen is misleading.
The term is also inaccurate. Widows who have never worked may
get a widow's pension and people have also in the past been given
civil list pensions, which have nothing to do with retirement.
Furthermore gober is money paid as a reward for labour, so
gober omdennans might more naturally be
taken as 'reward for retiring'.

A pension is money which is paid out regularly and only recently
has the word come to mean 'retirement pension', since other
regular payments are now called 'benefits' or 'allowances'.

The Cornish word for pension is attested:

Wh(are) y s(or)ras Iudas
ny gewsy dre geryte
(lemen) rag cafos ran vras
an pencon mar a calle

'Immediately Judas got angry,
he was not speaking through charity
but to get a large portion
of the pension/payment if he could' PA 38 ab.

In my dictionary I call a retirement pension
pensyon omden. In KS this would be pencyon omden.

Nicholas



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090203/89962f0c/attachment.htm>

From craig at agantavas.org  Tue Feb  3 12:22:08 2009
From: craig at agantavas.org (Craig Weatherhill)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 12:22:08 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] days of the week
In-Reply-To: <20600AE9-D318-41C7-91E4-C7BC638616EC@evertype.com>
References: <A2876AA1-1486-40F2-B2F5-B267FB3062D5@gmail.com>
	<F45ECA0A-3FF3-4DB1-8BEC-7E33BC68D393@agantavas.org>
	<20600AE9-D318-41C7-91E4-C7BC638616EC@evertype.com>
Message-ID: <CAA57953-357F-4EE2-AFD3-3B762CE8B55B@agantavas.org>

Ah, but Cornish isn't Breton.

Craig


On 3 Whe 2009, at 10:29, Michael Everson wrote:

> On 3 Feb 2009, at 10:20, Craig Weatherhill wrote:
>
>> Nor can I see any justification for <Meurth>, unless someone else  
>> can see one..
>
> Breton Meurzh?
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

--
Craig Weatherhill




From daniel at ryan-prohaska.com  Tue Feb  3 14:01:46 2009
From: daniel at ryan-prohaska.com (Daniel Prohaska)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 15:01:46 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <2D380415-A0AD-4EF5-8DC0-4CC947A9A277@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090203140153.1C76313BC087@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>

The SWF doesn?t, unfortunately, go by the attested spellings, but rather assumes a context conditioned variation of [?] and [?] in unstressed syllables where etymologically /?/ is expected, i.e. British /d/ or intervocalic /j/. As far as I can recall this was an AHG decision and it is mentioned in the final specification.  

Dan

 

  _____  

From: nicholas williams
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:24 PM



 

In a phonemic spelling they would be written in the same way.

 

Incidentally George himself pronounces the Cornish word for 'lord'

with a short unstressed [U] and a voiceless final segment, 

i.e. exactly as does KS with its <arl?th>.  I suspect that most

speakers (of whatever school) have a voiceless th in this word.

Moreover Lhuyd spells the spoken Cornish form as <arleth> with a

voiceless final.

Why then does the SWF

write <arludh> with a voiced final?

 

Nicholas

 

On 2 Feb 2009, at 15:15, Daniel Prohaska wrote:





Ken George even says that unstressed KK <i>, <y> and <u> are pronounced the same.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090203/87e44ca5/attachment.htm>

From daniel at ryan-prohaska.com  Tue Feb  3 14:01:46 2009
From: daniel at ryan-prohaska.com (Daniel Prohaska)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 15:01:46 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] =?windows-1252?q?c=F9sul?=
In-Reply-To: <BA4F2CFD-01C7-4BBE-B155-FEB2F2BBC17A@evertype.com>
Message-ID: <20090203140155.7468213BC087@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>

I have made the recommended correction and now give <kussul, cussul>. Thanks
for this Michael.

Dan 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Everson
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:30 PM
? In this matter, Dan, I believe you should retain the ambiguous <u> and
write <kussel>~<cussel>. We do write <c?ssul>. Also the /y/ comes back in
the final syllable in derived forms (c?ssulya not c?sselya) so the ending
should be {-ul>.?

 

On 2 Feb 2009, at 15:15, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> I should have realised this, especially since I know Revived Late  

> Cornish always had <cussel>. I will correct this error immediately  

> in the dictionary. I wonder, if the stressed vowel isn?t /y/, but / 

> U/, how to spell this in the SWF. The only graph I?d be allowed to  

> use would be <o>, thus <kossel>~<cossel>.

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090203/c026c845/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Tue Feb  3 14:09:22 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:09:22 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <20090203140153.1C76313BC087@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
References: <20090203140153.1C76313BC087@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
Message-ID: <E46E4C97-C762-4D98-A01C-5C2FE3EF2182@gmail.com>

Not only is this unjustified theoretically, it appears to be ignored  
in speech as well. KK users say arl?th. Just as they say tavaz for  
<taves>.

On 3 Feb 2009, at 14:01, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

>  but rather assumes a context conditioned variation of [?] and [?]  
> in unstressed syllables where etymologically /?/ is expected, i.e.  
> British /d/ or intervocalic /j/.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090203/8da6a93f/attachment.htm>

From everson at evertype.com  Tue Feb  3 15:32:41 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 15:32:41 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <20090203140153.1C76313BC087@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
References: <20090203140153.1C76313BC087@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
Message-ID: <8BC149F2-8C18-47F4-A22E-8087BE38B333@evertype.com>

On 3 Feb 2009, at 14:01, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> The SWF doesn?t, unfortunately, go by the attested spellings, but  
> rather assumes a context conditioned variation of [?] and [?] in  
> unstressed syllables where etymologically /?/ is expected, i.e.  
> British /d/ or intervocalic /j/. As far as I can recall this was an  
> AHG decision and it is mentioned in the final specification.

More of a waffle than a decision.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From njawilliams at gmail.com  Tue Feb  3 15:55:00 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 15:55:00 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <8BC149F2-8C18-47F4-A22E-8087BE38B333@evertype.com>
References: <20090203140153.1C76313BC087@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
	<8BC149F2-8C18-47F4-A22E-8087BE38B333@evertype.com>
Message-ID: <53DDA394-81B1-4333-A551-CBDB57677D79@gmail.com>

What evidence is there for any such variation anywhere in Cornish?

On 3 Feb 2009, at 15:32, Michael Everson wrote:

> context conditioned variation of [?] and [?]




From j.mills at email.com  Tue Feb  3 16:19:39 2009
From: j.mills at email.com (Jon Mills)
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:19:39 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
Message-ID: <20090203161939.D1FB3478088@ws1-5.us4.outblaze.com>

Vocabularium Cornicum has "arluit". I cannot see why the final <-t> could not represent [?]. George (GKK) wrote "arloedh" on the basis of a putative Proto-Brythonic, *ar?gwlyw?, which he found in Morris-Jones (1913) Welsh Grammar.
Jon


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "nicholas williams" <njawilliams at gmail.com>
> To: "Standard Cornish discussion list" <spellyans at kernowek.net>
> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] i ~ y
> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 15:55:00 +0000
> 
> What evidence is there for any such variation anywhere in Cornish?
> 
> On 3 Feb 2009, at 15:32, Michael Everson wrote:
> 
> > context conditioned variation of [?] and [?]
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

>



_____________________________________
Dr. Jon Mills,
School of European Culture and Languages,
University of Kent


-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com




From s.hewitt at unesco.org  Tue Feb  3 16:27:22 2009
From: s.hewitt at unesco.org (Hewitt, Stephen)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 17:27:22 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <53DDA394-81B1-4333-A551-CBDB57677D79@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401C4@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>

I've asked this before, but not had a clear answer.

Apart from Lhuyd, who was not immune to interference from his native Welsh, what evidence is there, from Middle Cornish on, for two separate phonemes /?/ and /?/?

My unexpert impression is that as /s/ was voiced internally to [z] (as in Middle Breton), /?/ (as in Middle Breton) may well have been voiced internally to /?/, in which case one is forced to ask whether there really were two separate phonemes.

An eminent Cornish specialist, neither a member of this list nor a target of its numerous attacks, told me privately at the Congress of Celtic Studies in Bonn in 2007 that such a hypothesis was perfectly plausible.

So please, incontrovertible evidence, Lhuyd aside, in favour of two separate phonemes /?/ and /?/? Surely the "authentic spellings" strongly suggest only one...?

Steve Hewitt



-----Original Message-----
From: spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net
[mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net]On Behalf Of nicholas williams
Sent: 03 February 2009 16:55
To: Standard Cornish discussion list
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] i ~ y


What evidence is there for any such variation anywhere in Cornish?

On 3 Feb 2009, at 15:32, Michael Everson wrote:

> context conditioned variation of [?] and [?]


_______________________________________________
Spellyans mailing list
Spellyans at kernowek.net
http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

From everson at evertype.com  Tue Feb  3 17:31:54 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 17:31:54 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <53DDA394-81B1-4333-A551-CBDB57677D79@gmail.com>
References: <20090203140153.1C76313BC087@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
	<8BC149F2-8C18-47F4-A22E-8087BE38B333@evertype.com>
	<53DDA394-81B1-4333-A551-CBDB57677D79@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6A2E6DF7-B1E8-4961-A139-EE108B67F176@evertype.com>

On 3 Feb 2009, at 15:55, nicholas williams wrote:

> What evidence is there for any such variation anywhere in Cornish?
>
> On 3 Feb 2009, at 15:32, Michael Everson wrote:
>
>> context conditioned variation of [?] and [?]

It's what happens in Breton.

Note that the SWF does not write -b everywhere and ask people to  
devoice it finally, or to do the same with -g, or with -d, or with -z.  
Just with -v and -dh, and not because of what is found in Cornish, but  
because of what is found in Breton.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From everson at evertype.com  Tue Feb  3 17:34:37 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 17:34:37 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] =?utf-8?b?w7AgYW5kIM64?=
In-Reply-To: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401C4@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
References: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401C4@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
Message-ID: <B0FB2049-0E17-4127-819A-6117AAC7733C@evertype.com>

The fastest answer is that BM writes both <th> and <?>

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From njawilliams at gmail.com  Tue Feb  3 17:39:59 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 17:39:59 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401C4@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
References: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401C4@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
Message-ID: <82A76801-A68A-4125-834E-AFD4ECDDFC58@gmail.com>

Are you seriously suggesting that /d/ when lenited initially might  
have had an allophonic voiceless variant?
It was written after all  written <th>, e.g. ty a then omma OM 230.

There were two forms of the third singular masculine prepositional  
pronoun: dotho/dotha and thotho/thotha.
Are you suggesting that the first had a voiced initial and the second  
could have a voiceless one?

Lhuyd may in final position have been influenced by Welsh, but  
initially he actually has different symbols
to represent the voiced and the unvoiced dental continuants.

Then there is the question of place-names.
Is there a difference in the traditional pronunciation of say  
Rosenithon < ros an eythyn
and Trevithick < tre Vudhek?
Perhaps Craig could be helpful here.

Nicholas


Nicholas

On 3 Feb 2009, at 16:27, Hewitt, Stephen wrote:

> So please, incontrovertible evidence, Lhuyd aside, in favour of two  
> separate phonemes /?/ and /?/? Surely the "authentic spellings"  
> strongly suggest only one...?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090203/d448648c/attachment.htm>

From s.hewitt at unesco.org  Tue Feb  3 17:40:52 2009
From: s.hewitt at unesco.org (Hewitt, Stephen)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 18:40:52 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] =?utf-8?b?w7AgYW5kID8=?=
In-Reply-To: <B0FB2049-0E17-4127-819A-6117AAC7733C@evertype.com>
Message-ID: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401C6@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>

As in:

"nag aswen ov le?erow . my a bys du karadow
	roy ?ynny ynta spedya"?

(Quoted from Henry Lewis, Llawlyfr Cernyweg Canol, Cardiff, 1946, p. 91 = BM lines 72-3).

There really does seem to be widespread confusion between the two.

Steve Hewitt 

-----Original Message-----
From: spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net
[mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net]On Behalf Of Michael Everson
Sent: 03 February 2009 18:35
To: Standard Cornish discussion list
Subject: [Spellyans] ? and ?


The fastest answer is that BM writes both <th> and <?>

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com


_______________________________________________
Spellyans mailing list
Spellyans at kernowek.net
http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090203/af1d89e9/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Tue Feb  3 17:42:31 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 17:42:31 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401C4@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
References: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401C4@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
Message-ID: <E2F890D9-5DC5-4985-8D70-11857A0FF8C0@gmail.com>

The spelling of English suggests only one, but we all know that thick  
has a voiceless initial and this a voiced one.
Sheath has a voiceless final but (County) Meath a voiced one.

On 3 Feb 2009, at 16:27, Hewitt, Stephen wrote:

> Surely the "authentic spellings" strongly suggest only one...?




From njawilliams at gmail.com  Tue Feb  3 17:49:21 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 17:49:21 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401C4@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
References: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401C4@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
Message-ID: <3C4FF86A-74CB-4C1E-A35D-08CD21972AD5@gmail.com>

OCV writes <medhec> for 'doctor'. <dh> is not uncommon in early  
medieval toponyms.


On 3 Feb 2009, at 16:27, Hewitt, Stephen wrote:

> Surely the "authentic spellings" strongly suggest only one...?




From s.hewitt at unesco.org  Tue Feb  3 17:49:56 2009
From: s.hewitt at unesco.org (Hewitt, Stephen)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 18:49:56 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <82A76801-A68A-4125-834E-AFD4ECDDFC58@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401C7@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>

No, it seems to me that, apart from initial spirant mutation, possibly (and even there, in Breton, there is widespread voicing of etymological <th>), that /th/ was voiced to /dh/, at which point there was only one phoneme, which was regularly devoiced in polysyllabic finals.
 
In Breton the two must have been close, but not identical, so that you actually had a three-way opposition of /th/ (from provection only) - /dh,/ (dh with extra friction) - /dh/, analogous to the widely documented three-way opposition in northern dialects of /f/ - /v,/ - /v/. In numerous dialects, the /v,/ - /v/ opposition has been neutralised to a single phoneme /v/. Part of the reason this must have been so is that the modern dialect reflexes of historical /th/ ( > /dh,/) and /dh/ are not the same: KLT /z/, Vannes /h/ for the first, and L /z/, elsewhere /-/ for the second/. 
 
Steve Hewitt
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net [mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net]On Behalf Of nicholas williams
Sent: 03 February 2009 18:40
To: Standard Cornish discussion list
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] i ~ y


Are you seriously suggesting that /d/ when lenited initially might have had an allophonic voiceless variant? 
It was written after all  written <th>, e.g. ty a then omma OM 230.


There were two forms of the third singular masculine prepositional pronoun: dotho/dotha and thotho/thotha.
Are you suggesting that the first had a voiced initial and the second could have a voiceless one?


Lhuyd may in final position have been influenced by Welsh, but initially he actually has different symbols
to represent the voiced and the unvoiced dental continuants.


Then there is the question of place-names. 
Is there a difference in the traditional pronunciation of say Rosenithon < ros an eythyn
and Trevithick < tre Vudhek?
Perhaps Craig could be helpful here.


Nicholas



Nicholas

On 3 Feb 2009, at 16:27, Hewitt, Stephen wrote:


So please, incontrovertible evidence, Lhuyd aside, in favour of two separate phonemes /?/ and /?/? Surely the "authentic spellings" strongly suggest only one...?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090203/3ee8c4db/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Tue Feb  3 18:48:14 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 18:48:14 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401C7@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
References: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401C7@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
Message-ID: <9CF030E7-3FBD-42E5-BAEB-6AA09C0B4071@gmail.com>

Breton is not Cornish, Steve, and has a very different history from  
Cornish.
It is not relevant here.

I am not clear about your position. First you said there was only one  
phoneme.
Now you say there were two, but that the distinction was neutralised  
in 'polysyllabic finals.' That is
a very different thing indeed. I am confused.
Please explain what you mean.


Nicholas

On 3 Feb 2009, at 17:49, Hewitt, Stephen wrote:

> n Breton the two must have been close, but not identical,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090203/0ea609ad/attachment.htm>

From craig at agantavas.org  Tue Feb  3 20:00:18 2009
From: craig at agantavas.org (Craig Weatherhill)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 20:00:18 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <82A76801-A68A-4125-834E-AFD4ECDDFC58@gmail.com>
References: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401C4@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
	<82A76801-A68A-4125-834E-AFD4ECDDFC58@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4C14DF48-BE28-4DC2-9906-47EC0C8DA5B0@agantavas.org>

Absolutely. Rosenithon = "ruz-NIGH-thun"; Trevithick = "tr'VIDH-ik";  
Kenython (ke + an + eythyn) = "k'NIGH'thun"; Tremethick = "tr'MEDH-ik"

Craig


On 3 Whe 2009, at 17:39, nicholas williams wrote:

> Are you seriously suggesting that /d/ when lenited initially might  
> have had an allophonic voiceless variant?
> It was written after all  written <th>, e.g. ty a then omma OM 230.
>
> There were two forms of the third singular masculine prepositional  
> pronoun: dotho/dotha and thotho/thotha.
> Are you suggesting that the first had a voiced initial and the  
> second could have a voiceless one?
>
> Lhuyd may in final position have been influenced by Welsh, but  
> initially he actually has different symbols
> to represent the voiced and the unvoiced dental continuants.
>
> Then there is the question of place-names.
> Is there a difference in the traditional pronunciation of say  
> Rosenithon < ros an eythyn
> and Trevithick < tre Vudhek?
> Perhaps Craig could be helpful here.
>
> Nicholas
>
>
> Nicholas
>
> On 3 Feb 2009, at 16:27, Hewitt, Stephen wrote:
>
>> So please, incontrovertible evidence, Lhuyd aside, in favour of two  
>> separate phonemes /?/ and /?/? Surely the "authentic spellings"  
>> strongly suggest only one...?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

--
Craig Weatherhill




From njawilliams at gmail.com  Tue Feb  3 20:45:34 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 20:45:34 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <4C14DF48-BE28-4DC2-9906-47EC0C8DA5B0@agantavas.org>
References: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401C4@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
	<82A76801-A68A-4125-834E-AFD4ECDDFC58@gmail.com>
	<4C14DF48-BE28-4DC2-9906-47EC0C8DA5B0@agantavas.org>
Message-ID: <9783E150-E010-42C8-98F6-CAACD0C939D4@gmail.com>

This seems to indicate that <th> and <dh> are separate phonemes  
between vowels.
Gromercy dhis, a Craig.

Nicholas

On 3 Feb 2009, at 20:00, Craig Weatherhill wrote:

> Absolutely. Rosenithon = "ruz-NIGH-thun"; Trevithick = "tr'VIDH-ik";  
> Kenython (ke + an + eythyn) = "k'NIGH'thun"; Tremethick = "tr'MEDH-ik"




From njawilliams at gmail.com  Tue Feb  3 22:30:28 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 22:30:28 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] =?iso-8859-1?q?c=F9ntell=2C_cuntelles?=
Message-ID: <317CF1F5-58CC-4D8D-B499-55AABB89CE2E@gmail.com>

I notice that the phonetic representation in George's Gerlyvrik of  
<kuntell> 'gather, pick'
and <kuntelles> 'gathering, meeting' both have [y] in the first  
syllable.

I wonder whether the fronted <u> [y] is really correct.
In the later texts words containing the root cuntell- are not  
infrequently spelt with <o>
rather than <u>:

contulva an bobill TH 31
warbarthe contylles CW 2322
contellyes worbar John Keigwin
Contellyah worbarh an dowre John Keigwin
pereeg E contell Rowe
bos kontles var bar John Boson.

Moreover in his excellent Gerlevran Neil gives
collect(v): cuntel
collection(n): cuntelianz.

If he had thought the vowel were a fronted [y] in Middle Cornish, he  
would
have written the LC forms as *<kintel> and *<kintelianz>.

KS spells these two words c?ntell and c?ntelles, i.e. with an  
unrounded [u].

In his Gerlyver of the SWF Dan follows George and writes <kuntell> with
a fronted [y] and <kuntellyans> with a short open [I].
Perhaps both should be emended to an unrounded [u].

Nicholas

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090203/b1d4726a/attachment.htm>

From j.mills at email.com  Wed Feb  4 11:17:13 2009
From: j.mills at email.com (Jon Mills)
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:17:13 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
Message-ID: <20090204111713.07C78BE407B@ws1-9.us4.outblaze.com>

These examples supplied by Craig do not indicate that /&#952;/ and /?/ are separate phonemes of Cornish between vowels. For that you need a minimum contrast pair. For example, the pair, 'ether' and 'either' demonstrate that /&#952;/ and /?/ are separate phonemes of English between vowels. I am not convinced that &#952;/ and /?/ are separate phonemes of Cornish.
Jon

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "nicholas williams" <njawilliams at gmail.com>
> To: "Standard Cornish discussion list" <spellyans at kernowek.net>
> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] i ~ y
> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 20:45:34 +0000
> 
> 
> This seems to indicate that <th> and <dh> are separate phonemes  
> between vowels.
> Gromercy dhis, a Craig.
> 
> Nicholas
> 
> On 3 Feb 2009, at 20:00, Craig Weatherhill wrote:
> 
> > Absolutely. Rosenithon = "ruz-NIGH-thun"; Trevithick = 
> > "tr'VIDH-ik";  Kenython (ke + an + eythyn) = "k'NIGH'thun"; 
> > Tremethick = "tr'MEDH-ik"
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

>



_____________________________________
Dr. Jon Mills,
School of European Culture and Languages,
University of Kent


-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com




From everson at evertype.com  Wed Feb  4 13:57:26 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 13:57:26 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] Alys
Message-ID: <AE944914-D4C9-45D4-A53E-6D78B208A358@evertype.com>

? propos madness and hatters, and though it is off topic, I found this  
interesting: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1550196&pageindex=1

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From everson at evertype.com  Wed Feb  4 14:01:48 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:01:48 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <20090204111713.07C78BE407B@ws1-9.us4.outblaze.com>
References: <20090204111713.07C78BE407B@ws1-9.us4.outblaze.com>
Message-ID: <57D73636-5E60-4AC1-96F1-64BF932DF55D@evertype.com>

On 4 Feb 2009, at 11:17, Jon Mills wrote:

> These examples supplied by Craig do not indicate that /?/ and /?/  
> are separate phonemes of Cornish between vowels. For that you need a  
> minimum contrast pair. For example, the pair, 'ether' and 'either'  
> demonstrate that /?/ and /?/ are separate phonemes of English  
> between vowels. I am not convinced that /?/ and /?/ are separate  
> phonemes of Cornish.

Synchronically, at least, they are separate phonemes in Revived  
Cornish. And have been for a century. And then there's Lhuyd.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From j.mills at email.com  Wed Feb  4 15:10:53 2009
From: j.mills at email.com (Jon Mills)
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:10:53 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
Message-ID: <20090204151054.459D8105CF@ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com>

"Michael Everson" <everson at evertype.com> wrote 
> Synchronically, at least, they are separate phonemes in Revived  
> Cornish. And have been for a century. 

Revived Cornish is the Cornish of language learners and comes with the errors that L2 learners make. I do not hold with the view that 'this or that usage may not concur with what is attested in the corpus of traditional Cornish but its what we do now, so its okay'. By such a standard, any common solecism could be said to be good Revived Cornish. We all make errors when we learn a second language. We should admit that they are errors and try to improve.
Jon

_____________________________________
Dr. Jon Mills,
School of European Culture and Languages,
University of Kent


-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com




From everson at evertype.com  Wed Feb  4 15:27:28 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:27:28 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <20090204151054.459D8105CF@ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com>
References: <20090204151054.459D8105CF@ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com>
Message-ID: <E5A235AE-6CDB-4454-9E65-E753DA3B9DC0@evertype.com>

On 4 Feb 2009, at 15:10, Jon Mills wrote:

> Revived Cornish is the Cornish of language learners and comes with  
> the errors that L2 learners make.

Yes, like "yn whir".

> I do not hold with the view that 'this or that usage may not concur  
> with what is attested in the corpus of traditional Cornish but its  
> what we do now, so its okay'. By such a standard, any common  
> solecism could be said to be good Revived Cornish. We all make  
> errors when we learn a second language. We should admit that they  
> are errors and try to improve.

So... you don't care whether Revived Cornish has two phonemes /?/ or / 
?/ or not? You're happy to accept them both as they are, or abolish  
one or the other of them based on.... what?

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From s.hewitt at unesco.org  Wed Feb  4 15:53:15 2009
From: s.hewitt at unesco.org (Hewitt, Stephen)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 16:53:15 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <E5A235AE-6CDB-4454-9E65-E753DA3B9DC0@evertype.com>
Message-ID: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401D2@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>

I am bound to agree with Jon Mills. I find Michael's statement:

> Revived Cornish is the Cornish of language learners and comes with  
> the errors that L2 learners make.

an astonishing admission that the real aim of this list is not primarily to ascertain the phonological system of Cornish at given stages of its history and attempt to codify that orthographically using only authentic graphemes attested in the historical corpus. From what I have seen, I am not certain that this is entirely feasible, but I certainly find it an interesting linguistic exercise, and one which ought to shed much light on the history of the language.

To get back to the /th/ ~ /dh/ problem, in Llawlyfr Cernyweg Canol, the only small anthology of historic texts I have to hand, there are very numerous instances of <th> being used for etymological /dh/, as we all know, and fewer, but still regular instances of <?> (~<z>) being used for etymological /th/. When <th> corresponds th /th/ and <?> (~<z>) to /dh/, one might imgagine that that was the result of a certain orthographical tradition from an earlier period, when the /th/ ~ /dh/ distinction undoubtedly existed; the frequent use of the "wrong" graphemes, however, suggests to me that confusion may have set in, most likely following a merger of the two phonemes. I do not know the answer, but I am certain that this is a serious linguistic question about the phoneme inventory of Cornish from at least BM on.

If ascertaining the historical facts about the language is not what this list is really about, please forgive me for having raised what appears to be an awkward question.

Steve Hewitt



-----Original Message-----
From: spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net
[mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net]On Behalf Of Michael Everson
Sent: 04 February 2009 16:27
To: Standard Cornish discussion list
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] i ~ y


On 4 Feb 2009, at 15:10, Jon Mills wrote:

> Revived Cornish is the Cornish of language learners and comes with  
> the errors that L2 learners make.

Yes, like "yn whir".

> I do not hold with the view that 'this or that usage may not concur  
> with what is attested in the corpus of traditional Cornish but its  
> what we do now, so its okay'. By such a standard, any common  
> solecism could be said to be good Revived Cornish. We all make  
> errors when we learn a second language. We should admit that they  
> are errors and try to improve.

