Talk:Cornish language/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Cornish Alphabet

Would someone like to put up an article Cornish Alphabet? --172.175.234.186 01:11, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's A-Z, with macrons over a, e, i, o, u, y in dictionaries; Yogh is used in some Cornish manuscripts for /ð/. Evertype 01:16, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Well, in one orthography at least. Isn't the alphabet different in different orthographies?--172.209.250.217 03:07, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Evertype 11:55, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify that by saying yes, all the Cornish orthographies use the Roman alphabet. However, Kernewek Kemmyn is a little different; it teaches that ch is a single letter in place of c, and it doesn't use a few other letters (q, x, z, there might be some others I'm forgetting). But just as in Finnish or Welsh, for example, people writing Kernewek Kemmyn must still make use of these letters for proper names and foreign expressions. QuartierLatin1968 18:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Duelling Cornishes

Attentive readers of this article will notice the back-and-forth regarding POV and facts and such. For my part, I support Unified Cornish Revised orthography, and edited Nicholas Williams' English-Cornish Dictionary as well as his translation of the New Testament. Anonymous contributors 62.254.128.4 and 212.219.240.8 have tended to be rather apologetic about Kernewek Kemmyn -- and not all that neutral, though 62 has tried to be a good deal more neutral than 212.

The academic community at large has criticised (not just "at times") Kernewek Kemmyn -- not just Nicholas Williams, though he has published comprehensive critiques of the Kemmyn orthography, which is not (despite claims) particularly accurate nor based on solid scholarship. Rather, it is based on Ken George's private database which Williams has shown (in a number of articles in Cornish Studies) to be less than the perfect thing the vociferous adherants have claimed it to be. (They also constantly claim numeric superiority, though reports from my colleagues in Cornwall suggest otherwise.) Kernewek Kemmyn was foisted upon the Cornish community as "the perfect solution", in a manner which deeply and rather bitterly split the community. Ken George has had to revise his orthography several times after flaws in his "phonemic" scheme were pointed out; it continues to have flaws which remain unrevised.

62.254.128.4's revision appears to confuse the chronology. Yes, everyone saw shortcomings in Nance's Unified Cornish, but Gendall's Modern Cornish came out as a reaction to Kernewek Kemmyn -- which was a replacement orthography, not a reform of Unified Cornish. Williams' Unified Cornish Revised was a reform of Unified Cornish.

In due course I will revise the "Revival" section; I am not neutral with regard to Cornish orthography, but I have striven and will continue to strive to stick to the facts.Evertype 12:55, 2004 Jul 8 (UTC)

Several points. I am the IP address beginning with 62(I should have logged in, and still haven't, but you know). I have indeed been apologetic to Kernewek Kemmyn. Not through advocacy, but in order to present an NPOV face. Now, 'vociferous' seems to have a slightly negative spin, in my opinion. I removed it. Also, declaring that the 'academic community' have criticised Dr. George is somewhat misleading. I'd expect that the number of experts in Cornish is rather small, and, as such, 'the academic community' does not refer to very many people. Again, of course, the phrase 'criticised by the academic community' puts a negative spin on the article. My revisions removed that negative spin, and also offered a (small) bibliography on the subject, for people to consult.

I will not fall on either side of the debate, yet. I don't know nearly enough. But I do know that the article, as it stood, was POV. I rectified that. I won't revert it, but I can't see how my revisions imperilled NPOV, but rather rectified it. BovineBeast

I reverted (but revised) the most recent anonymous revisions. Kernowek Kemyn supporters like to crow about their numeric superiority, but this assertion is unsupported, and indeed contrary to reports I have from prominent members of the Revival. I know KK supporters do not like the criticism that Williams, Mills, and indeed I have made of George's work, but those criticisms are based in linguistic facts and expertise. George's work is based on his database and phonemic theory, which lack accuracy, as has been established in numerous articles in print. Evertype 20:42, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)

I reverted again most of today's anonymous revisions, where were not in the least bit neutral. Evertype 11:44, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is nothing POV in saying that the 'academic community' doesn't favour Kernewek Kemmyn. It is a fact, whether Dr. George likes it or not. Most people with some knowledge of Celtic languages tend to favour Unified Cornish in William's version. I cannot say whether they are right or wrong, but that is certainlt the general opinion. Jonas

It's mildly POV in the sense that a non-specific reference to the academic community as a whole, can be taken as implying a unanimous scholarly consensus against Kernewek Kemmyn. In fact, most serious academic Celticists have no interest in any variety of revived Cornish, and have treated the entire revival movement with (IMO) unwarranted scorn. It would be nice to see some kind of support for the statement that academics on the whole disfavour Kemmyn in particular. (My hunch is that mediaevalists and aficionados of historical literature will be more attracted to UCR, and comparative linguists – particularly those acquainted with Breton – to Kemmyn.) Concerning the question of numerical support for Kemmyn, I'm interested to hear how people feel about the statement that "approximately 80% of the Cornish speaking population now use it [Kernewek Kemmyn]" – this is from the report "Cornish: The Cornish language in education in the UK" by Mercator-Education, authored by Arjan Hut of the Frisian Academy. At first glance, this appears to be an independent source, no? But I wonder what methods they used to obtain that one-sig-fig estimate. And of course, numerical strength is relative: even 80% of Cornish speakers is only a few thousand people! QuartierLatin1968 18:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) PS: In the interests of full disclosure, I do use Kernewek Kemmyn and like it the best, but I'd welcome a consensus-based orthography (as alluded to in the Cornish Language Strategy) that could accommodate everybody.

It's very true that many linguists are uninterested in revived languages, including revived Cornish of any kind. What it true is that those who are interested, almost exclusively within the field of Celtic philology have tended to favour UCR. I would argue against the statement that comparative linguists would favour Kemmyn - they are more likely than others to be able to spot the errors. It should be kept in mind than Dr George has no education in linguistics or Celtic languages. Hin enthusiasm is to be congratulated, but it is unfortunate that he has refused to accept some obvious errors that he commited. I'm sad to say that his contribution to Cornish has been more negative than positive. His two main contributions is a version that has drawn much criticism and a split in the language movement. It is probably true that this article will never be POV if that means that it cannot mention the errors on Kemmyn. 20:51 08 Aug 2005

Hi, I'm a linguist with no special knowledge of Cornish (or any Celtic language--I'm interested tho as my wife is of Cornish extraction). It seems to me this article is confusing the language with the orthography--it certainly leaves me somewhat confused. As far as I can tell, the main difference between the Unified/Modern/Revised/Common Cornishes is the orthography. Is this correct? Is there general agreement on the phonology? Or is the dispute over orthography actually about different views of what the phonology should be? Or a bit of both? It would certainly help to have the phonology (phonologies?) laid out with some clarity, as well as the orthographies. Dougg 12:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

By and large the phonologies are the same. Kernowek Kemyn posits sounds that could hardly have existed and which apparently most of its speakers don't really try to produce. I will put the UCR chart into the Wikipedia article when time permits. You might be interested in my review of the linguistic situation, http://www.evertype.com/gram/gerlyver-2000-preface-me.pdf Evertype 15:47, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

KK makes a number of phonological distinctions which UCR believes no longer existed in Middle Cornish. These mostly relate to the difference between open and close mid vowels. On the other hand UCR believes that vowel length was phonemic, whereas KK believes that as in Welsh and Breton the length of vowels was allophonic governed by stress and syllable type. Mongvras 19:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Duelling Cornishes revisited

