Talk:Cornish language

Number of speakers

Hi, we've had an IP editor continue to say there are 3,500 people fluent in everyday conversation in the language. The source cited in the table gives only 840 at best (as far as I can see - it wasn't easy to open). While I'm not arguing with the potential numbers involved, it would be good to stick to some kind of reliable source and report what that says. Everything else is OR. If we want to big this one up we'd be better off saying that around 800 people are fluent and 3-5,000 people have some knowledge of speech. I've reverted the change again (even though it now says 2,000 - also higher than the citation). Cherz Stevebritgimp (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not exactly a reliable reference; it doesn't give any official accounts, only "impressions" of numbers by language groups and activists. --Joowwww (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was :) I just think it's a bit mental saying 'x' speakers then citing a source that doesn't say that. We need to find a reliable source. Stevebritgimp (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the reality is that about 800 people have some knowledge of Cornish, some thousands have maybe some few words of Cornish, and about 80 are competent speakers. -- Evertype·✆ 08:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Evertype's estimate seems correct, if a bit conservative, to me. An estimated number of 100-150 fluent speakers has been mentioned to me by a Kowethas officer, but that really seems to be about the extent of it. My own guess would be ca 80-90 speakers of Revived Middle Cornish and ca. 10-15 speakers of Revived Late Cornish. Pokorny (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

My RLC contacts suggest that there are more of them out there. They just don't join groups or participate on the internet. -- Evertype·✆ 22:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the number of speakers to 840, as that is what the reference states (those fluent in everyday conversation). 90.211.80.231 (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If you actually read the reference fully, they put more credibility on a number closer to 245. 75.164.175.181 (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"Today estimates of numbers of speakers can run into several hundred, but speakers of Kemmyn fairly consensually estimated around two hundred effective speakers. Unified Cornish (Revised) claims about 20. Late/Modern Cornish speakers claimed around 25. Numbers in other areas where the language is known to be studied (including those outside the United Kingdom) can only be conjectural." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.175.181 (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The reference used for the number of speakers in the infobox is hopeless. It doesn't say "the number of Cornish speakers is xxx" or even "a survey showed the number of Cornish to be about xxx". What it says is that it is a survey of what people thought the number of Cornish speakers were, at some unspecified time in the past -the most recent date noted is 1999. They even provide a 'health warning' for their results "It should be very strongly cautioned that in terms of reliability these results are merely the aggregation of personal opinions and impressions. They cannot be taken as representative statistics of the present day language situation." i.e. don't use these figures. This isn't definitive, but at least it is explicit. It says (in the final paragraph) "A survey in 2008 found 2,000 people were fluent in Cornish, compared to just 300 in 2000". Are there any objections to updating the infobox using this reference? Daicaregos (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Daicaregos (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I object. No one believes that there are two thousand fluent speakers. I'm reverting that. Your source may be explicit but incorrect. 2,000 people know some Cornish, but the fluent speakers are nowhere near so numerous. The CLP has made recordings of some of the good speakers—about a hundred recordings if I recall. -- Evertype·✆ 13:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It was a bit disappointing that the objection was raised after the change was made, rather than when the request to note any objections was made. Nevertheless, I've now reinstated the number of fluent Cornish speakers as 2000 per WP:RSN#Cornish language. WP:V and WP:RS (& up to date) references will be required to revert. Daicaregos (talk) 10:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this change --Joowwww (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Cornish word for pasty / pastie

Could anybody find the Cornish word for (Cornish) pasty please? — Hippietrail (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It is "pasti". --Joowwww (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll second that! "pasti" Cor. or "pasty" Eng. are both derived from Romance anyway- "pastum". In Modern Italian the word "pasta" can also refer to pastry, pastry being yet another variant of the original Latin root. Brythonek (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed all of "pasta", "paste", "pastie", "pastry", "pasty", "pâté", and "patty" are used in English for various things and all go back to the same one Latin source term.