So... you don't care whether Revived Cornish has two phonemes /?/ or / 
?/ or not? You're happy to accept them both as they are, or abolish  
one or the other of them based on.... what?

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com


_______________________________________________
Spellyans mailing list
Spellyans at kernowek.net
http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Wed Feb  4 16:14:57 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 16:14:57 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401D2@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
References: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401D2@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
Message-ID: <BF3C7011-7C82-4E19-8CA6-E70276E47D9B@gmail.com>

Lhuyd writes: po kotha Lavar an Enez-ma 'or the older speech of this  
island' AB: 222. He also writes hui dho Kodha 'that you fall' AB: 250a.
It certainly looks as though Lhuyd distinguished intervocalic [T] from  
intervocalic [D]. I cannot believe he was simply basing himself on Welsh
in these items, since coth is not the Welsh for 'old', although cwyddo  
'fall' is common.
So we have a minimal pair kotha ~ kodha.

There is therefore a prima facie case for th ~ dh medially. Can those  
who deny the distinction in medial position prove their assertion?

I should like to see them do so. Suspicions and doubts are not enough.  
Proof please.

Nicholas
-----------


On 4 Feb 2009, at 15:53, Hewitt, Stephen wrote:

> but I am certain that this is a serious linguistic question about  
> the phoneme inventory of Cornish from at least BM on.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090204/e71305f2/attachment.htm>

From j.mills at email.com  Wed Feb  4 15:45:53 2009
From: j.mills at email.com (Jon Mills)
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:45:53 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
Message-ID: <20090204154553.A96041CE8FB@ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>

"Michael Everson" <everson at evertype.com> wrote,
> Yes, like "yn whir".

Exactly.

> So... you don't care whether Revived Cornish has two phonemes /?/ 
> or / ?/ or not? You're happy to accept them both as they are, or 
> abolish  one or the other of them based on.... what?

The evidence from Lhuyd suggests that in 1700 /?/ and /?/ were separate phonemes. It is far less certain what phonemes Middle Cornish might have had. If a phonemic orthography is the goal, then Late Cornish as recorded by Lhuyd might be the best basis. It is possible to conjecture many alternative plausible phonemic inventories for Middle Cornish. It would be possible to regularise Middle Cornish orthography and allow Cornish speakers to pronounce it according to their preferred phonemics. However, whilst we might suggest a pronunciation, we should not prescribe a given pronunciation for a word when its historic pronunciation is at best conjectural.
Jon


_____________________________________
Dr. Jon Mills,
School of European Culture and Languages,
University of Kent


-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com




From j.mills at email.com  Wed Feb  4 16:22:52 2009
From: j.mills at email.com (Jon Mills)
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:22:52 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
Message-ID: <20090204162253.1D8DD1BF2F8@ws1-10.us4.outblaze.com>

<Th> and <dh> as used in all Revived Cornish orthographies follows the distribution of these graphemes in Robert Williams (1865) Lexicon Cornu-Britannicum. Williams (1865) based his distribution of <th> and <dh> partly on Lhuyd (1707). But for the many items not found in Lhuyd's Archaeologia, or for which Lhuyd gave alternate forms, Williams (1865) followed Welsh. It was for this reason that Whitley Stokes (1869: 138) criticised Williams (1865) dictionary, saying "Mr. Williams has throughout his Lexicon been misled by Welsh analogy."
Jon


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hewitt, Stephen" <s.hewitt at unesco.org>
> To: "Standard Cornish discussion list" <spellyans at kernowek.net>
> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] i ~ y
> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 16:53:15 +0100
> 
> I am bound to agree with Jon Mills. I find Michael's statement:
> 
> > Revived Cornish is the Cornish of language learners and comes with  
> > the errors that L2 learners make.
> 
> an astonishing admission that the real aim of this list is not 
> primarily to ascertain the phonological system of Cornish at given 
> stages of its history and attempt to codify that orthographically 
> using only authentic graphemes attested in the historical corpus. 
>  From what I have seen, I am not certain that this is entirely 
> feasible, but I certainly find it an interesting linguistic 
> exercise, and one which ought to shed much light on the history of 
> the language.
> 
> To get back to the /th/ ~ /dh/ problem, in Llawlyfr Cernyweg Canol, 
> the only small anthology of historic texts I have to hand, there 
> are very numerous instances of <th> being used for etymological 
> /dh/, as we all know, and fewer, but still regular instances of 
> <?> (~<z>) being used for etymological /th/. When <th> corresponds 
> th /th/ and <?> (~<z>) to /dh/, one might imgagine that that was 
> the result of a certain orthographical tradition from an earlier 
> period, when the /th/ ~ /dh/ distinction undoubtedly existed; the 
> frequent use of the "wrong" graphemes, however, suggests to me that 
> confusion may have set in, most likely following a merger of the 
> two phonemes. I do not know the answer, but I am certain that this 
> is a serious linguistic question about the phoneme inventory of 
> Cornish from at least BM on.
> 
> If ascertaining the historical facts about the language is not what 
> this list is really about, please forgive me for having raised what 
> appears to be an awkward question.
> 
> Steve Hewitt
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net
> [mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net]On Behalf Of Michael Everson
> Sent: 04 February 2009 16:27
> To: Standard Cornish discussion list
> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] i ~ y
> 
> 
> On 4 Feb 2009, at 15:10, Jon Mills wrote:
> 
> > Revived Cornish is the Cornish of language learners and comes with  
> > the errors that L2 learners make.
> 
> Yes, like "yn whir".
> 
> > I do not hold with the view that 'this or that usage may not concur  
> > with what is attested in the corpus of traditional Cornish but its  
> > what we do now, so its okay'. By such a standard, any common  
> > solecism could be said to be good Revived Cornish. We all make  
> > errors when we learn a second language. We should admit that they  
> > are errors and try to improve.
> 
> So... you don't care whether Revived Cornish has two phonemes /?/ or / 
> ?/ or not? You're happy to accept them both as they are, or abolish  
> one or the other of them based on.... what?
> 
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

>



_____________________________________
Dr. Jon Mills,
School of European Culture and Languages,
University of Kent


-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com




From everson at evertype.com  Wed Feb  4 16:23:31 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 16:23:31 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401D2@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
References: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401D2@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
Message-ID: <DD8F8018-7B75-4FAC-9F6C-5640595B8805@evertype.com>

On 4 Feb 2009, at 15:53, Hewitt, Stephen wrote:

> I am bound to agree with Jon Mills. I find Michael's statement:
>
>> Revived Cornish is the Cornish of language learners and comes with
>> the errors that L2 learners make.

MICHAEL DID NOT SAY THAT. Jon Mills said that.

I said:
> Synchronically, at least, /?/ and /?/ are separate phonemes in  
> Revived Cornish. And have been for a century.

Jon said:
> Revived Cornish is the Cornish of language learners and comes with  
> the errors that L2 learners make.

I then asked him what he was intending to do about Revived Cornish.  
Currently it distinguishes the two phonemes, and ALL Revivalists are  
happy with this distinction. The distinction also occurs also in  
English, the first language of most Revivalists.

So what is being proposed? Respell <dhodho> as <thotho>? Nobody in the  
Revival wants to do that. And then what? It's /?o?o/ now. Shall it be  
changed to /?o?o/? Or /?o?o/? Or /?o?o/?

Steve said:
>> an astonishing admission that the real aim of this list is not  
>> primarily to ascertain the phonological system of Cornish at given  
>> stages of its history and attempt to codify that orthographically  
>> using only authentic graphemes attested in the historical corpus.

The "real aim" of this list? Well, its primary aim has been to examine  
the official SWF used by Cornish authorities for its errors and  
inconsistencies, and to correct them in a more robust and accurate  
orthography (KS) which remains faithful to traditional orthographic  
forms.

> From what I have seen, I am not certain that this is entirely  
> feasible, but I certainly find it an interesting linguistic  
> exercise, and one which ought to shed much light on the history of  
> the language.
>
> To get back to the /th/ ~ /dh/ problem, in Llawlyfr Cernyweg Canol,  
> the only small anthology of historic texts I have to hand, there are  
> very numerous instances of <th> being used for etymological /dh/, as  
> we all know, and fewer, but still regular instances of <?> (~<z>)  
> being used for etymological /th/. When <th> corresponds th /th/ and  
> <?> (~<z>) to /dh/, one might imgagine that that was the result of a  
> certain orthographical tradition from an earlier period, when the / 
> th/ ~ /dh/ distinction undoubtedly existed; the frequent use of the  
> "wrong" graphemes, however, suggests to me that confusion may have  
> set in, most likely following a merger of the two phonemes. I do not  
> know the answer, but I am certain that this is a serious linguistic  
> question about the phoneme inventory of Cornish from at least BM on.

Well the distinction is no worse than the use of <th> in Modern  
English, now, is it?

> If ascertaining the historical facts about the language is not what  
> this list is really about, please forgive me for having raised what  
> appears to be an awkward question.

We are of course interested in historical facts about the language,  
but one of them is that Revived Cornish has both /?/ and /?/, and is  
never likely to abandon them.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com


From s.hewitt at unesco.org  Wed Feb  4 16:23:51 2009
From: s.hewitt at unesco.org (Hewitt, Stephen)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 17:23:51 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <BF3C7011-7C82-4E19-8CA6-E70276E47D9B@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401D3@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>

Well, that ties in exactly with what we know about Middle Breton - the only instance in which /th/ is preserved, and has not become /dh,/ or even fallen entirely together with /dh/, is precisely with comparatives, superlatives, where the element after the morpheme boundary began historically (in the superlative, and later in the comparative by analogy) with +h-. In fact what appears to have happened is /th/ > /dh,/ +/h/ > /th/.
 
On the analogy with Breton, I would fully expect Cornish /th/ to be preserved in such environments. But what about simple "etymological" /th/ outside of any provective environment, such as in <le?erow>? My question is whether one can really prove the existence of two separate phonemes in such words.
 
Steve Hewitt

-----Original Message-----
From: spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net [mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net]On Behalf Of nicholas williams
Sent: 04 February 2009 17:15
To: Standard Cornish discussion list
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] i ~ y


Lhuyd writes: po kotha Lavar an Enez-ma 'or the older speech of this island' AB: 222. He also writes hui dho Kodha 'that you fall' AB: 250a. 
It certainly looks as though Lhuyd distinguished intervocalic [T] from intervocalic [D]. I cannot believe he was simply basing himself on Welsh
in these items, since coth is not the Welsh for 'old', although cwyddo 'fall' is common.
So we have a minimal pair kotha ~ kodha. 


There is therefore a prima facie case for th ~ dh medially. Can those who deny the distinction in medial position prove their assertion?


I should like to see them do so. Suspicions and doubts are not enough. Proof please.


Nicholas
-----------



On 4 Feb 2009, at 15:53, Hewitt, Stephen wrote:


but I am certain that this is a serious linguistic question about the phoneme inventory of Cornish from at least BM on.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090204/cc870a6d/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Wed Feb  4 16:31:54 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 16:31:54 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <20090204154553.A96041CE8FB@ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>
References: <20090204154553.A96041CE8FB@ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>
Message-ID: <60203952-9543-4AA3-8BF8-E7F44F64C97D@gmail.com>

But earlier today you wrote: "I am not convinced that  / ?/ and /?/  
are separate phonemes of Cornish"
What exactly are you claiming, Jon? You appear to be saying different  
things at different times.
If the two were phonemically distinct ca 1700, they were almost  
certainly distinct before that, i.e. in Middle Cornish.

Nicholas

On 4 Feb 2009, at 15:45, Jon Mills wrote:

> the evidence from Lhuyd suggests that in 1700 /?/ and /?/ were  
> separate phonemes.




From everson at evertype.com  Wed Feb  4 16:35:23 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 16:35:23 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <20090204154553.A96041CE8FB@ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>
References: <20090204154553.A96041CE8FB@ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>
Message-ID: <193577FC-B8A9-484B-AC4C-CA1C28B61B1A@evertype.com>

On 4 Feb 2009, at 15:45, Jon Mills wrote:

> "Michael Everson" <everson at evertype.com> wrote,
>> Yes, like "yn whir".
>
> Exactly.

...which is an example of a phrase in use, not a structural feature  
like the phonology.

>> So... you don't care whether Revived Cornish has two phonemes /?/
>> or / ?/ or not? You're happy to accept them both as they are, or
>> abolish  one or the other of them based on.... what?
>
> The evidence from Lhuyd suggests that in 1700 /?/ and /?/ were  
> separate phonemes. It is far less certain what phonemes Middle  
> Cornish might have had.

Well Old English and early Middle English /f/ had allophones [f v]  
and /?/ had allophones [? ?] and even if Middle Cornish was similar  
at the outset, it certainly developed the phonemic distinctions by  
1700, and I doubt Lhuyd was the first one to write it down.

> If a phonemic orthography is the goal, then Late Cornish as recorded  
> by Lhuyd might be the best basis.

The brief which the AHG had was an orthography which addressed both  
RMC and RLC at the same time. When :-) you see Alys in Pow an Anethow,  
you will see that Nicholas tends to prefer the later forms (b?s, pedn)  
in his translation. But KS orthography supports both.

> It is possible to conjecture many alternative plausible phonemic  
> inventories for Middle Cornish.

True, but we our orthography, to be used by speakers creating new  
texts, is for Revived Cornish, in its RMC and RLC dialects.

> It would be possible to regularise Middle Cornish orthography and  
> allow Cornish speakers to pronounce it according to their preferred  
> phonemics. However, whilst we might suggest a pronunciation, we  
> should not prescribe a given pronunciation for a word when its  
> historic pronunciation is at best conjectural.

In material for learners, one may certainly not say "here is 'th' and  
'dh' and you might pronounce one voiced and the other voiceless, or  
you might do something else". Speakers of Revived Cornish do in fact  
need rules.

I see Nicholas as produced a minimal pair. :-)

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com


From j.mills at email.com  Wed Feb  4 16:39:15 2009
From: j.mills at email.com (Jon Mills)
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:39:15 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
Message-ID: <20090204163916.0F4CC1BF2F8@ws1-10.us4.outblaze.com>

As I said, I agree that Late Cornish as attested by Lhuyd (1707) makes a
phonemic distinction between /&#952;/ and / ?/. However there seems to be
no direct evidence on way or the other with regard to Middle Cornish.Jon

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "nicholas williams"
  To: "Standard Cornish discussion list"
  Subject: Re: [Spellyans] i ~ y
  Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 16:14:57 +0000

  Lhuyd writes: po kotha Lavar an Enez-ma 'or the older speech of this
  island' AB: 222. He also writes hui dho Kodha 'that you fall' AB:
  250a.It certainly looks as though Lhuyd distinguished intervocalic
  [T] from intervocalic [D]. I cannot believe he was simply basing
  himself on Welshin these items, since coth is not the Welsh for
  'old', although cwyddo 'fall' is common.So we have a minimal pair
  kotha ~ kodha. 
  There is therefore a prima facie case for th ~ dh medially. Can those
  who deny the distinction in medial position prove their assertion?
  I should like to see them do so. Suspicions and doubts are not
  enough. Proof please.
  Nicholas-----------


  On 4 Feb 2009, at 15:53, Hewitt, Stephen wrote:

    but I am certain that this is a serious linguistic question about
    the phoneme inventory of Cornish from at least BM on.



  _______________________________________________
  Spellyans mailing list
  Spellyans at kernowek.net
  http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net



_____________________________________
Dr. Jon Mills,
School of European Culture and Languages,
University of Kent

-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090204/80694aa7/attachment.htm>

From janicelobb at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Feb  4 16:47:51 2009
From: janicelobb at tiscali.co.uk (janicelobb at tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 17:47:51 +0100 (GMT+01:00)
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
Message-ID: <455639.1233766071909.JavaMail.root@ps36.mc.tiscali.sys>

Could kitha (to scald) and kidha (to hide) be a minimal pair?


----Original Message----
From: njawilliams at gmail.com
Date: 04/02/2009 16:14 
To: "Standard Cornish discussion list"<spellyans at kernowek.net>
Subj: Re: [Spellyans] i ~ y

Lhuyd writes: po kotha Lavar an Enez-ma 'or the older speech of this island' AB: 222. He also writes hui dho Kodha 'that you fall' AB: 250a.
It certainly looks as though Lhuyd distinguished intervocalic [T] from intervocalic [D]. I cannot believe he was simply basing himself on Welsh
in these items, since coth is not the Welsh for 'old', although cwyddo 'fall' is common.
So we have a minimal pair kotha ~ kodha. 


There is therefore a prima facie case for th ~ dh medially. Can those who deny the distinction in medial position prove their assertion?


I should like to see them do so. Suspicions and doubts are not enough. Proof please.


Nicholas
-----------






On 4 Feb 2009, at 15:53, Hewitt, Stephen wrote:
but I am certain that this is a serious linguistic question about the phoneme inventory of Cornish from at least BM on.


50% off Norton Security 2009 only from Tiscali - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/security 
_____________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090204/dcaaef88/attachment.htm>

From j.mills at email.com  Wed Feb  4 16:51:29 2009
From: j.mills at email.com (Jon Mills)
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:51:29 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
Message-ID: <20090204165129.D1DAF1CE94D@ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>

Nicholas Williams wrote:
> But earlier today you wrote: "I am not convinced that  / ?/ and /?/  
> are separate phonemes of Cornish"
> What exactly are you claiming, Jon? You appear to be saying different  
> things at different times.

When I wrote "I am not convinced that  /?/ and /?/ are separate phonemes of Cornish", I was referring to Middle Cornish.

Nicholas Williams wrote:
> If the two were phonemically distinct ca 1700, they were almost  
> certainly distinct before that, i.e. in Middle Cornish.

Languages change. How can you possibly assert that /?/ and /?/ were "certainly distinct" in the Middle Cornish period. Maybe they were; maybe they were not.
Jon
_____________________________________
Dr. Jon Mills,
School of European Culture and Languages,
University of Kent


-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com




From everson at evertype.com  Wed Feb  4 16:54:33 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 16:54:33 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <20090204165129.D1DAF1CE94D@ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>
References: <20090204165129.D1DAF1CE94D@ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>
Message-ID: <C8851FE2-C06D-431D-A004-EEC30467230F@evertype.com>

On 4 Feb 2009, at 16:51, Jon Mills wrote:

> Nicholas Williams wrote:
>> If the two were phonemically distinct ca 1700, they were almost
>> certainly distinct before that, i.e. in Middle Cornish.
>
> Languages change. How can you possibly assert that /?/ and /?/ were  
> "certainly distinct" in the Middle Cornish period. Maybe they were;  
> maybe they were not.

"The Middle Cornish period" is itself not uniform, as we know.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From s.hewitt at unesco.org  Wed Feb  4 17:02:13 2009
From: s.hewitt at unesco.org (Hewitt, Stephen)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 18:02:13 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <60203952-9543-4AA3-8BF8-E7F44F64C97D@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401D4@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>

I think we have both been using somewhat imprecise shorthand - /?/ and /?/ being used to mean the simple historical phonemes inherited from Old Cornish, not the special case of /?/+/h/ found in <cotha>, cf. Middle Breton <coz> /ko:?,/, but <cozzaff, cozhaff> /ko??v/, and also on the analogy of the behaviour of other originally voiceless fricatives in the comparative/superlative, such as <brasa, brassa>, where /s/ would, for the same reasons not have become /z/.

This is why I am convinced, pace several on this list, that it is useful always to bear the closest sister-language of Cornish, Breton, in mind. In Breton, voicing or lenition of historically voiceless fricatives internally (after and before vowels and/or sonorants) was carried through in Breton fairly consistantly for all historically voiceless fricatives /f/, /?/, /s/ and /x/ (with a partial, and not fully understood exception for /f/ in SW dialects).

I have never understood why Cornish specialists all agree that historic /f/, /s/ and /x/ were generally lenited internally to /v/, /z/ and /h/, but have almost never bothered even to ask the question about /?/, for which we can all agree that the historical spellings provide no reliable clue.

Steve Hewitt



-----Original Message-----
From: spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net
[mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net]On Behalf Of nicholas williams
Sent: 04 February 2009 17:32
To: Standard Cornish discussion list
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] i ~ y


But earlier today you wrote: "I am not convinced that  / ?/ and /?/  
are separate phonemes of Cornish"
What exactly are you claiming, Jon? You appear to be saying different  
things at different times.
If the two were phonemically distinct ca 1700, they were almost  
certainly distinct before that, i.e. in Middle Cornish.

Nicholas

On 4 Feb 2009, at 15:45, Jon Mills wrote:

> the evidence from Lhuyd suggests that in 1700 /?/ and /?/ were  
> separate phonemes.


_______________________________________________
Spellyans mailing list
Spellyans at kernowek.net
http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Wed Feb  4 17:33:35 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 17:33:35 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401D4@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
References: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401D4@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
Message-ID: <8A6D148F-FEEF-48F2-BE98-9BA9138A7FFC@gmail.com>

x > h is not lenition in the way that the other two are, since h is a  
voiceless as x.


On 4 Feb 2009, at 17:02, Hewitt, Stephen wrote:

> f/, /s/ and /x/ were generally lenited internally to /v/, /z/ and /h/,




From s.hewitt at unesco.org  Wed Feb  4 17:35:43 2009
From: s.hewitt at unesco.org (Hewitt, Stephen)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 18:35:43 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <8A6D148F-FEEF-48F2-BE98-9BA9138A7FFC@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401D5@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>

Agreed that it is not voicing, but in the fortis/lenis scheme of things, in both Breton and Cornish, /x/ and /h/ do appear to be in a pair, so x > h is a "softening", in other words, lenition.

Steve Hewitt

-----Original Message-----
From: spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net
[mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net]On Behalf Of nicholas williams
Sent: 04 February 2009 18:34
To: Standard Cornish discussion list
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] i ~ y


x > h is not lenition in the way that the other two are, since h is a  
voiceless as x.


On 4 Feb 2009, at 17:02, Hewitt, Stephen wrote:

> f/, /s/ and /x/ were generally lenited internally to /v/, /z/ and /h/,


_______________________________________________
Spellyans mailing list
Spellyans at kernowek.net
http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net



From njawilliams at gmail.com  Wed Feb  4 17:39:46 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 17:39:46 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401D5@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
References: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401D5@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
Message-ID: <711243D8-4C1A-45F6-97B2-C54C92E42FA6@gmail.com>

So you are now claiming that Cornish had fortis and lenis.
At which period?
How can you possibly know?


Nicholas

On 4 Feb 2009, at 17:35, Hewitt, Stephen wrote:

> Agreed that it is not voicing, but in the fortis/lenis scheme of  
> things, in both Breton and Cornish, /x/ and /h/ do appear to be in a  
> pair, so x > h is a "softening", in other words, lenition.
>
> Steve Hewitt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net
> [mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net]On Behalf Of nicholas williams
> Sent: 04 February 2009 18:34
> To: Standard Cornish discussion list
> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] i ~ y
>
>
> x > h is not lenition in the way that the other two are, since h is a
> voiceless as x.
>
>
> On 4 Feb 2009, at 17:02, Hewitt, Stephen wrote:
>
>> f/, /s/ and /x/ were generally lenited internally to /v/, /z/ and / 
>> h/,
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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




From s.hewitt at unesco.org  Wed Feb  4 17:45:30 2009
From: s.hewitt at unesco.org (Hewitt, Stephen)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 18:45:30 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <711243D8-4C1A-45F6-97B2-C54C92E42FA6@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401D6@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>

So you do not set up lenis and fortis series

b  d  g  
p  t   k

etc. to explain soft and hard mutations and the behaviour of consonants to which the comparative/superlative ending /a/ is added?

Steve Hewitt

-----Original Message-----
From: spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net
[mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net]On Behalf Of nicholas williams
Sent: 04 February 2009 18:40
To: Standard Cornish discussion list
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] i ~ y


So you are now claiming that Cornish had fortis and lenis.
At which period?
How can you possibly know?


Nicholas

On 4 Feb 2009, at 17:35, Hewitt, Stephen wrote:

> Agreed that it is not voicing, but in the fortis/lenis scheme of  
> things, in both Breton and Cornish, /x/ and /h/ do appear to be in a  
> pair, so x > h is a "softening", in other words, lenition.
>
> Steve Hewitt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net
> [mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net]On Behalf Of nicholas williams
> Sent: 04 February 2009 18:34
> To: Standard Cornish discussion list
> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] i ~ y
>
>
> x > h is not lenition in the way that the other two are, since h is a
> voiceless as x.
>
>
> On 4 Feb 2009, at 17:02, Hewitt, Stephen wrote:
>
>> f/, /s/ and /x/ were generally lenited internally to /v/, /z/ and / 
>> h/,
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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



From njawilliams at gmail.com  Wed Feb  4 17:54:17 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 17:54:17 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401D6@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
References: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401D6@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
Message-ID: <72BC1544-7759-4F94-8CD0-CB39B50F4426@gmail.com>

No, they are voiced and voiceless.

On 4 Feb 2009, at 17:45, Hewitt, Stephen wrote:

> So you do not set up lenis and fortis series
>
> b  d  g
> p  t   k




From everson at evertype.com  Wed Feb  4 18:53:24 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 18:53:24 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
In-Reply-To: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401D5@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
References: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401D5@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
Message-ID: <62AFD904-D360-4CF3-BF52-8BFD3B8378C2@evertype.com>

On 4 Feb 2009, at 17:35, Hewitt, Stephen wrote:

> Agreed that it is not voicing, but in the fortis/lenis scheme of  
> things, in both Breton and Cornish, /x/ and /h/ do appear to be in a  
> pair, so x > h is a "softening", in other words, lenition.

I really believe that too much is made of the fortis/lenis scheme of  
things. Unlike Breton, which was influenced by French and Francian and  
post-Gaulish and whatever was there when the proto-Bretons got there,  
and unlike Welsh which until very recently had no appreciable  
influence from English at all, Cornish has for *all* of its history  
lived alongside and within zones of Old English, Middle English, and  
Modern English communities.

