The UdnFormScrefys group, which has been working together to develop the orthography referred to as Kernowak or Kernowak Standard (KS) answered a report issued by the editor in the April’s issue of An Gannas. Since the editor prefers to publish in the Kernewek Kemmyn orthography, the letter was sent in Kernewek Kemmyn. It was signed “An bagas UdnFormScrefys”. The letter has not appeared in the May issue of An Gannas, while a letter by Ray Edwards, supportive of the editor-in-chief’s report, was published there, next to an analysis of KS by Ken George. The UFS group believes that the suppression of its letter would be counter to the spirit of engagement which is central to the Partnership Process. We suggest that the failure of the editor to publish the letter is indicative of a desire to prevent information from reaching supporters of the Kernewek Kemmyn orthography. In order to further the Process, we publish the letter here, in Kernowak Standard orthography, Kernewek Kemmyn orthography, and in English translation.
| Kernowak Standard | Kernewek Kemmyn | English (fairly literal translation) |
| Lyther dha Benscrefer An Gannas Mr Sandercock, | Lyther dhe Bennskrifer An Gannas Mr Sandercock, | Letter to the Editor of An Gannas Mr Sandercock, |
| Wosa redya agas erthygel screfys genowgh avel penscrefer An Gannas (Nyver 352, Mys Ebrel) yma othem dhèn, an bagas UFS, a owna an covath. Kyns es bos an erthygel arvruesyans heb ragvrues a’n peth esan ow whelas cowlwul gans Kernowak Standard (KS alebma rag), yth esowgh ow screfa erthygel plontyans war y bydn ha favera Kernewek Kemmyn (KK alebma rag). Hadre vo dhewgh pùb gwyr dha scodhya ha defendya agas lytherednans moyha kerys, nyns yw naneyl avowadow na dyfresadow yn ethical dha leveral gow adro dha furf usy ow corvydnes orth agas screfa-composter why. Troblys yw hebma yn arbednak rag why dha vos caderyer an Gesva hag esel a’n Gowethas kefres, dew gowethyans tavas Kernowak usy ow coledna dha gomprehendya pùb form oll a Gernowak Dasserghys. | Wosa redya agas erthygel skrifys genowgh avel pennskrifer An Gannas (Niver 352, Mis Ebryl) yma edhomm dhyn, an bagas UFS, a ewna an kovadh. Kyns es bos an erthygel arvreusyans heb ragvreus a’n pyth eson ow hwilas kowlwul gans Kernowak Standard (KS alemma rag), yth esowgh ow skrifa erthygel plontyans er y bynn ha favera Kernewek Kemmyn (KK alemma rag). Hadre vo dhywgh pub gwir dhe skoedhya ha defendya agas lytherennans moyha kerys, nyns yw naneyl avowadow na difresadow yn ethikal dhe leverel gow adro dhe furv usi ow korvynnes orth agas skrifa-kompoester hwi. Troblys yw hemma yn arbennik rag hwi dhe vos kaderyer an Gesva hag esel a’n Gowethas keffrys, dew gowethyans taves Kernewek usi ow kolenna dhe gomprehendya pub furv oll a Gernewek Dasserghys. | After reading your article written by you as editor-in-chief of An Gannas (Issue 352, April 2007) we, the UFS group, feel the need to set the record straight. Rather than an objective assessment of what we seek to achieve with Kernowak Standard (“Standard Cornish”, KS henceforth), you write a propaganda article against it while favouring Kernewek Kemmyn (“Common Cornish”, KK henceforth). While you have every right to support and defend your favourite orthography, it is neither justifiable nor ethically defensible to speak untruths about a form that is competing with your orthography. This is especially troubling as you are chairman of the [Cornish Language] Board as well as your being a member of the [Cornish Language] Fellowship, two Cornish language organizations that claim to include all forms of Revived Cornish. |