But what about "tiddy oggie" (and variants)? Is this just modern English slang or does it go back to an old Cornish word for pasty? I have seen both "hogan" and "hoggan" given as the Cornish origin for the modern colloquial term. Does either spelling occur in old Cornish sources or dictionaries? — Hippietrail (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay... "tiddy" and "teddy" are dialect words for potatoes, compare with Welsh "tatties" etc. As for "oggin/oggie" etc, it is still a bit of mystery as the word "oggin" in Cornish dialect usually means "the sea", so there doesn't seem to be a connection there. The Cornish Balmaidens, mine girls, used to bring the pasties to the mines for their husbands and shout "Oggy, oggy, oggy", to which the miners would shout back "oi, oi, oi" hence the origin of this "call". I will have a look and see if I can find and explanation for the "oggie" part. Brythonek (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

'Hoggan' comes from 'Hog' the word for pig/pork. Simples ;) --Talskiddy (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Brythonek. It was my belief that "Oggie" was used as slang for pasty because its sound carried better and was more easily discernible through the tunnels than "Pasti", you know everything else I know about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.128.33 (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought of that as a possibility but it doesn't make sense. The Cornish word for pig is indeed hogh, pl. hoghes so we only have a narrow similarity with the word "hoggan", and anyway the dialect word is "oggy" or "oggin". The second point, I may be wrong on this, but I certainly never have heard of or eaten :) a pork pasty. Variants on traditional pasties include lamb/mutton, fish, or no meat and just potato, swede and onion but not pork. I found a recipe for a Pork and Apple pasty at http://www.properpasty.co.uk/products.html but I doubt that this is a traditional recipe. Pasties were the food of poorer people and usually had little meat in them at all, why then the pork connection?

In my Cornish dictionary it simply gives the word "hogen" (dial.hoggan) as meaning a pie. So it seems we have the "true" native Cornish word for a pie/pastry bake here recorded in dialect. Damn it, I have used the word all my life and did not know it's more Cornish than the word pasty! There's one in your eye!!!

Brythonek (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much again! I wonder if your dictionary gives the gender form these terms. Also could you let me know the editor/publisher/date/ISBN of your dictionary please? I'm on the lookout for one to add to my dictionary collection. — Hippietrail (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Gerlyver Noweth Kernowek gans R.Morton Nance Dyllasnow Truran 1990.

hogen f. pl -gas, dinner cake, baked pastry cake, (Dialect "hoggan" and corruptly "hobbin".). this and fugen are both inter vars. of whyogen.

whyogen is given as a "dinner cake of pastry", with a Welsh cognate (W.) indicated.Brythonek (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Note below- hawthorn hogan masc. pl. hegyn. I don't think the words are related, different meaning, gender and plural form. Looks like one of those dodgy Victorian explanation for things, e.g. Penzance ."Pen Sands", "head of the sands" was also once given as an explantion of the name... Brythonek (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I just found another interesting fact. It says in A guide to the Mount's bay and the Land's end (1828) By John Ayrton Paris (page 143) here that (Hoggan) Hogan in Cornish British signifies a Hawthorn berry also any thing mean or vile; but here it means a Pork pasty; and now indeed a Tinner's Pasty is called a Hoggan. --Talskiddy (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a vague recollection many years ago of seeing some huge pastie thing in a shop in Llangollen called and "oggie" or somesuch... Barcud Coch (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Jago gives "Pork-Pasty, s. Hogen, w.; hogan, hoggan, fuggan, p. The same is used for a flat cake; called now a hobbin, when of the shape of a pasty; when flat, a dinner-cake." 193.61.64.100 (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of this info is already mentioned in the Hoggan article. Talskiddy (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge of orthography articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Early text

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

Alison Treganning

Alison Treganning is thought, by some, to be the last fluent speaker of the Cornish Language. It is said that she died in 1906, forming controversy over the previous assumption that the Cornish language had been dead since the time of Dolly Pentreath (d. 1777). // It was long believed in England that the Cornish language had died in the 18th century with Dolly Pentreath, but by 1906 the language's revival had already been going for a few years. (compiled 2005-2009) // References

• "Grace under Pressure". Retrieved 2009-05-25. (a rhetorical reference to some unreliable information)

This was an article for most of 2009 but is inadequate without better references. This refers to the subject [1] : if this was promoted as an anniversary articles must have been published in newspapers within Cornwall which may reveal the evidence if any. See also Talk:Alison Treganning--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Alison Treganning. I looked hard for evidence of her. As you'll see, I found no reliable sources.Moonraker2 (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Enid Blyton's Five Go Down to the Sea