The figure of 80% for KK supporters, is based on Table 3.2 of the MacKinnon Report. Focus groups from each faction were asked to estimate the number of supporters each had, by levels of competance. Combining the top two levels (fluent on everyday topics and complex/specialist subjects) the figures are: KK 300, UC(R) 30, Late 35. Combining the next three levels (from a few words and phrases up to simple conversation) we get : KK 195, UC(R) 50, Late 120. The figures for learners (classes and by correspondence combined) are : KK 582, UC(R) 105, Late 83. Thus the figure of 80% would seem to be a fair, perhaps slightly conservative, estimate of KK support, allowing for the fact that a proportion of learners drop out and so do not become part of the Cornish speaking "community". These figures are admittedly only estimates, but to date they're the best we have. They were also self assessed, so if the minor factions underestimated the strength of their support they only have themselves to blame! Mongvras 19:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Enthusiastic uptake of KK Although some were reluctant to change (was the advantage worth the cost etc.?), the majority were indeed enthusiastic, and there was great pressure to produce materials, dictionaries etc. in the new system. This can be ascertained by reference to contempory publications, the records of Kesva, Kowethas an Yeth etc. The change over can be tracked in back issues of An Gannas for instance. This is fact not conjecture. I was there, I saw it, Everson was not. Yth esen vy ena, my a'n gwelas! Mongvras 00:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to reject this. I know a good many people who tell a very different story about how the orthography was "adopted" at meetings from which they had been excluded. Evertype 10:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This is hearsay, just more of the propaganda that anti-KK factions constantly churn out. We're all sick to the back teeth with it, and long ago gave up arguing with them. Unfortunately it must be countered here as many people will read Wikipedia and believe it to be true. The final adoption of KK was by a vote of Kesva and Taves Kernewek, a largely elected body. There was only a single vote against. Kesva is elected every four years by the members of Kowethas an Yeth Kernewek. Membership of Kowethas is open to anyone on payment of a small annual subscription. Had the majority of Cornish speakers (who are nobody's fools) been somehow conned into taking up KK, then over the years the deceit would have been exposed and the decision reversed. If the Kesva members didn't represent the will of the majority they would not have been re-elected. Indeed were there a great "silent majority" against KK, they would long ago have "carpetbagged" Kowethas and elected their own supporters to the Kesva. They have had 18 years to do this, 10 years since Williams published Cornish Today. I have given sources for my statements, Everson is relying on hearsay. Mongvras 15:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Fluent prose style of UCR UCR is an orthography. Anyone can write any kind of prose, fluent or stilted, in the orthography of their choice. An orthography per se cannot have a "prose style". This statement is pure propaganda pushing Everson's own POV. Mongvras 00:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Not so. Wella Brown published a grammar using Kernewek Kemmyn orthography, did he not? Nicholas Williams also published Clappya Kernowek which uses UCR orthography; because it is informed by Late Cornish materials unavailable to Nance and others, the prose style of UCR is more fluid and than UC was, which is what the article was saying. Evertype 11:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Either of the works mentioned above could be transliterated into the other orthography, the process is an entirely mechanical one. Indeed the first (1984) edition of Wella Brown's Grammar was in fact in UC. In any case neither book is written in Cornish, both are books in English about Cornish. An orthography does not have a prose style. The discovery of the Tregear Homilies, the only Tudor Cornish Prose I know of (aside from a few "tourist phrases"), has informed Revived Cornish in general regardless of one's preferred spelling practice. Not that Tregear is exactly lucid, but that is clearly POV. Mongvras 15:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism Can something be done to prevent Evertype's continual updating and correcting of this page, in particular the removal of 'authenticated factual information' and its replacement by more accurate information. The vast majority of Cornish speakers support KA, the figure may be 60% or 95% but the other factions are small (noisy) minorities. The battle was lost years ago, but as they continually demonstrate, the war has not yet been won. Mongvras 00:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Now, now, Mr Mongvras, whoever you are, (ty a woer yn ta pyw ov vy Mongvras) that's just not acceptable. In the first place, opponents of Kernewek Kemmyn do not believe that the battle is lost, and support for Kernewek Kemmyn within the Revival is not as definitive as supporters of Kernewek Kemmyn would have the world believe. I do not like George's orthography, and I certainly do not I believe that this article should make it look as though the Cornish Revival is satisfied with Kernowek Kemyn. Many in it are not. That a second edition of Williams' English-Cornish Dictionary is about to be published is one proof of the demand for materials in UCR (as well as demand for a good dictionary with 25,000 headwords). Many of my sources believe that many supporters of KK know that the game is up: that the linguistic principles of George's orthography are shaky at best. It seems likely that an independent panel of linguists will be brought in to review the situation and make recommendations. I should be very surprised indeed were they to choose to retain Kernewek Kemmyn with its many flaws. It is easy to sit back and cry "vandal", but I think that the recent dishonest deletion of reference to the FIRST publication of a complete Cornish New Testament (which was in UCR, not in KK) shows where the real vandalism lies. Evertype 11:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not responsible for the information re the NT translations, it is a matter of fact that Williams' translation was published first. The remainder of the above is your personal POV, as you clearly state, "I do not like Georges Orthography". You say, "many of my sources believe ...". This is both hearsay and POV. Please lay off the propaganda and stick to facts. No one, for example, disputes that Williams has published a dictionary, and that it is in his and his publisher's interest to sell as many as copies as possible. Mongvras 15:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Does it EVER occur to you, Mr Everson, that 'your sources' that you so often quote, may be leading you up the garden path? Just how do you substantiate what they tell you? For example, your 'sources' believe that "many supporters of KK know that the game is up". It's rubbish. It's just plain rubbish - and I know because I meet and talk with 'supporters of KK' every day of my life. So either your supporters are misleading you, or you are intentionally setting out to mislead others. I'm inclined to believe the latter is the case because your edits on this subject are almost entirely POV - but very cleverly so, in that you mislead as much by what you don't say as by what you do. Shame on you. And shame on John11 for his bible edits - the pair of you are as bad as each other. Ass owgh hwi pla. Branvras

Kosel ow howeth, kosel! ("Go easy, boy") Mongvras 15:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Clear Pronunciation Rules The pronunciation guides for UC as given by Nance and by A.S.D. Smith, were far from clear and in places self-contradictory. Gendall did rather better in Kernewek Bew (1972), but was attempting to describe what were essentially Late Cornish sounds, since the phonology of Middle Cornish had not then been thoroughly investigated. My statement is therefore factually correct and I should think significant. It explains in part why so many teachers were enthusiastic supporters of KK. Mongvras 17:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Phonemes /dj/ /tj/ sic. Leaving aside the fact that <dj, tj> are graphemes, this is a very detailed technical subject, probably one of the most difficult areas of Cornish historical phonology. George was wrong in assuming that OC non-initial /d/ became palatalised, and the grapheme <dj> was indeed unfortunate. Nevertheless the underlying phonemic distinction between a sound always written "s" in the texts, and another written with "i" or "g" alternating with "s" (depending on the text) is quite apparent. This latter sound might be symbolised as /z/. The failure to distinguish between /s/ and /z/ is one of the remaining weaknesses of KK, which may well be addressed in due course. I can see little point in bringing this up in a brief history of the language. There either needs to be a technical article on Cornish historical phonology and its alternative reconstructions (perhaps too specialised a subject for Wikipedia?) or simply references to the works of George, Williams, Jackson etc. Mongvras 17:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Alternative Revisions of UC KK was conceived as a revision of UC. A few years later, Williams, thinking that George had got it all wrong, did his own revision of UC, UCR. It was therefore an alternative revision, because we could then choose between them. Which you prefer depends on your POV, that they were alternative, indeed competing orthographies is just plain fact. Mongvras 16:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Theories George based KK on his model of Middle Cornish phonology. Williams in turn based UCR on his own, rather different model. Since there is no direct factual information concerning the pronunciation of Middle Cornish, both models are of necessity theoretical, designed to account for the spellings found in the extant MC texts. How well you think each succeeds is again POV, but there can be no doubting that each is theoretical. Indeed any phonology even of a well studied language like English must be theoretical, since phonology is a abstraction, the only facts are the many utterances and documents that provide the raw data. Mongvras 16:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Can someone stop Ken George from continually vandalising the Cornish Language a subject on which he clearly has little knowledge. As someone already mentioned, KK lost the liquistic argument long ago.