I think it likely that fortis/lenis was exchanged for the Germanic  
voiceless/voiced a good while before the Late Cornish period. Indeed,  
noting what Nicholas has written about Manx, I would say that the  
following is a plausible scenario for the development of pre-occlusion:

[m?] attempted as [mm?] by Germanic speakers, breaking to [m?m],  
coalescing as [?m]
[n?] attempted as [nn?] by Germanic speakers, breaking to [n?n],  
coalescing as [?n]

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From j.mills at email.com  Thu Feb  5 09:05:05 2009
From: j.mills at email.com (Jon Mills)
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 09:05:05 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] i ~ y
Message-ID: <20090205090506.058E2606861@ws1-4.us4.outblaze.com>

"Hewitt, Stephen" <s.hewitt at unesco.org> writes,
> I think we have both been using somewhat imprecise shorthand - /?/ 
> and /?/ being used to mean the simple historical phonemes 
> inherited from Old Cornish, 

Actually, I use /?/ and /?/ to refer to the voiceless and voiced dental fricatives. I do not use these as reflexes of some supposed Old Cornish phonemes. As Stephen writes, 
> the historical spellings provide no reliable clue.
Thus we know no more about the phonemes of Old Cornish than we do about the phonemes of Middle Cornish and it is futile to attempt to derive the phonemics of one from the other.

Stephen writes,
> I have never understood why Cornish specialists all agree that 
> historic /f/, /s/ and /x/ were generally lenited internally to /v/, 
> /z/ and /h/, 
Since /s/ and /z/ were not distinguished in Middle Cornish orthography, it is again only supposition that /s/ was generally lenited internally to /z/.
Ol an gwella,
Jon

_____________________________________
Dr. Jon Mills,
School of European Culture and Languages,
University of Kent


-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com




From njawilliams at gmail.com  Thu Feb  5 11:44:04 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:44:04 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] The Cornish for All Saints' Day
Message-ID: <FAB8A8F6-04CC-4097-AF10-0EE1EF3D3DDA@gmail.com>

In his dictionary of the SWF Dan has Ollsens 'All Hallows'. This has  
been borrowed from Breton Hollsent.
Dan gives the word as plural. This is not, I think, correct. In Breton  
it is singular.
The sense is 'All Saints' Day', and refers to the feast day rather  
than 'all the saints'. I think pl. should be
changed to masc. sing. here.
Breton an Hollsent is itself a calque on French la Toussaint, which is  
feminine singular.

The only attested word for 'All Saints' Day' in Cornish is (in KS  
spelling) De Halan Gw?v. This occurs in the
famous entry of 1572 in the Exeter Consistory Court depositions:

Wm Hawysche, of Lelant, tynner, from birth resident, aged 40, sayeth  
that upon Dew Whallan Gwa Metten in
Eglos De Lalant, viz. upon all hallow day late paste about the mydds  
of the service in the parish church of Lalant
Moryshe David?s wife and Cicely James came into the church of Lalant  
together and in chiding with words together
Cycely called Agnes Davey whore and whore bitch in English and not in  
Cornowok.

All Saints' Day is the first of November and was a way of  
Christianising the beginning of the pagan Celtic winter.
In my own dictionary under All Saints I give De Halan Gwaf (UCR) first  
and Ollsens second.

The attested De Halann Gwav (?*Dy'Halann Gwav) does not appear to be  
in the Gerlyvrik but
the unattested Ollsens is. And it is wrongly given as plural.

Incidentally the foreword to Alys in Pow an Anethow I dated Degol  
Maria kyns Nadelyk, i.e. the
feast of the Conception of the BVM (this latter is the English name in  
the Book of Common Prayer). The festival is
celebrated on the 8th December. The Cornish version is my calque on  
Irish L? Fh?ile Muire roimh Nollaig 'the festival of the BVM before  
Christmas',
and neatly sidesteps any theological questions about Our Lady's  
conception (for those anoraks who could care less).

Nicholas


  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090205/be9bd6dd/attachment.htm>

From craig at agantavas.org  Thu Feb  5 11:53:28 2009
From: craig at agantavas.org (Craig Weatherhill)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:53:28 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] The Cornish for All Saints' Day
In-Reply-To: <FAB8A8F6-04CC-4097-AF10-0EE1EF3D3DDA@gmail.com>
References: <FAB8A8F6-04CC-4097-AF10-0EE1EF3D3DDA@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7371543C-071F-40E1-82CB-B5B8AD95921B@agantavas.org>

They always did have a nice turn of phrase in Lelant.  Good job the  
witness wasn't in Pendeen!

Craig


On 5 Whe 2009, at 11:44, nicholas williams wrote:

> In his dictionary of the SWF Dan has Ollsens 'All Hallows'. This has  
> been borrowed from Breton Hollsent.
> Dan gives the word as plural. This is not, I think, correct. In  
> Breton it is singular.
> The sense is 'All Saints' Day', and refers to the feast day rather  
> than 'all the saints'. I think pl. should be
> changed to masc. sing. here.
> Breton an Hollsent is itself a calque on French la Toussaint, which  
> is feminine singular.
>
> The only attested word for 'All Saints' Day' in Cornish is (in KS  
> spelling) De Halan Gw?v. This occurs in the
> famous entry of 1572 in the Exeter Consistory Court depositions:
>
> Wm Hawysche, of Lelant, tynner, from birth resident, aged 40, sayeth  
> that upon Dew Whallan Gwa Metten in
> Eglos De Lalant, viz. upon all hallow day late paste about the mydds  
> of the service in the parish church of Lalant
> Moryshe David?s wife and Cicely James came into the church of Lalant  
> together and in chiding with words together
> Cycely called Agnes Davey whore and whore bitch in English and not  
> in Cornowok.
>
> All Saints' Day is the first of November and was a way of  
> Christianising the beginning of the pagan Celtic winter.
> In my own dictionary under All Saints I give De Halan Gwaf (UCR)  
> first and Ollsens second.
>
> The attested De Halann Gwav (?*Dy'Halann Gwav) does not appear to be  
> in the Gerlyvrik but
> the unattested Ollsens is. And it is wrongly given as plural.
>
> Incidentally the foreword to Alys in Pow an Anethow I dated Degol  
> Maria kyns Nadelyk, i.e. the
> feast of the Conception of the BVM (this latter is the English name  
> in the Book of Common Prayer). The festival is
> celebrated on the 8th December. The Cornish version is my calque on  
> Irish L? Fh?ile Muire roimh Nollaig 'the festival of the BVM before  
> Christmas',
> and neatly sidesteps any theological questions about Our Lady's  
> conception (for those anoraks who could care less).
>
> Nicholas
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

--
Craig Weatherhill




From craig at agantavas.org  Thu Feb  5 11:56:55 2009
From: craig at agantavas.org (Craig Weatherhill)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:56:55 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] The Cornish for All Saints' Day
In-Reply-To: <FAB8A8F6-04CC-4097-AF10-0EE1EF3D3DDA@gmail.com>
References: <FAB8A8F6-04CC-4097-AF10-0EE1EF3D3DDA@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <85D80847-A9E6-4CCD-9B81-6D6E5ECB1327@agantavas.org>

Even in West Cornish dialect, All Saint's Day was "Hallantide" or  
"Allentide", with Allen (Hallan) apples being associated with it.

Craig


On 5 Whe 2009, at 11:44, nicholas williams wrote:

> In his dictionary of the SWF Dan has Ollsens 'All Hallows'. This has  
> been borrowed from Breton Hollsent.
> Dan gives the word as plural. This is not, I think, correct. In  
> Breton it is singular.
> The sense is 'All Saints' Day', and refers to the feast day rather  
> than 'all the saints'. I think pl. should be
> changed to masc. sing. here.
> Breton an Hollsent is itself a calque on French la Toussaint, which  
> is feminine singular.
>
> The only attested word for 'All Saints' Day' in Cornish is (in KS  
> spelling) De Halan Gw?v. This occurs in the
> famous entry of 1572 in the Exeter Consistory Court depositions:
>
> Wm Hawysche, of Lelant, tynner, from birth resident, aged 40, sayeth  
> that upon Dew Whallan Gwa Metten in
> Eglos De Lalant, viz. upon all hallow day late paste about the mydds  
> of the service in the parish church of Lalant
> Moryshe David?s wife and Cicely James came into the church of Lalant  
> together and in chiding with words together
> Cycely called Agnes Davey whore and whore bitch in English and not  
> in Cornowok.
>
> All Saints' Day is the first of November and was a way of  
> Christianising the beginning of the pagan Celtic winter.
> In my own dictionary under All Saints I give De Halan Gwaf (UCR)  
> first and Ollsens second.
>
> The attested De Halann Gwav (?*Dy'Halann Gwav) does not appear to be  
> in the Gerlyvrik but
> the unattested Ollsens is. And it is wrongly given as plural.
>
> Incidentally the foreword to Alys in Pow an Anethow I dated Degol  
> Maria kyns Nadelyk, i.e. the
> feast of the Conception of the BVM (this latter is the English name  
> in the Book of Common Prayer). The festival is
> celebrated on the 8th December. The Cornish version is my calque on  
> Irish L? Fh?ile Muire roimh Nollaig 'the festival of the BVM before  
> Christmas',
> and neatly sidesteps any theological questions about Our Lady's  
> conception (for those anoraks who could care less).
>
> Nicholas
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

--
Craig Weatherhill




From njawilliams at gmail.com  Thu Feb  5 12:02:02 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:02:02 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] The Cornish for All Saints' Day
In-Reply-To: <7371543C-071F-40E1-82CB-B5B8AD95921B@agantavas.org>
References: <FAB8A8F6-04CC-4097-AF10-0EE1EF3D3DDA@gmail.com>
	<7371543C-071F-40E1-82CB-B5B8AD95921B@agantavas.org>
Message-ID: <5E348AD7-EC33-4206-B9AD-FFF10770273A@gmail.com>

This (1572) is the first attestation of the word Kernowek and it has - 
ow- in the stressed syllable.
All later examples have either -ow- or -?-.
Nance's Kernewek was taken from R. Williams' Cernewek and is unattested.
I suspect that the West Welsh (Cornish) called their language
Brethonek < *Britannika, until the influx of Bretons after the Norman  
Conquest.
Then a name for their own speech became necessary, so they
called it Kernowek/Kernewek < Kornowika.

Nicholas

On 5 Feb 2009, at 11:53, Craig Weatherhill wrote:

> whore and whore bitch in English and not in Cornowok.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090205/ab8926b8/attachment.htm>

From j.mills at email.com  Thu Feb  5 12:28:59 2009
From: j.mills at email.com (Jon Mills)
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:28:59 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] The Cornish for All Saints' Day
Message-ID: <20090205122859.022831CE8FB@ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>

SWF ollsens is from GKK ollsens. George gives Tregear as the source of
this item, "All Saints" as its translation equivalent, and labels it "PL",
plural. In Tregear (Homily 39) the phrase "communyon an hollsens"
translates Bonner's 'the communion of saynctes'.Jon

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "nicholas williams"
  To: "Standard Cornish discussion list"
  Subject: [Spellyans] The Cornish for All Saints' Day
  Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:44:04 +0000

  In his dictionary of the SWF Dan has Ollsens 'All Hallows'. This has
  been borrowed from Breton Hollsent.Dan gives the word as plural. This
  is not, I think, correct. In Breton it is singular.The sense is 'All
  Saints' Day', and refers to the feast day rather than 'all the
  saints'. I think pl. should bechanged to masc. sing. here.Breton an
  Hollsent is itself a calque on French la Toussaint, which is feminine
  singular. 
  The only attested word for 'All Saints' Day' in Cornish is (in KS
  spelling) De Halan Gw?v. This occurs in thefamous entry of 1572 in
  the Exeter Consistory Court depositions: 
  Wm Hawysche, of Lelant, tynner, from birth resident, aged 40, sayeth
  that upon Dew Whallan Gwa Metten inEglos De Lalant, viz. upon all
  hallow day late paste about the mydds of the service in the parish
  church of LalantMoryshe David?s wife and Cicely James came into the
  church of Lalant together and in chiding with words togetherCycely
  called Agnes Davey whore and whore bitch in English and not in
  Cornowok.
  All Saints' Day is the first of November and was a way of
  Christianising the beginning of the pagan Celtic winter.In my own
  dictionary under All Saints I give De Halan Gwaf (UCR) first and
  Ollsens second. 
  The attested De Halann Gwav (?*Dy'Halann Gwav) does not appear to be
  in the Gerlyvrik but the unattested Ollsens is. And it is wrongly
  given as plural.
  Incidentally the foreword to Alys in Pow an Anethow I dated Degol
  Maria kyns Nadelyk, i.e. thefeast of the Conception of the BVM (this
  latter is the English name in the Book of Common Prayer). The
  festival iscelebrated on the 8th December. The Cornish version is my
  calque on Irish L? Fh?ile Muire roimh Nollaig 'the festival of the
  BVM before Christmas',and neatly sidesteps any theological questions
  about Our Lady's conception (for those anoraks who could care less).
  Nicholas 


  _______________________________________________
  Spellyans mailing list
  Spellyans at kernowek.net
  http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net



_____________________________________
Dr. Jon Mills,
School of European Culture and Languages,
University of Kent

-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090205/b6df0f13/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Thu Feb  5 12:52:28 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:52:28 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] The Cornish for All Saints' Day
In-Reply-To: <20090205122859.022831CE8FB@ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>
References: <20090205122859.022831CE8FB@ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>
Message-ID: <D58E920C-2A13-4194-B691-3180B2DEFFB3@gmail.com>

Thank you for that. I am sorry to have missed it?and in Tregear too!
Mea culpa.
Curiously Nance doesn't give hollsens in his 1955 dictionary.

The word hollsens doesn't refer to the festival but to the saints  
generally.
It is also hollsens not ollsens.
The festival would be Degol an Hollsens.

In which case we can forget about Ollsens, which is clearly calqued on  
Breton.

I am slightly perplexed by Tregear's in communyon an hollsens.
Elsewhere 'all the saints' is rendered by Oll an Sens, e.g.

banneth genogh oll an sens BM 578
mollath Chryst hag ol an syns! BK 3157.

Hollsens isn't the same as that, but looks like a collective noun.
The position of the article makes me think that (H)ollsens is a  
collective singular rather than a plural.

Nicholas



On 5 Feb 2009, at 12:28, Jon Mills wrote:

> SWF ollsens is from GKK ollsens. George gives Tregear as the source  
> of this item, "All Saints" as its translation equivalent, and labels  
> it "PL", plural. In Tregear (Homily 39) the phrase "communyon an  
> hollsens" translates Bonner's 'the communion of saynctes'.
> Jon
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "nicholas williams"
> To: "Standard Cornish discussion list"
> Subject: [Spellyans] The Cornish for All Saints' Day
> Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:44:04 +0000
>
> In his dictionary of the SWF Dan has Ollsens 'All Hallows'. This has  
> been borrowed from Breton Hollsent.
> Dan gives the word as plural. This is not, I think, correct. In  
> Breton it is singular.
> The sense is 'All Saints' Day', and refers to the feast day rather  
> than 'all the saints'. I think pl. should be
> changed to masc. sing. here.
> Breton an Hollsent is itself a calque on French la Toussaint, which  
> is feminine singular.
>
> The only attested word for 'All Saints' Day' in Cornish is (in KS  
> spelling) De Halan Gw?v. This occurs in the
> famous entry of 1572 in the Exeter Consistory Court depositions:
>
> Wm Hawysche, of Lelant, tynner, from birth resident, aged 40, sayeth  
> that upon Dew Whallan Gwa Metten in
> Eglos De Lalant, viz. upon all hallow day late paste about the mydds  
> of the service in the parish church of Lalant
> Moryshe David?s wife and Cicely James came into the church of Lalant  
> together and in chiding with words together
> Cycely called Agnes Davey whore and whore bitch in English and not  
> in Cornowok.
>
> All Saints' Day is the first of November and was a way of  
> Christianising the beginning of the pagan Celtic winter.
> In my own dictionary under All Saints I give De Halan Gwaf (UCR)  
> first and Ollsens second.
>
> The attested De Halann Gwav (?*Dy'Halann Gwav) does not appear to be  
> in the Gerlyvrik but
> the unattested Ollsens is. And it is wrongly given as plural.
>
> Incidentally the foreword to Alys in Pow an Anethow I dated Degol  
> Maria kyns Nadelyk, i.e. the
> feast of the Conception of the BVM (this latter is the English name  
> in the Book of Common Prayer). The festival is
> celebrated on the 8th December. The Cornish version is my calque on  
> Irish L? Fh?ile Muire roimh Nollaig 'the festival of the BVM before  
> Christmas',
> and neatly sidesteps any theological questions about Our Lady's  
> conception (for those anoraks who could care less).
>
> Nicholas
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>
>
>
> _____________________________________
> Dr. Jon Mills,
> School of European Culture and Languages,
> University of Kent
>
> --
> Be Yourself @ mail.com!
> Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
> Get a Free Account at www.mail.com!
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090205/d23ef19c/attachment.htm>

From j.mills at email.com  Thu Feb  5 13:37:15 2009
From: j.mills at email.com (Jon Mills)
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:37:15 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] The Cornish for All Saints' Day
Message-ID: <20090205133715.BFBED1BF28D@ws1-10.us4.outblaze.com>

Nicholas,Why do you think this form has initial <h>? Is it OLL + SENS? Or
is it something else: HOL + SENS?And why did Tregear not simply write,
"in cummunyon an sens" ?
Jon

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "nicholas williams"
  To: "Standard Cornish discussion list"
  Subject: Re: [Spellyans] The Cornish for All Saints' Day
  Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:52:28 +0000

  Thank you for that. I am sorry to have missed it?and in Tregear too! Mea
  culpa.
  Curiously Nance doesn't give hollsens in his 1955 dictionary.
  The word hollsens doesn't refer to the festival but to the saints
  generally.It is also hollsens not ollsens. The festival would be
  Degol an Hollsens.
  In which case we can forget about Ollsens, which is clearly calqued
  on Breton.
  I am slightly perplexed by Tregear's in communyon an hollsens.Elsewhere
  'all the saints' is rendered by Oll an Sens, e.g. 
  banneth genogh oll an sens BM 578mollath Chryst hag ol an syns! BK
  3157.
  Hollsens isn't the same as that, but looks like a collective noun.The
  position of the article makes me think that (H)ollsens is a
  collective singular rather than a plural.
  Nicholas


  On 5 Feb 2009, at 12:28, Jon Mills wrote:

    SWF ollsens is from GKK ollsens. George gives Tregear as the
    source of this item, "All Saints" as its translation equivalent,
    and labels it "PL", plural. In Tregear (Homily 39) the phrase
    "communyon an hollsens" translates Bonner's 'the communion of
    saynctes'.Jon

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "nicholas williams"
      To: "Standard Cornish discussion list"
      Subject: [Spellyans] The Cornish for All Saints' Day
      Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:44:04 +0000

      In his dictionary of the SWF Dan has Ollsens 'All Hallows'.
      This has been borrowed from Breton Hollsent.Dan gives the
      word as plural. This is not, I think, correct. In Breton it
      is singular.The sense is 'All Saints' Day', and refers to the
      feast day rather than 'all the saints'. I think pl. should bechanged
      to masc. sing. here.Breton an Hollsent is itself a calque on
      French la Toussaint, which is feminine singular. 
      The only attested word for 'All Saints' Day' in Cornish is
      (in KS spelling) De Halan Gw?v. This occurs in thefamous
      entry of 1572 in the Exeter Consistory Court depositions: 
      Wm Hawysche, of Lelant, tynner, from birth resident, aged 40,
      sayeth that upon Dew Whallan Gwa Metten inEglos De Lalant,
      viz. upon all hallow day late paste about the mydds of the
      service in the parish church of LalantMoryshe David?s wife
      and Cicely James came into the church of Lalant together and
      in chiding with words togetherCycely called Agnes Davey whore
      and whore bitch in English and not in Cornowok.
      All Saints' Day is the first of November and was a way of
      Christianising the beginning of the pagan Celtic winter.In my
      own dictionary under All Saints I give De Halan Gwaf (UCR)
      first and Ollsens second. 
      The attested De Halann Gwav (?*Dy'Halann Gwav) does not
      appear to be in the Gerlyvrik but the unattested Ollsens is.
      And it is wrongly given as plural.
      Incidentally the foreword to Alys in Pow an Anethow I dated
      Degol Maria kyns Nadelyk, i.e. thefeast of the Conception of
      the BVM (this latter is the English name in the Book of
      Common Prayer). The festival iscelebrated on the 8th
      December. The Cornish version is my calque on Irish L? Fh?ile
      Muire roimh Nollaig 'the festival of the BVM before
      Christmas',and neatly sidesteps any theological questions
      about Our Lady's conception (for those anoraks who could care
      less).
      Nicholas 


      _______________________________________________
      Spellyans mailing list
      Spellyans at kernowek.net
      http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net



    _____________________________________
    Dr. Jon Mills,
    School of European Culture and Languages,
    University of Kent


    -- Be Yourself @ mail.com!
    Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
    Get a Free Account at www.mail.com!_______________________________________________
    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



_____________________________________
Dr. Jon Mills,
School of European Culture and Languages,
University of Kent

-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090205/337b902b/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Thu Feb  5 14:18:02 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:18:02 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] The Cornish for All Saints' Day
In-Reply-To: <20090205133715.BFBED1BF28D@ws1-10.us4.outblaze.com>
References: <20090205133715.BFBED1BF28D@ws1-10.us4.outblaze.com>
Message-ID: <A1B99726-7317-495B-B0A8-3EECC39B34C9@gmail.com>

Holl for 'all' prefixed to the noun is very common in Tregear.
It also occurs in
Me ell mose dur an hole country
Gen Tubmas peeber ha e thean
in the Bilbao MS.

It might looks as though the Cornish word oll 'all'  has been  
contaminated
by English 'whole'; but holl- is also attested as prefix in Welsh,  
e.g. Duw Hollalluog 'Almighty God', so holl- here is probably  
authentic, although
the root is oll-; cf. Irish ule, uile.

Hollsens clearly means 'all the saints' and is a collective rather  
than a simple plural, though
it is plural in form. Geiriadur Pryfysgol gives Welsh Hollsaint as one  
word and glosses it in English
'all saints, the saints in heaven collectively'.
The Cornish Hollsens is the exact equivalent.

In Dan's dictionary Ollsens should, perhaps, be emended to Hollsens  
and placed under H.
It would also probably be better to describe it as coll. rather than pl.

There is a difference between
Calan Gwav, de Halan Gwav 'the first of November, the beginning of the  
pagan Celtic winter'; cf. W Calan Gaeaf
and Degol an Hollsens, Welsh Gwyl yr Hollsaint 'the Christian festival  
of All Saints'.

Nicholas





On 5 Feb 2009, at 13:37, Jon Mills wrote:

> Why do you think this form has initial <h>? Is it OLL + SENS? Or is  
> it something else: HOL + SENS?
> And why did Tregear not simply write, "in cummunyon an sens" ?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090205/9ea961b7/attachment.htm>

From clive.baker at gmail.com  Thu Feb  5 14:46:51 2009
From: clive.baker at gmail.com (Clive Baker)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:46:51 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] The Cornish for All Saints' Day
In-Reply-To: <A1B99726-7317-495B-B0A8-3EECC39B34C9@gmail.com>
References: <20090205133715.BFBED1BF28D@ws1-10.us4.outblaze.com>
	<A1B99726-7317-495B-B0A8-3EECC39B34C9@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a4b8784b0902050646u5da1ff41g9ba804e2680c3aac@mail.gmail.com>

I concur with Craig wholeheartedly on the "allan" apple ... it was always
the case when I was younger and had the teeth to chew on one.. :-))
Clive

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:18 PM, nicholas williams <njawilliams at gmail.com>wrote:

>  Holl for 'all' prefixed to the noun is very common in Tregear.
> It also occurs in
>  Me ell mose dur an hole country
> Gen Tubmas peeber ha e thean
> in the Bilbao MS.
>
> It might looks as though the Cornish word oll 'all'  has been contaminated
> by English 'whole'; but holl- is also attested as prefix in Welsh, e.g. Duw
> Hollalluog 'Almighty God', so holl- here is probably authentic, although
> the root is oll-; cf. Irish ule, uile.
>
> Hollsens clearly means 'all the saints' and is a collective rather than a
> simple plural, though
> it is plural in form. Geiriadur Pryfysgol gives Welsh Hollsaint as one word
> and glosses it in English
> 'all saints, the saints in heaven collectively'.
> The Cornish Hollsens is the exact equivalent.
>
> In Dan's dictionary Ollsens should, perhaps, be emended to Hollsens and
> placed under H.
> It would also probably be better to describe it as coll. rather than pl.
>
> There is a difference between
> Calan Gwav, de Halan Gwav 'the first of November, the beginning of the
> pagan Celtic winter'; cf. W Calan Gaeaf
> and Degol an Hollsens, Welsh Gwyl yr Hollsaint 'the Christian festival of
> All Saints'.
>
> Nicholas
>
>
>
>
>
>  On 5 Feb 2009, at 13:37, Jon Mills wrote:
>
>  Why do you think this form has initial <h>? Is it OLL + SENS? Or is it
> something else: HOL + SENS?
> And why did Tregear not simply write, "in cummunyon an sens" ?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090205/ed04a72b/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Thu Feb  5 15:14:29 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:14:29 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] The Cornish for All Saints' Day
In-Reply-To: <a4b8784b0902050646u5da1ff41g9ba804e2680c3aac@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20090205133715.BFBED1BF28D@ws1-10.us4.outblaze.com>
	<A1B99726-7317-495B-B0A8-3EECC39B34C9@gmail.com>
	<a4b8784b0902050646u5da1ff41g9ba804e2680c3aac@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DF278F2C-BA1C-40B3-B26A-E61E04A44936@gmail.com>

Gouel an Holl-Zent 'All Saints' Day' is also attested in Breton, i.e.  
spelt with initial <h>.
So we have
Cornish: an Hollsens
Welsh: yr Hollsaint
Breton: ann Holl-Zent.
The <h> in Cornish would seem to be authentic.
Nicholas

On 5 Feb 2009, at 14:46, Clive Baker wrote:

> The Cornish Hollsens is the exact equivalent.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090205/500bda7c/attachment.htm>

From eddie_climo at yahoo.co.uk  Fri Feb  6 00:29:54 2009
From: eddie_climo at yahoo.co.uk (Eddie Climo)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 00:29:54 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] The Cornish for All Saints' Day
In-Reply-To: <A1B99726-7317-495B-B0A8-3EECC39B34C9@gmail.com>
References: <20090205133715.BFBED1BF28D@ws1-10.us4.outblaze.com>
	<A1B99726-7317-495B-B0A8-3EECC39B34C9@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2C2FFBD1-0912-461E-8E6E-70BFC9514B1A@yahoo.co.uk>

On 5 Whe 2009, at 14:18, nicholas williams wrote:

> It might looks as though the Cornish word oll 'all'  has been  
> contaminated
> by English 'whole'; but holl- is also attested as prefix in Welsh,  
> e.g. Duw Hollalluog 'Almighty God', so holl- here is probably  
> authentic, although
> the root is oll-; cf. Irish ule, uile.


