Talk:Cornish language/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Cornish word for time

In the "comparison table" it lists the words for time as awel, but an online Cornish dictionary (http://www.cornishlanguage.co.uk/dictionary.htm) lists the word for time as "prys". Could someone check this please? For info, the word "awel" means "breeze" in Welsh. ThanksUnewydd (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You could be right, my dictionary gives "prys" (among others) for time too, and "wind, gale, weather" for "awel". I'll remove that line to be on the safe side. --Joowwww (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There is also the Cornish word "kewer" which means "weather". In fact the Cornish concept of time is quite complicated as it depends on to what is being referred. In the Gerlyver Kernewek-Sowsnek we have:- basic meaning: prys, termyn occasion: treveth, gwyth, tro epoch/era: os clock time: owr etc Generally speaking "prys" is used in a more open sense whereas "termyn" is used more specifically. It is not unusual for the concepts of time and weather to overlap. In Italian the word "tempo" can refer to both chronological time or meteorological weather. Yet when asking the time one would have to ask "Che ora è?" lit. "What hour is it?". This might help in understanding the confusion in Cornish. Brythonek (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Funding for Ulster Scots vs. Cornish

The Ulster Scots article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Scots#Linguistic_Status ) quite clearly states, with refs, "Among academic linguists Ulster Scots is treated as a dialect of English, for example Raymond Hickey[33], or by others as a variety of the Scots language, for example Dr. Caroline Macafee, who writes "Ulster Scots is [...] clearly a dialect of Central Scots. Using the criteria on Ausbau languages developed by the German linguist Heinz Kloss, Ulster Scots could qualify only as a Spielart or 'national dialect' of Scots (cf. British and American English), since it does not have the Mindestabstand, or 'minimum divergence' necessary to achieve language status through standardisation and codification" (emphises added).

Clearly, therefore, the comparision & grievance referred to in the present article is between £1M of government funding for the promotion of a regional dialect of English, vs. funding for the Cornish language. I don't really see what your point is, Man Vyi. Ulster Scots is not a "language" and should not be referred to as one in the Cornish language article. Doing so is not only semantically incorrect, it makes it look like Cornish people are just jealous of money going to a another minority language with more speakers than themselves, when in fact the reality is that more money is going to another *dialect* of English for entirely political reasons.--feline1 (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, opinion on whether Ulster Scots is a language is divided, as reflected in the pertinent article (and this is not the place for quoting the relevant legislation). As far as the sourced statement in this article goes, the reference is to the Ulster Scots language. Being bold, I'll make the language neutral on the subject, which may avoid misrepresenting the source and sidestep the dialect/language issue. Man vyi (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"Well, opinion on whether Ulster Scots is a language is divided" - not amoungst linguists, it's not, as the article makes clear (and wikipedia is trying to be a serious academic encyclopedia, not a platform for political silliness) ... but your rewording does, I guess, sweep that particular issue under the carpet.--feline1 (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bodinar letter and Cranken rhyme

I have just re-entered these two specimens of late native speaker/non-revival Cornish. I don't why they were deleted as they are not under any kind of copyright, not unverifiable and also- in my opinion, extremely relevant to the article. What's the prob people? I see they were deleted "invisibly" by someone. Brythonek (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Have re-added Bodinar's letter. I see no reason for deletion as the letter is one of the last examples of native written Cornish and also speaks about the condition of the Cornish language in 1776, therefore it has sociolinguistic value as well. In a spirit of compromise I have redirected the Cranken Rhyme to its own page. Brythonek (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to the comment you left on my talk page. Please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia guidelines, specifically WP:NOT. --Joowwww (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sample Texts

I have added two sample texts in comtemporary Cornish. Article I of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Lord's Prayer. Along with the Babel text these are usually included as sample examples on most language pages and so I see no reason for their not being added to the Cornish language page. Brythonek (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Kernowek/Kernewek

I object to the removal of "Kernowek" from the infobox and first sentence as new user Gwydhennwynn (who has only two edits, both of them here) has done. (In terms of the corpus, it has long been acknowledged that "Kernowek" form is better attested than Nance's "Kernewek" form.) -- Evertype·✆ 20:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

When you state that "it has long been acknowledged that 'Kernowek' form is better attested than Nance's 'Kernewek' form", I wonder what sources you have. Is that merely your own opinion or what? Thing is, that the Cornish Wikipedia is using Kernewek as the standard form in the article - and with so many ways of writing the word, it's only just confusing... speaking of that - why doesn't Cornish have a real spelling system? Why do so many of these linguists their own systems? Why can't they just decide that one of them should be used? /Gwydhennwynn (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

