Talk:Kernewek Kemmyn

Phonology added

I have added the phonology of Revived Middle Cornish as described in the "Kernewek dre Lyther" online course. Feel free to correct anything that may be wrong, but nothing should be. --76.22.80.16 (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"Rocky relationship"

"While the various varieties of revived Cornish have had a rocky relationship with one another, this has had the positive effect of creating a publishing and writing boom in Cornish in general."

This statement is not supportable. Since the 'rocky relationship' began, next to nothing has been published in Unified Cornish, Unified Cornish Revised, or Modern/Late Cornish. In some cases you can count the number of publications on the fingers of one hand.

The publishing and writing boom has not been 'in general' but in Kernewek Kemmyn, which has seen a couple of hundred titles, and countless articles in the monthly magazine An Gannas. An indication of the size of the publishing boom can be found on the Cornish Wikipedia at Lyenn Kernewek. Users of all varieties of Cornish have been asked to update this list and the size of the Kernewek Kemmyn publishing boom, and distinct lack of publication boom in other varieties, is self-evident. Branvras 12:29, 12 November 2006

The definition of a "boom" is subjective, but to claim that it is exclusively KK is nonsensical. Next to nothing? Please!!! I've seen some of it myself. It's largely down to the resources of each grouping, but certainly the "dialectic" has encouraged other groups to try and outdo each other, whether in translating sections of the Bible, producing editions of "John of Chyanor" in all its guises etc. The lack is not "self-evident" at all. --MacRusgail 17:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The word 'boom' was yours, not mine. Could you point us at the evidence that shows there was a 'boom' (whatever you meant by that) in Unified? Or Unified Revised? Or Modern?

I have pointed to evidence that there was a 'boom' in Kemmyn publications, and not in the other forms - the list of publications on the Cornish Wiki. Why is this evidence nonsensical?

The lack of a 'boom' in publications in the other forms of Cornish IS self-evident if you go to the list of Cornish literature in the Cornish Wiki and compare the number of publications in the various forms that have appeared since the 'rocky relationship' (not my words) began - let's say since 1990. It is perfectly possible to see next to nothing so the fact that you have indeed seen next to nothing is neither here nor there. If there are titles that you have seen that are not in the list on the Cornish Wikipedia then please add them.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the groups are trying to outdo each other, rather than just trying to provide materials for people to read? What would it look like if their motive was the latter (which I am convinced it is) rather than the former? Surely if it were the former we could expect to see three page stories published separately with their own ISBN. We don't. Your cynicism is completely without foundation I would suggest. Branvras

I didn't intend to write a sectarian article, although I am well aware of these tendencies in the Cornish language movement. Much of the publishing is desktop and/or DIY. Nothing wrong with that. Worked for the punk movement. Perhaps "rocky relationship" is too euphemistic for the behaviour of certain people in several of the movements. --MacRusgail 15:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you possibly answer the questions I posed above? There are six of them. I would not push the point but for your 'Please!!!', and 'Nonsensical', and suggestion that people write Cornish in order to 'outdo' other people. Your amazement, criticism and slur are all misplaced, in my opinion, but possibly your answers to the questions will show that I am wrong.

I also do not wish to see a sectarian article, which is why I made a very minor change and simply removed 'in general'. I could have listed the evidence of what has been published since 1990, but didn't. Sectarianism is painful for all of us, on all sides of your 'rocky relationship', but articles in Wikipedia can't just make biased (even if it's a bias for neutrality), dubious or false claims in the hope that it will hide the problem or help solve it. It won't.

Branvras

It's not my "rocky relationship" at all. In fact, that's partly why I take an interest in Cornish, but not an active interest. This isn't slur, it's just trying to make the best of a bad thing, and I have heard some wild stories come out of the Cornish language movement. Not everyone writes Cornish to outdo another, but quite a few do... --MacRusgail 17:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Not acceptable again. If you're going to make disparaging statements like "Not everyone writes Cornish to outdo another, but quite a few do... " then you should be obliged to provide some evidence to show that what you say is true. Because although you can't see it, it IS a slur. Trust me, I write Cornish, and I feel slurred by the suggestion that I might be doing it to outdo anyone else. Other Cornish writers would, I have no doubt, feel the same. So could you provide some evidence to backup your assertion, please? Just who are the "quite a few" in your opinion?

Oh, and ... Could you possibly answer the questions I posed above? There are now eight of them.

Branvras

Not acceptable indeed. You just tried to put words in my mouth - I removed the stuff you added to my post. I have no particular allegiance to any variety of Cornish, and the "he did, and she did" and "he started it" business leaves me bemused. What I said is not a slur - how could it be? By being in competition and trying to outcompete each other, you would in fact be doing something POSITIVE!!! Can't you understand that? The more stuff that comes out in Cornish, for whatever motive, the better. Please don't try and alter my replies again - that's "not acceptable". --MacRusgail 18:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Just so that anyone reading this knows what MacRusgail means by 'you just tried to put words in my mouth' let me explain. MacRusgail has described a 'rocky relationship' in the article. When I quoted this back on this page, as "your 'rocky relationship' ", the word 'your' was misunderstood. I should have written "what you call a 'rocky relationship' " because the response was 'it's not my rocky relationship'. I added to this "<no, but it's your terminology>", and signed it, in order to make clear what I had originally meant by 'your'. MacRusgail has removed this because it is "not acceptable". I apologise for this inept attempt at explaining why I had quoted the phrase in the way I did.

Meanwhile, I have asked four Cornish speakers in as neutral a way as I can whether they write Cornish in order to outdo other Cornish writers. All of them were completely puzzled by the notion and said something to the effect of "of course not". So I asked if they would mind if someone suggested that something or someone had encouraged the groups "to try and outdo each other" (MacRusgail's words above). They would mind. It's a slur. I will try telling them that writing stuff in order to outdo other people is POSITIVE (MacRusgail's latest suggestion above). I don't think they will agree, but we'll see. Clearly the more "stuff" that comes out in Cornish the better, but the motive does matter, and to suggest that it has something to do with competition and outdoing people or groups is wrong. Evidence? None.

I'm clearly not going to get an answer to any of the questions posed above. That says it all.

Branvras 21:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

When is 'y' a consonant, and when is it a vowel?

The letter 'y' is listed as being a consonant, pronounced [j], and a vowel pronounced [ɪ] (or [ɪː]). An indication when which pronunciation applies would be very helpful. PJTraill (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)