Other discussion

"While the scholars were busy collecting the last vestiges of spoken Cornish, there was no lack of testimony that the language was now nearing extinction. It was Daines Barrington who was responsible for spreading the belief that the last speaker of Cornish was Dolly Pentreath of Mousehole. During a tour of Cornwall in 1768, Barrington was directed to Dolly Pentreath as a person able to speak the language. 'I desired to be introduced', he wrote, 'as a person who had laid a wager that there was no one who could converse in Cornish; upon which Dolly Pentreath spoke in an angry tone of voice for two or three minutes, and in a language which sounded very like Welsh...' Barrington reported this exchange to the Society of Antiquaries which published an account in its Journal in 1776. Dolly Pentreath died in the following year. Barrington contributed another paper to the Society's Journal in 1779, adding a letter written in Cornish in 1776 from a fisherman named William Bodener who clamed to know five persons in Mousehole (Raginnis) alone who spoke Cornish, thus disproving the belief that Dolly Pentreath was the last Cornish-speaker.

Whether or not Cornish survived into the nineteenth century is difficult to say. The expansion of industry, particularly mining, and the growth of towns and railways, dealt the final blows to the language. It is believed that a few cases of genuine bilingualism existed for a few decades more, but the evidence is pitifully scanty: John Tremethack, who died in 1852 at the age of eighty-seven, had taught Cornish to his daughter who was still alive in 1875; Henry Jenner's mother-in-law, Mrs Rawlings of Hayle (Heyl) who died in 1879 aged fifty-seven, had learned the Lord's Prayer in Cornish at school; Bernard Victor learnt Cornish from his father and passed on a great deal to Jenner in 1875; Dr Stevens of St Ives, talking to the historian J. H. Mathews in 1892, said he had been taught to count in Cornish; and so on. Of John Davey of Zennor (1812-91), a more substantial claim was made: on a plaque in his memory in the village church-yard, are the carefully chosen words 'who was the last to possess any traditional considerable knowledge of the Cornish language'. Davey, it is believed, could converse and sing in Cornish."

Also, it should be noted that Henry Jenner, the man who started the original movement for the revival of the Cornish language, learnt his Cornish from native speakers (if he wasn't one himself; of this I am not sure). He died in 1934. So I think it can be said very truthfully that, if the chain of Cornish *was* broken (which it was, afaik), it lived well into the 20th century and experienced no breakage at the second-language-learner level, but only at the first-language-learner level (perhaps? I don't know if Jenner taught his kids Cornish; if he was a native and he DID, then perhaps it wasn't broken then)

Similarly, though many say Manx died in the late 70s with Ned Maddrel, there is still an old man in a nursing home who is, for all practical purposes, a native speaker of Manx, which he learned in part from his childhood, in part from Ned Maddrel himself, and in part with other Manx speakers he met throught the course of his life. This man also passed the language on to many others, including (iirc) children who learned to speak it natively from him. Thus the chain of Manx was arguably never broken... but that depends on how you view this.

Anybody who knows more about Henry Jenner may be able to tell us whether or not he was a native, and if he passed the language on to children.

Love,

Node

The linguistic sources indicate that Dolly was the last native speaker of Cornish. Several general and linguistic encyclopaedias I checked also attest to that fact. When the language has no native speakers, it dies, according to modern linguistics. The fact that it was carried on later as a second language, preserved in place names and numbers, and is being revived doesn't change that fact.

This atricle is written in an extremely biased tone. Can you please state scholarly sources that prove that Dolly was not the last native speaker of Cornish? -- AV

Firstly, a number of children I know personally are native speakers, i.e. they have been taught Cornish from birth, and speak it principally. Secondly, the Dolly Pentreath story is actually incorrectly stated in most sources: the belief was that she was the last native monoglot speaker; she actually spoke a little English so she is disqualified on that count; the last native monoglot Cornish speaker was Chesten Marchant who died in 1676. William Bodinar, who died in 1789 also spoke Cornish but not as a native. Cornish was effectively extinct from about 1750 to 1904 when Henry Jenner published A Handbook for Cornish, although the language was still spoken in part by many inhabitants. Furthermore, the Daveys, pere et fils were also fluent Cornish speakers (although it is not known whether they were native speakers) and the son did not die until 1891.

Here is some primary source evidence for you from Bodinar, written in July 1786, in both English and Cornish:

"My age is 65. I am a poor fisherman. I learnt Cornish when I was a boy. I have been to sea with my father and 5 other men in the boat, and have not heard one word of English spoke in the boat for a week together. I never saw a Cornish book. I learnt Cornish going to sea with old men. There is not more than 4 or 5 in our town can talk Cornish now, old people 80 years old. Cornish is all forgot with young people."

This kind of buries the Pentreath myth for me if Bodinar is to be believed, and I see no reason why this should be questioned.

As for bias, well, yes, I admit that the Cornish language is a subject which is dear to my heart. sjc

Well, as you say, "Cornish was effectively extinct from 1750 to 1904". That means it died. The language dies when it is no longer transmitted from parents to children as their native language. I don't know why you feel you have to label it as a "myth" and try to debunk it. You speak of the revival; but one revives something dead, not something alive. The Cornish language was dead, and now it's in a process of revival, with a small number of native speakers. There's nothing to be ashamed in that and there's no need to deny it. The revived version of Cornish is bound to get some aspects of Cornish as it was actually spoke wrong -- for instance, intonation and some aspects of phonology are almost always lost in such circumstances. There's nothing to be ashamed there either - it's just lignuistic reality. --AV

There are similar oddities or differences in Modern Spoken Hebrew - a language which had not been used as an everyday speech for a L-O-O-O-N-G time. That doesn't necessarily mean the language was "dead." Please remember, these uses of "dead" and "revival" are metaphorical. Languages are not living entities. --MichaelTinkler

Yes, I know about that (I'm actually a speaker of Modern Hebrew). It's linguistically accurate to say that Hebrew was dead, and then it was revived. The uses of "dead" and "revival" are metaphorical, but they may at the same time be scientifically accurate, without any contradiction. This is in fact the case with the (reasonably) accurate definitions of what it means for a language to be dead or to be revived, which are used by linguists.

The point is, any language without native speakers may be called 'dead' with equal justification, be it Latin, Hebrew or Cornish (until the recent revival attempts which produced a small number of native speakers of the "new" Cornish). The article refers to the accurate description of the state of Cornish as a "myth" which is to be debunked. --AV

No, the article deals with the Cornish language and touches on the Doll Pentreath myth; the story is, as the article indicates, based upon conjecture. The fact remains that Cornish as a language was not actively in use for a hundred years or so.

How do we know that Ms Pentreath was the last native speaker? Hearsay and at best tertiary sources, many of which are controverted by a number of primary sources. Just because a few encyclopedias and other tertiary sources are apathetic enough to recycle a piece of conjecture, does this mean that we have to treat it as gospel?