Indeed, in Welsh we find:
	oll, adv, all, wholly
	holl, adj. all, whole
	holl-, prefix. al-, all-, omni-

Interestingly, in Scots Gaelic we find the cognate form both with and  
without < h- >
	uile, adj. all
	na h-uile, adj.. every
	a h-uile duine. everyone
	uil-, uile-, prefix. al-, all-, omni-
There's a pattern of epenthetic < h- > found elsewhere in S.G., such as
	?raidh. special
	gu h-?raidh. especially

Could the role of the < h- > likewise be epenthetic in Welsh and  
Cornish?

Eddie Foirbeis Climo
- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -
Dres ethom akennow byner re bons lyeshes
Accenti non multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090206/79097595/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Fri Feb  6 09:18:26 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 09:18:26 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] The Cornish for All Saints' Day
In-Reply-To: <2C2FFBD1-0912-461E-8E6E-70BFC9514B1A@yahoo.co.uk>
References: <20090205133715.BFBED1BF28D@ws1-10.us4.outblaze.com>
	<A1B99726-7317-495B-B0A8-3EECC39B34C9@gmail.com>
	<2C2FFBD1-0912-461E-8E6E-70BFC9514B1A@yahoo.co.uk>
Message-ID: <220DE2A4-AF03-41E6-BC1E-E5496D7BFD00@gmail.com>

  Eddie, the initial h- in ScG and h (no hyphen) in Irish is quite  
unrelated to the h in holl.
In the genitive muintir na h?ireann, P?rlamaid na h-Alba, for example
the h is actually part of the article (feminine genitive), na < *indas

Morris Jones explains the h of holl < oll in Welsh as having been caused
by the r of the definite article yr before the stressed vowel of oll.
yr ollolluog > yrh ollolluog > yr hollolluog.
Initial stressed r- in Welsh is voiceless in native words, e.g.
rhew, rhai, rhwng.

I am not sure that this explanation can apply with Breton and Cornish,
since in the MB and MC period their article did not contain r and  
initial
rh is not usual in either.

I suspect that in Breton at least h was used in juncture after  
possessive
adjectives, da h oll mennat 'all your desire' and was then generalised.

The origin of holl in all three languages is likely to have been  
through false division.

Nicholas

On 6 Feb 2009, at 00:29, Eddie Climo wrote:

> There's a pattern of epenthetic < h- > found elsewhere in S.G., such  
> as
>




From kenmackinnon at enterprise.net  Fri Feb  6 09:54:41 2009
From: kenmackinnon at enterprise.net (Ken MacKinnon)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 09:54:41 -0000
Subject: [Spellyans] The Cornish for All Saints' Day
References: <20090205133715.BFBED1BF28D@ws1-10.us4.outblaze.com><A1B99726-7317-495B-B0A8-3EECC39B34C9@gmail.com>
	<2C2FFBD1-0912-461E-8E6E-70BFC9514B1A@yahoo.co.uk>
Message-ID: <005001c98844$ce0be710$06be9453@yourcfe1ef5834>

- gu dearbh !

-Coinneach


(Prof) Ken MacKinnon,
Ivy Cottage, Ferintosh,
The Black Isle, by Dingwall,
Ross-shire  IV7 8HX
Tel: 01349 - 863460
E-mail: kenmackinnon at enterprise.net


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Eddie Climo 
  To: Standard Cornish discussion list 
  Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 12:29 AM
  Subject: Re: [Spellyans] The Cornish for All Saints' Day


  On 5 Whe 2009, at 14:18, nicholas williams wrote:


    It might looks as though the Cornish word oll 'all'  has been contaminated
    by English 'whole'; but holl- is also attested as prefix in Welsh, e.g. Duw Hollalluog 'Almighty God', so holl- here is probably authentic, although
    the root is oll-; cf. Irish ule, uile.


  Indeed, in Welsh we find:
  oll, adv, all, wholly
  holl, adj. all, whole
  holl-, prefix. al-, all-, omni-


  Interestingly, in Scots Gaelic we find the cognate form both with and without < h- >
  uile, adj. all
  na h-uile, adj.. every
  a h-uile duine. everyone
  uil-, uile-, prefix. al-, all-, omni-

  There's a pattern of epenthetic < h- > found elsewhere in S.G., such as
  ?raidh. special

  gu h-?raidh. especially



  Could the role of the < h- > likewise be epenthetic in Welsh and Cornish?


  Eddie Foirbeis Climo
  - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -
  Dres ethom akennow byner re bons lyeshes
  Accenti non multiplicanda praeter necessitatem


Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 8.0.136 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1928 - Release Date: 31/01/2009 20:03


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Spellyans mailing list
  Spellyans at kernowek.net
  http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090206/39ea17a9/attachment.htm>

From daniel at ryan-prohaska.com  Mon Feb  9 12:40:07 2009
From: daniel at ryan-prohaska.com (Daniel Prohaska)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:40:07 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] the pronunciation of <hegar>
Message-ID: <20090209124009.20F9113BC06E@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>

In his Gerlyvrik Ken George gives the pronunciation of hegar amiable, kindly
as (X-SAMPA) [hE"ga:r], i.e. with stress on the second syllable. I'm not
sure whether this ought to be the recommended or aspired pronunciation. The
compound with the prefix he- (< Proto-Celtic *su- < PIE *h1su 'good') seems
to be old, probably predating the accent shift. Breton and Welsh have the
cognates W hygar and B hegar, both stressed on the first syllable (except
Gwenedeg?). I should think that C hegar ought to be transcribed ["hEgar] (or
for those who follow KK rules: ["hE:\gar]). I'd be grateful for opinions on
the matter.

Dan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090209/77ddde42/attachment.htm>

From s.hewitt at unesco.org  Mon Feb  9 12:55:01 2009
From: s.hewitt at unesco.org (Hewitt, Stephen)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:55:01 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] the pronunciation of <hegar>
In-Reply-To: <20090209124009.20F9113BC06E@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
Message-ID: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE018401E1@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>

Quite agree on the accentuation, if Welsh and Breton are anything to go by.
 
Incidentally, the word in Breton is hegarad (hegarat in ZH orthography), so the question of accentuation doesn't actually arise in that particular word. The he- morpheme is completely unproductive in Modern Breton (in actual speech; the literary language is another matter) and appears to have been so for a very long time. However, modern coinages such as hezoug "portable, mobile" are stressed on the first syllable by KLT users.
 
In Welsh, too, the hy- morpheme is unproductive in speech; modern literary coinages using hy- are felt to be so twee as to be jocular, cf. hybarch for parchus "respectable". Even so, where prefixed to monosyllables, the stress is on the hy-, as in /'h?barx/.
 
Steve Hewitt

-----Original Message-----
From: spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net [mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net]On Behalf Of Daniel Prohaska
Sent: 09 February 2009 13:40
To: 'Standard Cornish discussion list'
Subject: [Spellyans] the pronunciation of <hegar>



In his Gerlyvrik Ken George gives the pronunciation of hegar amiable, kindly as (X-SAMPA) [hE"ga:r], i.e. with stress on the second syllable. I'm not sure whether this ought to be the recommended or aspired pronunciation. The compound with the prefix he- (< Proto-Celtic *su- < PIE *h1su 'good') seems to be old, probably predating the accent shift. Breton and Welsh have the cognates W hygar and B hegar, both stressed on the first syllable (except Gwenedeg?). I should think that C hegar ought to be transcribed ["hEgar] (or for those who follow KK rules: ["hE:\gar]). I'd be grateful for opinions on the matter.

Dan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090209/ff96eb9d/attachment.htm>

From ray at spyrys.org  Mon Feb  9 13:05:58 2009
From: ray at spyrys.org (Ray Chubb)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:05:58 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] the pronunciation of <hegar>
In-Reply-To: <20090209124009.20F9113BC06E@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
References: <20090209124009.20F9113BC06E@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
Message-ID: <A847017B-FC75-4E46-8C3C-43123AFF964A@spyrys.org>

 From a purely practical point of view if we change the stress the  
word will be misheard for 'hager' - ugly.

On 9 Whe 2009, at 12:40, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> In his Gerlyvrik Ken George gives the pronunciation of hegar  
> amiable, kindly as (X-SAMPA) [hE?ga:r], i.e. with stress on the  
> second syllable. I?m not sure whether this ought to be the  
> recommended or aspired pronunciation. The compound with the prefix  
> he- (< Proto-Celtic *su- < PIE *h1su ?good?) seems to be old,  
> probably predating the accent shift. Breton and Welsh have the  
> cognates W hygar and B hegar, both stressed on the first syllable  
> (except Gwenedeg?). I should think that C hegar ought to be  
> transcribed [?hEgar] (or for those who follow KK rules: [?hE:\gar]).  
> I?d be grateful for opinions on the matter.
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

Ray Chubb

Portreth
Kernow




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090209/80ea27ed/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Mon Feb  9 13:06:58 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:06:58 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] the pronunciation of <hegar>
In-Reply-To: <20090209124009.20F9113BC06E@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
References: <20090209124009.20F9113BC06E@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
Message-ID: <A9D2E253-17DF-4D6B-9F75-0CC01F08D718@gmail.com>

The word is stressed on the first syllable.
Nobody follows KK rules.


On 9 Feb 2009, at 12:40, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> or for those who follow KK rules: [?hE:\gar]).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090209/195e0c42/attachment.htm>

From daniel at ryan-prohaska.com  Tue Feb 10 01:06:13 2009
From: daniel at ryan-prohaska.com (Daniel Prohaska)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:06:13 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] <hedre>
Message-ID: <20090210010613.C394313BC0AA@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>

Dear all,

I'm unable to find a single instance of UCR <hadre> or KK/UC <hedra> in the
Middle Cornish corpus. There are however 36 attestations of <hedre>. I
believe this is the spelling the SWF should use. I should recommend the
pronunciation [h@"dre:].

Dan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090210/aa7fece4/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Tue Feb 10 08:32:24 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:32:24 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] <hedre>
In-Reply-To: <20090210010613.C394313BC0AA@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
References: <20090210010613.C394313BC0AA@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
Message-ID: <FACB8108-48DD-4B11-AB0D-581EFF08EA47@gmail.com>

I believe that the UCR spelling should be used. There are examples of  
hadre in the texts,
but the word division makes them difficult to find:

yma pub ower ow cressya yn bysma ha drevon bew CW 1258-59
par dell osta arluth creif ha drevon omma yn byes CW 1424-25
in bysma heb falladowe ha drevone bewe CW 2108-9.

Nicholas


On 10 Feb 2009, at 01:06, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> I?m unable to find a single instance of UCR <hadre> or KK/UC <hedra>  
> in the Middle Cornish corpus

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090210/a0dc105d/attachment.htm>

From j.mills at email.com  Tue Feb 10 08:40:06 2009
From: j.mills at email.com (Jon Mills)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:40:06 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] <hedre>
Message-ID: <20090210084006.D7E8D478088@ws1-5.us4.outblaze.com>

I agree.Jon

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Daniel Prohaska"
  To: "'Standard Cornish discussion list'"
  Subject: [Spellyans]
  Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:06:13 +0100

Dear all,

I?m unable to find a single instance of UCR <hadre> or KK/UC <hedra> in
the Middle Cornish corpus. There are however 36 attestations of <hedre>.
I believe this is the spelling the SWF should use. I should recommend the
pronunciation [h@?dre:].

Dan


_______________________________________________
Spellyans mailing list
Spellyans at kernowek.net
http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net



_____________________________________
Dr. Jon Mills,
School of European Culture and Languages,
University of Kent

-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090210/605d318a/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Tue Feb 10 09:13:52 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:13:52 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] "praise"
Message-ID: <9579EA87-1A44-4991-8F64-16282CD0240A@gmail.com>

In Dan's dictionary the vn of the verb 'to praise' is <gormel> but the  
related noun is <gormeula>
What evidence is there for the sound spelt <eu>?
I have collected the following exx from the texts:

gormel BM 1420
gormel BM 2241
gormelas (verbal adjective) TH 8
wormolha BK 1798
wormol BK 1966
wormol BK 2342
gormollow (plural imperative) TBoson

gormolys (noun) BK 2532
gormolys (noun) BK 2678
Gormolys (noun) BK 2708

Gormola WGwavas
Gormola WGwavas.

wormoladow BK 835
wormoladow BK 1629.

The graph <eu> in SWF represents what in Middle Cornish orthography
was written <u, v, ue, eu>, but in the examples listed above we have no
examples at all of *gormeul-, *gormul- or *gormuel-.
There can be little justification for such a spelling in the SWF.
The spelling should surely be vb. gormel, vadj. gormelys, imperative  
pl. gormolewgh.
nominal forms gormol, gormola, gormoladow.

As common a root for 'praise' and 'to praise' is preys, prays,  
preysya, praysya:

preysya x 2; breysya x 2; praysya x 2; prays x 1; prayse x 2; preise x  
1; preysse x 2; preezyo x 1.

Nicholas


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090210/ff818071/attachment.htm>

From j.mills at email.com  Tue Feb 10 10:12:53 2009
From: j.mills at email.com (Jon Mills)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:12:53 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] "praise"
Message-ID: <20090210101253.2C550326774@ws1-8.us4.outblaze.com>

I see no evidence for the <eu> in this word.Incidentelly Lhuyd (1707:
77b) writes, "Gormola".Jon

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "nicholas williams"
  To: "Standard Cornish discussion list"
  Subject: [Spellyans] "praise"
  Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:13:52 +0000

  In Dan's dictionary the vn of the verb 'to praise' is <gormel> but
  the related noun is <gormeula>What evidence is there for the sound
  spelt <eu>? I have collected the following exx from the texts:
  gormel BM 1420gormel BM 2241gormelas (verbal adjective) TH 8wormolha
  BK 1798wormol BK 1966wormol BK 2342gormollow (plural imperative)
  TBoson
  gormolys (noun) BK 2532gormolys (noun) BK 2678Gormolys (noun) BK 2708
  Gormola WGwavasGormola WGwavas.
  wormoladow BK 835wormoladow BK 1629.
  The graph <eu> in SWF represents what in Middle Cornish orthographywas
  written <u, v, ue, eu>, but in the examples listed above we have noexamples
  at all of *gormeul-, *gormul- or *gormuel-.There can be little
  justification for such a spelling in the SWF.The spelling should
  surely be vb. gormel, vadj. gormelys, imperative pl. gormolewgh.nominal
  forms gormol, gormola, gormoladow.
  As common a root for 'praise' and 'to praise' is preys, prays,
  preysya, praysya:
  preysya x 2; breysya x 2; praysya x 2; prays x 1; prayse x 2; preise
  x 1; preysse x 2; preezyo x 1.
  Nicholas


  _______________________________________________
  Spellyans mailing list
  Spellyans at kernowek.net
  http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net



_____________________________________
Dr. Jon Mills,
School of European Culture and Languages,
University of Kent

-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090210/1ad5c915/attachment.htm>

From ajtrim at msn.com  Tue Feb 10 11:29:13 2009
From: ajtrim at msn.com (ajtrim at msn.com)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:29:13 -0000
Subject: [Spellyans] <hedre>
In-Reply-To: <20090210010613.C394313BC0AA@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
	<FACB8108-48DD-4B11-AB0D-581EFF08EA47@gmail.com>
References: <20090210010613.C394313BC0AA@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
	<FACB8108-48DD-4B11-AB0D-581EFF08EA47@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <COL115-DS13E2BA3B6D4866BDF92C8FCCBD0@phx.gbl>

These examples seem to confirm that the stress is on the second syllable.
Perhaps there is an indication here that the final e of hadre/hedre should be short.
The word means "as long as", "while".
The word commonly used for "as" / "while" is ha/hag.

Therefore, I think the SWF should use hadre with a short stressed e.
If sufficiently attested, hedre should also be allowed as either e or a would be schwa.


Regards,

Andrew J. Trim




From: nicholas williams 
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 8:32 AM
To: Standard Cornish discussion list 
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] <hedre>


I believe that the UCR spelling should be used. There are examples of hadre in the texts,
but the word division makes them difficult to find:


yma pub ower ow cressya yn bysma ha drevon bew CW 1258-59
par dell osta arluth creif ha drevon omma yn byes CW 1424-25
in bysma heb falladowe ha drevone bewe CW 2108-9.


Nicholas




On 10 Feb 2009, at 01:06, Daniel Prohaska wrote:


  I?m unable to find a single instance of UCR <hadre> or KK/UC <hedra> in the Middle Cornish corpus




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
Spellyans mailing list
Spellyans at kernowek.net
http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090210/638c5f33/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Tue Feb 10 12:04:32 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:04:32 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] 'to prepare'
Message-ID: <5DE993E9-762A-4359-ACD0-D9FE8409396C@gmail.com>

In Dan's dictionary the word for 'to prepare' is spelt <pareusi>.  
There is no warrant for this in the texts, since one would
expect <eu> to unround to <e> and there are no exx. of *paresy or  
anything like it.

The forms are

parusy x 1
parusys x 3
parusugh x 4
omparusen x 1.

We can assume that the <u> here represents [y]. And this is corroborated
by parusse BM 3122, the comparative of parys 'prepared, ready'.


I think the word should be spelt <parusi>, <parusy>.

Preparya 'to prepare' is attested x 4 and preparar 'preparer' x 1.

Nicholas


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090210/2eeed68a/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Tue Feb 10 12:06:09 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:06:09 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] 'to prepare'
Message-ID: <92B34214-CA40-491E-9574-AC70D9416340@gmail.com>

In my last post I omitted the one example of parugy from BK.

Nicholas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090210/56b9ecb4/attachment.htm>

From daniel at ryan-prohaska.com  Tue Feb 10 13:08:31 2009
From: daniel at ryan-prohaska.com (Daniel Prohaska)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:08:31 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] "praise"
In-Reply-To: <9579EA87-1A44-4991-8F64-16282CD0240A@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090210130834.3A8DE13BC075@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>

Nicholas, 

Thanks for this. I shall make the appropriate changes. This is, I believe, one of the words that etymologically contain the reflex of Proto-British /??/ (W <aw>~<o>; B <eu>). In stressed open syllables of polysyllabic words the Cornish texts show differing tendencies, in PA and OM <o>, in PC <u>, in RD <e> and in BM <e> and <o> (Schrijver 1995). This makes /?/ at least possible, though I find /o/ more likely.

Dan  

 

  _____  

From: nicholas williams
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:14 AM

 

In Dan's dictionary the vn of the verb 'to praise' is <gormel> but the related noun is <gormeula>

What evidence is there for the sound spelt <eu>? 

I have collected the following exx from the texts:

 

gormel BM 1420

gormel BM 2241

gormelas (verbal adjective) TH 8

wormolha BK 1798

wormol BK 1966

wormol BK 2342

gormollow (plural imperative) TBoson

 

gormolys (noun) BK 2532

gormolys (noun) BK 2678

Gormolys (noun) BK 2708

 

Gormola WGwavas

Gormola WGwavas.

 

wormoladow BK 835

wormoladow BK 1629.

 

The graph <eu> in SWF represents what in Middle Cornish orthography

was written <u, v, ue, eu>, but in the examples listed above we have no

examples at all of *gormeul-, *gormul- or *gormuel-.

There can be little justification for such a spelling in the SWF.

The spelling should surely be vb. gormel, vadj. gormelys, imperative pl. gormolewgh.

nominal forms gormol, gormola, gormoladow.

 

As common a root for 'praise' and 'to praise' is preys, prays, preysya, praysya:

 

preysya x 2; breysya x 2; praysya x 2; prays x 1; prayse x 2; preise x 1; preysse x 2; preezyo x 1.

 

Nicholas

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090210/3fa6f819/attachment.htm>

From daniel at ryan-prohaska.com  Tue Feb 10 13:08:31 2009
From: daniel at ryan-prohaska.com (Daniel Prohaska)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:08:31 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] 'to prepare'
In-Reply-To: <5DE993E9-762A-4359-ACD0-D9FE8409396C@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090210130841.18DF013BC09C@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>

<u> is a common MC spelling for /?/. Or could this be a case of secondary
i-mutation, like <budhy>?

Dan

 

  _____  

From: nicholas williams
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 1:05 PM

 

In Dan's dictionary the word for 'to prepare' is spelt <pareusi>. There is
no warrant for this in the texts, since one would

expect <eu> to unround to <e> and there are no exx. of *paresy or anything
like it.

 

The forms are

 

parusy x 1

parusys x 3

parusugh x 4

omparusen x 1.

 

We can assume that the <u> here represents [y]. And this is corroborated 

by parusse BM 3122, the comparative of parys 'prepared, ready'.

 

 

I think the word should be spelt <parusi>, <parusy>.

 

Preparya 'to prepare' is attested x 4 and preparar 'preparer' x 1.

 

Nicholas

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090210/05a8495b/attachment.htm>

From daniel at ryan-prohaska.com  Tue Feb 10 13:08:31 2009
From: daniel at ryan-prohaska.com (Daniel Prohaska)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:08:31 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] <hedre>
In-Reply-To: <FACB8108-48DD-4B11-AB0D-581EFF08EA47@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090210130843.E581E13BC075@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>

Nicholas wheg, 

Meur ras dhis anodho. Spellings with <hedre> are still more frequent and I
think this would make a good compromise solution with the UCR and UC/KK
forms. The pronunciation is the same, though Ken George gives ["hEdra] in
the Gerlyvrik. I must say he responded very kindly to me when I told him
about my thoughts as to the pronunciation of <hegar>.

Dan

 

  _____  

From: nicholas williams
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:32 AM

 

I believe that the UCR spelling should be used. There are examples of hadre
in the texts,

but the word division makes them difficult to find:

 

yma pub ower ow cressya yn bysma ha drevon bew CW 1258-59

par dell osta arluth creif ha drevon omma yn byes CW 1424-25

in bysma heb falladowe ha drevone bewe CW 2108-9.

 

Nicholas

 

 

On 10 Feb 2009, at 01:06, Daniel Prohaska wrote:





I'm unable to find a single instance of UCR <hadre> or KK/UC <hedra> in the
Middle Cornish corpus

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090210/3ebec7ca/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Tue Feb 10 13:20:10 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:20:10 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] 'to prepare'
In-Reply-To: <20090210130841.18DF013BC09C@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
References: <20090210130841.18DF013BC09C@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
Message-ID: <6EF0CAD9-4B04-4984-8C71-D0AD383EA27E@gmail.com>

If <u> represented /?/ we might expect occasional spellings as  
*<paresy>.
There appears to be a rule in words with /oe/ in the base form and <y>  
by vocalic harmony before -y in the next syllable:

eus ~ usy
*beuth ~ budhy
breus ~ brusy
anfeus ~ anfusy
*pareus ~ parusy
*euth ~ uthyk [uth is attested].

At all events it seems that forms like beudhi, anfeusi, pareusi should  
not be included in the SWF.

Nicholas


On 10 Feb 2009, at 13:08, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> <u> is a common MC spelling for /?/. Or could this be a case of  
> secondary i-mutation, like <budhy>?
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090210/a42e4dc7/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Tue Feb 10 13:28:08 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:28:08 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] <hedre>
In-Reply-To: <20090210130843.E581E13BC075@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
References: <20090210130843.E581E13BC075@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
Message-ID: <B28E0A6D-F9AE-4F01-8F9F-0E7E149C8390@gmail.com>

I missed a further example from CW:
ha drevo omma yn beys CW 1400

and note:
indella drevon bew CW 845-56

Cf. also:

hedyr vywy CF 36
dirr vo an enef in kigg SA 60a

There is a variant hedyr, dyr which probably lies behind LC tereba <* ? 
dyr bo

Nicholas




On 10 Feb 2009, at 13:08, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> Meur ras dhis anodho.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090210/51867ab3/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Tue Feb 10 13:30:43 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:30:43 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] 'to prepare'
In-Reply-To: <20090210130841.18DF013BC09C@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
References: <20090210130841.18DF013BC09C@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
Message-ID: <DEF594F8-E6B0-490D-9B60-F3069E96DE3B@gmail.com>

And I forgot:

heudh <huth> ~ hudhyk <huthyk>

Nicholas

On 10 Feb 2009, at 13:08, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> Or could this be a case of secondary i-mutation, like <budhy>?
> Dan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090210/8cb5b2d3/attachment.htm>

From everson at evertype.com  Tue Feb 10 21:41:23 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:41:23 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] A little essay for "Penny"
Message-ID: <F62E9D0A-8B37-4B03-8397-DB47F46B6956@evertype.com>

On the off-chance that it may interest people here. I've said this to  
"Penny Squire" (probably Pawl Dunbar).

=====
The recommended phonology of a language (how you should pronounce it)  
may be different from what people actually manage, vis ? vis training  
and talent.

A recommended phonology which is familiar has a higher likelihood of  
attracting successful pronunciation than an unfamiliar one. English  
speakers learn to speak Dutch more easily than they learn to speak  
Vietnamese, because the underlying phonologies are very similar.

The mainstream phonology of Revived Cornish (spoken by almost all  
Cornish speakers) is similar to the phonology of English. Whatever the  
phonology of the earliest Middle Cornish may have been, the phonology  
of the language certainly changed under the influence of the English  
language. It is unlikely that Dolly Pentreath or her contemporaries  
were speaking English or Cornish with fortis and lenis consonants;  
there is no trace of gemination in the English dialects of Cornwall. A  
simple comparison with Ireland (where the Irish language was similarly  
replaced) shows that the phonology of the substrate language remains  
strong. You only need go to the pub 5 minutes from my house in West  
Mayo to hear Gaelic phonology, in the mouths of speakers two  
generations or more removed from speaking Irish.

The phonology of Ken George's KK is just too alien for Cornish  
learners to assimilate. Burden of proof is on the Kesva to demonstrate  
how geminates have taken hold *anywhere*. We say they haven't. If you  
say they have, *prove it*. It should be easy for you, should it not?
=====

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From njawilliams at gmail.com  Tue Feb 10 21:57:36 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:57:36 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] A little essay for "Penny"
In-Reply-To: <F62E9D0A-8B37-4B03-8397-DB47F46B6956@evertype.com>
References: <F62E9D0A-8B37-4B03-8397-DB47F46B6956@evertype.com>
Message-ID: <B1148A4B-1C45-4D65-8946-09D8DD92B241@gmail.com>

Fair enough. But why bother with him? Or any of them?

