|
Post by Peller on Jun 7, 2004 18:32:46 GMT 1
Kemmyn is completely phonemic, however it nearly is which is a lot better than a system that isn't anywhere near.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 10, 2004 18:05:32 GMT 1
shouldn't that be nearly phonemic?
|
|
|
Post by Peller on Jun 10, 2004 18:07:07 GMT 1
Gav Dhymm!
Yes, Kemmyn is completly phonemic but it almost is which makes it easier to learn how to speak it properly although of course not every kemmyn speaker pronounces it according to Ken George's dictionary.
|
|
|
Post by Owain on Jun 15, 2004 22:12:28 GMT 1
No, kemyn is not completely phonetical! So called long vowels are more often than not pronounced as medium length vowels by all speakers. Even Ken George has admitted that he doesn't pronouce the kemyn 'oe' any different than he pronounces 'o'. In the Cornish word 'pup' (every), the 'u' is not pronouced as in French 'tu'. It is the same 'u' as in unified 'cosca' or UCR 'cusca'. It sounds quite near to the Welsh word 'pob'. Kemyn also, allows no room for regional dialects. I started learning Cornish using kemyn, when I switched to UCR, not only was I able to understand traditional Cornish manuscripts much better, but my Cornish improved drastically, as I suddenly found myself learning what looked like a natural language not a computer code. Nicholas William's UCR dictionary shows you when 'u' is pronouced as the French or Welsh 'u' and when it is pronouced as the 'u' in English 'put'. Nicholas William's dictionary also shows which vowels are long or short. Lets face it, Kemyn is nothing but another orthography of Cornish, and just another divide. It is by far the least satisfactory orthography. Best abandoned! Kernowek bys vyken!
|
|
|
Post by Benegys on Jun 16, 2004 18:40:54 GMT 1
actually it is phonemic not phonetic although I must admit I don't understand the difference very well.
As for ease of learning I'm the opposite I started learning UCR and switched to Kemmyn and found that studying Kemmyn I was able to learn quicker and learn to pronounce cornish more accurately, although I would agree that Kemmyn speakers do have a tendency to mispronounce their words, but if you look at the dictionary it clearly states the correct pronounciation even if it isn't followed.
I don't think it should be abandoned, but I do think we need a compromise form that takes the best elements of both UCR and Kemmyn.
|
|
|
Post by Owain on Jun 18, 2004 23:27:52 GMT 1
UCR is a compromise form between Kemyn and Unified.
|
|
|
Post by Bran on Jun 21, 2004 15:28:35 GMT 1
It has been said that the names of UCR and Kemmyn are the wrong way round and that Kemmyn is effectively Unified Cornish Revised and the UCR should be Kemyn.
Interestingly all the debate about which orthography was the best did influence my choice of system to use. I was so pissed off by the negative attitude of the Unified lot that I switched to kemmyn. Such intransient attitudes only cause more problems than they are worth.
My advice is to ignore all the critics and stick to which system you feel comfortable with.
|
|
|
Post by danryan on Jul 18, 2004 23:06:28 GMT 1
Kemmyn is completely phonemic, however it nearly is which is a lot better than a system that isn't anywhere near. Dear Peller, I get the impression you want to say 'Kemmyn ISN'T completely phonemic.' A phonemic orthography means that for each distinctive sound of a given language there is one grapheme (which can consist of a unique symbol or set of symbols). A phoneme - a distincive sound of a language - is usually determined by at least one minimal pair, consider the English short vowels in the following words: "pit, pet, pat, pot, put, putt" We can see that these words are distinguished in meaning by the vowel sound alone meaning that these 6 short vowels are phonemes. So in the strict sense Kernowek Kemyn is not entirely phonemic ragarding the reconstructed phonology of Cornish for 1500. In many cases, especially when treating the unstressed vowels, it replaces the phonemic principle with an historical approach (by distinguishing unstressed <i>, <y> and <u> where Ken George himself says that they were pronounced the same). The danger in the phoneic orthography approach is that actual phonemicity of sounds is very difficult to determine in the absence of traditional native speakers. Oll other Revived Cornish orthographies are normalisations - or standardisations only which indeed rate lower in regards to being phonemic than KK does. Dan
|
|
|
Post by danryan on Jul 18, 2004 23:20:43 GMT 1
[/quote] Interestingly all the debate about which orthography was the best did influence my choice of system to use. I was so pissed off by the negative attitude of the Unified lot that I switched to kemmyn. Such intransient attitudes only cause more problems than they are worth.
My advice is to ignore all the critics and stick to which system you feel comfortable with. [/quote]
I agree that a lot of ground was never gained by the UCR proposal by lack of diplomacy in its introduction. If an atmosphere of co-operation and slow, mild persuasion had dominated the debate which was already flaming up before NJAW devised UCR, it might have eventually found more followers. After all I think it is closer to what Cornish speakers might have expected from a reform in the mid 1980s. But alas it came a little late and now stands next to KK which seems already too well established.
I believe that UCR is the more appropriate orthography for Revived Cornish for the many often cited reasons. KK though not as bad as often portrayed by UCR supporters is too radical a reform of UC. However UC users in the 1980s were given such a feeling of insecurity by academic criticism that they were too easily convinced of the merrits of KK.
One possible compromise that would solve a lot of the points that keep going back and forth in the debate, would be to agree on a reconstructed phonology of Cornish between 1550 and 1600 rather than the KK approach of going for a phonology reconstructed for 1500 (though many distinctions maintained in KK go back to an even earlier date).
Today I settle for diversity. I think we should simply accept that Revived Cornish has at least three spelling systems and we ought to aim for the greater good of the Cornish language revival by accepting the three forms and their various sub-forms as equal and good. It would be nice to have a magazine like An Gannas or An Gowsva publishing in all three forms. By doing that exposure to the various forms would further mutual comprehension.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by danryan on Jul 18, 2004 23:37:20 GMT 1
[quote author=Guest-Benegys
I don't think it should be abandoned, but I do think we need a compromise form that takes the best elements of both UCR and Kemmyn.[/quote]
Lowena dhys,
Have you thought about what such a compromise might look like? Any ideas? What KK features would you retain and what would you take over from UCR?
Dan
|
|