Let us therefore bury this one for all time. This is the evidence:

Dolly Pentreath (who more accurately is called Dorothy Jeffery due to her marriage) was a fish-wife of Mousehole who was a bit of a character, and who I think we will accept died on 27th December 1777. There is plenty of primary source evidence for this. She was reputed to have been 102 years old. This is uncheckable since her birth is anterior to any extant records.

There is no direct evidence that she spoke Cornish as a native; moreover she also spoke a considerable amount of English. There is the uncomfortable Bodinar letter (op.cit), which definitely contradicts the fact that she was the last Cornish speaker. Some sources, in fact, indicate that she spoke very little Cornish at all. There is also the tombstone at Zennor church to John Davey: 'the last to possess any traditional considerable knowledge of the Cornish Language'; the claims for Davey may be inflated yet nevertheless he was known to have some knowledge of the language as a native speaker, as did his father. There was no definitive 'last speaker'; just a larger than life local character who has been mythologised. sjc

Well, Latin was a living language well into the 1960s, and is the process of being revived at certain (admittedly minority) seminaries and monastic establishments. I know two men who heard all their graduate coursework lectures and wrote their dissertations in Latin, and both are still themselves teaching (one at Georgia State Univesity and one at the University of Tennessee). It certianly wasn't classical Latin, but it was a recognizable descendent thereof. --MichaelTinkler

BBC News (Spotlight SouthWest) today indicated that the UK government is to officially recognise Cornish as a minority language. sjc

What about adding references to some of the pre-1660 texts we have in Cornish? Not many people know that they even exist--there's the Cornish "mystery" cycle of plays, and the "new" plays discovered in a medieval manuscript in 2002, and I believe there's a complete Bible--I'll look this up is some contacts me / wants me too.

Also some "References" would be helpful--the more who learn Cornish, the better off the langauge will be. DigitalMedievalist 04:36, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC) Lisa

It's very strange - and somehat amusing - that people still get caught up in a conceptual tangle about Cornish. The fact is that it's THERE: the task of the scholar is to find out how it got there, what it's like, and how it works. I'm always puzzled as to how people who insist that it's not there work themselves up into such a tiz about something which they insist doesn't exist. TSS

Be cautious about the "three mutations" story in Welsh. It depends how you count mutations and whether you count them the same way in each language. Welsh "soft mutation" has two variants for different situations (ll/rh being left in one form and mutated in the other). The "three mutations" is based on the way the language is taught not neccessarily on a strict linguists count. - Alan

My main objection to the article is that two-thirds of it are about very recent efforts to revive the Cornish language. Which is fine - it's a hobby for a few ethusiasts. Still I think that an article on Cornish should reflect on the actual meaning, use, and distribution of a language. And that will get completely distorted when two-thirds of the article are taken up by a discussion on rather recent (and I would opine: rather artificial and very marginal) efforts to revive a dead language, while the actual historical and linguistic facts get pushed to the margins. It's a good thing that there are enthusiast for such matters. But articles here, in an encyolopedia, should defintively reflect a more objective perspective. There's enough space elsewhere on the web for special pleading.

The state of the Cornish language today is part of the "actual meaning, use, and distribution" of the language, and it seems that people are interested in it. If you think the article should contain more information about the history and linguistics of Cornish then perhaps you should add it yourself rather than winge about other people writing about what they're interested in. It's perfectly possible to write about the Cornish revival in an objective and factual way, and I think the article does that, more or less.

At the end of a section that seems to describe four versions of Cornish, the article currently says "Each of these three systems has its proponents". Presumably two of the four versions are in fact subversions of the same version, but which two? Could someone please clarify the text?

Language politics

For the rest of us, the most interesting aspect would be the politics behind this. Cornish republicans? Anti-centrists? Anti-EU? Isolationist? Anti-intellectual? Anti-immigrant? This aspect is essential and needs its own subheading. Wetman 07:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you mean "Why Cornish?", it is a question of identity for most speakers, not a question of politics. Certainly none of the questions you have asked. If you mean "Which Cornish?" for which see above. Evertype 23:12, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

I'd say it is politics, in that people's identity is bound up with that, but it isn't politics defined as anti-anything. Cornish nationalism is on the rise (no I don't have a source, hence why I'm not writing it in article space), but not just as anti-English, and certainly not just to be anti-EU, anti-intellectual, anti-immigrant. Some (maybe many) forms of it may include these elements, but the basic movement is simply people starting to identify themselves as Cornish again, and giving that label a real meaning. Go to the tourist towns and they have as many Cornish flags as English and Unions, look at the graffiti and it's the cross of St Piran. 57.66.51.165 15:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Number of speakers

I see that "3,500" is quoted widely as being the number of speakers of modern Cornish, not just here. I was just wondering where the figure comes from and if anyone had any information on perhaps exact figures and distribution of these speakers- does the figure include those outside of Cornwall who speak the language or just those in the Duchy? Dewrad 17:04, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

University courses

I have added it to the main article, but I thought I would mention it here too - Students can study the Cornish language not only at the University of Exeter, but also in the department of Welsh at the University of Wales, Lampeter, as of next academic year. See the link here Twrist 12:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fishermen counting

"Fishermen, for example, were counting fish in the Cornish language into the 1940s."

This appears to be analgous with the Cumbric language, which has 'Although the language is long extinct it appears traces of its vocabulary persisted into the modern era. In the 19th and 20th centuries sheep counts and children's counting rhymes which are possibly derived from Cumbric were collected throughout northern England: eg Yan, Tan, Tethera, Methera, Pim compared to Old Welsh "Un, Dou, Tri, Petwar, Pimp".' Morwen - Talk 11:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Couple of new links added

Bretagne 44 Bretagne 44 13:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Less dishonesty, please

I reverted the usual unsubstantiated "Kernewek Kemmyn users are 95% of the Revival". But I could not believe the audacity when I saw the changes that had been made to the article about the publication of the New Testament. Nicholas Williams' Testament Noweth was published at Easter 2002, two years before Syed and Edwards' translation, yet the person who edited it (John11) simply lied, in order to make it look as though Kernowek Kemyn was better than it is. Shame on you, John11. Evertype 12:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Inaccurate map

(The following is a duplicate of comments I made here: Talk:Scottish_English#Inaccurate_map.)

The following map has been applied to the English English page, and to Scottish English:

It appears to have one major flaw, and several quibbles:

Where on earth is the Scots language? Its ommission seems particularly inappropriate considering the debt owed to Scots by Scottish English. Somewhat bizarrely, only one dialect of Scots is included, and that is the tiny number of Ulster Scots speakers, only about 2% of all Scots-speakers! I know that the map is titled "Selected languages", but it is baffling why the only language the auther has "selected" not to include is Scots!
Why on earth have two distinct languages, Scottish Gaelic language and Irish language, been shown as a homogenous blob?
Highland English is missing: another rather stark absence on this Scottish English page.
Why are several subdivisions of English English shown, but only two of Scottish English? The differences between the Fife dialect and Aberdonian are just as big, if not bigger, than the differences between Brummie and Yorkshire dialect.
Where on earth did Shetland go? A stunning ommission, considering that it is one of the most distictive linguistic groups in the entire British Isles?