I had an email request (sent to others) from JL today about the  
Cornish word for beaver. I looked it all up immediately and sent a  
reply.
I suspect I was the first to answer. She replied to thank me.
We should cultivate the nice people (with the money) and ignore the  
nasties.

Rather than bother to reply to people who don't want to be convinced  
(not that they really either believe KG or understand the question), I  
recommend
you get on with serious work and let the nasties fume alone. They have  
after all lost.

I have just done Ezekiel 27. Quite some vocab.


On 10 Feb 2009, at 21:41, Michael Everson wrote:

> On the off-chance that it may interest people here. I've said this  
> to "Penny Squire" (probably Pawl Dunbar).
>
> =====
> The recommended phonology of a language (how you should pronounce  
> it) may be different from what people actually manage, vis ? vis  
> training and talent.
>
> A recommended phonology which is familiar has a higher likelihood of  
> attracting successful pronunciation than an unfamiliar one. English  
> speakers learn to speak Dutch more easily than they learn to speak  
> Vietnamese, because the underlying phonologies are very similar.
>
> The mainstream phonology of Revived Cornish (spoken by almost all  
> Cornish speakers) is similar to the phonology of English. Whatever  
> the phonology of the earliest Middle Cornish may have been, the  
> phonology of the language certainly changed under the influence of  
> the English language. It is unlikely that Dolly Pentreath or her  
> contemporaries were speaking English or Cornish with fortis and  
> lenis consonants; there is no trace of gemination in the English  
> dialects of Cornwall. A simple comparison with Ireland (where the  
> Irish language was similarly replaced) shows that the phonology of  
> the substrate language remains strong. You only need go to the pub 5  
> minutes from my house in West Mayo to hear Gaelic phonology, in the  
> mouths of speakers two generations or more removed from speaking  
> Irish.
>
> The phonology of Ken George's KK is just too alien for Cornish  
> learners to assimilate. Burden of proof is on the Kesva to  
> demonstrate how geminates have taken hold *anywhere*. We say they  
> haven't. If you say they have, *prove it*. It should be easy for  
> you, should it not?
> =====
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net




From j.mills at email.com  Wed Feb 11 10:40:08 2009
From: j.mills at email.com (Jon Mills)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:40:08 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] A little essay for "Penny"
Message-ID: <20090211104008.42498478088@ws1-5.us4.outblaze.com>

Michael,
I'm not sure what it is that you are trying to say with regard to fortis and lenis consonants. It is, I believe, generally recognised that Present Day English has fortis and lenis consonants. So why do you say, "It is unlikely that Dolly Pentreath or her contemporaries  were speaking English or Cornish with fortis and lenis consonants ..."?
Jon

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Everson" <everson at evertype.com>
> To: Spellyans <spellyans at kernowek.net>
> Subject: [Spellyans] A little essay for "Penny"
> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:41:23 +0000
> 
> 
> On the off-chance that it may interest people here. I've said this 
> to  "Penny Squire" (probably Pawl Dunbar).
> 
> =====
> The recommended phonology of a language (how you should pronounce 
> it)  may be different from what people actually manage, vis ? vis 
> training  and talent.
> 
> A recommended phonology which is familiar has a higher likelihood 
> of  attracting successful pronunciation than an unfamiliar one. 
> English  speakers learn to speak Dutch more easily than they learn 
> to speak  Vietnamese, because the underlying phonologies are very 
> similar.
> 
> The mainstream phonology of Revived Cornish (spoken by almost all  
> Cornish speakers) is similar to the phonology of English. Whatever 
> the  phonology of the earliest Middle Cornish may have been, the 
> phonology  of the language certainly changed under the influence of 
> the English  language. It is unlikely that Dolly Pentreath or her 
> contemporaries  were speaking English or Cornish with fortis and 
> lenis consonants;  there is no trace of gemination in the English 
> dialects of Cornwall. A  simple comparison with Ireland (where the 
> Irish language was similarly  replaced) shows that the phonology of 
> the substrate language remains  strong. You only need go to the pub 
> 5 minutes from my house in West  Mayo to hear Gaelic phonology, in 
> the mouths of speakers two  generations or more removed from 
> speaking Irish.
> 
> The phonology of Ken George's KK is just too alien for Cornish  
> learners to assimilate. Burden of proof is on the Kesva to 
> demonstrate  how geminates have taken hold *anywhere*. We say they 
> haven't. If you  say they have, *prove it*. It should be easy for 
> you, should it not?
> =====
> 
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

>



_____________________________________
Dr. Jon Mills,
School of European Culture and Languages,
University of Kent


-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com




From everson at evertype.com  Wed Feb 11 11:35:54 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:35:54 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] A little essay for "Penny"
In-Reply-To: <20090211104008.42498478088@ws1-5.us4.outblaze.com>
References: <20090211104008.42498478088@ws1-5.us4.outblaze.com>
Message-ID: <BE540124-3431-4914-BE24-2377DE024D6F@evertype.com>

On 11 Feb 2009, at 10:40, Jon Mills wrote:

> I'm not sure what it is that you are trying to say with regard to  
> fortis and lenis consonants. It is, I believe, generally recognised  
> that Present Day English has fortis and lenis consonants.

Not phonemically. The phonemic distinction is voiceless and voiced.

> So why do you say, "It is unlikely that Dolly Pentreath or her  
> contemporaries  were speaking English or Cornish with fortis and  
> lenis consonants ..."?

I say that because I think the Brythonic system was replaced by the  
Germanic system due to intense language contact (including the  
learning of Cornish by Germanic speakers, which -- as in Mann -- is  
likely to have caused the process which led to pre-occlusion.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From j.mills at email.com  Wed Feb 11 13:17:44 2009
From: j.mills at email.com (Jon Mills)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:17:44 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] A little essay for "Penny"
Message-ID: <20090211131744.D000B1BF28D@ws1-10.us4.outblaze.com>

Michael,
You write, "The phonemic distinction is voiceless and voiced."

Phonemes are determined by minimal contrast. Thus /p/ and /d/ are determined to be separate phonemes of English in the minimal contrast pair 'pie' and 'die'. However a phoneme is not necessarily determined by contrast of only one distinctive feature. /p/ has the features: bilabial, plosive, fortis and voiceless. /d/ has the features: alveolar, plosive, lenis and voiced.

I still do not understand why you maintain that "It is unlikely that Dolly Pentreath or her contemporaries were speaking English or Cornish with fortis and lenis consonants ...." Since Proto-brythonic and Proto-germanic were not spoken in the time of Dolly Pentreath, they have little bearing on whether Dolly Pentreath distinguished fortis and lenis consonants. If the language contact to which you are referring is between Cornish and English, and you are supposing that the phonology of English somehow influenced Cornish phonology, then one must assume that Dolly Pentreath would have distinguished fortis and lenis, because English did. Or are you seriously suggesting that Dolly Pentreath pronounced /p/, /t/ and /k/ as voiceless but not fortis, and /b/, /d/ and /g/ as voiced but not lenis?
Ol an gwella
Jon


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Everson" <everson at evertype.com>
> To: "Standard Cornish discussion list" <spellyans at kernowek.net>
> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] A little essay for "Penny"
> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:35:54 +0000
> 
> 
> On 11 Feb 2009, at 10:40, Jon Mills wrote:
> 
> > I'm not sure what it is that you are trying to say with regard to 
> >  fortis and lenis consonants. It is, I believe, generally 
> > recognised  that Present Day English has fortis and lenis 
> > consonants.
> 
> Not phonemically. The phonemic distinction is voiceless and voiced.
> 
> > So why do you say, "It is unlikely that Dolly Pentreath or her  
> > contemporaries  were speaking English or Cornish with fortis and  
> > lenis consonants ..."?
> 
> I say that because I think the Brythonic system was replaced by the 
>   Germanic system due to intense language contact (including the  
> learning of Cornish by Germanic speakers, which -- as in Mann -- is 
>   likely to have caused the process which led to pre-occlusion.
> 
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

>



_____________________________________
Dr. Jon Mills,
School of European Culture and Languages,
University of Kent


-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com




From everson at evertype.com  Wed Feb 11 14:49:37 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:49:37 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] A little essay for "Penny"
In-Reply-To: <20090211131744.D000B1BF28D@ws1-10.us4.outblaze.com>
References: <20090211131744.D000B1BF28D@ws1-10.us4.outblaze.com>
Message-ID: <2981D0E3-6B45-4A01-A985-E28A473E7E66@evertype.com>

On 11 Feb 2009, at 13:17, Jon Mills wrote:

> You write, "The phonemic distinction is voiceless and voiced."
>
> Phonemes are determined by minimal contrast. Thus /p/ and /d/ are  
> determined to be separate phonemes of English in the minimal  
> contrast pair 'pie' and 'die'. However a phoneme is not necessarily  
> determined by contrast of only one distinctive feature. /p/ has the  
> features: bilabial, plosive, fortis and voiceless. /d/ has the  
> features: alveolar, plosive, lenis and voiced.

It is equally true to say that all of the features are not necessarily  
relevant to determining a phoneme. In English, /p/ and /b/ are  
distinct because of voicing. /p/ whether fortis or lenis is still / 
p/; /b/ whether fortis or lenis is still /b/.

> I still do not understand why you maintain that "It is unlikely that  
> Dolly Pentreath or her contemporaries were speaking English or  
> Cornish with fortis and lenis consonants ...." Since Proto-brythonic  
> and Proto-germanic were not spoken in the time of Dolly Pentreath,  
> they have little bearing on whether Dolly Pentreath distinguished  
> fortis and lenis consonants.

The discussion was with one of our Kebmyn colleagues. They believe  
that fortis and lenis were active features throughout much of the  
Middle Cornish period.

> If the language contact to which you are referring is between  
> Cornish and English, and you are supposing that the phonology of  
> English somehow influenced Cornish phonology, then one must assume  
> that Dolly Pentreath would have distinguished fortis and lenis,  
> because English did. Or are you seriously suggesting that Dolly  
> Pentreath pronounced /p/, /t/ and /k/ as voiceless but not fortis,  
> and /b/, /d/ and /g/ as voiced but not lenis?

I'm saying that fortis and lenis are ancillary to the phonology of the  
English phonemes (as is aspiration, cf. "pit" and "spit") and that  
even if fortis and lenis were a stronger feature in the phonemics of  
earlier Cornish, certainly by 1750 (indeed doubtless by 1650) the  
fortis/lenis distinction had been assimilated to voiceless/voiced due  
to mutual contact with English. That there is no trace of anything  
like a strong fortis/lenis distinction in the English of Cornwall  
suggests that it could not have been a salient feature of Tudor or  
Late Cornish.

(Fortis and lenis are salient features in some northern dialects of  
English; interestingly and not surprisingly one finds similar features  
in Danish.)

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com



From menystror at kernowek.net  Wed Feb 11 16:41:08 2009
From: menystror at kernowek.net (An Menystror)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:41:08 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] Test
Message-ID: <87B6C642-FD2F-4579-BBE9-940FE7C78A90@kernowek.net>

Maintenance test.



From j.mills at email.com  Wed Feb 11 16:45:38 2009
From: j.mills at email.com (Jon Mills)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:45:38 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] A little essay for "Penny"
Message-ID: <20090211164538.E4724105CE@ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com>

Thank you, Michael. That's a lot clearer.
Jon

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Everson" <everson at evertype.com>
> To: "Standard Cornish discussion list" <spellyans at kernowek.net>
> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] A little essay for "Penny"
> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:49:37 +0000
> 
> 
> On 11 Feb 2009, at 13:17, Jon Mills wrote:
> 
> > You write, "The phonemic distinction is voiceless and voiced."
> >
> > Phonemes are determined by minimal contrast. Thus /p/ and /d/ are 
> >  determined to be separate phonemes of English in the minimal  
> > contrast pair 'pie' and 'die'. However a phoneme is not 
> > necessarily  determined by contrast of only one distinctive 
> > feature. /p/ has the  features: bilabial, plosive, fortis and 
> > voiceless. /d/ has the  features: alveolar, plosive, lenis and 
> > voiced.
> 
> It is equally true to say that all of the features are not 
> necessarily  relevant to determining a phoneme. In English, /p/ and 
> /b/ are  distinct because of voicing. /p/ whether fortis or lenis 
> is still / p/; /b/ whether fortis or lenis is still /b/.
> 
> > I still do not understand why you maintain that "It is unlikely 
> > that  Dolly Pentreath or her contemporaries were speaking English 
> > or  Cornish with fortis and lenis consonants ...." Since 
> > Proto-brythonic  and Proto-germanic were not spoken in the time 
> > of Dolly Pentreath,  they have little bearing on whether Dolly 
> > Pentreath distinguished  fortis and lenis consonants.
> 
> The discussion was with one of our Kebmyn colleagues. They believe  
> that fortis and lenis were active features throughout much of the  
> Middle Cornish period.
> 
> > If the language contact to which you are referring is between  
> > Cornish and English, and you are supposing that the phonology of  
> > English somehow influenced Cornish phonology, then one must 
> > assume  that Dolly Pentreath would have distinguished fortis and 
> > lenis,  because English did. Or are you seriously suggesting that 
> > Dolly  Pentreath pronounced /p/, /t/ and /k/ as voiceless but not 
> > fortis,  and /b/, /d/ and /g/ as voiced but not lenis?
> 
> I'm saying that fortis and lenis are ancillary to the phonology of 
> the  English phonemes (as is aspiration, cf. "pit" and "spit") and 
> that  even if fortis and lenis were a stronger feature in the 
> phonemics of  earlier Cornish, certainly by 1750 (indeed doubtless 
> by 1650) the  fortis/lenis distinction had been assimilated to 
> voiceless/voiced due  to mutual contact with English. That there is 
> no trace of anything  like a strong fortis/lenis distinction in the 
> English of Cornwall  suggests that it could not have been a salient 
> feature of Tudor or  Late Cornish.
> 
> (Fortis and lenis are salient features in some northern dialects of 
>   English; interestingly and not surprisingly one finds similar 
> features  in Danish.)
> 
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

>



_____________________________________
Dr. Jon Mills,
School of European Culture and Languages,
University of Kent


-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com




From everson at evertype.com  Mon Feb 16 09:16:52 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:16:52 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative
Message-ID: <BF38D156-1317-4AB9-BFC2-525628E1B398@evertype.com>

A rodent of insignificant size pointed the following out:

> From Luke 2.verse 10
> UCR has 'na bertheugh own.'
> KK has 'na berthewgh own'
> SWF has 'na berthewgh own'
> KS has 'Na berthowgh own'
> pourquoi?

Dan said in response:
> KS is based on the Cornish of a slightly later period than UC or KK.  
> In the texts after BM the ending of the 2nd person plural present- 
> future was not consistently distinguished from the 2nd person plural  
> imperative. KS normalises this as -owgh. I advised the AHG to do the  
> same for the Late Cornish based verbal paradigms since they were re- 
> analysed and regularised in LC. It serves RLC very little just to  
> cut the RMC endings.


I'm not sure this is correct. KS orthography took Jordan 1611 as its  
foundation text but that's not the same as saying it's "based" on  
later Cornish than UC or KK.

Jenner would have written "na bertheugh" against the present  
"berthough".

*Are* there texts from BM or before which distinguish the ending of  
the 2nd person plural present-future was not consistently  
distinguished from the 2nd person plural imperative? Or is this just a  
ghost?

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From njawilliams at gmail.com  Mon Feb 16 10:57:18 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:57:18 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative
In-Reply-To: <BF38D156-1317-4AB9-BFC2-525628E1B398@evertype.com>
References: <BF38D156-1317-4AB9-BFC2-525628E1B398@evertype.com>
Message-ID: <8CE538C1-4975-4E33-A39F-629DF68CBCA5@gmail.com>

Second Person Plural Imperatives.
Here are some examples from the texts; -ough/owgh forms are at least  
as common as -eugh/ewgh forms.
BM usually has -ugh in the imperative and the 2nd plural indicative  
alike


PERTHY
A das dovt na bertheugh why OM 729
na bertheugh ovn a henna OM 2508
pertheugh cof ol an tokyn PC 1081
hag arta perthugh coff guel BM 1064
Na berthugh ovn annethy BM 4136
na berthowgh dowt BK 1679
a vyth gwrys, na berthowgh dowt BK 3022.

BOS
na vezough temtijs dygnas PA 53d
ha bethough war PC 879
betheugh why fur RD 2276
bethow ware TH 18
ha bethough war BK 3261
cowetha bethowgh parys CW 2009
ragtha bethowgh avysshes CW 2367
bethowh ware navo lethys CW 2517
bethow why looan TBoson.

LEVEREL
leuerough mar pyth sawys PA 95a
ha leuerough bos gevys PA 113c
po cryst leuerough scyle PA 125d
leferugh x 5 in BM
Leverough both ages brys BK 392
leverough expedient! BK 2139
Leverough scon BK 2226 [I cannot find *levereugh],

GOSLOWES
gosloweugh ol a tus vas RD 3217
golsowugh orth iubyter BM 2327
golsowugh orth iubyter BM 3601
golsowowh tha ve lemyn CW 115
peys I say golsowogh a der dro CW 1431.

GASA
geseugh vy the worthyby PC 2493
geseugh y the thysplevyas RD 2832
geseugh y the thysplevyas BM 942
Gesugh creys vfel ha clovr BM 1312
arluth gesugh vy the govs BM 3310
gesowgh ny the gafus TH 3
Gesowgh oll rancor TH 30

DON
Na thegough sor yn golon PA 37a
degeugh an pren a thyhons OM 2810
degovgh genough pup huny PC 2047
degeugh e a thesempys RD 2184
dotho degogh lytherov BM 2796
degeugh aberth maria BM 4067
degowgh an toyt mes a?m golok BK 751-52
henna degowhe destynye CW 127

MERAS
lemmyn merough pe nyle PA 125c
myrough in agis colon PA 141d
myreugh worth an vorvoran PC 2403
ha merovgh agis leffrov BM 95
merow lymmyn omma TH 18
Lo merogh attave genogh TH 36a
Merowgh inweth war germany TH 49a
Merough ple ma an Romans BK 2808
Merough, ple ma an cronak! BK 3256
merowgh merowgh orth hemma CW 736
merough pymava towles CW 1139
merowgh mester pymava  CW 1550
mero ma res gennam JBoson.


KEMERES
ytho why kemereugh e PC 1977
ottense kemereugh e PC 2165
kemereugh corf a'n drok was RD 2159
kemerogh luen edrega BM 2750
Kemerogh wyth lymmyn TH 27
Kemerogh an spurissans TH 36
Kemerogh why an spurissans TH 38a
kemerogh example anethy TH 49a
Kemerogh, debbrogh, henew ow corffe ve TH 52
Kemerogh ha debrogh, kemerogh hag evogh TH 52a
Kemerogh, debbr(ogh), hem ew ow corff ve SA 62a
A henna kemerough cur BK 2105.

OTHER VERBS
evough why par cheryta PA 45b
golyough ha pesough ow zas PA 53c
yn meth crist deugh holyough ve PA 53a
golyough ha pesough yn ven PA 57b
koscough lemmyn mar sew prys PA 61b
powesough wy yv grevijs PA 61b
deugh geneff ha holyough ve PA 63c
gothvezough na rellough tros PA 63c
Olough rag agis fleghys PA 169a

The -ewgh ending for the 2nd imperative may be useful as a spelling;  
it is hardly warranted by the texts, since imperative -ough is already  
customary in the Passion Poem.

Nicholas

On 16 Feb 2009, at 09:16, Michael Everson wrote:

> *Are* there texts from BM or before which distinguish the ending of  
> the 2nd person plural present-future was not consistently  
> distinguished from the 2nd person plural imperative? Or is this just  
> a ghost?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090216/d21c6c0f/attachment.htm>

From ray at spyrys.org  Mon Feb 16 12:15:05 2009
From: ray at spyrys.org (Ray Chubb)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:15:05 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative
In-Reply-To: <8CE538C1-4975-4E33-A39F-629DF68CBCA5@gmail.com>
References: <BF38D156-1317-4AB9-BFC2-525628E1B398@evertype.com>
	<8CE538C1-4975-4E33-A39F-629DF68CBCA5@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <88A9A01A-9396-447C-8EF9-094B0B629107@spyrys.org>

I have to say that this is the feature of KS which I dislike more than  
any other.

Using owgh forms takes no account of custom and practice in the  
revival over the past 100 years.  For me as a regular and fluent  
speaker pronouncing owgh instead of eugh simply does not impart the  
necessary urgency.


On 16 Whe 2009, at 10:57, nicholas williams wrote:

> Second Person Plural Imperatives.
> Here are some examples from the texts; -ough/owgh forms are at least  
> as common as -eugh/ewgh forms.
> BM usually has -ugh in the imperative and the 2nd plural indicative  
> alike
>
>
> PERTHY
> A das dovt na bertheugh why OM 729
> na bertheugh ovn a henna OM 2508
> pertheugh cof ol an tokyn PC 1081
> hag arta perthugh coff guel BM 1064
> Na berthugh ovn annethy BM 4136
> na berthowgh dowt BK 1679
> a vyth gwrys, na berthowgh dowt BK 3022.
>
> BOS
> na vezough temtijs dygnas PA 53d
> ha bethough war PC 879
> betheugh why fur RD 2276
> bethow ware TH 18
> ha bethough war BK 3261
> cowetha bethowgh parys CW 2009
> ragtha bethowgh avysshes CW 2367
> bethowh ware navo lethys CW 2517
> bethow why looan TBoson.
>
> LEVEREL
> leuerough mar pyth sawys PA 95a
> ha leuerough bos gevys PA 113c
> po cryst leuerough scyle PA 125d
> leferugh x 5 in BM
> Leverough both ages brys BK 392
> leverough expedient! BK 2139
> Leverough scon BK 2226 [I cannot find *levereugh],
>
> GOSLOWES
> gosloweugh ol a tus vas RD 3217
> golsowugh orth iubyter BM 2327
> golsowugh orth iubyter BM 3601
> golsowowh tha ve lemyn CW 115
> peys I say golsowogh a der dro CW 1431.
>
> GASA
> geseugh vy the worthyby PC 2493
> geseugh y the thysplevyas RD 2832
> geseugh y the thysplevyas BM 942
> Gesugh creys vfel ha clovr BM 1312
> arluth gesugh vy the govs BM 3310
> gesowgh ny the gafus TH 3
> Gesowgh oll rancor TH 30
>
> DON
> Na thegough sor yn golon PA 37a
> degeugh an pren a thyhons OM 2810
> degovgh genough pup huny PC 2047
> degeugh e a thesempys RD 2184
> dotho degogh lytherov BM 2796
> degeugh aberth maria BM 4067
> degowgh an toyt mes a?m golok BK 751-52
> henna degowhe destynye CW 127
>
> MERAS
> lemmyn merough pe nyle PA 125c
> myrough in agis colon PA 141d
> myreugh worth an vorvoran PC 2403
> ha merovgh agis leffrov BM 95
> merow lymmyn omma TH 18
> Lo merogh attave genogh TH 36a
> Merowgh inweth war germany TH 49a
> Merough ple ma an Romans BK 2808
> Merough, ple ma an cronak! BK 3256
> merowgh merowgh orth hemma CW 736
> merough pymava towles CW 1139
> merowgh mester pymava  CW 1550
> mero ma res gennam JBoson.
>
>
> KEMERES
> ytho why kemereugh e PC 1977
> ottense kemereugh e PC 2165
> kemereugh corf a'n drok was RD 2159
> kemerogh luen edrega BM 2750
> Kemerogh wyth lymmyn TH 27
> Kemerogh an spurissans TH 36
> Kemerogh why an spurissans TH 38a
> kemerogh example anethy TH 49a
> Kemerogh, debbrogh, henew ow corffe ve TH 52
> Kemerogh ha debrogh, kemerogh hag evogh TH 52a
> Kemerogh, debbr(ogh), hem ew ow corff ve SA 62a
> A henna kemerough cur BK 2105.
>
> OTHER VERBS
> evough why par cheryta PA 45b
> golyough ha pesough ow zas PA 53c
> yn meth crist deugh holyough ve PA 53a
> golyough ha pesough yn ven PA 57b
> koscough lemmyn mar sew prys PA 61b
> powesough wy yv grevijs PA 61b
> deugh geneff ha holyough ve PA 63c
> gothvezough na rellough tros PA 63c
> Olough rag agis fleghys PA 169a
>
> The -ewgh ending for the 2nd imperative may be useful as a spelling;  
> it is hardly warranted by the texts, since imperative -ough is  
> already customary in the Passion Poem.
>
> Nicholas
>
> On 16 Feb 2009, at 09:16, Michael Everson wrote:
>
>> *Are* there texts from BM or before which distinguish the ending of  
>> the 2nd person plural present-future was not consistently  
>> distinguished from the 2nd person plural imperative? Or is this  
>> just a ghost?
>
>

Ray Chubb

Portreth
Kernow




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090216/37da04bd/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Mon Feb 16 12:32:12 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:32:12 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative
In-Reply-To: <88A9A01A-9396-447C-8EF9-094B0B629107@spyrys.org>
References: <BF38D156-1317-4AB9-BFC2-525628E1B398@evertype.com>
	<8CE538C1-4975-4E33-A39F-629DF68CBCA5@gmail.com>
	<88A9A01A-9396-447C-8EF9-094B0B629107@spyrys.org>
Message-ID: <8B72C51D-F6E3-4C83-8042-A6C955EDEDD4@gmail.com>

The texts written by native speakers should really be our only warrant.
To invoke revivalist practice is not, I believe, legitimate, since it  
opens the door
to many mistakes.
Revivalist practice would legitimate yn kever *'about' with nouns,  
huny to mean 'one',
the use of nefra in the past, etc., etc.

Until there is a community of really fluent speakers of Cornish (many  
of them natives)
revivalist practice cannot properly be used as an argument.

The curious thing is that PA uses -ough for the 2nd imperative but UC
has -eugh. Given Nance's particular fondness for PA as a basic text
the UC -eugh ~ -ough distinction is odd. Perhaps Nance just wanted
levereugh, for example, to have the same ending as gwreugh.