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

Dead language spoken a little by a few enthusiasts

In June I'm going to visit Cornwall and to speak at least some words and sentences in Cornish. By the way, dear Cornish people, don't worry about the discussion on orthographies; we have the same for Bavarian. So, writing or pronouncing "cheese" (has to do with my profession) in different ways is not the problem. - One enthusiast more! Hellsepp 19:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is written by someone who's obviously trying to promote the language and give it more importance than it actually has. The article should be gone through and all the exaggerations and romantic notions cut out. I'm sure far more English people can speak Latin than can speak a few words of Cornish. 89.243.87.3 (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Your ignorance is astounding. --Joowwww (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC) No doubt it's true to say "far more English people can speak Latin than can speak a few words of Cornish", but that misses the point of what an encyclopedia aims to do. Every language is notable to us. For those uninterested in any topic, no doubt millions of Wikipedia articles can seem to "give it more importance than it actually has", but such a view is entirely subjective and has no objective value. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Permission to close this section? --大輔 泉 (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC) There is no evidence that this is trolling, so I have removed that labelling from this section. In my opinion, the OP makes a reasonable point. Parts of the article do seem to have a promotional agenda. 81.129.128.129 (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC).

The status of "KS"

Evertype's misuse of Wikipedia for propaganda purposes with respect to the Cornish language is watched by Cornish speakers everywhere. They're appalled, but none has the inclination to correct his misrepresentations because they know he will wage an edit war, which they fear will bring the language into disrepute. The latest example of his approach is the Comparison Table in this article, which he has edited so that "KS" occurs in the first column. "KS" is an orthography for the Cornish language which has been worked on by a small number of people. Although some books have been published using KS, and more are in the pipeline, it is, nevertheless, an orthography which is currently actively used, to write Cornish, by a single, solitary individual - Nicholas Williams. The prominent position of KS in this table - indeed, its very inclusion in the table - belies its true status. Treylyer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC).

I would have to agree, KS doesn't exactly represent a sizeable chunk of Cornish speakers. Of course this situation could change in the future, but for the time being it's giving KS undue weight. I still think for the moment it would be best if only the SWF was in the table. --Joowwww (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have said that I would be amenable to re-arranging the table, but in point of fact there are more materials available in KS than there are in the SWF. Cutting out other orthographies in favour of the SWF would give the SWF undue weight—just because it is used officially by the council does not mean that its use is particularly widespread—that too would be wishful thinking. I say this as the editor of the only SWF/M and SWF/T grammar books which exist. In fairness it would be better if the table reflected the pluralistic reality and gave UC/UCR/RLC/KK/SWF/KS. Without KS in the first column.

To respond to something else Treylyer said: KS1 was worked on by a larger group of people (UdnFormScrefys) than were involved in the AHG, in point of fact, and the group which has worked on KS (Spellyans) is rather large as well. I did change the UCR column to KS (it affected about three of the words if I recall), but not for "propaganda", merely because UCR seems a little outdated at this point. And to speak to the "some books" which have been published in KS—the wordcount is about 220,000 from the beginning of 2009 to the present. This is not insignificant.

But a reasonable compromise is to include examples in each of the relevant orthographies. I oppose the deletion of KS (and of KK) in favour of only the SWF in the table. The SWF has not, not yet, supplanted all of the other orthographies. -- Evertype·✆ 22:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Amount of published material doesn't really mean anything, thanks to your publishing know-how and Nicholas Williams' translation skills there are probably more books in KS than there are people who actually use it. And the amount of people who worked on it is also irrelevant, just because people worked on it doesn't necessarily mean they use it. The SWF is the standard form for official contexts and has wide consensus among Cornish speakers as the closest thing to a standard form. As you are one of the principal promoters of KS I think your actions here constitute a conflict of interest. --Joowwww (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

UC and UCR and KK have "wide consensus among Cornish speakers" as to what they use, no less than SWF and KS. The table is there to show differences and similarities. The different orthographies of Cornish are still in existence. Your contention that Cornish speakers are all using SWF is not backed up by any evidence or citation. I would object to the removal of either KS (was UCR) or KK from the table. I would favour the addition of unreformed UC and of RLC to the table. You cannot claim that I have a conflict of interest if I am suggesting that this particular table retains KK, because you know perfectly well that I don't consider KK to be suitable. But at this juncture in the Revival, only a comprehensive table would be meaningful. By the way, one may assume that if people buy books, they are using them, since reading constitutes a usage scenario, whether passive or not. By the way, you know who I am in real life, but I do not know who you are, so I might suggest that in the interests of disclosure you identify yourself. Otherwise it is not fair for you to be imputing "interest" on my part, because so far your "neutrality" seems to be "anti-KS, pro-SWF". I am not trying to be adversarial. -- Evertype·✆ 00:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have made no such contention. The primary point of the table is to show similarities between Cornish and the other Celtic languages. If you think another table comparing orthographies, in addition to the orthographical comparisons already made, would add to the article's educational value then you go ahead and make one. My real life identity is irrelevant. --Joowwww (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is, since you are using my real life identity to impute "conflict of interest". In any case, your assumption that the SWF is in widespread use is unsupported, and I reiterate my position that the table should properly express the pluralism which exists. -- Evertype·✆ 08:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have made no such assumption, please stop misrepresenting my position. Furthermore, you chose to write your own Wikipedia article and edit Wikipedia under your real name. That's your choice. I am under no obligation to do the same. My concerns about a conflict of interest still stand. --Joowwww (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You said that "wide consensus among Cornish speakers"—but that statement is unsupported; it is your assumption. I chose to keep a neutral and pluralistic approach in putting the table together. I see that you have attempted to propagandize for the SWF by "splitting" the table whilst claiming that it was "ridiculously large". That is clearly your POV; the table was not all that large, nor was the size "ridiculous". Shall I now accuse you of a conflict of interest? Or of attempting to suppress other orthographies? Please. I think we're better off without accusing each other of anything.