I find it very depressing to hear that a German textbook publisher wants to use it in textbooks for 600 schools. No wonder many people grow up with a very strange perception of the language situation in the United Kingdom.--Mais oui! 10:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

2005 Conference

Can we please put a stop to this pathetic reverting back and forth? Can we actually see some evidence either way, please- rather than unsubstantiated speculation or anecdotal evidence? "Being there" is just anecdotal evidence, as is "having heard" something. This is supposed to be a factual article, not propaganda for either UCR or KK! Dewrad 21:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Examination of the official list of attendees suggests that at least half were known KK supporters. Of the remainder, a good few had no Cornish at all. Perhaps next time we'll all have have a t-shirt to wear, then there will be no doubt! Mongvras 22:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Cornish in Mexico

The Mexico article (in the "Language" section) states that there are still Cornish-speaking decendants of immigrants in Hidalgo. Does anyone know anything more about this. If so, it would make an interesting article addition. aliceinlampyland 16:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

Strongly doubt it! Almost any verifiable fact about the Cornish language tends to be widely trumpeted within the revival community, so I doubt I'd have failed to hear this before if it were true. Maybe they mean English-speaking descendents of Cornish miners? Quartier Latin1968 15:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the Mexico article has to be amended. Anyone willing to do this? (I don't know enough about the matter to 100% rule out the posibility of C. speakers in M., so I won't edit.) Bab

Vowels

The table for short vowels currently lists three low and near-low vowels: /æ, a, ɒ/ (I presume these to be phonemes not phones). I wonder what the attribution is for this. I know Ken George only recognises one such short vowel for Middle Cornish (conventionally /a/), and I'm pretty sure Iwan Wmffre recognises only one for Late Cornish... Does Nicholas Williams recognise more? (Perhaps an argument could well be sustained that Lhuyd's ~~<a> and~~ <ɐ> represented a different phoneme from <o> [at least in Late Cornish], but what about /æ/?) Quartier Latin1968 15:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, when I figure out how to do tables on Wiki, I could set out the vowel system as reconstructed for Middle Cornish by Ken George, on which Kernewek Kemmyn is based. Basically there are a maximum of nine vowel phonemes although some of the contrasts are neutralised e.g. in short or unstressed vowels. Trouble is it would almost certainly be vandalised by the opposing factions so why bother? Mongvras 02:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Opposing factions! We're all trying to revive the same language. :-) Anyway, surely nobody can have a problem if we make no pretense of having the One Ultimate Truth, and just say, look, here's the vowel phonemes according to Williams, here's what they are according to George, here's what they are according to Jenner. (Footnotes would even allow you to do that without multiple tables – for example, we could add /o:/ with a footnote saying Williams believes this merged with /ɔ:/ early, George believes it merged late.) Quartier Latin1968

16:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

John Boson

The link needs disambiguating. Here it refers to John Boson (1700-25??) of Newlyn, the son? or Nicholas Boson (1660-1700+??), notable for producing some of the few documents in Late Cornish. (See The Cornish Writings of the Boson Family O. J. Padel (Ed), Institute of Cornish Studies, Redruth, Cornwall, 1975 ISBN 0 903686 09 0). At present the link point to another John Boson entirely. Mongvras 14:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've known about that for awhile, but haven't done anything with it since the real John Boson may not be notable enough for English Wikipedia's standards. Should we rename our John Boson John Boson (antiquary)? or perhaps John Boson (non-cabinet maker), hehe? (In kw, as you may have noticed, Mongvras, I've copped out by making him a redirect to Teylu Boson.) Quartier Latin1968

05:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a copout at all, probably the best solution. There's so little hard fact about the Bosons Nicholas, Thomas and John and afaik none are notable except for Cornish, but within Cornish they are very notable having between them reputably supplied perhaps half the Late Cornish texts we have. There was an historian in Australia I think (Cornish family) who was researching as far as he could the various characters associated with the Newlyn School and Late Cornish. Hmm, should we set up a stubs for The Newlyn School and/or Late Cornish and redirect ALL the individuals there Bosons and others (like Keigwyn and Wella Rowe)? Mongvras 18:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

cornish speakers elsewhere

I Don't know if anyone has deleted the thing about mexico yet but if that was true it would be pretty remarkable and I think we would have heard. With regards also to Cornwall being changed to Devon and cornwall in the sentence 'people in many areas of cornwall did not speak english': I've removed this because I cannot find any evidence that this was the case ( ie many monoglot speakers of cornish in devon at this point) . I've seen reports that there might have been a few cornish speakers in areas of devon later than expected, but I think even that is debatable so I feel that the previous sentence really gave the wrong impression. Indeed one of the qoutes about cornish speakers east of the tamer seems to come from jenner and Morton-Nance later reported that he would have retracted it.

I certainly think the history section should be expanded a bit more before we start including more shakey ideas like this and cornish speakers abroad.

131.111.8.102

You shouldn't remove something because you can't find the history of it nor should it be removed because it hasn't been cited as then everything would need a reference and Wikipedia wouldn't work to the level that it has. There were speakers of the Cornish language in Devon at the time to which the history refers. You must remember that this article is about the language, not the county. You are doing a great disservice to British history to remove Cornish speakers from Devon. If I had the time, I would go and find the sources and perhaps soon I shall. In the mean time I will revert to including Devon in this piece and will continually do so whenever I visit this page if you have added again your POV. Also, I hardly think that Devon justifiably fits into 'Cornish speakers elsewhere' 130.195.86.38 20:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I can recall reading that there were Brythonic speakers in Devon at the time in question. I will try to find this quote to provide a reference for this page. Enzedbrit 19:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The only place I have read anything suggesting cornish speaking in devon contuning anywhere near this long was a website which made other claims which I was able to varify as untrue. All the sources, (eg. books) suggest cornish speaking in devon would have died out around athelstans time. One source I have heard qouted originated from henry jenner, which he apparently withdrew.I cannot of course be entirely sure that there aren't any references to conrish speakers in devon at this time. However from my reading in this area i am fairly sure I would have heard of this. It does not seem to be the orthodox view tha there were cornish speakers in devon at this time and as such I think this would count as original research and not encyclopedic. Indeed from my knowledge it wuold seem fairly riduculous that there were monoglot cornish speakers in devon at this time, the general view being that it died out hundreds of years earlier. I have heard suggestions of some extended survival, and I am open minded on this but this would still seem like orginal research to me.

There is also the matter of a number of people trying to inflate evidence 'celtic' history in Devon, which I have seen online producing a number of false, misunderstood or exaggeratted statements. This also includes a number of mimickries of cornish nationalism. As far as I can see, the continuation of cornish speaking in devon is something that should be looked into academically if it hasn't already. I ought to warn wiki'ers not to take their references from such sites without checking elsewhere as I have been reliably informed by such people that the cornish flag was invented in the 60's by nationalists (despite its collection by an antiquitarian in the 1800's).

I've looked at some of these celtic devon sites, which talk about the language and there are no definite references there, which would be the very place I would expect to trumpet any evidence quite clearly. It is not just that I cannot find references to this history, but rather that this IS something that is doubtful and certainly not a commonly held view. I still think this reference should be moved into cornish speakers elsewhere or something. And as cornish is listed as a language spoken in the region of corniwall (as i think it is recognised by th EU) devon would be elsewhere. (WM) 131.111.8.104

Have edited the prayer book rebellion section, it is a very significant event if one looks at the number of cornish speakers (setimate obviously.) I think it is NJ williams who has re lookd at ken goerges estimates of speakers but need to check. Also have again removed the 'many people in devon and cornwall spoke only cornish'. I see a reference in edits to someone referring to something like this as a 'devon hating cornish nationalist', i don't know if this is in reference to my edit. However I'm not a 'devon hating cornish nationalist' and i have changed this because there is no evidence that there were cornish monoglots in devon at this time. Indeed for many of the references to devon in this article i would like to see some primary evidence. Including, I am not sure that ken goerge looked at cornish speakers outside of cornwall when calculating his estimates of speaker numbers. I have had a browse around and can't find ay accurate info. However seen as the continuation of cornish in devon is very debatable (no matter what certain celtic obsessed devonians might wish) I would think this extremely unlikely.