And why shan't we put the forms "Kernûak", "Carnoack", "Curnoack" and "Kornoack" in the article as well, if you're already insisting that the word "Kernowek" should be in it? /Gwydhennwynn (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Kernewek and Kernowek are both SWF forms, so both should stay. Considering that the SWF, KK and KS are probably the most popular orthographies these days, adding the others seems like overkill. --Joowwww (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

While discussing this, I don't really understand why Cornish still has got so many ways of spelling it. Why can't the Cornish Language Board agree on one form? /Gwydhennwynn (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The SWF is the agreed form, a lot of people from all sides have adopted it, and the Cornish Language Partnership uses it. Unfortunately 20 years of disputes can't be buried overnight, and there are still some people who are too stubborn to give up their preferred orthography instead of seeing the greater good. It's quite sad really. --Joowwww (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In fairness those of us who favour KS did give up our preferred orthography (UC/UCR); the reason we favour KS is that it corrects infelicities (pretty bad ones) in the SWF. However it treads lightly, as can be seen in the transcription of Bodinar's letter which is now in the improved text for that section. -- Evertype·✆ 12:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And what term does SWF use? I thought that Kernewek was the used form in SWF also... /Gwydhennwynn (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"Kernewek" and "Kernowek" are both recognized by the SWF, please see SWF official document p. 44.--Nil Blau (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that's just strange. Why do SWF use both forms? It's like if it'd be possible to write the word English both like english and inglish. It'd just be confusing. Why not agree on one form? /Gwydhennwynn (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Kernowek reflects RLC pronunciation, Kernewek reflects RMC pronunciation. SWF recognizes minor and quite easy-to-learn adaptations to RLC and RMC phonetics. You will find a lot of useful explanations in the KS website and especially in the SWF official document, p. 3 (Variant graphs), p. 12 (Examples of RMC <ew> ~ RLC <ow> in Polysyllables).--Nil Blau (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the RLC/RMC distinction holds; UCR wasn't "RLC" by any means nor did it eschew MC forms. There is a question as to whether Kernewek ever existed in Traditional Cornish; evidence really only shows a form of Kernow + the ending. In fact Williams suggested that following the W/B/C pattern for polysyllables like this (e.g. celynnog/kelenneg/kelynnek 'holly grove' or cymysgu/kemmeskañ/kemmyska 'mingle') the form Kernewek is unusual, and one would expect (in terms of George's reconstruction) to find Cernyweg/kerneveg/*Kernywek. Be that as it may (or indeed because of this), the Kernewek/Kernowek alternation isn't the same kind of attested alternation that one finds with pairs like clêwes/clôwes. In any case, both forms are current and both should appear in this article. -- Evertype·✆ 20:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Central" versus rounded.

The section on phonology gives three unarguably front vowels as central when they should be rounded. Considering whoever wrote that up got the unrounded vowels right, it's rather amusing. I've got no skill with html tables, and don't really know an effective way to give the information correctly that looks good, but I'm just putting this out there.Duke Atreides (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd put that table there long ago; the vowel table is always a pain. I've completely re-done the chart. -- Evertype·✆ 20:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources, sources, sources

This page seems to suffer from a lack of sources and from users who probably have the best intentions but a poor knowledge of Wikipedia. Somebody had added complete nonsense about Cornish being an official language in Britanny and in Wales. It most certainly isn't and I wonder the the user got the idea. Someone else have added Wales and Britanny to the infobox as places where the language is spoken. If that is the case, it needs to be sourced. A third user gave the name of two people he might know who speaks Cornish, one lives in Wales and one lives in Britanny. That is completely irrelevant, you can find one or two speakers of almost every language in every country in the world. I doubt there is a single country where you cannot find even one person who speaks English, French or Spanish. Especially as we're talking about learners, not native speakers. Even if there are a significant number of speakers in a region, it still has to be sourced. Removing sources with the argument that "This is true" is still a form of vandalism. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth WP:V.Jeppiz (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The section isn't about where there are speakers, it's about where there is a significant amount of speakers in relation to the overall speakers of the language. There are people that speak English in Malaysia, but it's not a significant amount so it doesn't go in. The amount of Cornish speakers in Wales and Brittany is significant compared to the overall amount of Cornish speakers. There is a Cornish speaker living in Japan but the number of 'one' is not significant, so it doesn't go in. But you are right that more references are needed. --Joowwww (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There are probably quite a few in England, especially Plymouth, Bristol and London...--MacRusgail (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As no sources have been added, I removed Wales and Brittany. If sources are found we can of course put them back if the number is large enough to be significant. For such a small language already a relatively small number of speakers would be significant, but as Joowww agreed, too low of a number is not significant even for a very small language.Jeppiz (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge of orthography articles

I propose that Kernewek Kemmyn, Kernowek Standard, Modern Cornish and Unified Cornish be merged into one article at Cornish orthography.

