MIDDLE VERSUS LATE CORNISH
The question of how revived Cornish should be spelt is not merely
a matter or orthography alone. It is also, in theory at least,
a question of pronunciation.
Some of those who have in recent years offered alternatives to
Unified Cornish assumed that Middle Cornish and Late Cornish were
completely different. Unified Cornish was based on Middle Cornish
pronunciation, but the pronunciation of Cornish words surviving
in dialect and place-names was Late Cornish - which was thought
to be radically unlike Middle Cornish. Since such survivals were
naturally regarded as crucial evidence for the pronunciation of
the traditional language and since it was believed that Middle
and Late Cornish were very different, the revival had two choices:
either to use a medieval spelling and pronunciation or a Late
Cornish spelling and a Late Cornish pronunciation. Given that
Late Cornish was closer to our own time than the Middle Ages,
some people recommended Late Cornish as a basis for the revival.
The first person to do so was Jenner. Others, notably Nance, chose
Middle Cornish, on the grounds that the medieval language was
the form in which the bulk of our literature survived. Unlike
some recent revivalists, however, both Jenner and Nance, realised
that the differences between Middle and Late Cornish were largely
matters of spelling.
In the last ten years or so Jenner's insight has been forgotten. The modern proponents of both Middle and Late Cornish believed that the two forms of the language were radically different and that any attempt to amalgamate them would result in an 'unreal alloy with no historical basis' (Gendall). This assumption was, I believe, quite mistaken. The major changes in Cornish took place between Old Cornish (AD 1100) and Middle Cornish (AD 1300). Middle Cornish and Late Cornish shade into one another seamlessly because they are the same language. The differences between Middle Cornish and Late Cornish are very largely a question of spelling. Because both Jenner and Nance realised this, they were both prepared to use Cornish of the Middle and Late periods. This principle of embracing all periods of Cornish I describe as tota Cornicitas . Tota Cornicitas is the principle upon which all our deliberations are based.
�
ALTERNATIVES TO UNIFIED CORNISH
The alternatives to Unified Cornish introduced during the nineteen-eighties
were intended to give Cornish speakers more authentic pronunciations.
Such new sound systems exist in theory only. In practice they
are ignored. All speakers use Unified pronunciation with minor
differences. The new departures of the nineteen-eighties, for
example, the difference between open and closed o (i.e.
Since Unified Cornish is the basis of all forms of revived Cornish,
any attempt to reform the language should start with Unified.
Nothing else is feasible.
�
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
When seeking to revive Cornish, we are attempting to resuscitate
and extinct language. We cannot do anything but use a regularised
variant of the spelling of the texts. Unified Cornish did this,
basing itself on the fifteenth century (Ordinalia and Pascon
agan Arluth). My revision of Unified (Unified Cornish Revised
or UCR) attempts to do the same using a slightly later form of
the language.
There is a crucial point of principle here which cannot be overemphasised.
If we devise a wholly new spelling system, we cannot legitimately
claim to be reviving Cornish. Rather we are inventing a new language
that is to a greater or lesser extent based on our understanding
of the traditional speech. It is clear also that an unhistoric
spelling system encourages revivalists to take liberties with
the language in other ways. If you spell Cornish in a non-traditional
orthography, there is a risk that you will treat the vocabulary
of the language in a similarly cavalier fashion. An artificial
and synthetic orthography tends to subvert the Cornish revival
from within. Indeed its very artificiality has already subverted
the revival.
There is a further risk. By claiming that our new spelling in phonemic, we are giving hostages to fortune. If someone can show that the phonemic analysis is mistaken in whole or part (who does not remember tj and dj?), then the whole construct becomes open to question. Yet if the 'phonemic' system is already well established, people will be unwilling to acknowledge its inauthenticity and even more unwilling to change back to a more authentic system. The 'phonemic' spelling is adopted initially because it is perceived to be authentic. When its claims to authenticity are shown to be less than wholly unjustified, people insist on persevering with it because changing would be too difficult to contemplate. New books would have to be written, exam syllabuses recast, etc. The spelling which was adopted as an improvement, continues in being as a second best - 'warts and all' as one defender put it. Yet persisting with what we know to be inauthentic is like allowing a fatal disease to go untreated. The ultimate consequences will be disaster.
�
LATE CORNISH AS A BASIS FOR THE REVIVAL
If we use Late Cornish (17th and 18th centuries) as our starting
point, we are compelled to ignore the rich Cornish of the sixteenth
and earlier centuries. One should remember that The
Creation of the World (1611) is not Late Cornish, but
Middle Cornish in a late manuscript. The Creation of the World
is more archaic in many ways than Bewnans Meryasek (1504).
Neither is there any logic in making great use of Creation
of the World and Tregear but spelling them as though they
had been written by Nicholas Boson. This is what is being done
by some proponents of Late Cornish othography.