131.111.8.97

Comparison Table

Looking at the Comparison table, when Cornish is compared to English/Welsh/Breton etc, I have a minor issue with the welsh words used. For 'to Smoke', the Welsh word most people would use, correct or not is ysmygu, not simply 'mygu', which seems to be used merely to fit in with the table with regard to similarity. Also for 'pear' - while the gellygen might be the correct literature word, 'peren' is the word used by the vast majority of speakers in everyday use. GarethRhys 13:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to change it. With regard to gellygen seems straightforward. With regard to ysmygu, is this possibly an inflected form, i suppose you'd have to check the words in the other languages to see if they are inflected too. - FrancisTyers 14:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ordinalia

The Ordinalia - A Synoptic Website

Bretagne 44 16:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

People raised with Cornish "reverted to English"?

This doesn't seem right to me. "Reverted"? Surely they did not give up speaking Cornish. Though they may use English more often "for practical reasons". Evertype 21:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was a strange phrase too. I kept it in when I edited it as I wasn't sure how else to phrase it and didn't know the situation in detail (As it does suggest that they gave up Cornish all together); the previous version said that they reverted to English 'even though it is less romantic!' --Robdurbar 21:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont see how anyone raised with Cornish can "revert" to English or any other language. Surely one can only revert to a language if it was known/spoken prior to the language from which they are reverting? So a learner of Cornish could revert to English but someone raised with Cornish cannot. siarach 11:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that its just poor English on the part of the original author - I suspect that they wanted a word like converted but couldn't think of the right one. The sentance certainly makes more sense that way Mammal4 12:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"I think that its just poor English on the part of the original author " - maybe their first language was Cornish ;) --Robdurbar 17:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

lol! :) Mammal4 19:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A few people under the age of 30 have been brought up speaking it, but most have reverted to using English as a first language for practical reasons. This sentence to me, at least within the context of the paragraph, sounds as if the speakers in question were brought up to use Cornish as a first language i.e. the one they would speak most naturally, (the one they would swear in instinctively if they hit their thumb with a hammer). This isn't improbable but its not usual and I have never heard of these people. I'm a little suspicious of this because if uses weasel words and doesn't have a reference. This seems to be a sort of soft POV statement that implies that Cornish language revival is further advanced than maybe it is. maybe it is true, I don't know but I can't find anything through my research. I've asked for a citation, but somebody has just removed it - any thoughts? Mammal4 19:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mammal4, you need to listen to what people are saying here, and stop treating the Wikipedia as though it were a term paper to be footnoted on every sentence. There is nothing weasly about saying that I have met children who were raised speaking Cornish. I have met them. I cannot prove that I have met them. I am not going to give you their names or their post-code, though I know their names and their post-code. It is the case that they spoke Cornish as children, and of course they have learned English, and they use English with most everybody they meet, because most people don't speak Cornish. Now why is this difficult for you? What I have taken you to task on is your persitent misuse of the word "revert". A person raised with language X may switch to language Y, but cannot "revert" to language Y. Please stop reinserting this incorrect sentence. Just because you have "never heard of these people" does not mean they do not exist. Evertype 16:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page before I saw this but have pasted the reply here to. To reinerate - I did not put 'reverted' back in on my last edit - please can you check the edit history more closely before you make any accusations

From Evertype's talk page

Yes I agree that revert to English is the wrong phrase to use - that is why I, despite what you say in the edit history, did not put it back in the last time i rv'd it. On the previous edit it was an oversight on my part (I'm sorry!) that 'reverted' went back into the line at the same time as I put the ^{[citation needed]} template that you removed. Please can you tell me why it is unreasonable to ask for a reference for a fact in the article? - we are trying to make the article better and a reference makes the whole thing more solid - I'm sorry that you seem to have taken exception to this. I have put the sentence back the way it was, as it is more concise and encyclopedic. take care Mammal4 16:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

With regards speaking Cornish as a child - my difficulty as you put it, is not with children learning Cornish as children - I too know a few myself (though I couldn't give you their postcodes!) but with the specific phrasing on the sentence in which the statement is written. For such an important point (native Cornish speakers after decades of the language being thought dead) it is far too vague - you can't just say a few people under 30... it needs to be tighter than this. I've found to my cost on Wikipedia that it doesn't matter what you know to be true, but what you can verify that matters; this is an encyclopedia, not a chat in the pub! You have to provide at least something to back this up - there must be a news report or a website that can be used? Mammal4 17:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok - I've just seen your latest change - this reads much better than before as it makes it clear that these people are brought up bilingual, not just to speak Cornish and then having to learn English to communicate with the outside world! Take care Mammal4 17:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mammal4, if you ask for references, there's little point in removing them when someone provides them. Having taken the trouble to look up the figures you asked for in a reliable official source, I was somewhat annoyed when the reference I provided was removed by you. However, I've put it back now. Man vyi 17:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies - I didn't notice that references had been added for the earlier figures between the reverts, and they were squeezed out in error. No offense was meant I just don't have my head screwed on today! Mammal4 17:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Does that reference cover the other figures in that paragraph too? (if so the earlier {{fact}} template on the 3500 figure can be removed also. Mammal4 17:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I just dug up a reference for that particular figure - the 3500 is still unreferenced. Hope your head reverts to screwed-on mode ;) Man vyi 19:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Common phrases

The common phrases are not actually very common. -- Evertype·✆ 22:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Lhuyd

"The linguist Edward Lhuyd, writing in 1702, theorises that the language of this time was heavily inflected, possessing not just the genitive, ablative and locative cases so common in Early Modern Cornish, but also dative and accusative cases, and even a vocative case, although historical references to this are rare." What a load of bunkum. "Theorized"? Ever read Lhuyd? -- Evertype·✆ 01:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Last speaker

In the article, Dolly Pentreath is mentioned as probably being the last fluent native speaker of Cornish. Then follows a list of unsourced speakers that may have lived as long as the early 20th century. I have read some of these claims (19th century Cornish fishermen being able to converse with Bretons, late 19th century Cornish villagers knowing words and phrases of Cornish, etc.) in the literature, but I have never found as much as one credible source. Is it possible that all "last speakers" after Dolly Pentreath are just unproven claims, myths created by 19th century antiquarians? Unoffensive text or character 15:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Glaring contradiction

"Cornish shares about 80% basic vocabulary with Breton, 75% with Welsh, 35% with Irish, and 35% with Scottish Gaelic. By comparison, Welsh shares about 70% with Breton."

What is this trying to prove, and how could someone not have noticed that these two sentences contradict themselves? And how much vocabulary is actually shared with Breton? Grand master ka 21:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How did you conclude that this is a contradiction? The first sentence dictates that Welsh can share anything between 55% and 95% with Breton, depending on how much overlap there is in what they share with Cornish. Joe D (t) 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is further evidence that you should not read and edit articles at 4am. Replace that last "Welsh" with "Cornish" to see what I was reading through sleepy goggles. Grand master ka 08:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

...Except that that edit was in the middle of the day in my time zone. I'm leaving this article and we will never speak of this again. :-0 Grand master ka 09:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Medieval?

there are 3 different spellings of the word medieval on the page. medieval, mediaeval and mediæval. can someone decide on one spelling and make it consistent please

84.13.150.43 15:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted! I have standardized to mediæval (my personal preference, and the commonest in the article as it stood). DuncanHill 12:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"The five languages of the British isles"

There was a small debate going on in comments, which I moved here because discussion should be on talk pages and not in comments.