| Why a scrîff: “Dhe’n 26ves a vis Meurth, yn fordh ha termyn ragdowlennys, dell hevel, an vrasoryon erbynn Kernewek Kemmyn a dhellos aga thowl gans ‘Kernowak Standard’, an pympes furv, dannvenys a-dhiworth dyller yn Iwerdhon.” | Hwi a skrif: “Dhe’n 26ves a vis Meurth, yn fordh ha termyn ragdowlennys, dell hevel, an vrasoryon erbynn Kernewek Kemmyn a dhellos aga thowl gans ‘Kernowak Standard’, an pympes furv, dannvenys a-dhiworth dyller yn Iwerdhon.” | You write: “On the 26th of March, in a way and time pre-planned, as it seems, the conspirators against Kernewek Kemmyn published their plan with ‘Kernowak Standard’, the fifth form, sent from a publisher in Ireland.” |
| A wrussowgh why omwelas agas honen avel braser warbydn Kernewek Unyes (KU) yn 1987? A ny wrussowgh? Well, nyns on ny bagas a vrasoryon yn neb cas. Gwadn-enwedhys ha dybreder yw, usya lavarednow sclandrys a’n par-na. Tus a’n bagas dyvers a KU, KN (Kernûak Nowedga) ha KUA (Kernowek Unys Amendys) re gonvedhas na yllyr pesya an sqward hag yth esa whans dhedhans a ervyra lytherednans may hyll bos dysplegys udn furf screfys anodha rag y dhefnyth y’n scolyow hag arwedhyow kefres ha scryvednow sodhogal. Yma’n kesassoylyans-ma ow whelas dha gemeras yn preder an desyrys a genyver bagas: 1) sensy an gevren dha lytherednans ystorak an Kernowak Hengovak, gorholeth pous rag an bagasow KU, KN ha KUA, kefres ha 2) hevelepter lytherednans-dha-son dyblans, dervednys gans scodhyoryon a KK. Nyns ywa ascor a “vras”, mes assay dha gesassoylya ha gorra a denewan an sqwardyow aberth yn dasvewans an tavas Kernowak. Bohes ywa a vern mar pue an scryven danvenys dhewgh why gans dyller yn Wordhen, aban vue lias dyllans KK gorrys mes gans dylloryon yn Pow Sows ha Breten Vian ynwedh. A wrêwgh y elwal “bras” drefen nag ywa KK? | A wrussowgh hwi omweles agas honan avel braser erbynn Kernewek Unyes (KU) yn 1987? A ny wrussowgh? Well, nyns on ni bagas a vrasoryon yn neb kas. Gwann-enwedhys ha dibreder yw, usya lavarennow sklandrus a’n par na. Tus a’n bagas divers a KU, KN (Kernûak Nowedga) ha KUA (Kernowek Unys Amendys) re gonvedhas na yllir pesya an skward hag yth esa hwans dhedha a ervira lytherennans may hyll bos displegys unn furv skrifys anodho rag y dhevnydh y’n skolyow hag arwoedhyow keffrys ha skrivennow soedhogel. Yma’n kesassoylyans ma ow hwilas dhe gemmeres yn preder an desirys a geniver bagas: 1) synsi an gevrenn dhe lytherennans istorek an Kernewek Hengovek, gorholedh poes rag an bagasow KU, KN ha KUA, keffrys ha 2) hevelepter lytherennans-dhe-son diblans, dervynnys gans skoedhyoryon a KK. Nyns ywa askorr a “vras”, mes assay dhe gesassoylya ha gorra a denewenn an skwardyow aberth yn dasvywans an taves Kernewek. Boghes ywa a vern mar peu an skrivenn dannvenys dhywgh hwi gans dyller yn Iwerdhon, aban veu lies dyllans KK gorrys mes gans dylloryon yn Pow Sows ha Breten Vyghan ynwedh. A wrewgh y elwel “bras” drefenn nag ywa KK? | Did you see yourself as a conspirator against Kernewek Unyes (“Unified Cornish”, KU) in 1987? Did you? Well, we are not a group of conspirators in any case. It is ill-informed and irresponsible to use such slanderous language. People from the diverse groups of KU, KN (Kernûak Nowedga “Modern Cornish”) and KUA (Kernowek Unys Amendys “Unified Cornish Revised”) have realized that one cannot continue the split and that they wanted to propose an orthography from which a single written form can be developed for use in schools and signs as well as official documents. This compromise seeks