In point of fact, I think that the table was bloated with Irish, Scottish Gaelic, and Manx, which are of little relevance to the article; there are other articles about comparative Celtic. As Welsh and Breton are closely related, I think that a single table, omitting the Gaelic languages but including Welsh and Breton, would be better than the two tables as we have them now. -- Evertype·✆ 12:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I said "The SWF [...] has wide consensus among Cornish speakers as the closest thing to a standard form." It's rather different to what you are implying I said. I disagree with your proposal to remove the Goidelic languages, there's quite a useful comparison of the differences and similarities between Brythonic and Goidelic languages there. --Joowwww (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is misleading to present the SWF in such a table as though it were the only orthography; it is a work in progress, and indeed, the comparison table helps to show some of the options and choices made by Revivalists. From a linguistic point of view, however, the table lacks usefulness because of the nature of the words presented. Some are attested loanwords, some are calques, and it uses some words which have disputed meanings. It's a bit of a mess. Note that a previous version had "amser" 'time, weather' though this term were as common in Cornish as it is in Welsh and Breton, But other words were used in traditional Cornish. I changed this to "silver/money" which is also messy but less contentious. I think either table would be better based on the Swadesh list or something, but for now we might leave well enough alone. -- Evertype·✆ 13:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see I did, I wrote "Cornish (SWF)" as a header, if I wanted to present the SWF as the only orthography I would have written "Cornish". KS is also a "work in progress". If you are willing to "leave well enough alone" in favour of discussion about how to improve the rest of the article then so am I. --Joowwww (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You proposed to delete both UCR/KS and KK from the original table, which was "removing value" in my view. I added value, and you called the result "ridiculous". I still think that your new second table is now misleading in that it is missing "chayr" and "ryver"; that was not the case in the unitary table.

However, one section of the article discussing the different orthographies does not distinguish pre-AHG Kernowak Standard with post-SWF Kernowek Standard. The two entities differ in a number of respects. Ought this not be addressed? -- Evertype·✆ 14:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What possible use would that have? Why not have every incarnation of RLC, plus all variants of the SWF, plus KK with dj and tj, too? Is your primary concern educational value or making sure your orthgraphy stays in the article? --Joowwww (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

(Please don't be so hostile. There really isn't any call for it.) Whether you dislike or disapprove of KS or not, it exists, and is quite a different thing than was proposed to the Commission as a direction for compromise prior to the AHG. Indeed, whether you dislike it or disapprove of it or not, it exists as a part of the Revival. It is a response to the SWF—and the CLP has acknowledged its publications (and announced them in Maga) just as it acknowledges publications in other orthographies. The article as it stands mentions the pre-AHG contribution only. Since there are now a variety of materials available in the post-SWF contribution, don't you think that it would be of educational value to have some sort of discussion of this, for people who may wish to understand this aspect of the Revival? -- Evertype·✆ 17:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Split all this stuff out into an article on the competing systems. DuncanHill (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's up to you if you interpret my legitimate questions as "hostile". I have no opinion regarding KS, and even if I did it would be irrelevant. My primary concern is that the article reflects the reality of the use of orthographies - and the reality is that even though Evertype has published KS material, it has not seen widespread active use by Cornish speakers, and should not be given any prominent position over other orthographies. Only one incarnation of KS should be mentioned, the latest one, but there is not a public specification for it. So how would we go about referencing the latest version of KS? I support DuncanHill's suggestion. --Joowwww (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]I have revised the table. If you wish, I could add Lhuyd's spelling and Jenner's. I would suggest to Treylyer to take the chip off his or shoulder: the revision has been made in good faith and is not indicative of "abusing the Wikipedia". -- Evertype·✆ 09:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

And I'd suggest to Evertype that he keep a civil tongue in his head. I don't have a chip on my shoulder, and nor do any of the other Cornish speakers, and people merely associated with the language, that view Evertype's use of Wikipedia (as a soap-box for distorted information about Cornish, fuelled by self-interest, and as a means of promoting his own publications) as outrageous.