�
UNIFIED CORNISH AND UNIFIED CORNISH REVISED The resons for revising Unified Cornish � Specimens of Unified and Unified Revised Unified Cornish: Rak henna, a vreder aban usy
genen ny dre wos Jesu an fydhyans dhe entra y'n sentry, der an
hens noweth ha bew, a wruk ef ygery dhyn der an vayl (hen yw der
an kyk), hag aban a'gan bus ughel pronter mur a-ugh an chy a Dhew,
geseugh ny dhe nessa gans colon lel ha gans lunfydhyans a fyth
ha'gan colonnow purjys a dhrok-gowsys ha'gan corfow golghys yn
dowr pur. Geseugh ny dhe synsy fast an confessyon a'gan govenek
heb hokkya, rak ef nep re bromysyas yu lel. Geseugh ny kefrys
dhe bredery fatel yllyn ny exortya an yl y gyla the vos kerenjedhek
ha dhe wul oberow da. Na esyn ny ankevy dhe guntell warbarth kepar
del yu certan re usys dhe wul, mes ow confortya an yl y gyla,
the voy ha the voy, pan welough why an jeth ow nessa. Unified Cornish Revised: Rag henna, a vreder aban
usy genen ny dre wos Jesu an fydhyans dhe entra y'n sentry, der
an hens noweth ha bew, a wrug ef egery dhyn der an vayl (hen yw
der an kyg), hag aban a'gan bues uhel pronter muer a-ugh an chy
a Dhew, geseugh ny dhe nessa gans colon lel ha gans luenfydhyans
a fedh ha'gan colonnow purjys a dhrog-gowsys ha'gan corfow golhys
yn dowr pur. Geseugh ny dhe sensy fast an confessyon a'gan govenek
heb hockya, rag ef neb re bromysyas yw lel. Geseugh ny kefrys
dhe bredery fatel yllyn ny exortya an eyl y gela dhe vos kerenjedhek
ha dhe wul oberow da. Na esyn ny ankevy dhe guntell warbarth kepar
del yw certan re usys dhe wul, mes ow confortya an eyl y gela,
dhe voy ha dhe voy, pan welough why an jedh ow nessa. Unified Cornish Revised (<th> for <dh>):
Rag henna, a vreder aban usy genen ny dre wos Jesu an fythyans
the entra y'n sentry, der an hens noweth ha bew, a wrug ef egery
thyn der an vayl (hen yw der an kyg), hag aban a'gan bues uhel
pronter muer a-ugh an chy a Thew, geseugh ny the nessa gans colon
lel ha gans luenfythyans a feth ha'gan colonnow purgys a throg-gowsys
ha'gan corfow golhys yn dowr pur. Geseugh ny the sensy fast an
confessyon a'gan govenek heb hockya, rag ef neb re bromysyas yw
lel. Geseugh ny kefrys the bredery fatel yllyn ny exortya an eyl
y gela the vos kerengethek ha the wul oberow da. Na esyn ny ankevy
the guntell warbarth kepar del yw certan re usys dhe wul, mes
ow confortya an eyl y gela, the voy ha the voy, pan welough why
an jeth ow nessa.
The Tregear manuscript (ca 1555) was not known when Nance devised
Unified Cornish and could not have been used by Nance. Tregear
is by far the longest text we have - longer in fact than all three
Ordinalia plays put together. Given that it is in prose too, it
seemed to me sensible to base a revision of Unified Cornish on
Tregear's Cornish, using Bewnans Meryasek and The
Creation of the World to fill any gaps. Where further gaps
exist, Pascon agan Arluth and the Ordinalia can be used
by invoking the principle of Tota Cornicitas.
It is true that Unified Cornish spelling and its revision Unified
Cornish Revised are not wholly based on the traditional texts.
There are two points of spelling which separate both from the
medieval and Tudor texts: 1) Both use as in English breathe, smooth,
lithe, etc. We could follow the texts here and use
everywhere. If we did, byth 'ever' and bydh 'will
be', for example, would be indistinguishable in writing, though
different in pronunciation. Although I somewhat reluctantly recommend
using for both the voiceless and voiceless
th-sound, even though such a spelling would make Cornish
harder to learn (see Clappya Kernowek 14-15, 179 and 182).
Revising Unified Cornish to produce Unified Cornish Revised seemed
to me necessary because there were aspects of Unified Cornish
that could not be reconciled what we know of the phonology of
Cornish. In particular 1) Unified Cornish fails to distinguish
between y and ey, e.g. in gwyth 'keeping'
and gweyth 'work'; 2) it does not distinguish the �
of a d�s 'O men' from the � of dues
'come!'; 3) Unified Cornish is inconsistent with respect to p/b
and k/g in words like map/mab 'son' and rak/rag
'for'; 4) Unified Cornish prefers uncommon variants to commoner
ones, e.g. mynnaf rather than mannaf and cafos
rather than cafus.
My revision of Unified Cornish is firmly rooted in Unified Cornish.
It therefore represents continuity with the revived language since
the nineteen-twenties. It is based on the texts and introduces
nothing artificial. It does not make false and unwarranted distinctions
where none exist. On the other hand it attempts to remove those
few parts of Unified Cornish which can be definitely shown to
be inauthentic.
Although Unified Cornish Revised like Unified itself uses
Here finally for comparison is a short passage from my translation
of the New Testament (Hebrews x 19-25), in 1) Unifed Cornish;
2) Unified Cornish Revised; 3) Unified Cornish Revised with
for