to take into consideration the desires of every group: 1) maintaining the link to the historical spelling of Traditional Cornish, an important requirement for the KU, KN and KUA groups, as well as 2) a clear correspondence of spelling-to-sound, required by supporters of KK. It is not the product of a “conspiracy” but an attempt to compromise and putting aside the rifts in the revival of the Cornish language. It is of little relevance that the document was sent to you by a publisher in Ireland since many a KK publication was brought out by publishers in England and Brittany as well. Do you call it a “conspiracy” because it is not KK? |
| Pelha, y screfowgh: “Rag diskwedhas aga bos gwir dhe istori an yeth i re dhewisis an hanow ‘Kernowak’ ! Nyns yw kevys an hanow ma bythkweth y’gan taves mes yth yw hanow nag yw devnydhyes gans furv vyth arall an yeth.” | Pella, y skrifowgh: “Rag diskwedhas aga bos gwir dhe istori an yeth i re dhewisis an hanow ‘Kernowak’ ! Nyns yw kevys an hanow ma bythkweth y’gan taves mes yth yw hanow nag yw devnydhyes gans furv vyth arall an yeth.” | You go on: “To show that they are true to the history of the language they have chosen the name ‘Kernowak’! Never is this name found in our tongue but it is a name that is not used by any other form of the language.” |
| Yn kensa, nyns yw gwyr nag yw an lytherednans “Kernowak” bythqweth kevys y’gan yeth. Testys yw spellyans “Kernowak” dre scryfow Wella Gwavas. *Kernewek yw spellyans na vue bythqweth kevys y’n tavas ystorak; yth esowgh why ow stubma fethyow. Gweras yw dha’n form noweth nag usy va ow cul devnydh a spellyans rag hanow an tavas, aban via res dhen ny oll gul chanjyow bian may hallen ny screfa form savonak noweth a’n par-na. | Yn kynsa, nyns yw gwir nag yw an lytherennans “Kernowak” bythkweth kevys y’gan yeth. Testys yw spellyans “Kernowak” dre skrifow Wella Gwavas. *Kernewek yw spellyans na veu bythkweth kevys y’n taves istorek; yth esowgh hwi ow stumma fethyow. Gweres yw dhe’n form nowydh nag usi va ow kul devnydh a spellyans rag hanow an taves, aban via res dhyn ni oll gul chanjyow byghan may hallen ni skrifa furv savonek nowydh a’n par na. | Firstly, it is not true that the spelling ‘Kernowak’ is never found in our language. The spelling ‘Kernowak’ is attested in the writings of Wella Gwavas. *Kernewek is a spelling that has never been found in the historical language; you are twisting the facts. It is an asset to a new form of the language that it doesn’t make use of a previously established spelling as the name of the language, since it would be necessary for us all to make little changes in order to write such a new standard form. |
| Geryow kepar ha, “Pana vost ha pana dhalleth” yw polemyk, diantal ha nyns yns y gweras dha dhadhel resonak a’n mater. | Geryow kepar ha, “Pana vost ha pana dhalleth” yw polemyk, dyantell ha nyns yns i gweres dhe dhadhel resonek a’n mater. | Words like, “What a boast and what a beginning” are polemic, dangerous and are no help to a reasoned discussion of the matter. |
| Yma’n erthygel ow pesya: “An pyth a syw yw kemmysk euthek a furvyow anistorek a Gernewek hag a oesow kemmyskys.” | Yma’n erthygel ow pesya: “An pyth a syw yw kemmysk euthek a furvyow anistorek a Gernewek hag a oesow kemmyskys.” | The article continues: “What follows is a terrible mix of unhistoric forms of Cornish and from mixed ages.” |