Readers of Wikipedia around the world will not know how they have been misled by the way in which he has used articles on "Alice in Wonderland", "Penzance" and "Linguistic issues concerning the Euro" (to name but a few) for his own purposes. He has honed misrepresentation through selectivity to a fine art. People in Cornwall are well aware of what he has done and is doing, however. And they're aghast, but won't do anything about it for fear of prompting him into behaving as he always does when challenged. I shall write no more on the subject for just that reason. Treylyer (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It did not seem to me. Treylyer, that accusing me of "misuse" was civil, or of writing hearsay about "Cornish speakers everywhere" being "appalled" and "aghast". You attacked me previously, and you have attacked me here just above. All I did here was to improve the article to respond to some of the discussion. -- Evertype·✆ 12:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think I've made this point before, but it's worth saying again. The article as it stands seems to be more concerned with re-hashing the arguments between the various competing orthgraphies than with presenting an encyclopaedic study of the language as a whole. The grammar section, for example, is utterly inadequate. Anyone thinking of learning Cornish and coming to this article as a first point of reference would get the (probably accurate) impression that the revival community is more concerned with scoring points off each other than with regenerating a language as a part of everyday life. DuncanHill (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk page maintenance

I have archived all threads which had no activity after 2008. Archives are linked at the top of this page. If there are no objections within 3 days, I intend archiving all threads with no activity after the end of 2009. DuncanHill (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest with no activity after the end of June 2009 rather than December. -- Evertype·✆ 14:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason? I was going with a quarter of a year (near as dammit) being quite long enough to decide that a thread had had its day. Many article talk pages archive threads after one month of no activity. DuncanHill (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Dunno. I archive my own e-mail semi=annually. I suppose it's the busier pages that archive after a month. -- Evertype·✆ 14:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

How about up to the end of September? DuncanHill (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No objection. Does a bot do this or do you do it by hand? -- Evertype·✆ 15:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it by hand, but I could set up a bot to do it automatically. DuncanHill (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Jenner quote

Henry Jenner: ... "There has never been a time when there has been no person in Cornwall without a knowledge of the Cornish language." - Is that the correct quote? It would make a lot more sense if it said "WITH a knowledge". Lfh (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right, but that's the correct quote. Maybe it was the way they said it in 1900? I don't know. --Joowwww (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"with a knowledge" would be logical (though "negative mishandling" is a complex subject: see H. W. Fowler A Dictionary of Modern English Usage; 2nd ed., revised by Sir Ernest Gowers. 1965; pp. 384-86). Perhaps he was thinking in another language and translating it into English as he said it.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

One more for the comparison table: dâ / da

I think dâ ("good") should be in, as it's another typical similarity to Welsh. I don't speak the latter language at all, nor the other lesser known Cornish variants listed (Unified, and whatnot), but when reading this article just out of interest, I missed dâ in the table badly. Everyone who has ever visited Wales knows Bore da as "Good day", doesn't he?? :) So it IS very similar to Welsh. But again, I can't add dâ if I do not know the other translations. -andy 217.50.62.159 (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Bodinar's letter

In both Mousehole and Penwith it is claimed that Barrington received Bodinar's letter a year following the death of Dolly Pentreath, that is, in 1778. However, the letter is dated to July 3rd, 1776, as can clearly be seen in the scan of the manuscript. (That means, the letter was by all appearances written, signed, dated, and most probably, dispatched, at a time when Dolly Pentreath was still alive, and so was the Cornish language even to the most conservative view, although the letter does cause serious trouble for that view, namely that she was the last native speaker.) The only way to resolve this apparent contradiction is to assume that the letter took at least one and a half years to reach Barrington. While this isn't impossible, given how snail mail can take a long time to reach its destination occasionally even nowadays, and we're talking about the 18th century here, it is hardly so unremarkable that it doesn't merit comment. So, does the source that appears to be quoted to the effect that Barrington received the letter only in 1778 really say so? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No idea. The whole last speaker/date of letter topic is not very clear. Dolly may not even have been the last native speaker. --Joowwww (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)