Nicholas

On 16 Feb 2009, at 12:15, Ray Chubb wrote:

> Using owgh forms takes no account of custom and practice in the  
> revival over the past 100 years.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090216/3b005b18/attachment.htm>

From ray at spyrys.org  Mon Feb 16 16:57:25 2009
From: ray at spyrys.org (Ray Chubb)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:57:25 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative
In-Reply-To: <8B72C51D-F6E3-4C83-8042-A6C955EDEDD4@gmail.com>
References: <BF38D156-1317-4AB9-BFC2-525628E1B398@evertype.com>
	<8CE538C1-4975-4E33-A39F-629DF68CBCA5@gmail.com>
	<88A9A01A-9396-447C-8EF9-094B0B629107@spyrys.org>
	<8B72C51D-F6E3-4C83-8042-A6C955EDEDD4@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2A17C472-B341-4BB8-8B2F-CB28CF9BD1A9@spyrys.org>

However, as there are eugh forms, unlike 'yn kever', it cannot be said  
to be wrong.

On 16 Whe 2009, at 12:32, nicholas williams wrote:

> The texts written by native speakers should really be our only  
> warrant.
> To invoke revivalist practice is not, I believe, legitimate, since  
> it opens the door
> to many mistakes.
> Revivalist practice would legitimate yn kever *'about' with nouns,  
> huny to mean 'one',
> the use of nefra in the past, etc., etc.
>
> Until there is a community of really fluent speakers of Cornish  
> (many of them natives)
> revivalist practice cannot properly be used as an argument.
>
> The curious thing is that PA uses -ough for the 2nd imperative but UC
> has -eugh. Given Nance's particular fondness for PA as a basic text
> the UC -eugh ~ -ough distinction is odd. Perhaps Nance just wanted
> levereugh, for example, to have the same ending as gwreugh.
>
>
> Nicholas
>
> On 16 Feb 2009, at 12:15, Ray Chubb wrote:
>
>> Using owgh forms takes no account of custom and practice in the  
>> revival over the past 100 years.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

Ray Chubb

Portreth
Kernow




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090216/4ab6a5b7/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Mon Feb 16 17:06:21 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:06:21 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative
In-Reply-To: <2A17C472-B341-4BB8-8B2F-CB28CF9BD1A9@spyrys.org>
References: <BF38D156-1317-4AB9-BFC2-525628E1B398@evertype.com>
	<8CE538C1-4975-4E33-A39F-629DF68CBCA5@gmail.com>
	<88A9A01A-9396-447C-8EF9-094B0B629107@spyrys.org>
	<8B72C51D-F6E3-4C83-8042-A6C955EDEDD4@gmail.com>
	<2A17C472-B341-4BB8-8B2F-CB28CF9BD1A9@spyrys.org>
Message-ID: <1F173E3F-C3F8-4578-95CB-5E3152A3E426@gmail.com>

Of course not. Indeed you could write bedhowgh and say bedhewgh if you  
wished.

On 16 Feb 2009, at 16:57, Ray Chubb wrote:

> However, as there are eugh forms, unlike 'yn kever', it cannot be  
> said to be wrong.




From everson at evertype.com  Mon Feb 16 17:22:30 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:22:30 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative
In-Reply-To: <1F173E3F-C3F8-4578-95CB-5E3152A3E426@gmail.com>
References: <BF38D156-1317-4AB9-BFC2-525628E1B398@evertype.com>
	<8CE538C1-4975-4E33-A39F-629DF68CBCA5@gmail.com>
	<88A9A01A-9396-447C-8EF9-094B0B629107@spyrys.org>
	<8B72C51D-F6E3-4C83-8042-A6C955EDEDD4@gmail.com>
	<2A17C472-B341-4BB8-8B2F-CB28CF9BD1A9@spyrys.org>
	<1F173E3F-C3F8-4578-95CB-5E3152A3E426@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57524574-2290-459C-90E5-4EE790B72593@evertype.com>

On 16 Feb 2009, at 17:06, nicholas williams wrote:

> Of course not. Indeed you could write bedhowgh and say bedhewgh if  
> you wished.

Can we back up here please?

We know that the spellings -owgh and -ewgh occur. And they may occur  
in the same text. Is there evidence that in Traditional Cornish, one  
form was used in the present/future and the other for the imperative?  
As a regular alternation?

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From everson at evertype.com  Mon Feb 16 17:52:28 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:52:28 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative
In-Reply-To: <8B72C51D-F6E3-4C83-8042-A6C955EDEDD4@gmail.com>
References: <BF38D156-1317-4AB9-BFC2-525628E1B398@evertype.com>
	<8CE538C1-4975-4E33-A39F-629DF68CBCA5@gmail.com>
	<88A9A01A-9396-447C-8EF9-094B0B629107@spyrys.org>
	<8B72C51D-F6E3-4C83-8042-A6C955EDEDD4@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F430993E-CA3C-4B2C-BAA4-4B5CD41B5DD3@evertype.com>

On 16 Feb 2009, at 12:32, nicholas williams wrote:

> The curious thing is that PA uses -ough for the 2nd imperative but UC
> has -eugh. Given Nance's particular fondness for PA as a basic text
> the UC -eugh ~ -ough distinction is odd. Perhaps Nance just wanted
> levereugh, for example, to have the same ending as gwreugh.

Jenner gives:

Pres/Future -ough
Imperfect   -eugh
Preterite   -sough
Pluperfect  -seugh -jeugh
Subjunctive -eugh
2nd Future  -fough, -vough
Imperative  -eugh

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From j.mills at email.com  Tue Feb 17 12:46:09 2009
From: j.mills at email.com (Jon Mills)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:46:09 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative
Message-ID: <20090217124610.05906BE407B@ws1-9.us4.outblaze.com>

This is a ghost. None of the texts from BM or before consistently distinguish the ending of the 2nd person plural present-future from the 2nd person plural imperative.
Some might argue that it is nevertheless useful to make such a distinction for purposes of disambiguation. However consider the following:
1) Go to bed! (Imperative)
2) I go to church on Sundays. (1st pers. sing. pres.)
3) To go or not to go? (Infinitive)
Then ask yourself the question, would we be better served by an orthography that spells these 3 parts of the paradigm of GO differently?
Jon

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Everson" <everson at evertype.com>
> To: Spellyans <spellyans at kernowek.net>
> Subject: [Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative
> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:16:52 +0000
> 
> *Are* there texts from BM or before which distinguish the ending of 
>   the 2nd person plural present-future was not consistently  
> distinguished from the 2nd person plural imperative? Or is this 
> just a  ghost?
> 
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com



_____________________________________
Dr. Jon Mills,
School of European Culture and Languages,
University of Kent


-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com




From everson at evertype.com  Tue Feb 17 13:58:36 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:58:36 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative
In-Reply-To: <F430993E-CA3C-4B2C-BAA4-4B5CD41B5DD3@evertype.com>
References: <BF38D156-1317-4AB9-BFC2-525628E1B398@evertype.com>
	<8CE538C1-4975-4E33-A39F-629DF68CBCA5@gmail.com>
	<88A9A01A-9396-447C-8EF9-094B0B629107@spyrys.org>
	<8B72C51D-F6E3-4C83-8042-A6C955EDEDD4@gmail.com>
	<F430993E-CA3C-4B2C-BAA4-4B5CD41B5DD3@evertype.com>
Message-ID: <F34D2DDA-1A41-444D-98AA-8E74E5602C76@evertype.com>

Even in Lhuyd we find (AB 246b-c)

Gweloh, hu? ?eloh hu? odzhi' a guelez, and ? there hu? guelez,  
Ye see (present)

Guele?h or gureuh ?elez, See ye

I would guess at this stage that Lhuyd is the source for what Jenner  
would write gwelough and gweleugh.


From everson at evertype.com  Tue Feb 17 14:06:28 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:06:28 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative
In-Reply-To: <20090217124610.05906BE407B@ws1-9.us4.outblaze.com>
References: <20090217124610.05906BE407B@ws1-9.us4.outblaze.com>
Message-ID: <821147AE-9DC7-4C84-AD6A-C2BF9D4ABF5E@evertype.com>

On 17 Feb 2009, at 12:46, Jon Mills wrote:

> This is a ghost. None of the texts from BM or before consistently  
> distinguish the ending of the 2nd person plural present-future from  
> the 2nd person plural imperative.

Yet all Revivalists have, and there are now at least arguments that a  
number of them wish to continue to do so. (I am on the fence on this  
one.)

> Some might argue that it is nevertheless useful to make such a  
> distinction for purposes of disambiguation.

They have so argued.

> However consider the following:
> 1) Go to bed! (Imperative)
> 2) I go to church on Sundays. (1st pers. sing. pres.)
> 3) To go or not to go? (Infinitive)
> Then ask yourself the question, would we be better served by an  
> orthography that spells these 3 parts of the paradigm of GO  
> differently?\

Sorry, Jon, but that won't fly. This is a question of conjugational  
morphology, and English can hardly be used as an analogy.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From j.mills at email.com  Tue Feb 17 14:12:22 2009
From: j.mills at email.com (Jon Mills)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:12:22 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative
Message-ID: <20090217141222.417C81CE8FB@ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>

The English examples that I gave, are also a question of conjugational morphology. The analogy is valid.
Jon

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Everson" <everson at evertype.com>
> To: "Standard Cornish discussion list" <spellyans at kernowek.net>
> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:06:28 +0000
> 
> 
> Sorry, Jon, but that won't fly. This is a question of conjugational 
>   morphology, and English can hardly be used as an analogy.



_____________________________________
Dr. Jon Mills,
School of European Culture and Languages,
University of Kent


-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com




From njawilliams at gmail.com  Tue Feb 17 14:22:56 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:22:56 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative
In-Reply-To: <F34D2DDA-1A41-444D-98AA-8E74E5602C76@evertype.com>
References: <BF38D156-1317-4AB9-BFC2-525628E1B398@evertype.com>
	<8CE538C1-4975-4E33-A39F-629DF68CBCA5@gmail.com>
	<88A9A01A-9396-447C-8EF9-094B0B629107@spyrys.org>
	<8B72C51D-F6E3-4C83-8042-A6C955EDEDD4@gmail.com>
	<F430993E-CA3C-4B2C-BAA4-4B5CD41B5DD3@evertype.com>
	<F34D2DDA-1A41-444D-98AA-8E74E5602C76@evertype.com>
Message-ID: <2E4CE83D-FD6A-4593-B64E-D324B8F5198B@gmail.com>

The stressed vowel of gureuh has affected the unstressed vowel of  
gueleuh.

I collected 26 imperatives from OM in -eugh and 14 forms in -ough and - 
ugh. I then binned them by accident.
Many of the -eugh forms were preceded by eugh 'go', with a stressed ew  
which may have affected the spelling of unstressed -eugh.
The pres-fut and pres subj also have unstressed -eugh, -ough and -ugh  
in OM, though they are much less commonly attested anyway.

The plural imperative geseugh, gesough has the following forms in the  
texts:

geseugh x 2
gesough x 5
gesogh x 3
gesowgh x 4
gesow x 20
gesugh x 3.

I think to attempt to distinguish imperative -ewgh from indicative - 
owgh is futile and inauthentic.

Nicholas


On 17 Feb 2009, at 13:58, Michael Everson wrote:

> Even in Lhuyd we find (AB 246b-c)
>
> Gweloh, hu? ?eloh hu? odzhi' a guelez, and ? there hu? guelez,  
> Ye see (present)
>
> Guele?h or gureuh ?elez, See ye
>
> I would guess at this stage that Lhuyd is the source for what Jenner  
> would write gwelough and gweleugh.
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090217/75f4eb9d/attachment.htm>

From eddie_climo at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Feb 17 16:42:25 2009
From: eddie_climo at yahoo.co.uk (Eddie Climo)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:42:25 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative
In-Reply-To: <20090217141222.417C81CE8FB@ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>
References: <20090217141222.417C81CE8FB@ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>
Message-ID: <F18A1CD0-A83C-46F2-B1DE-56FBDFA3D044@yahoo.co.uk>

As far as I recall, this distinction between 2p.pl. indicative and  
imperative is not made in French, Spanish or German, nor more  
relevantly perhaps in Welsh or Scots Gaelic.

Since the citations strongly suggest that this distinction was not  
made historically, I see little virtue in recommending it for revived  
Cornish. Of course, it's a truism that the final decision is in the  
consensus amongst Cornish users, rather than being in the hands of our  
small group. But just as they are free to use whatever forms they  
choose, so are we free likewise to recommend or deprecate whatever we  
choose.

The tension between these varying views of a language are completely  
natural and healthy. I'm at a loss to understand how some Cornish  
speakers are so paranoid about the idea.

Eddie Foirbeis Climo
- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -
Dres ethom akennow byner re bons lyeshes
Accenti non multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090217/25033431/attachment.htm>

From weatherhill at freenet.co.uk  Tue Feb 17 19:54:46 2009
From: weatherhill at freenet.co.uk (Craig Weatherhill)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:54:46 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative
In-Reply-To: <F18A1CD0-A83C-46F2-B1DE-56FBDFA3D044@yahoo.co.uk>
References: <20090217141222.417C81CE8FB@ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>
	<F18A1CD0-A83C-46F2-B1DE-56FBDFA3D044@yahoo.co.uk>
Message-ID: <D120FB5E-D4B0-411E-BEE8-F5FB75385B58@freenet.co.uk>

They're not, Eddie.  They are paranoid about any opposing point of  
view - and therein lies the problem.  Personally I am keep to keep the  
language as simple as possible for the sake of the many who want to  
learn but haven't yet been given the opportunity.  In fact, does this  
apparent distinction really address the faults that lie within the  
SWF, which is what we are meant to be tackling?

Craig

On 17 Whe 2009, at 16:42, Eddie Climo wrote:

> As far as I recall, this distinction between 2p.pl. indicative and  
> imperative is not made in French, Spanish or German, nor more  
> relevantly perhaps in Welsh or Scots Gaelic.
>
> Since the citations strongly suggest that this distinction was not  
> made historically, I see little virtue in recommending it for  
> revived Cornish. Of course, it's a truism that the final decision is  
> in the consensus amongst Cornish users, rather than being in the  
> hands of our small group. But just as they are free to use whatever  
> forms they choose, so are we free likewise to recommend or deprecate  
> whatever we choose.
>
> The tension between these varying views of a language are completely  
> natural and healthy. I'm at a loss to understand how some Cornish  
> speakers are so paranoid about the idea.
>
> Eddie Foirbeis Climo
> - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -
> Dres ethom akennow byner re bons lyeshes
> Accenti non multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net




From ray at spyrys.org  Wed Feb 18 12:12:12 2009
From: ray at spyrys.org (Ray Chubb)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:12:12 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative
In-Reply-To: <F18A1CD0-A83C-46F2-B1DE-56FBDFA3D044@yahoo.co.uk>
References: <20090217141222.417C81CE8FB@ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>
	<F18A1CD0-A83C-46F2-B1DE-56FBDFA3D044@yahoo.co.uk>
Message-ID: <E57C414F-BDA5-4325-9F04-40E2ADD5ECEB@spyrys.org>


On 17 Whe 2009, at 16:42, Eddie Climo wrote:

> As far as I recall, this distinction between 2p.pl. indicative and  
> imperative is not made in French, Spanish or German, nor more  
> relevantly perhaps in Welsh or Scots Gaelic.
>

My knowledge of Welsh is limited but it appeared from the Welsh  
grammar that I have that the distinction is made for certain verbs.
>

Ray Chubb

Portreth
Kernow







From njawilliams at gmail.com  Wed Feb 18 12:19:36 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:19:36 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative
In-Reply-To: <E57C414F-BDA5-4325-9F04-40E2ADD5ECEB@spyrys.org>
References: <20090217141222.417C81CE8FB@ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>
	<F18A1CD0-A83C-46F2-B1DE-56FBDFA3D044@yahoo.co.uk>
	<E57C414F-BDA5-4325-9F04-40E2ADD5ECEB@spyrys.org>
Message-ID: <BBAA0CD1-7B2E-47E7-A799-08C93C047940@gmail.com>

The distinction is made in traditional Cornish for verbs when the root  
is stressed: gwreugh, keugh, eugh, deugh.
KS maintains this distinction and writes gwrewgh, kewgh, ewgh, dewgh  
but gwelowgh, bedhowgh, leverowgh and goslowowgh.
In this KS  is more authentic than UC and UCR ? (which deliberately  
followed UC).

Nicholas

On 18 Feb 2009, at 12:12, Ray Chubb wrote:

> My knowledge of Welsh is limited but it appeared from the Welsh  
> grammar that I have that the distinction is made for certain verbs.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090218/5dd98d6b/attachment.htm>

From everson at evertype.com  Thu Feb 19 12:41:43 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:41:43 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] Kernowek Standard and the SWF
Message-ID: <EA0CA22B-D895-4640-BD06-F04EA7E402CF@evertype.com>

Dear Jonathan,

With regard to your article on Cornish orthography at http://www.newlinguist.co.uk/dialect.html 
  I would like to make the following correction. You say:

"With this in mind, the Cornish Language Partnership & the Kernowek  
group have launched a discussion mailing list, titled Spellyans, where  
enthusiasts can sign up and discuss possible resolutions to these  
issues."

The CLP did not co-launch this discussion list. The CLP will use the  
SWF unchanged until a review in 2013, which is fine; they are a  
government body and has other things to care about than the  
Orthography Wars. Those of us involved with Spellyans ('Spelling')  
have worked to identify inconsistencies and errors in the SWF, and we  
have implemented these in Kernowek Standard, an orthography in which  
publications are now beginning to appear.

With best regards,
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From everson at evertype.com  Thu Feb 19 13:15:04 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:15:04 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative
In-Reply-To: <E57C414F-BDA5-4325-9F04-40E2ADD5ECEB@spyrys.org>
References: <20090217141222.417C81CE8FB@ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>
	<F18A1CD0-A83C-46F2-B1DE-56FBDFA3D044@yahoo.co.uk>
	<E57C414F-BDA5-4325-9F04-40E2ADD5ECEB@spyrys.org>
Message-ID: <82691DD5-432D-4CB0-9A49-D97F3B31A299@evertype.com>

On 18 Feb 2009, at 12:12, Ray Chubb wrote:

> My knowledge of Welsh is limited but it appeared from the Welsh  
> grammar that I have that the distinction is made for certain verbs.

I don't find such a distinction. Not evenin those verbs which have  
stress before the ending. Thus:

canwch 'you love', canwch 'love!'
mwynhewch 'you enjoy', mwynhewch 'enjoy!'

Nor in irregular verbs:

byddwch 'you are', byddwch 'be!'
ewch 'you go', ewch 'go!'
dewch 'you come', dewch 'come!'

A Guide to Correct Welsh mentions specifically: "Note that the ending  
of the 3rd pers. plu. imperative in -ent, not 0ant, e.g. canent." with  
no mention of the 2nd person plural.

In Middle Welsh:

kerwch 'you love', kerwch 'love!'
gwnewch 'you do', gwnewch 'do!'
bydwch 'you are', bydwch 'be!'
ewch 'you go', ewch 'go!'
deuwch/dowch 'you come', dewch/dowch 'come!'

The spelling difference in one form of the last monosyllabic here is  
not related to the question at hand.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com



From kevardhu at googlemail.com  Thu Feb 19 17:17:49 2009
From: kevardhu at googlemail.com (Jonathan Kereve-Clarke)
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:17:49 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] Kernowek Standard and the SWF
In-Reply-To: <EA0CA22B-D895-4640-BD06-F04EA7E402CF@evertype.com>
References: <EA0CA22B-D895-4640-BD06-F04EA7E402CF@evertype.com>
Message-ID: <7117e7ff0902190917r5264ec2es488f52837a5e337b@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Michael,
with regards to the article, I didn't write it and have never heard of that
particular website.

Jonathan

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>wrote:

> Dear Jonathan,
>
> With regard to your article on Cornish orthography at
> http://www.newlinguist.co.uk/dialect.html I would like to make the
> following correction. You say:
>
> "With this in mind, the Cornish Language Partnership & the Kernowek group
> have launched a discussion mailing list, titled Spellyans, where enthusiasts
> can sign up and discuss possible resolutions to these issues."
>
> The CLP did not co-launch this discussion list. The CLP will use the SWF
> unchanged until a review in 2013, which is fine; they are a government body
> and has other things to care about than the Orthography Wars. Those of us
> involved with Spellyans ('Spelling') have worked to identify inconsistencies
> and errors in the SWF, and we have implemented these in Kernowek Standard,
> an orthography in which publications are now beginning to appear.
>
> With best regards,
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090219/d7235c0e/attachment.htm>

From christian.semmens at gmail.com  Thu Feb 19 17:20:39 2009
From: christian.semmens at gmail.com (Christian Semmens)
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:20:39 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] Kernowek Standard and the SWF
In-Reply-To: <7117e7ff0902190917r5264ec2es488f52837a5e337b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EA0CA22B-D895-4640-BD06-F04EA7E402CF@evertype.com>
	<7117e7ff0902190917r5264ec2es488f52837a5e337b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bad50df40902190920i641b045eg815e7e96dc41637f@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all

The author of the article is *Jonathan Kasstan*
jonathan at newlinguist.co.uk

Regards,

Christian

2009/2/19 Jonathan Kereve-Clarke <kevardhu at googlemail.com>

> Dear Michael,
> with regards to the article, I didn't write it and have never heard of that
> particular website.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>wrote:
>
>> Dear Jonathan,
>>
>> With regard to your article on Cornish orthography at
>> http://www.newlinguist.co.uk/dialect.html I would like to make the
>> following correction. You say:
>>
>> "With this in mind, the Cornish Language Partnership & the Kernowek group
>> have launched a discussion mailing list, titled Spellyans, where enthusiasts
>> can sign up and discuss possible resolutions to these issues."
>>
>> The CLP did not co-launch this discussion list. The CLP will use the SWF
>> unchanged until a review in 2013, which is fine; they are a government body
>> and has other things to care about than the Orthography Wars. Those of us
>> involved with Spellyans ('Spelling') have worked to identify inconsistencies
>> and errors in the SWF, and we have implemented these in Kernowek Standard,
>> an orthography in which publications are now beginning to appear.
>>
>> With best regards,
>> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090219/177543ab/attachment.htm>

From everson at evertype.com  Thu Feb 19 18:15:12 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:15:12 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] Kernowek Standard and the SWF
In-Reply-To: <7117e7ff0902190917r5264ec2es488f52837a5e337b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EA0CA22B-D895-4640-BD06-F04EA7E402CF@evertype.com>
	<7117e7ff0902190917r5264ec2es488f52837a5e337b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CD16A72D-2368-4E2A-8EA6-3FB50F281416@evertype.com>

On 19 Feb 2009, at 17:17, Jonathan Kereve-Clarke wrote:

> with regards to the article, I didn't write it and have never heard  
> of that particular website.

No, and I didn't suggest it... it's  Jonathan Kasstan who is  
responsible for the site. I wrote to him and sent a copy to Spellyans.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From everson at evertype.com  Thu Feb 19 21:55:54 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:55:54 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] =?iso-8859-1?q?Fylm_dywy=EAthek_warlinen?=
Message-ID: <246114B9-E8F6-499F-A6B0-CB5C8C28F4A1@evertype.com>

Yma an fylm "An Jowl yn Agas Kegin" (istitlys in Bretonek) warlinen  
w?r wiasva Vretonek:

http://www.brezhoweb.com/

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From njawilliams at gmail.com  Fri Feb 20 13:20:00 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:20:00 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] UN and Cornish
Message-ID: <5BB36465-FBAC-44B5-A5C9-802E772217E7@gmail.com>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cornwall/7900972.stm



From everson at evertype.com  Fri Feb 20 13:50:25 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:50:25 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] Around the World in Eighty Days in Cornish
Message-ID: <BBD7D035-43BD-4336-A5A6-F30C7BC594DE@evertype.com>

===
"Adro dhe'n B?s in Peswar Ugans D?dh" dyllys in Kernowek

Yma Evertype ow notya gans hebma aga versyon Kernowek, cot?hes rag  
descoryon ha rag redyoryon yonk, a lyver Jules Verne, "Adro dhe'n B?s  
in Peswar Ugans D?dh". An lyver-ma re beu trailys dhe lies tavas  
dyvers ab?n veu dyllys in Frynkek dhe?n kensa pr?s i?n vledhen 1873.  
Trailyer an versyon Kernowek, Kaspar Hocking, a veu genys in Loundres  
in mis Genver 1913, le mayth esa y s?ra owth obery i?n Amyralta, wosa  
gasa Arwennek in dyweth an ugansves cansvledhen. Kaspar a studhyas  
biologyeth in Coljy Imperyal, Loundres, hag a lavuryas dres deg  
bledhen warn ugans avell entomologyth in ?st-Africa (Tanganyika,  
?ganda, ha Kenya). Ev a omdennas dhe Bolwhevrer, Kernow, in 1969. An  
tavas Kernowek yw a les dhodho dhyworth an vledhen 1989, p?n inias y  
vergh, Vanessa Beeman, warnodho dos gensy dhe glassys i?n tavas.  
Kaspar ha Vanessa aga dew a veu degemerys avell Berdh a Orseth Kernow  
in 1993. Vanessa a veu dewysys Canas Bardh Meur in 2003 ha Bardh Meur  
w?r an dyweth i?n vledhen in 2006. Kaspar yw esel inwedh a Drest  
B?wnans Gwyls Kernow ha re beu Caderyer an Consel, ha wosa henna,  
Lewyth an trest. Ev o Caderyer Agan Tavas dhia 1996 dhe 1998.

Yma an lyver screfys i'n spellyans gelwys Kernowek Standard. H?n yw  
p?r ogas dhe lytherednans an Furv Savonek Scrifys, an spellyans  
unverhes rag ?sadow i'n b?wnans poblek hag i'n scolyow. Saw nebes  
fowtys bian i'n Furv Savonek Scrifys re beu emendys in Kernowek  
Standard, hag yma toknys diacrytek ?sys ino kefr?s dhe dhysqwedhes an  
dyffrans inter geryow spellys in kepar maner, b? dhe verkya vogalednow  
a v?dh leverys in fordhow dyffrans. Pynag oll a allo redya an Furv  
Savonek Scrifys a yllvyth redya an versyon-ma heb ancombrynsy v?th.

I?n lyver Kernowek-ma y f?dh gwelys moy es deg warn ugans a?n  
delinyansow gwr?s gans an artystyon gerys d? Alphonse-Marie de  
Neuville ha L?on Benett rag an kensa dyllans Frynkek. An lyver-ma re  
beu olsettys ha dyllys gans Evertype, Cathair na Mart, Wordhen.