| Kyn nag yw an “kemysk” anystorak, a osow dyvers yw nebas anodha, saw yma pùb furf a Gernowak Dasvewys ow kemysky an osow dha neb degre. Re vian yw corf lyen Kernowak Hengovak dha seval orth aswon radnow cowal anodha. Yth heval dhen nag ues problem dhewgh y whra kemysky KK formys a Gernowak Coth, Kernowak Cres ha Kernowak Dywedhas, kefres ha furfow dasformys ma na vedhyn ny nefra certan anodha, fatell esens y radn a’n tavas yn ous veth oll, ytho: pandr’yw agas caletter gansa y’n KS? Prag yth yw mar “uthyk” an kemysk-ma yn KS, saw vas yn KK? Sqwyrys dewblek, martesen? | Kyn nag yw an “kemmysk” anistorek, a oesow divers yw nebes anodho, saw yma pub furv a Gernewek Dasvywys ow kemmyski an oesow dhe neb degre. Re vyghan yw korf lyenn Kernewek Hengovek dhe sevel orth aswonn rannow kowal anodho. Yth hevel dhyn nag eus problem dhywgh y hwra kemmyski KK furvow a Gernewek Koth, Kernewek Kres ha Kernewek Diwedhes, keffrys ha furvow dasformys ma na vydhyn ni nevra sertan anodho, fatell esens i rann a’n taves yn oes vyth oll, ytho: pandr’yw agas kaletter ganso y’n KS? Prag yth yw mar “euthek” an kemmysk ma yn KS, saw ’vas yn KK? Skwirys dewblek, martesen? | Although it is not an unhistoric “mix”, some of it is from different ages, but every form of Revived Cornish mixes the ages to some degree. The Traditional Cornish body of literature is too small as to stand against recognizing whole parts of it. It seems to us that you have no problem mixing forms from Old Cornish, Middle Cornish and Late Cornish, as well as reconstructed forms of which we can never be certain that they were ever part of the language in any age, so: what is your problem with it in KS? Why is this mix so “terrible” in KS, but good in KK? Double standards, maybe? |
| Ystorak yw KS hag yma va ow crespoyntya war lytherednans gwary myr Gwreans an Bys, ues genan mamscrîff screfys yn 1611. Dres gwyrhevelep, cotha yw an text whath. Yma’n text-ma ow tysqwedhas moyha modern furf hengof lytherednans Kernowak an osow cres. KK y honen a vue grondys war dextow a’n 14vas cansvledhen dha’n 16vas cansvledhen avar ha dry y fog war an vledhen 1500, yndelha, yma va ow meras pelha wardhelergh ages KS. Arta, yth yw agas chalenj a sew heb grownd tra veth oll y’n bes: | Istorek yw KS hag yma va ow krespoyntya war lytherennans gwari mir Gwrians an Bys, eus genen mammskrif skrifys yn 1611. Dres gwirhevelep, kottha yw an tekst hwath. Yma’n tekst ma ow tiskwedhes moyha modern furv hengov lytherennans Kernewek an oesow kres. KK y honan a veu grondys war dekstow a’n 14ves kansvlydhen dhe’n 16ves kansvlydhen a-varr ha dri y fog war an vlydhen 1500, yndella, yma va ow mires pella wardhelergh ages KS. Arta, yth yw agas chalenj a syw heb grond tra vyth oll y’n bys: | KS is historic focusing on the spelling of the miracle play Gwreans an Bys, of which we have a manuscript written in 1611. It is likely that the text is older still. The text shows a more modern form of the traditional spelling of Cornish of the middle ages. KK itself has been based on the texts of the 14th century to the early 16th century and centres on the year 1500, thus, it looks further backwards than KS. Again, your following claim is without basis at all: |
| “Dhe goela orth an bagas ma via gorra an yeth kernewek wardhelergh der unn henedh dhe’n lyha ha furv an taves dhe’n oesow kres arta, furv nag yw gwiw dhe avonsya y’gan dydhyow ni.” | “Dhe goela orth an bagas ma via gorra an yeth kernewek wardhelergh der unn henedh dhe’n lyha ha furv an taves dhe’n oesow kres arta, furv nag yw gwiw dhe avonsya y’gan dydhyow ni.” | “To lend ear to this group would be putting the Cornish language back by at least one generation and the form of the language to the middle ages again, a form that isn’t worthy to advance in our days.” |