The preceding sentence, which was fact-tagged, was The language has been officially recognised as one of the five languages of the British Isles.

The comment was:

Which five are these? I count seven with official recognition: English, Welsh, Scots, Scots Gaelic, Irish, Ulster Scots and Cornish. Raynsford's statement below has Cornish as the sixth language recognised under the European Charter. ......... yeah but "Ulster Scots" isn't really a language, it's just spides speaking in a Ballymena accent in a petty "parity of bigotry" tit for tat thing with Irish :) ......... well, that's your opinion (and admittedly a common view), but whatever the linguistic reality, it wouldn't change the fact that it has official recognition, along with the others listed, so the assertion that Cornish "has been officially recognised as one of the six languages of the British Isles" still looks like rubbish to me.

I removed the number "five" from the text because it seemed to be the contentious point, it adds little useful to the sentence, and the sentence works without it. I'd like to add that the use of the term British Isles is also contentious and inflammatory in some cases. Marnanel 13:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The only case where the term British Isles is contentious is that of tedious Irish Nationalists who insist in taking offence at it even it's clear that none is intended. This is the sort of asinine bigotry which has meant that the ficticious Ulster Scotch (sic) is now "officially recognised" as an language. --feline1 13:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, if the Channel Islands are included in the definition of the British Isles, then their indigenous languages would have to be included in the count. Man vyi 13:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly purely a fringe opinion if the ROI government have objected to the term (see footnotes in British Isles). You may believe it to be "asinine bigotry", but NPOV must nevertheless be observed. Marnanel 14:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it really the NPOV for a vocal minority of people in the British Isles to insist on not using the term?--feline1 15:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your question: how can someone's insistence on doing or not doing something be or not be a point of view? A point of view is a way of seeing or describing the world, not an action. Wikipedia, on the other hand, does present a point of view and it is required to be a neutral one. Whether the majority of people in the islands use one term or another is entirely beside the point, as is whether people preferring one term or another are "vocal", whatever you mean by that. Besides, as I said above, it's hardly a fringe opinion since it's the stated policy of one of the two states that govern the islands. Marnanel 16:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Cornish Language Partnership

This article does not mention the Cornish Language Partnership (?established 2004?). See:Cornwall County Council website-Cornish Language Partnership and MAGA Kernow = Partnership website Does any editor more knowledgable than me want to add a paragraph? === Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 21:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It will surely evolve into a flame war. -- Evertype·✆ 10:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If this risk is a reason for not updating an article, then a lot of the value of WP will be lost. ====

I have made an attempt. I believe my description is balanced. Please watch the page for vandalism. -- Evertype·✆ 09:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks uncontentious to me. Need to update this para

"Officials will be starting discussions with Cornwall County Council and Cornish language organisations to ensure the views of Cornish speakers and people wanting to learn Cornish are taken into account in implementing the Charter."

, from the section on European recognition.Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 18:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

UCR

Recorrected verb tenses in respect of statements about UCR. It was very much a one-man band, and Nicholas Williams has, in any event, helped create the 'Kernowak' project which, purportedly, will replace UCR anyway. This ia a matter of public record, and so there is no point in Evert's constant denials (unless, of course, he claims that UCR is a going concern in the Bishop of Woolwich's 'real sense'. Whathojeeves 21:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted Mr Saunders' POV statements. He said It never gained more than a handful of adherents, and has been abandoned by its creator in favour of an as-yet undefined 'Fifth Form' called 'Kernowak' which is even more eccentric in it's use of diacritics and includes many confusing parallel forms in an attempt to encompass both Middle and Late Cornish grammar and usage. Now "handful of adherents" is not supported; the first edition of the dictionary sold 500 copies and the second is still available. Williams has not "abandoned" UCR. He has said he is willing to do so for the good of the language. Kernowak Standard is a proposed Fifth form, which is by no means "undefined"; its specification is in fact very precise. Its [sic] use of diacritics is not "eccentric" and it has literary and colloquial forms just as Welsh does sot hat is hardly "confusing". Basically Saunders is attacking UCR, and this does not belong in a Wikipedia article. -- Evertype·✆ 22:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We need an investigation into the ideological underpinnings of Authenticism. There are copious materials, and so it will have to be a collective effort. Whathojeeves

The ideological underpinnings? For twenty years people have rejected KK because it abandons traditional orthographic forms which they feel are important. -- Evertype·✆ 22:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

But most users of Revived Cornish think otherwise. What right to you have to oppose them? Mongvras 03:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Most" is unsubstantiated, and in a population of 500 means little in any case. What right have you to tell people who prefer traditional orthography that they must use George's invention? -- Evertype·✆ 07:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Evertype

Michael Everson has published most of the books in or promoting Nicholas Williams' UCR version of Cornish. This version has no real following and is probably now obsolete. Nevertheless Mr. Everson seems to be using this page to promote his business. That is he's desperate to shift his stock before the Commission rules in favour of a different form. Is this permitted? N.b. Everson has a track record of trying to use Wikipedia for self-promotion, beginning with him writing an article about himself which came close to being deleted -- see discussion there. Mongvras 22:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Good gods, Keith, you must be desperate in your fear that KK will not be selected as SWF. Yes, I publish books in support of UCR. The English-Cornish dictionary, for instance. The three volumes in criticism of KK and the volume in criticism of the Kesva. Do I make money on Cornish? Not at all. Am I desperate to "shift my stock" if the Commission rejects UC, RLC, KK, and UCR? No, I am not. I would willingly remainder all the UCR dictionaries at £1.00 if the Commission were to reject all four orthographies, UC, RLC, KK, and UCR and choose a Fifth Form. None of my edits on Cornish topics have to do with any interest on my part in book sales. I would throw them on a pyre! My interest in the Fifth Form is informed by my care for the Cornish language. I will willingly sacrifice all of my previous investment (such as it is) if the result is an authentic and "phonemic" orthography. Your comments about UCR having "no following" and being "obsolete" are just silly. And your attack on the Wikipedia article about me... well, you just don't know what you're on about. In fact the article has been proposed for deletion TWICE, and TWICE the decision was to keep the article, because it has been edited by many editors, because what I do (for many minority languages including Cornish) is notable and the WIki community has seen fit to take that on board. So, referring to your real agenda, Keith, I'm one of those "notable" people who reject KK because it is bad linguistically for the Cornish Revival. Leave your sour grapes at home. -- Evertype·✆ 22:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There you go Michael, concise as always. When it comes to blowing one's own trumpet there's none better. Up for deletion TWICE hey? And WE (Cornish Language people) had nothing whatever to do with either case. At least it's nice to know that other people find you a pain in the backside too. Mongvras 03:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That bouncy castle on the Isles of Scilly is still waiting, mong-vras...--feline1 11:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your stupid mockery is not appreciated. You appear to know nothing whatever about this issue which afaik does not concern you. Why then stir up an already difficult situation? Are you another of Michael's rent-a-mob? Restoring a language is a very very hard task. Building up credibility takes a long long time, 100 years in the case of Cornish. We have come from extinct to endangered and are about to get some serious funding and recognition at long last. But of course whenever you introduce money into a situation that has previously been volountary, you can guarantee a fight, that I'm afraid seems to be human nature. Do you know how many of the world's languages are endangered? Do you give a stuff?? This is a far more important issue than it might seem at first sight. But yes very easy to mock. Mongvras 01:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Keith, you're the one stirring things up with your POV edits. You insist on unsubstantiated text involving "handfuls of UCR users", "eccentric spellings" and so on. The Kesva has lost its credibility, and you are certainly no credit to the Kesva. Restoring a language is difficult, no more so when one group involved in the Revival (KK) reviles all of the other groups. Your tactics are transparent. One may only hope the Commission does as it should... reject the four current forms as none of them can attract consensus, and direct us to work together on a fifth form. (I do know a lot about endangered languages. George and his acolytes are the ones endangering the Revival.) -- Evertype·✆ 07:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply representing the status quo, it's your friends who seek to dismantle the work of the last 20-odd years, just so that a few tired academics can be kings of the (bouncy?) castle. You have a personal interest in this, and you continually seek to censor any edits that go against those interests. There is no evidence that UCR/KS has ever had more than half-a-dozen active users. Sales of William's dictionary do not equate to uptake of his orthography. Most people I imagine will buy it because it's in the shops, or just out of curiosity, or to see the eight new words for wanking that he's apparently invented, etc. Good business for you of course, as publisher. Mongvras 00:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Bouncy Castle. Note the good advice it is giving.