Y hyll cafos copiow a'n lyver dhyworth Amazon.co.uk. dhyworth  
Amazon.com, b? dhyworth Spyrys a Gernow, pellgowser 01209 842394, e- 
mail shoppa at spyrys.org. Gweler http://www.evertype.com/books/adro-dhen-bys.html

===
"Around the World in Eighty Days" published in Cornish

Evertype announces the publication of a translation, abridged for  
learners and younger readers, into the Cornish language of "Around the  
World in Eighty Days" by Jules Verne. The book has been translated  
into many languages. The translator, The translator, Kaspar Hocking,  
was born in January 1913 in London, where his father worked in the  
Admiralty, after leaving Falmouth for work at the beginning of the  
twentieth century. Kaspar studied biology at Imperial College in  
London and worked for 30 years as an entomologist in East Africa  
(Tanganyika, Uganda, and Kenya), retiring in Polwheveral in 1969. He  
has taken in interest in the Cornish language since 1989, when his  
daughter, Vanessa Beeman, persuaded him to classes with her to learn  
the language. Both Kaspar and Vanessa were made Bards of the Cornish  
Gorseth in 1993, with Vanessa eventually becoming Deputy Grand Bard in  
2003 and Grand Bard in 2006. Kaspar has also been involved with the  
Cornwall Wildlife Trust both as Chairman of the Council, then  
President. He was also Chairman of Agan Tavas from 1996 to 1998.

This book is written in the spelling called Kernowek Standard. It is  
very close to the orthography of the new Standard Written Form, the  
consensual spelling for use in public life and schools, except that  
some small errors in the Standard Written Form have been amended in  
this spelling, and diacritical marks are also used to show the  
differences between homonyms or to indicate vowels which are  
pronounced in different ways. Anyone who can read the Standard Written  
Form will be able to read this version without any difficulty.

This new book contains more than 30 of the famous illustrations of  
Alphonse-Marie de Neuville ha L?on Benett, which first appeared in the  
original French edition in 1873. The book was typeset and published by  
Evertype of Co. Mayo, Ireland.

Copies may be obtained from Amazon.co.uk, from Amazon.com, or from  
Spyrys a Gernow, tel. 01209 842394, e-mail shoppa at spyrys.org. See http://www.evertype.com/books/adro-dhen-bys.html
=====

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From callanish at gmail.com  Fri Feb 20 22:48:53 2009
From: callanish at gmail.com (Thomas Leigh)
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:48:53 -0500
Subject: [Spellyans] Around the World in Eighty Days in Cornish
In-Reply-To: <BBD7D035-43BD-4336-A5A6-F30C7BC594DE@evertype.com>
References: <BBD7D035-43BD-4336-A5A6-F30C7BC594DE@evertype.com>
Message-ID: <cd77e3c40902201448q32b69f57ie67255ba31d234f0@mail.gmail.com>

AAAAIIIEEEEEE! I MUST HAVE IT!

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>wrote:

> ===
> "Adro dhe'n B?s in Peswar Ugans D?dh" dyllys in Kernowek
>
> Yma Evertype ow notya gans hebma aga versyon Kernowek, cot'hes rag
> descoryon ha rag redyoryon yonk, a lyver Jules Verne, "Adro dhe'n B?s in
> Peswar Ugans D?dh". An lyver-ma re beu trailys dhe lies tavas dyvers ab?n
> veu dyllys in Frynkek dhe'n kensa pr?s i'n vledhen 1873. Trailyer an versyon
> Kernowek, Kaspar Hocking, a veu genys in Loundres in mis Genver 1913, le
> mayth esa y s?ra owth obery i'n Amyralta, wosa gasa Arwennek in dyweth an
> ugansves cansvledhen. Kaspar a studhyas biologyeth in Coljy Imperyal,
> Loundres, hag a lavuryas dres deg bledhen warn ugans avell entomologyth in
> ?st-Africa (Tanganyika, ?ganda, ha Kenya). Ev a omdennas dhe Bolwhevrer,
> Kernow, in 1969. An tavas Kernowek yw a les dhodho dhyworth an vledhen 1989,
> p?n inias y vergh, Vanessa Beeman, warnodho dos gensy dhe glassys i'n tavas.
> Kaspar ha Vanessa aga dew a veu degemerys avell Berdh a Orseth Kernow in
> 1993. Vanessa a veu dewysys Canas Bardh Meur in 2003 ha Bardh Meur w?r an
> dyweth i'n vledhen in 2006. Kaspar yw esel inwedh a Drest B?wnans Gwyls
> Kernow ha re beu Caderyer an Consel, ha wosa henna, Lewyth an trest. Ev o
> Caderyer Agan Tavas dhia 1996 dhe 1998.
>
> Yma an lyver screfys i'n spellyans gelwys Kernowek Standard. H?n yw p?r
> ogas dhe lytherednans an Furv Savonek Scrifys, an spellyans unverhes rag
> ?sadow i'n b?wnans poblek hag i'n scolyow. Saw nebes fowtys bian i'n Furv
> Savonek Scrifys re beu emendys in Kernowek Standard, hag yma toknys
> diacrytek ?sys ino kefr?s dhe dhysqwedhes an dyffrans inter geryow spellys
> in kepar maner, b? dhe verkya vogalednow a v?dh leverys in fordhow dyffrans.
> Pynag oll a allo redya an Furv Savonek Scrifys a yllvyth redya an versyon-ma
> heb ancombrynsy v?th.
>
> I'n lyver Kernowek-ma y f?dh gwelys moy es deg warn ugans a'n delinyansow
> gwr?s gans an artystyon gerys d? Alphonse-Marie de Neuville ha L?on Benett
> rag an kensa dyllans Frynkek. An lyver-ma re beu olsettys ha dyllys gans
> Evertype, Cathair na Mart, Wordhen.
>
> Y hyll cafos copiow a'n lyver dhyworth Amazon.co.uk. dhyworth Amazon.com,
> b? dhyworth Spyrys a Gernow, pellgowser 01209 842394, e-mail
> shoppa at spyrys.org. Gweler http://www.evertype.com/books/adro-dhen-bys.html
>
> ===
> "Around the World in Eighty Days" published in Cornish
>
> Evertype announces the publication of a translation, abridged for learners
> and younger readers, into the Cornish language of "Around the World in
> Eighty Days" by Jules Verne. The book has been translated into many
> languages. The translator, The translator, Kaspar Hocking, was born in
> January 1913 in London, where his father worked in the Admiralty, after
> leaving Falmouth for work at the beginning of the twentieth century. Kaspar
> studied biology at Imperial College in London and worked for 30 years as an
> entomologist in East Africa (Tanganyika, Uganda, and Kenya), retiring in
> Polwheveral in 1969. He has taken in interest in the Cornish language since
> 1989, when his daughter, Vanessa Beeman, persuaded him to classes with her
> to learn the language. Both Kaspar and Vanessa were made Bards of the
> Cornish Gorseth in 1993, with Vanessa eventually becoming Deputy Grand Bard
> in 2003 and Grand Bard in 2006. Kaspar has also been involved with the
> Cornwall Wildlife Trust both as Chairman of the Council, then President. He
> was also Chairman of Agan Tavas from 1996 to 1998.
>
> This book is written in the spelling called Kernowek Standard. It is very
> close to the orthography of the new Standard Written Form, the consensual
> spelling for use in public life and schools, except that some small errors
> in the Standard Written Form have been amended in this spelling, and
> diacritical marks are also used to show the differences between homonyms or
> to indicate vowels which are pronounced in different ways. Anyone who can
> read the Standard Written Form will be able to read this version without any
> difficulty.
>
> This new book contains more than 30 of the famous illustrations of
> Alphonse-Marie de Neuville ha L?on Benett, which first appeared in the
> original French edition in 1873. The book was typeset and published by
> Evertype of Co. Mayo, Ireland.
>
> Copies may be obtained from Amazon.co.uk, from Amazon.com, or from Spyrys
> a Gernow, tel. 01209 842394, e-mail shoppa at spyrys.org. See
> http://www.evertype.com/books/adro-dhen-bys.html
> =====
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090220/71bc0d25/attachment.htm>

From everson at evertype.com  Sat Feb 21 00:04:23 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 00:04:23 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] Around the World in Eighty Days in Cornish
In-Reply-To: <cd77e3c40902201448q32b69f57ie67255ba31d234f0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BBD7D035-43BD-4336-A5A6-F30C7BC594DE@evertype.com>
	<cd77e3c40902201448q32b69f57ie67255ba31d234f0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B56227F9-D2A4-4DF9-9B55-093C70B733F1@evertype.com>

On 20 Feb 2009, at 22:48, Thomas Leigh wrote:
> AAAAIIIEEEEEE! I MUST HAVE IT!
>
Copies may be obtained from Amazon.co.uk, from Amazon.com, or from  
Spyrys a Gernow, tel. 01209 842394, e-mail shoppa at spyrys.org. See http://www.evertype.com/books/adro-dhen-bys.html

:-)

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From eddie_climo at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Feb 21 09:12:48 2009
From: eddie_climo at yahoo.co.uk (Eddie Climo)
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:12:48 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] Around the World in Eighty Days in Cornish
In-Reply-To: <cd77e3c40902201448q32b69f57ie67255ba31d234f0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BBD7D035-43BD-4336-A5A6-F30C7BC594DE@evertype.com>
	<cd77e3c40902201448q32b69f57ie67255ba31d234f0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F755B35C-EDF1-45D0-B5BF-A8DB6F3CAA1E@yahoo.co.uk>

On 20 Whe 2009, at 22:48, Thomas Leigh wrote:
> AAAIIIEEEEEE! I MUST HAVE IT!
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Michael Everson  
> <everson at evertype.com> wrote:
>
>> "Adro dhe'n B?s in Peswar Ugans D?dh" dyllys in Kernowek


It is a cause for celebration within the Revival that 3 such wonderful  
new Cornish books should have appeared, and in such a short space of  
time!

-- Nicholas's Alys in Pow an Anethow
-- Craig's Concise Dictionary of Cornish Place-Names
-- Kaspar's Adro dhe'n B?s in 80 D?th

My congratulations to all concerned for their efforts in these ventures.

Eddie Foirbeis Climo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090221/421c7950/attachment.htm>

From kenmackinnon at enterprise.net  Sat Feb 21 11:31:23 2009
From: kenmackinnon at enterprise.net (Ken MacKinnon)
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:31:23 -0000
Subject: [Spellyans] Around the World in Eighty Days in Cornish
References: <BBD7D035-43BD-4336-A5A6-F30C7BC594DE@evertype.com><cd77e3c40902201448q32b69f57ie67255ba31d234f0@mail.gmail.com>
	<F755B35C-EDF1-45D0-B5BF-A8DB6F3CAA1E@yahoo.co.uk>
Message-ID: <73210D5FB77E430CBF5589A86F3BD6D5@yourcfe1ef5834>

Eddie hag an gowetha-oll,

I was very pleased to meet up at the Lostwithiel conference.  Apart from Nicholas I never had much chance of a chat with anyone from Sellyans, which was a pity.

Very sorry about that - an Ken ken


(Prof) Ken MacKinnon,
Ivy Cottage, Ferintosh,
The Black Isle, by Dingwall,
Ross-shire  IV7 8HX
Tel: 01349 - 863460
E-mail: kenmackinnon at enterprise.net


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Eddie Climo 
  To: Standard Cornish discussion list 
  Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 9:12 AM
  Subject: Re: [Spellyans] Around the World in Eighty Days in Cornish


  On 20 Whe 2009, at 22:48, Thomas Leigh wrote:
    AAAIIIEEEEEE! I MUST HAVE IT!

    On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com> wrote:


        "Adro dhe'n B?s in Peswar Ugans D?dh" dyllys in Kernowek


  It is a cause for celebration within the Revival that 3 such wonderful new Cornish books should have appeared, and in such a short space of time!


  -- Nicholas's Alys in Pow an Anethow
  -- Craig's Concise Dictionary of Cornish Place-Names
  -- Kaspar's Adro dhe'n B?s in 80 D?th


  My congratulations to all concerned for their efforts in these ventures.

  Eddie Foirbeis Climo
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 8.0.136 / Virus Database: 270.11.1/1961 - Release Date: 19/02/2009 18:45


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Spellyans mailing list
  Spellyans at kernowek.net
  http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090221/20e69b22/attachment.htm>

From s.hewitt at unesco.org  Sun Feb 22 09:34:22 2009
From: s.hewitt at unesco.org (Hewitt, Stephen)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 10:34:22 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative
In-Reply-To: <E57C414F-BDA5-4325-9F04-40E2ADD5ECEB@spyrys.org>
Message-ID: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE0184020B@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>

I can't think of any verb for which there is a distinction in Welsh.

In Breton, there is normally no distinction. However, in Leon (NW of Breton-speaking area) 2pl used to be -it, but is increasingly -oc'h (probably through analogy with other tenses); but for the imperative, it is only -it, never -oc'h, so in those dialects there is now a stable distinction between present 2 pl -oc'h and imperative -it.

Steve Hewitt

-----Original Message-----
From: spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net
[mailto:spellyans-bounces at kernowek.net]On Behalf Of Ray Chubb
Sent: 18 February 2009 13:12
To: Standard Cornish discussion list
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] 2nd pl imperative



On 17 Whe 2009, at 16:42, Eddie Climo wrote:

> As far as I recall, this distinction between 2p.pl. indicative and  
> imperative is not made in French, Spanish or German, nor more  
> relevantly perhaps in Welsh or Scots Gaelic.
>

My knowledge of Welsh is limited but it appeared from the Welsh  
grammar that I have that the distinction is made for certain verbs.
>

Ray Chubb

Portreth
Kernow





_______________________________________________
Spellyans mailing list
Spellyans at kernowek.net
http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net



From daniel at ryan-prohaska.com  Sun Feb 22 12:36:34 2009
From: daniel at ryan-prohaska.com (Daniel Prohaska)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:36:34 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] gostoyth, gosteyth, gostyth
In-Reply-To: <DF54A58A8C30A746BF3B834B4A6BA1AE0184020B@MAILSERVER-01.hq.int.unesco.org>
Message-ID: <20090222123637.7CADF13BC0A0@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>

Dear all, 

I'm having trouble with the word gostoyth found in Nicholas' edition of
Bewnans Ke and translated as the collective noun "vassals, subjects".
Nicholas, in the Bewnans Ke specific vocabulary section you give the
reconstruction *gosteyth and in your dictionary the adjective gostyth and
the noun gostythter with derived meanings. Should they be gosteyth and
gosteythter in the SWF?

Thanks, 

Dan 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090222/cd012350/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Sun Feb 22 15:08:18 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:08:18 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] gostoyth, gosteyth, gostyth
In-Reply-To: <20090222123637.7CADF13BC0A0@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
References: <20090222123637.7CADF13BC0A0@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
Message-ID: <15DAD802-A9BD-492E-A86A-B4C0A49BD85A@gmail.com>

I am not sure.

The word is <gustyth> twice in OM (lines 137 and 295).
Tregear writes <gustith> at TH 12.
It looks as though the word is < * wo-eks-t?g-to or similar; in which  
case the second
syllable would be -ey- in MC when stressed, i.e. gosteythter. On the  
other hand
the unstressed -ith/-yth of gustith/gustyth would lead me to allow  
gostyth as the basic form
Perhaps the simplest thing would be to write <gosteyth, gosteythter>.  
But gostyth cannot be considered wrong.

What do you think, Dan?

Nicholas

On 22 Feb 2009, at 12:36, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> Nicholas, in the Bewnans Kespecific vocabulary section you give the  
> reconstruction *gosteyth and in your dictionary the adjective  
> gostyth and the noun gostythter with derived meanings. Should they  
> begosteyth and gosteythter in the SWF?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090222/ede35739/attachment.htm>

From callanish at gmail.com  Mon Feb 23 01:55:16 2009
From: callanish at gmail.com (Thomas Leigh)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:55:16 -0500
Subject: [Spellyans] Paper on Cornish at NAACLT conference?
Message-ID: <cd77e3c40902221755p651e8524rf087ec4a57daa7db@mail.gmail.com>

Lowena dhewgh!

The North American Association of Celtic Language Teachers is looking for
people interested in giving papers at their annual conference, which will be
held in New York City this year, from 21?24 May. Would anyone on this list
be interested in presenting a paper on Cornish? (There are always plenty of
papers on Irish and Welsh; we need to spice things up a little!)

Further details about the conference can be found on NAACLT's website,
www.naaclt.org, or just email me directly.

Gen oll ow holon vy,

Thomas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090222/29ac2e59/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Mon Feb 23 09:12:27 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:12:27 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] "understand" in Cornish
Message-ID: <AC6CFB59-5DE9-4235-B659-D9F5FE051416@gmail.com>

Not everybody is happy with the use of the word ?nderstondya 'to  
understand' in Cornish.
?nderstondya is very well attested:

vnderstandia  x 3 (SA)
vnderstondia x 24 (TH)
vndyrstondia x 2 (TH)
vndirstondia x 1
wonderstondia x 1 (TH)
wondyrstondia x 1 (TH)
vnderstondya x 3 (TH)
vnderstondya x 1 (TH)
camvnderstondia x 1 (TH)

The related word vnderstonding is attested x 22 (TH), vndyrstonding x  
1 (TH) and vnderstandyng x 1 (SA).

This means that the root understand/understond- is attested 60 times  
in tradtional Cornish.
Moreover the compound camvnderstondia at TH 18 seems to indicate that  
the word
had been so fully integrated into Cornish, that it could be used to  
produce a derivative.

The only other word for 'to understand' is *convedhes. The verbal noun  
convethas occurs
twice in CW and the verbal adjective convethys twice in the same text.
The verbal noun verbal adjective <gonvethes> (with permanent lenition)  
is also attested
in a short passage in Pryce:

Der taklow minniz ew brez teez gonvethes, avel an tacklow broaz;  
dreffen en tacklow broaz, ma
angy mennow hetha go honnen; bus en tacklow minnis, ema angye suyah  
h?z go honnen ? By
small things are the minds of men discovered, as well as by great  
matters: because in great things, they will [often]
stretch themselves; but in small matters, they follow their own nature.

Pryce translates gonvethes as 'discovered', not 'understood'.

We thus have the verb understondya 'to understand', attested in two  
sixteenth-century texts no fewer than 37 times
and convethes, gonvethes 'to understand, to discover' attested five  
times from one seventeenth-century text and one
from the eighteenth century.

We may find understondya, understandya too English to be really  
acceptable. It would be difficult
to claim that it was not the ordinary word for 'to understand' in some  
forms of Middle Cornish.

Other borrowings in -ondya are not uncommon in Middle Cornish:

londia 'to land'  BM
comondia, commondia, commandia  'to command'  OM, BM, TH, SA, CW
demandea 'to demand' SA
recommaundia 'to recommend' Bodewryd glossary.

If we don't like understondya 'to understand' or convedhes 'to  
discover', we can, in some contexts, use percevya.

Nicholas









-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090223/cd6018b2/attachment.htm>

From daniel at ryan-prohaska.com  Mon Feb 23 14:36:17 2009
From: daniel at ryan-prohaska.com (Daniel Prohaska)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:36:17 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] kenwes, kenwos
In-Reply-To: <AC6CFB59-5DE9-4235-B659-D9F5FE051416@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090223143622.C13A513BC081@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>

Nicholas,

Another question concerning the BK vocabulary: kenwesow (BK 1310) "feasts".
George interprets this as ken + wos "other blood, not related by blood". Is
this plausible?

Dan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090223/4c942e0a/attachment.htm>

From daniel at ryan-prohaska.com  Mon Feb 23 14:36:17 2009
From: daniel at ryan-prohaska.com (Daniel Prohaska)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:36:17 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] hyrvyga
In-Reply-To: <AC6CFB59-5DE9-4235-B659-D9F5FE051416@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090223143625.7B6E213BC07E@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>

Nicholas, 

This is one of the "new" words in BK. You give the MS spelling hyrwyge and
George (KTK, 2006) gives hyrvyge. You connect it with an unattested verbal
noun *gwyge "delay" while George derives it from *mig "small period of
time". Which is it? What's the safest bet for the SWF? I would like to
include this word in the dictionary.

Dan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090223/044ad603/attachment.htm>

From daniel at ryan-prohaska.com  Mon Feb 23 14:36:17 2009
From: daniel at ryan-prohaska.com (Daniel Prohaska)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:36:17 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] gostoyth, gosteyth, gostyth
In-Reply-To: <15DAD802-A9BD-492E-A86A-B4C0A49BD85A@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090223143626.2232313BC081@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>

Meur ras dhis, Nicholas, 

I go with <gosteyth> and <gosteythter>. This seems most plausible to me. I have other instances in the dictionary where I give unstressed <ey> as [?], such as <teyrgweyth> [?t??rgw??] (SAMPA [?tEIrgw at T])., so this will be the form I will put in the dictionary. Maybe [?] ought to be [?] in both?

Dan

 

  _____  

From: nicholas williams
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 4:08 PM

 

I am not sure.

 

The word is <gustyth> twice in OM (lines 137 and 295).

Tregear writes <gustith> at TH 12.

It looks as though the word is < * wo-eks-t?g-to or similar; in which case the second

syllable would be -ey- in MC when stressed, i.e. gosteythter. On the other hand

the unstressed -ith/-yth of gustith/gustyth would lead me to allow gostyth as the basic form

Perhaps the simplest thing would be to write <gosteyth, gosteythter>. But gostyth cannot be considered wrong.

 

What do you think, Dan?

 

Nicholas

 

On 22 Feb 2009, at 12:36, Daniel Prohaska wrote:





Nicholas, in the Bewnans Kespecific vocabulary section you give the reconstruction *gosteyth and in your dictionary the adjective gostyth and the noun gostythter with derived meanings. Should they begosteyth and gosteythter in the SWF?

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090223/abf03ee1/attachment.htm>

From daniel at ryan-prohaska.com  Mon Feb 23 14:38:32 2009
From: daniel at ryan-prohaska.com (Daniel Prohaska)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:38:32 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] "understand" in Cornish
In-Reply-To: <AC6CFB59-5DE9-4235-B659-D9F5FE051416@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090223143835.F21BE13BC07E@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>

Thanks for this, 

I have included both onderstondya and cammonderstondya in my dictionary.
We?ll have to leave it to the community of Cornish speakers to decide on
whether they wish to use this word or not. 

Dan

 

  _____  

From: nicholas williams
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 10:12 AM

 

Not everybody is happy with the use of the word ?nderstondya 'to understand'
in Cornish.

?nderstondya is very well attested:

 

vnderstandia  x 3 (SA)

vnderstondia x 24 (TH)

vndyrstondia x 2 (TH)

vndirstondia x 1

wonderstondia x 1 (TH)

wondyrstondia x 1 (TH)

vnderstondya x 3 (TH)

vnderstondya x 1 (TH)

camvnderstondia x 1 (TH)

 

The related word vnderstonding is attested x 22 (TH), vndyrstonding x 1 (TH)
and vnderstandyng x 1 (SA).

 

This means that the root understand/understond- is attested 60 times in
tradtional Cornish. 

Moreover the compound camvnderstondia at TH 18 seems to indicate that the
word

had been so fully integrated into Cornish, that it could be used to produce
a derivative.

 

The only other word for 'to understand' is *convedhes. The verbal noun
convethas occurs

twice in CW and the verbal adjective convethys twice in the same text.

The verbal noun verbal adjective <gonvethes> (with permanent lenition) is
also attested

in a short passage in Pryce:  

 

Der taklow minniz ew brez teez gonvethes, avel an tacklow broaz; dreffen en
tacklow broaz, ma

angy mennow hetha go honnen; bus en tacklow minnis, ema angye suyah h?z go
honnen ? By

small things are the minds of men discovered, as well as by great matters:
because in great things, they will [often]

stretch themselves; but in small matters, they follow their own nature.

 

Pryce translates gonvethes as 'discovered', not 'understood'.

 

We thus have the verb understondya 'to understand', attested in two
sixteenth-century texts no fewer than 37 times

and convethes, gonvethes 'to understand, to discover' attested five times
from one seventeenth-century text and one

from the eighteenth century.

 

We may find understondya, understandya too English to be really acceptable.
It would be difficult

to claim that it was not the ordinary word for 'to understand' in some forms
of Middle Cornish.

 

Other borrowings in -ondya are not uncommon in Middle Cornish:

 

londia 'to land'  BM

comondia, commondia, commandia  'to command'  OM, BM, TH, SA, CW

demandea 'to demand' SA

recommaundia 'to recommend' Bodewryd glossary.

 

If we don't like understondya 'to understand' or convedhes 'to discover', we
can, in some contexts, use percevya. 

 

Nicholas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090223/34359880/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Mon Feb 23 16:01:54 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:01:54 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] hyrvyga
In-Reply-To: <20090223143625.7B6E213BC07E@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
References: <20090223143625.7B6E213BC07E@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
Message-ID: <4E823562-6F0D-45CE-A123-B24EB83F0D39@gmail.com>

How do I know? I don't think you should include this word in any  
dictionary.

On 23 Feb 2009, at 14:36, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> Which is it?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090223/b1bbf4d3/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Mon Feb 23 16:03:15 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:03:15 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] kenwes, kenwos
In-Reply-To: <20090223143622.C13A513BC081@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
References: <20090223143622.C13A513BC081@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
Message-ID: <76B32A46-C620-485E-8EFA-04A0E3C6EBD6@gmail.com>

Ask him. I think it means 'feat, conviviality'.
Since we are not sure, I would leave the word out.
It's your decision.

N

On 23 Feb 2009, at 14:36, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> George interprets this as ken + wos ?other blood, not related by  
> blood?. Is this plausible?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090223/5cbc0e3f/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Mon Feb 23 16:10:16 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:10:16 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] "understand" in Cornish
In-Reply-To: <20090223143835.F21BE13BC07E@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
References: <20090223143835.F21BE13BC07E@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
Message-ID: <4BAC8378-F170-489F-9895-6A2D0DEE7E1B@gmail.com>

It would be foolish not to use such a well-attested item.

Not everybody is happy with the word lesson 'lesson' either. It was  
clearly in use in Middle Cornish:

ny a rede in lyas tyllar in scriptur lowar notabyll lesson warbyn  
pehosow coth ha vicys TH 6
han lesson na a gotha agen gwarnya ny oll the consydra a behane one ny  
TH 6
raghenna degow in kerth in agis colonow an lesson cut ma TH 26
merow war agys bewnans in kythsame lesson bean cutma, kepar ha in  
gweder TH 28a
eff a vyn an bobill the folya aga lessons TH 36.