| Yth esowgh ow leveral dha’gas redyoryon an peth dha gresy, aban ues whans dhen ny a sordya dadhel ha’ga govyn ortans dha dhos dha www.kernowak.com ha formya aga brues aga honen ow tochya an kydnyk lytherednans ma. | Yth esowgh ow leverel dhe’gas redyoryon an pyth dhe grysi, aban eus hwans dhyn ni a sordya dadhel ha’ga govynn orta dhe dhos dhe www.kernowak.com formya aga breus aga honan ow tochya an kynnik lytherennans ma. | You are telling your readers what to believe, while it is our wish to engage them in discussion and ask for them to come to www.kernowak.com and form their own opinion concerning this spelling proposal. |
| Why a lavar: “Distruys vydh oll an ober da gwrys a-hys an ugens blydhen dremenys.” | Hwi a lavar: “Distruys vydh oll an ober da gwrys a-hys an ugens blydhen dremenys.” | You say: “All the good work done throughout the past twenty years will be destroyed.” |
| Fatla gans an ober dâ gwres gans tus owth obery mes a KK? Fatla gans ober an dhasvewansydhyon gwres kyns 1987? A nyns o hedna ober dâ ynwedh? | Fatla gans an ober da gwrys gans tus owth oberi mes a KK? Fatla gans ober an dhasvywansydhyon gwrys kyns 1987? A nyns o henna ober da ynwedh? | What about the good work done by people working outside of KK? What about the work of the revivalists done before 1987? Was that not good work, too? |
| Nyns yw agan bodh dystrowy ober dâ veth oll. Merkyowgh, yth esan ny ow cowsal adro dha lytherednans, adar an peth a vue screfys yn system lytherednans arbednak. Pùb tra oll neb a vue screfys yn udn spellyans a yllyr screfa yn ken screfa-composter maga tâ. | Nyns yw agan bodh distrui ober da vyth oll. Merkyewgh, yth eson ni ow kewsel adro dhe lytherennans, adar an pyth a veu skrifys yn system lytherennans arbennik. Pub tra oll neb a veu skrifys yn unn spellyans a yllir skrifa yn ken skrifa-kompoester maga ta. | It is not our intention to destroy any good work. Note that we are talking about spelling, not what has been written in a particular spelling system. Whatever has been written in one spelling, one can just as well write in another orthography. |
| Pùb onen oll yn Dasserghyans Kernowak a wor an fals hag y’n gwyr yma lebmyn try movyans dasvewans, pùb huny anedhans ow tylla aga daffar ha’ga lyvrow. Ober an Desedhak yw dha welas fatell yllyn dasudnya Dasserghyans Kernowak ha hernesya gallos cudh ha nerth creatys a dus tanak aga holon rag an tavas Kernowak. Pretendya nag ues bagasow eral, kepar dell yw dâ gans an Gesva ha’n Cowethas y wul ny wra dha’n fals mos yn kerdh, na wra agan gasa rag attamya an dra a lytherednans. | Pub onan oll yn Dasserghyans Kernewek a woer an fals hag y’n gwir yma lemmyn tri movyans dasvywans, pub huny anedha ow tyllo aga daffar ha’ga lyvrow. Ober an Desedhek yw dhe weles fatell yllyn dasunnya Dasserghyans Kernewek ha hernesya galloes kudh ha nerth kreatus a dus tanek aga holon rag an taves Kernewek. Pretendya nag eus bagasow erell, kepar dell yw da gans an Gesva ha’n Kowethas y wul ny wra dhe’n fals mos yn kerdh, na wra agan gasa rag attamya an dra a lytherennans. | Everyone in the Cornish Language Revival knows of the split and that in fact there are now three revival movements, each of them publishing their own material and books. It is the work of the Commission to see how we can re-unify the Cornish Revival and harness the latent creative energy of Cornish language enthusiasts. Pretending that there are no other groups as the Board or the Fellowship like to do makes the split go on and will not allow us to tackle the matter of spelling. |