Unoffensive text or character 12:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't "represent the status quo". -- Evertype·✆ 10:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That'd never do, you'ld never get agreement on how to translate "Take a break". I would love to learn Cornish, but with all the silly, petty, squabbling and bitching and backstabbing and one-upmanship I really can't be bothered. Yours, very disillusioned, DuncanHill 12:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

But then, on a second thought, are you sure it says "take a break"? It might say "take a breath" (before you continue clubbing each other with smoked makerels) or "take a bread" (eg. a baguette to club each other to death with). Or even "take a bream" (if you haven't got a smoked makerel handy).Unoffensive text or character 13:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In Irish one says "tóg sos" 'take a rest'. -- Evertype·✆ 13:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose a Cornish translation (any variety will do) is too much to ask? DuncanHill 08:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

From Mr. Everson, far far too much I'm afraid. Mongvras 00:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Your rudeness is staggering. I note you didn't propose anything either. For the record, none of the dictionaries gives anything for "take a break" but powes pols 'rest a little while' might be suitable. -- Evertype·✆ 10:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Cornish Language Partnership, through their on-line translation request facility at www.magakernow.org.uk suggest the following translations -

Deskidn ha powaz Modern Cornish

Prys powes Common Cornish

Heth pols! Unified Cornish

Hedh pols! Unified Cornish Revised

I hope editors find this useful. DuncanHill 10:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ydh hevel del dhallethas ann gwas truan gwelez olyfanzeuz gwynnrudh woze eva ry a ... p'ann dra? Anvi styllyz? Whathojeeves 23:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Grammar Section

The grammar section needs significant expansion, is anybody prepared & sufficiently knowledgeable to do this? To refer users to the article on Welsh is highly unsatisfactory. DuncanHill 13:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Temptasyon lyrics

Hi everyone. The song 'Temptasyon' by the Mediaeval Baebes uses Cornish, but I cannot speak it, and I know there is more to the song than that which was in the lyrics. It sounded like "ith sumu noth in fagan dwys gothres nay be in sum a sees agan tas-ny us yn nef.." I would appreciate any help on the Cornish you could give. Thanks in advance!! --JamesR1701E 23:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Misconception of people in support of the Cornish language

Hello all, i am currently attempting to get 'pow Saws' recognised as a name on the England article. I am receiving some (albeit friendly) resistence, which leads me to believe that people who support the preservation and promotion of the Cornish language are often stimitized as anti-English or Cornish seperatists.

I do not know how many Cornish speakers have those beliefs (i presume quite a few), but would suggest to anyone reading that not everyone in support of the language fit into this stereotype, nor are they having an underhanded attempt at pushing nationalist POV on other articles. Cheers. Gazh 12:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

citation/original qoute

In dialects it says; in a qoute from somone else "Risdon, for example, says that the Celtic tongue was spoken throughout the South Hams in Edward the First's time." Does anyone know who the risodon refered to is & whether we could get this qoute directly from him (& presumably a slightly larger qoute) instead? WPM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.48.105 (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

New articles

I have created 3 new articles which may be of interest, John Boson (writer), Nicholas Boson, and Thomas Boson. They are quite stubby at the moment, if anyone can expand them I would be grateful! DuncanHill 22:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Day of Infamy

So there we have it. We thought we'd made our decision twenty years ago. Unfortunately the system chosen, has not proved to be everyone's cup of tea, far from it. The overwhelming majority of Cornish-speakers in Cornwall aren't perfectly happy with the way the system currently is, too many arguments and personal attacks. We can't carry on each of us spell Cornish in our particular way. Kemmyn, or Kebmyn or Kemyn or whatever. Seriously, though: the net effect would be even more effective than a book-burning if we don't act now to work together. An entire cultural heritage would be destroyed if we don't take this incredible opportunity.

It's going to happen.

WE.DO.WANT.IT.

I don't know how I can put it any clearer.

The Commission have the support of the overwhelming majority of Cornish-speakers.

Without them, all the bets are off.

To Whathojeeves and both anonymous contributors, this page is for discussion about the Cornish language article, not a general forum for chatting about the language itself. Kindly take your discussion to another venue! Thanks, Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Proper Cornish?

I have added the following statement to Wikiquette Alerts:

"Following the publication of advice from the Cornish Language Commission to the Cornish Language Partnership at http://www.magakernow.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=38616 on 13 October 2007, here has been some seriously unwikipedian activity at Talk:Cornish language. Any peace-making available would be much welcomed. Some blocks on unregistered users may be needed and at least one registered rhetorical user needs some firm advice. Until persistent vandalistic behaviour is reduced it will not be possible for the article to be properly updated to an encyclopaedic standard. "

Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 19:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A lot of articles have blocks on unregistered users and perhaps that would be useful here. A question: should some of the changes people made to this Talk page be reverted? I see someone edited something Mongvras wrote in 2005, changing what he said. Bad form. -- Evertype·✆ 07:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Libellous vandalism should be reverted/repaired, yes. Also that bouncy castle is being inflated as we speak.--feline1 08:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Question for Cornish speakers

Hi there, it has been brought to my attention that the Cornish translation on a sign at the image Image:Cornishdanger.jpg is actually perfect Welsh! Could this also be correct Cornish as the two languages are closely related? Many thanks --Joowwww (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

* Yeah, to elaborate on this - the sign says "Perygl marwolaeth, cadwch draw". I tried to track down a couple of the words for similarities, and one site suggests that 'danger' in Cornish is pergl - similar of course, but not the same. In addition, Cadwch is the Welsh impersonal imperative form of cadw ('keep'), and I'd be very surprised if Cornish followed exactly the same pattern.

So I suppose the question is how and why a bi-lingual Welsh-English sign was put up in a sleepy town in Cornwall?!? A slightly mixed-up construction company put it up, perhaps? Sensitive enough to cater for a bi-lingual audience, insensitive enough to not take notice of the language on the sign! :D Rob Lindsey (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Welsh Sign

The "danger sign" is Welsh, not Cornish. Could anybody perhaps replace it with a Cornish sign?? Qatan (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The sign is of danger of electric shock and has been put up all over the place around Falmouth, Cornwall, where electricity is distributed by overhead cables, but in English only. The Company responsible for power distribution is Western Power. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 23:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it until someone can clear this up --Joowwww (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)