Nicholas



On 23 Feb 2009, at 14:38, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> We?ll have to leave it to the community of Cornish speakers to  
> decide on whether they wish to use this word or not.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090223/73f283ce/attachment.htm>

From daniel at ryan-prohaska.com  Mon Feb 23 16:22:41 2009
From: daniel at ryan-prohaska.com (Daniel Prohaska)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:22:41 +0100
Subject: [Spellyans] kenwes, kenwos
In-Reply-To: <76B32A46-C620-485E-8EFA-04A0E3C6EBD6@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090223162243.E198D13BC0BC@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>

Thanks for your input.

Dan

 

  _____  

From: nicholas williams
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 5:03 PM



Ask him. I think it means 'feat, conviviality'. 

Since we are not sure, I would leave the word out.

It's your decision.

 

N

 

On 23 Feb 2009, at 14:36, Daniel Prohaska wrote:





George interprets this as ken + wos "other blood, not related by blood". Is
this plausible?

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090223/1d9b5ccb/attachment.htm>

From njawilliams at gmail.com  Mon Feb 23 16:43:58 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:43:58 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] kenwes, kenwos
In-Reply-To: <20090223162243.E198D13BC0BC@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
References: <20090223162243.E198D13BC0BC@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
Message-ID: <A911B568-A71B-4A1E-AD3F-99A07CF7F24E@gmail.com>

The context is in the speech of a bishop who says (in the MS spelling  
and word division):

nynges martha kenwesow/ in Chy arluth in bysma

It looks as though the bishop is praising certain things in Arthur's  
palace
that are better there than in any other lord's house.

Elsewhere Cador duke of Cornwall says of Arthur's palace:

Me a vyn abarth an Tas
mos ahanan toyth garaw
the le na thyfyk penlas
the chy an gour hep parow

I will in the Father's name
go hence with great haste
to the place where the finest liquor does not fail,
to the house of the peerless hero.

And again Howel says to Arthur:

y'th chy ny thefyk penlas.
Asyw mer tha veowta!

In thy house liquor does not fail.
How great is thy beauty/ ?hospitality.

Since we do not know the etymology of kenwes, we cannot be sure
of its sense. It really does seem to me that some kind of
conviviality/hospitality is meant.

Nicholas


On 23 Feb 2009, at 16:22, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> Thanks for your input.
> Dan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090223/fef0fee3/attachment.htm>

From everson at evertype.com  Mon Feb 23 17:07:46 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:07:46 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] gostoyth, gosteyth, gostyth
In-Reply-To: <20090223143626.2232313BC081@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
References: <20090223143626.2232313BC081@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
Message-ID: <ABBA1EDE-4CC9-422C-88C8-D66CA47A249F@evertype.com>

I do not believe we have unstressed diphthongs. If it is unstressed,  
it has to reduce in length.
<teyrgweyth> [?t??rgw??] looks very wrong. Moreover, in KS, <ey>  
is [?i] not [??]. So this word looks very bad to me.

On 23 Feb 2009, at 14:36, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> Meur ras dhis, Nicholas,
> I go with <gosteyth> and <gosteythter>. This seems most plausible to  
> me. I have other instances in the dictionary where I give unstressed  
> <ey> as [?], such as <teyrgweyth> [?t??rgw??] (SAMPA  
> [?tEIrgw at T])., so this will be the form I will put in the  
> dictionary. Maybe [?] ought to be [?] in both?
> Dan
>
> From: nicholas williams
> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 4:08 PM
>
> I am not sure.
>
> The word is <gustyth> twice in OM (lines 137 and 295).
> Tregear writes <gustith> at TH 12.
> It looks as though the word is < * wo-eks-t?g-to or similar; in  
> which case the second
> syllable would be -ey- in MC when stressed, i.e. gosteythter. On the  
> other hand
> the unstressed -ith/-yth of gustith/gustyth would lead me to allow  
> gostyth as the basic form
> Perhaps the simplest thing would be to write <gosteyth,  
> gosteythter>. But gostyth cannot be considered wrong.
>
> What do you think, Dan?
>
> Nicholas
>
> On 22 Feb 2009, at 12:36, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
>
>
> Nicholas, in the Bewnans Kespecific vocabulary section you give the  
> reconstruction *gosteyth and in your dictionary the adjective  
> gostyth and the noun gostythter with derived meanings. Should they  
> begosteyth and gosteythter in the SWF?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From everson at evertype.com  Mon Feb 23 17:08:52 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:08:52 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] "understand" in Cornish
In-Reply-To: <20090223143835.F21BE13BC07E@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
References: <20090223143835.F21BE13BC07E@ipsrv02.ip.co.at>
Message-ID: <FE5D820B-A9B7-4420-A4DD-C45A881826BE@evertype.com>

It is <?nderstondya> in KS and so should be <understondya> with  
ambiguous vowel. If you write <camm?nderstondya> you imply  
<cabm?nderstondya>; is this your intent?

On 23 Feb 2009, at 14:38, Daniel Prohaska wrote:

> Thanks for this,
> I have included both onderstondya and cammonderstondya in my  
> dictionary. We?ll have to leave it to the community of Cornish  
> speakers to decide on whether they wish to use this word or not.
> Dan
>
> From: nicholas williams
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 10:12 AM
>
> Not everybody is happy with the use of the word ?nderstondya 'to  
> understand' in Cornish.
> ?nderstondya is very well attested:
>
> vnderstandia  x 3 (SA)
> vnderstondia x 24 (TH)
> vndyrstondia x 2 (TH)
> vndirstondia x 1
> wonderstondia x 1 (TH)
> wondyrstondia x 1 (TH)
> vnderstondya x 3 (TH)
> vnderstondya x 1 (TH)
> camvnderstondia x 1 (TH)
>
> The related word vnderstonding is attested x 22 (TH), vndyrstonding  
> x 1 (TH) and vnderstandyng x 1 (SA).
>
> This means that the root understand/understond- is attested 60 times  
> in tradtional Cornish.
> Moreover the compound camvnderstondia at TH 18 seems to indicate  
> that the word
> had been so fully integrated into Cornish, that it could be used to  
> produce a derivative.
>
> The only other word for 'to understand' is *convedhes. The verbal  
> noun convethas occurs
> twice in CW and the verbal adjective convethys twice in the same text.
> The verbal noun verbal adjective <gonvethes> (with permanent  
> lenition) is also attested
> in a short passage in Pryce:
>
> Der taklow minniz ew brez teez gonvethes, avel an tacklow broaz;  
> dreffen en tacklow broaz, ma
> angy mennow hetha go honnen; bus en tacklow minnis, ema angye suyah  
> h?z go honnen ? By
> small things are the minds of men discovered, as well as by great  
> matters: because in great things, they will [often]
> stretch themselves; but in small matters, they follow their own  
> nature.
>
> Pryce translates gonvethes as 'discovered', not 'understood'.
>
> We thus have the verb understondya 'to understand', attested in two  
> sixteenth-century texts no fewer than 37 times
> and convethes, gonvethes 'to understand, to discover' attested five  
> times from one seventeenth-century text and one
> from the eighteenth century.
>
> We may find understondya, understandya too English to be really  
> acceptable. It would be difficult
> to claim that it was not the ordinary word for 'to understand' in  
> some forms of Middle Cornish.
>
> Other borrowings in -ondya are not uncommon in Middle Cornish:
>
> londia 'to land'  BM
> comondia, commondia, commandia  'to command'  OM, BM, TH, SA, CW
> demandea 'to demand' SA
> recommaundia 'to recommend' Bodewryd glossary.
>
> If we don't like understondya 'to understand' or convedhes 'to  
> discover', we can, in some contexts, use percevya.
>
> Nicholas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From everson at evertype.com  Wed Feb 25 10:30:49 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:30:49 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] Criticism
In-Reply-To: <34445.82.152.255.94.1232020375.squirrel@mail.howlsedhes.co.uk>
References: <40293.82.152.205.72.1231553900.squirrel@mail.howlsedhes.co.uk>
	<4CC2E528-ED0F-4544-AF48-0DF97009F97E@evertype.com>
	<52117.82.152.255.94.1231994455.squirrel@mail.howlsedhes.co.uk>
	<C8DBF1FB-6DA5-4CB2-9E40-AB57778CC070@evertype.com>
	<34445.82.152.255.94.1232020375.squirrel@mail.howlsedhes.co.uk>
Message-ID: <02917AC5-E86D-4072-9F55-8F8AA03F8E63@evertype.com>

I resigned from C24 the other day. It was wasting my time. I'll go  
back to it to announce more publications. A word, however, to our  
"nemesis" Keith Bailey, with whom some of us have jousted for three or  
four years.

On 15 Jan 2009, at 11:52, Keith Bailey wrote:

>> Michael Everson said:
>> I asked you a question. You were courteous to me. Then you attacked  
>> me in public, again. Why? Never mind "why should I answer you?".  
>> Why were you courteous to me and then nasty again a short time later?
>
> I have no personal animosity towards you.

I don't believe you, Keith. Just yesterday on C24 you suggested on a  
public forum that I sh?t my books out of my arse. In what way does  
this not display "personal animosity"?

> What happens on C24 is 90% politics, as you must realise. Well maybe  
> you don't?

That is no reason for such incivility.

> In any case you appear to be a little over-sensitive at times.

My my. Is taking offence a the kinds of abuse you fling at me "over- 
sensitive"?

I think I know the answer. It's something you said nearly two years ago:

On 13 Mar 2007, at 14:29, mongvras wrote:

> You are not just a bunch of pathetic losers, you are a bunch of  
> PATHETIC BAD LOSERS! You deserve no respect.


I think you should look in a mirror. You and your friends refused to  
talk with UdnFormScrefys about a Fifth Form. You insisted that the  
Commissioners should examine all of the materials sent to them. (We  
sent them dictionaries; I am sure you did the same. We sent them our  
personal statements; I am sure you did the same. You've complained  
that they did not engage in follow-up discussion with you, but we had  
the same treatment.) Ken would not talk to us about a Fifth Form  
because he wanted KK to have its day in court. It did. It was not  
chosen, and a Fifth Form was.

Then you managed to get 4 KK supporters onto the AHG, balancing 2 UC/R  
supporters and 2 RLC supporters, and you managed to succeed in  
refusing *me* a place amongst the 2 UC/R supporters (despite the fact  
that the Commissioners said each group should have the RIGHT to choose  
whom they wished), AND you managed to even prevent me from turning up  
to give a short discussion of the principles of KS. You were very  
successful there. And you created a hierarchy where KK's "aesthetic"  
glyphs are "Main" and the "Traditional" form contains forms which are  
not traditional. I suppose you have noticed that even despite Bock and  
Bruch's waffle in the SWF spec, KK's bogus phonology is pretty much  
off the table.

And it *is* bogus. There's not a shred of fortis or lenis in the  
English dialects of Cornwall; even had it been there in the earliest  
Middle Cornish, bilingualism and Sprachbund erased it pretty quick,  
probably about the time that fortis /N/ broke into pre-occlusion  
because English learners of Cornish couldn't manage /N/, and here even  
Jenner says that pre-occlusion must have been spoken long before it  
was written.

Yet you hold these unpronounceable consonants to be sacrosanct, a goal  
to be aspired to, even though your own teachers don't use them and  
don't teach them because it's unnatural to them.

You think *KK phonology* is more important than good books and  
authentic grammar. You think *KK phonology* is more important than a  
credible Cornish phonology which unsurprisingly is not unrelated to  
the phonology of English in Cornwall -- just as it must have been in  
reality. You scrape the bottom of the barrel trying to find reasons to  
dislike beautiful new publications like "Alys in Pow an Anethow" and  
"Adro dhe'n B?s in Peswar Ugans D?dh". It sure makes you look  
"pathetic", if not a "loser", or even a "pathetic bad loser".

I asked the Commissioners for a proper Orthography Congress, where  
your linguists and our linguists would be put in a room and told to  
devise a Fifth Form with a design brief based on identified  
requirements. We got the AHG instead. I think that had we all been put  
in such a room, we would have come out with something a lot like KS,  
since we would have been forced to accept that realism in phonology  
makes better sense than impractical reconstructivism. Oddly, Keith, in  
July of last year you criticized the Gorseth for being linked to "some  
imaginary past full of druids and celtic myst" yet your attachment to  
George's Bretonized phonology is little more than "anything-but- 
Englishism" based on the same Celtic-myst befogged fantasy.

Will the penny drop, I wonder? Probably not. You probably will never  
give up the idea that the Kesva should "run" the Revival, that  
geminates should drip off the tongues of Cornish schoolchildren, and  
that "in whir" is Cornish. You'll probably stew away angrily I feel  
sorry for you, because it's your attitude which perpetuates the split  
in the Revival. You oughtn't go blaming us. You ought to look into the  
mirror and see who the loser is.

We were all losers already. We chose it. We gave up UC and UCR. For  
something better. It was worth it.

I don't hope for a conversion from you Keith. It would be splendid if  
you could surprise me. Think what wonderful books we might make if we  
all worked together.

But I imagine that what I've written is more a fit of spring cleaning  
than anything else.

Back to work. I've got books to publish.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com


From craig at agantavas.org  Wed Feb 25 11:17:28 2009
From: craig at agantavas.org (Craig Weatherhill)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:17:28 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] Criticism
In-Reply-To: <02917AC5-E86D-4072-9F55-8F8AA03F8E63@evertype.com>
References: <40293.82.152.205.72.1231553900.squirrel@mail.howlsedhes.co.uk>
	<4CC2E528-ED0F-4544-AF48-0DF97009F97E@evertype.com>
	<52117.82.152.255.94.1231994455.squirrel@mail.howlsedhes.co.uk>
	<C8DBF1FB-6DA5-4CB2-9E40-AB57778CC070@evertype.com>
	<34445.82.152.255.94.1232020375.squirrel@mail.howlsedhes.co.uk>
	<02917AC5-E86D-4072-9F55-8F8AA03F8E63@evertype.com>
Message-ID: <1352F475-2AD4-4B30-96C9-5311AE5882A6@agantavas.org>

I, too, have given up on the C24 language forum (although I continue  
to participate in the general discussion forum, where I am keeping  
people informed about such things as the Save Penwith Moors campaign).

Basically, I am sick and tired of being insulted for the sin of  
holding views.  The forum has become a waste of time, trying to deal  
with people who are utterly determined to hold fast to a narrow and  
ultimately doomed doctrine.  I am tired of seeing gratuitous insults  
hurled at outstanding scholars such as Nicholas and, in his own field,  
Bernard.  Or at people whose purpose in life is to construct and  
create, such as Michael and Eddie.  The situation becomes worse when  
such insulting behaviour is being perpetrated by people who have  
produced, contributed and created nothing at all: Bailey, Dunbar,  
Reeves, Saunders, etc.

Lostwithiel showed those of us who attended that rank and file KK  
adherents are generally people like ourselves - willing to look at  
alternatives, discuss constructively and with people of differing  
views.  C24 shows us that the split in the language revival movement  
was created and maintained by a tiny handful of utterly destructive  
people who are not interested in the future of the Cornish language,  
only their own agendas which need to be seriously examined in order to  
ascertain their real motives.

Many on this list have changed and adapted their views and  
preferences, often with unease, to achieve a language for the present  
and future which does not inflict damage upon its natural development  
history.  However, in a view I have always held, the latter is  
precisely what Kernewek Kemmyn did and, seemingly, without conscience  
or feeling.

I was introduced to Unified Cornish by the late Peter Pool and, later,  
to Late Cornish by Richard Gendall. Nicholas Williams's work to  
produce UCR showed me that gaps could be bridged and possibly healed.   
The move towards the SWF and the teamwork that debated, discussed and  
built Kernowek Standard, brick by brick, proved that Cornish users  
from across the board could indeed work together as a team and produce  
something outstanding and, meanwhile the SWF/T turned out to be  
something very close indeed to it, while the KK hardcore merely threw  
every obstruction they could in its path (and failed).  I continue to  
contribute whatever I can to the KS project while teaching beginners  
in the SWF/T  And yet, I am accused of intransigence!!!!

It is doubtful that I will ever become a fluent speaker of Cornish but  
can still contribute in my own specialist fields.  For me, fluency  
doesn't matter as long as I can do something to ensure fluent speakers  
in future generations.

Doubtless, Reeves will put this post onto C24, as he is accustomed to  
doing, and as he has nothing better to do.  Not that it contains  
anything that is news.

I apologise for sounding off on this discussion list but perhaps I'll  
be forgiven for doing so.  The point is that the majority of Cornish  
users, including all who take part on this list, want to forge a real  
future for the language.  It is only a tiny handful whose aim is to  
destroy it.  We should acknowledge that it is only a tiny handful,  
upon whom we should waste no more of our valuable time.  They are  
simply not worth our attention.

Craig



On 25 Whe 2009, at 10:30, Michael Everson wrote:

> I resigned from C24 the other day. It was wasting my time. I'll go  
> back to it to announce more publications. A word, however, to our  
> "nemesis" Keith Bailey, with whom some of us have jousted for three  
> or four years.
>
> On 15 Jan 2009, at 11:52, Keith Bailey wrote:
>
>>> Michael Everson said:
>>> I asked you a question. You were courteous to me. Then you  
>>> attacked me in public, again. Why? Never mind "why should I answer  
>>> you?". Why were you courteous to me and then nasty again a short  
>>> time later?
>>
>> I have no personal animosity towards you.
>
> I don't believe you, Keith. Just yesterday on C24 you suggested on a  
> public forum that I sh?t my books out of my arse. In what way does  
> this not display "personal animosity"?
>
>> What happens on C24 is 90% politics, as you must realise. Well  
>> maybe you don't?
>
> That is no reason for such incivility.
>
>> In any case you appear to be a little over-sensitive at times.
>
> My my. Is taking offence a the kinds of abuse you fling at me "over- 
> sensitive"?
>
> I think I know the answer. It's something you said nearly two years  
> ago:
>
> On 13 Mar 2007, at 14:29, mongvras wrote:
>
>> You are not just a bunch of pathetic losers, you are a bunch of  
>> PATHETIC BAD LOSERS! You deserve no respect.
>
>
> I think you should look in a mirror. You and your friends refused to  
> talk with UdnFormScrefys about a Fifth Form. You insisted that the  
> Commissioners should examine all of the materials sent to them. (We  
> sent them dictionaries; I am sure you did the same. We sent them our  
> personal statements; I am sure you did the same. You've complained  
> that they did not engage in follow-up discussion with you, but we  
> had the same treatment.) Ken would not talk to us about a Fifth Form  
> because he wanted KK to have its day in court. It did. It was not  
> chosen, and a Fifth Form was.
>
> Then you managed to get 4 KK supporters onto the AHG, balancing 2 UC/ 
> R supporters and 2 RLC supporters, and you managed to succeed in  
> refusing *me* a place amongst the 2 UC/R supporters (despite the  
> fact that the Commissioners said each group should have the RIGHT to  
> choose whom they wished), AND you managed to even prevent me from  
> turning up to give a short discussion of the principles of KS. You  
> were very successful there. And you created a hierarchy where KK's  
> "aesthetic" glyphs are "Main" and the "Traditional" form contains  
> forms which are not traditional. I suppose you have noticed that  
> even despite Bock and Bruch's waffle in the SWF spec, KK's bogus  
> phonology is pretty much off the table.
>
> And it *is* bogus. There's not a shred of fortis or lenis in the  
> English dialects of Cornwall; even had it been there in the earliest  
> Middle Cornish, bilingualism and Sprachbund erased it pretty quick,  
> probably about the time that fortis /N/ broke into pre-occlusion  
> because English learners of Cornish couldn't manage /N/, and here  
> even Jenner says that pre-occlusion must have been spoken long  
> before it was written.
>
> Yet you hold these unpronounceable consonants to be sacrosanct, a  
> goal to be aspired to, even though your own teachers don't use them  
> and don't teach them because it's unnatural to them.
>
> You think *KK phonology* is more important than good books and  
> authentic grammar. You think *KK phonology* is more important than a  
> credible Cornish phonology which unsurprisingly is not unrelated to  
> the phonology of English in Cornwall -- just as it must have been in  
> reality. You scrape the bottom of the barrel trying to find reasons  
> to dislike beautiful new publications like "Alys in Pow an Anethow"  
> and "Adro dhe'n B?s in Peswar Ugans D?dh". It sure makes you look  
> "pathetic", if not a "loser", or even a "pathetic bad loser".
>
> I asked the Commissioners for a proper Orthography Congress, where  
> your linguists and our linguists would be put in a room and told to  
> devise a Fifth Form with a design brief based on identified  
> requirements. We got the AHG instead. I think that had we all been  
> put in such a room, we would have come out with something a lot like  
> KS, since we would have been forced to accept that realism in  
> phonology makes better sense than impractical reconstructivism.  
> Oddly, Keith, in July of last year you criticized the Gorseth for  
> being linked to "some imaginary past full of druids and celtic myst"  
> yet your attachment to George's Bretonized phonology is little more  
> than "anything-but-Englishism" based on the same Celtic-myst  
> befogged fantasy.
>
> Will the penny drop, I wonder? Probably not. You probably will never  
> give up the idea that the Kesva should "run" the Revival, that  
> geminates should drip off the tongues of Cornish schoolchildren, and  
> that "in whir" is Cornish. You'll probably stew away angrily I feel  
> sorry for you, because it's your attitude which perpetuates the  
> split in the Revival. You oughtn't go blaming us. You ought to look  
> into the mirror and see who the loser is.
>
> We were all losers already. We chose it. We gave up UC and UCR. For  
> something better. It was worth it.
>
> I don't hope for a conversion from you Keith. It would be splendid  
> if you could surprise me. Think what wonderful books we might make  
> if we all worked together.
>
> But I imagine that what I've written is more a fit of spring  
> cleaning than anything else.
>
> Back to work. I've got books to publish.
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

--
Craig Weatherhill




From everson at evertype.com  Wed Feb 25 17:32:01 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:32:01 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] A review of Form and Content in Revived Cornish by a
	board member of Kesva an Taves Kernewek
Message-ID: <C53DE82D-975F-41F7-AF81-3D7CD9EB5109@evertype.com>

I have posted a new review, by Keith Bailey, at http://www.evertype.com/books/fac-review-kb.html

Perhaps a copy could be forwarded to the members of the Cornish  
Language Partnership.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From njawilliams at gmail.com  Wed Feb 25 17:40:24 2009
From: njawilliams at gmail.com (nicholas williams)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:40:24 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] A review of Form and Content in Revived Cornish by
	a board member of Kesva an Taves Kernewek
In-Reply-To: <C53DE82D-975F-41F7-AF81-3D7CD9EB5109@evertype.com>
References: <C53DE82D-975F-41F7-AF81-3D7CD9EB5109@evertype.com>
Message-ID: <92E92748-7E6F-4C94-A777-D2F9DCC7FB48@gmail.com>

I don't understand this on your web page

The original image?which must have taken some effort to produce?was  
hosted at which it appears is where Keith works on his very own  
conlang, Sapr?tum.

Perhaps it might be rephrased.


On 25 Feb 2009, at 17:32, Michael Everson wrote:

> I have posted a new review, by Keith Bailey, at http://www.evertype.com/books/fac-review-kb.html
>
> Perhaps a copy could be forwarded to the members of the Cornish  
> Language Partnership.
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090225/a628ae27/attachment.htm>

From everson at evertype.com  Wed Feb 25 18:10:13 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:10:13 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] A review of Form and Content in Revived Cornish by
	a board member of Kesva an Taves Kernewek
In-Reply-To: <92E92748-7E6F-4C94-A777-D2F9DCC7FB48@gmail.com>
References: <C53DE82D-975F-41F7-AF81-3D7CD9EB5109@evertype.com>
	<92E92748-7E6F-4C94-A777-D2F9DCC7FB48@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B4D64296-D967-417A-AC87-0CDEBB687988@evertype.com>

On 25 Feb 2009, at 17:40, nicholas williams wrote:

> I don't understand this on your web page
>
> The original image?which must have taken some effort to produce?was  
> hosted at which it appears is where Keith works on his very own  
> conlang, Sapr?tum.

Missing HTML. "Hosted at http://www.saprutum.cymru247.net/"

Thanks for spotting the error.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com




From weatherhill at freenet.co.uk  Wed Feb 25 19:19:38 2009
From: weatherhill at freenet.co.uk (Craig Weatherhill)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:19:38 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] A review of Form and Content in Revived Cornish by
	a board member of Kesva an Taves Kernewek
In-Reply-To: <B4D64296-D967-417A-AC87-0CDEBB687988@evertype.com>
References: <C53DE82D-975F-41F7-AF81-3D7CD9EB5109@evertype.com>
	<92E92748-7E6F-4C94-A777-D2F9DCC7FB48@gmail.com>
	<B4D64296-D967-417A-AC87-0CDEBB687988@evertype.com>
Message-ID: <A7EA4F66-1497-45D8-AC5F-BE1BCB0E2C8D@freenet.co.uk>

'Was posted (hosted?) on the site where, it appears, Keith  
works . . .' perhaps?

I'm very struck by this. Can we adopt the image for the design of Agan  
Tavas's new T-shirts?

Craig



On 25 Whe 2009, at 18:10, Michael Everson wrote:

> On 25 Feb 2009, at 17:40, nicholas williams wrote:
>
>> I don't understand this on your web page
>>
>> The original image?which must have taken some effort to produce?was  
>> hosted at which it appears is where Keith works on his very own  
>> conlang, Sapr?tum.
>
> Missing HTML. "Hosted at http://www.saprutum.cymru247.net/"
>
> Thanks for spotting the error.
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net




From everson at evertype.com  Sat Feb 28 12:01:05 2009
From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson)
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 12:01:05 +0000
Subject: [Spellyans] Criticism
In-Reply-To: <1352F475-2AD4-4B30-96C9-5311AE5882A6@agantavas.org>
References: <40293.82.152.205.72.1231553900.squirrel@mail.howlsedhes.co.uk>
	<4CC2E528-ED0F-4544-AF48-0DF97009F97E@evertype.com>
	<52117.82.152.255.94.1231994455.squirrel@mail.howlsedhes.co.uk>
	<C8DBF1FB-6DA5-4CB2-9E40-AB57778CC070@evertype.com>
	<34445.82.152.255.94.1232020375.squirrel@mail.howlsedhes.co.uk>
	<02917AC5-E86D-4072-9F55-8F8AA03F8E63@evertype.com>
	<1352F475-2AD4-4B30-96C9-5311AE5882A6@agantavas.org>
Message-ID: <E10496D6-7EFF-4FDB-ACE4-788415C226A1@evertype.com>

Keith Bailey has sent a response, and cc:d Spellyans. I wonder if this  
means he wants to subscribe. >:-)

Michael