I think this will create an impetus to write one, well-written and well-sourced article about the orthography of Cornish (which is one language not four different ones), and will help send out the impression of being past the spelling wars era. See the category Category:Language orthographies for examples of Orthography pages. --Kernoweger (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If such a merger goes ahead, should it not also include Standard Written Form? Skinsmoke (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I forgot that one. --Kernoweger (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's time for this at present. All of the articles should be "beefed up" a bit first. I think it would just end up being a long list, don't you? -- Evertype·✆ 15:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - the different varieties are not merely varying orthographies, but have different vocabulary, grammar and occasionally syntax. The philosophy behind each of them is quite different.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So are these different languages or just different academic encodings of the same underlying language? Even if they are different it might be more useful to have one article where the differences and similarities can be compared and contrasted. This will then highlight where each needs 'beefing up".filceolaire (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Different academic encodings, not just different spelling systems. KK uses medieval Cornish as a base, whereas Modern Cornish prefers to use the later forms of the living language. As a result KK has a more complex grammar, but Modern Cornish has far more English loanwords. All of them also contain different neologisms, and loanwords from Welsh and Breton.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I would support a merger, with the articles in the state they are currently in. To me, an overview article (Cornish orthography) is entirely appropriate here, from which specific types can be split according WP:SUMMARY when the material gets too long (or if it is a "long list"). Actually it won't be a long list, as there are only 5 types to overview. If a summary article was created without a merge, it would just duplicate the current information. As each article (with the exception of the one with the sample text) is only really 5-6 lines long in a paragraph, merge them, develop the one article and then split off if necessary. The difference between the orthographies and the history behind them all can then be discussed succinctly, and once, in one article.—MDCollins (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I'm going to revise that. There is quite a good summary in existence on this page that I hadn't seen (I'd come across this from the Cornish WP. We don't need two summaries. In which case, if a merge is to take place, it should be to this page which probably doesn't seem necessary. As long as each of the separate articles makes reference to the summary (Forms of Revised Cornish), maybe it is fine as it is. Either that, or move the entire section from this page into a new article (Cornish orthography) with a decent link from Cornish Language (main article:xxx).—MDCollins (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I continue to oppose such a merger. -- Evertype·✆ 19:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Although I disagree with him on certain matters, Evertype is probably the best qualified here, when it comes to this subject.

And I would repeat these are NOT orthographies. These are not just rival spelling systems. There's much more to it than that.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: For me, all the existing pages merit a separate article and are needed. Mdcollins1984 thinks "the state they are currently in" is a factor, but each of these systems must be notable, and if we can recognize that then it would be a waste of effort to merge articles with a view to demerging them later when the single merged article has become unmanageable. Moonraker2 (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The one problem comes with the "Unified" systems, there are two or three "unyes" (?) systems, but whether they count as one is another question. Kemmyn and Modern certainly are separate from these.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Early text

This appears in Celtic rite: There is a Mass in Bodl. MS. 572 (at Oxford), in honour of St. Germanus, which appears to be Cornish and relates to "Ecclesia Lanaledensis", which has been considered to be the monastery of St. Germanus, in Cornwall. There is no other evidence of the name, which was also the Breton name of Aleth, now part of Saint-Malo. The manuscript, which contains also certain glosses, possibly Cornish or Breton--it would be impossible to distinguish between them at that date--but held by Professor Loth to be Welsh, is probably of the ninth century, and the Mass is quite Roman in type, being probably written after that part of Cornwall had come under Saxon influence. There is a very interesting Proper Preface. This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) If the manuscript is 9th century the glosses may be then or later. Could be cited if more recent opinion is available.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Enid Blyton's Five Go Down to the Sea

I have just read this book. I read the 1953 version, the earliest I could find on amazon. I could find no evidence that anyone speaks Cornish in this book. The nearest character is Mr Penruthlan. He says things such as "Oooh-ock" (page 180), and the chidren find him difficult to understand. However, it is explained that he talks like this because he doesn't have his teeth in. When he has his teeth he is perfectly comprehensible in English. I wonder where the idea that some characters speak Cornish in this book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.215.201.5 (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)