| Ny wrug KK spedya gul dha radn arwodhak a’n Dasserghyans crejy ynna dres oll 20 bledhen ues passys. Whath yma’n sqward ow seval avel feth a’n bownans, onen a dalvia dhen omgartha anodha y’n argerth ma. | Ny wrug KK spedya gul dhe rann arwoedhek a’n Dasserghyans krysi ynno dres oll 20 blydhen eus passys. Hwath yma’n skward ow sevel avel feth a’n bywnans, onan a dalvia dhyn omgartha anodho y’n argerdh ma. | KK has not managed to convince a significant part of the Revival throughout the past 20 years. Yet the split is a fact of life, one that we must overcome in this process. |
| Yma muer a worthebow saw KK dha dhreheval tavas arnoweth ha cref y vownans, gans geryow noweth etc. – pùb lytherednans Kernowak a alja gul hedna! | Yma meur a worthybow saw KK dhe dhrehevel taves arnoweth ha krev y vywnans, gans geryow nowydh etc. – pub lytherennans Kernewek a allsa gul henna! | There are more answers except KK to build a modern viable language, with new words etc. – any Cornish orthography can do that! |
| Yma’n peth a wrussowgh screfa orth agan pyga ny, an bagas UFS: agas gys leveral plontyans, leveral dha’gas redyoryon an peth dha gresy ha’gas cabmbortraya agan ententys dâ, agan costednow ha’gan dowys. Ynwedh, why a wrug fyllal a worra ewn an fethow. | Yma’n pyth a wrussowgh skrifa orth agan piga ni, an bagas UFS: agas gis leverel plontyans, leverel dhe’gas redyoryon an pyth dhe grysi ha’gas kammbortraya agan ententys da, agan kostennow ha’gan dewis. Ynwedh, hwi a wrug fyllel a worra ewn an fethow. | We, the UFS group, resent what you wrote: your propagandistic tone, your telling your readers what to believe, and your misrepresentation of our good intentions, our goals and our choices. Also, you have failed to get the facts right. |
| Yn kemmyn hag yn sperys a gesassoylyans, ny a worras warbarth an lytherednans KS avel screfa-composter sel, hadre vo pous genowgh why, gans Ken George ha gans esely erall an Gesva bo an Cowethas dadhla genan dysplegyans possybyl war tu ha form screfys a yllyn ny oll bewa gansa. Prag na yllowgh why, avel cowser a davas mynoryeth ow stryvya rag ledanhe degemeryans, aswon radn bras an Dasserghyans nag yw lowen yn cler gans KK? Prag yth ywa tabou a’n par-na, cafos cowlagrians, ha dadhla adro dhodha kyn fe? | Yn kemmyn hag yn spyrys a gesassoylyans, ni a worras warbarth an lytherennans KS avel skrifa-kompoester sel, hadre vo poes genowgh hwi, gans Ken George ha gans eseli erell an Gesva bo an Kowethas dadhla genen displegyans possybyl war tu ha form skrifys a yllyn ni oll bywa ganso. Prag na yllowgh hwi, avel kowser a daves minoryeth ow strivya rag ledanna degemmeryans, aswonn rann bras an Dasserghyans nag yw lowen yn kler gans KK? Prag yth ywa “taboo” a’n par na, kavoes kowlagrians, ha dadhla adro dhodho kyn fe? | Collectively, and in the spirit of compromise, we put together the spelling system KS as an orthographic base while you, Ken George and other members of the Board or the Fellowship are unwilling to discuss with us possible developments towards a written form that we can all live with. Why can you not, as a speaker of a minority language striving to widen acceptance, recognize the large part of the Revival that is clearly not happy with KK? Why is it such a taboo to find consensus and even discussing it? |
Yn lel dha’n tavas Kernowak,
An bagas UdnFormScrefys | Yn lel dhe’n taves Kernewek,
An bagas UdnFormScrefys | Loyally to the Cornish language,
The UdnFormScrefys group
|
Kernowek Standard: An orthography for the Cornish Language