Talk:Cornish language/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Dead or extinct

I attempted to have the distinction made in infobox parameters for languages here [1]. Comments welcome. I mentioned Cornish, even though the distincxtion here seems to be made correctly. The difference has at times caused confusion in Cornish as well as other languages. To summarise: the infobox for languages does not allow for dead and for extinct - they are not the same. Even this distinction is IMO open for debate. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Number and ability of speakers?

In this article, the 557 Cornish speakers identified in the England and Wales census (2011) are listed as "L2 speakers". However, the census itself asks people to choose their "main language", suggesting that the people who chose to answer Cornish as opposed to English/Welsh are in fact native speakers. Additionally, the total number of Cornish speakers has been estimated at 3000+ by [paper], and this is the estimate that is used in the Cornish Wikipedia, as well as the German,Spanish,French,Hindi,Basque, and Dutch wikipedias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.72.209.105 (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add the number of speakers to the infobox. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Census data used in this way is not reliable: it is original research and should be used with care because it can mislead people, whether intentionally or not. The question "what is your main language" is open to all sorts of interpretations and abuse. Whatever other wiki articles use is irrelevant because wikipedia cannot be used to reference itself. Cornish is extinct as a first language. It has a small but active following within a group of certain enthusiasts, but it is not a community language is the sense most people understand by that term. The infobox template does not allow for detailed analysis or the figures so "557 (L2)" is about as good as we are going to get. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The words "Main language" and "Second language" are literally antonyms. I'm fine with not using census data if you believe it to be unreliable, but misusing it in this way is certainly worse. 24.140.234.146 (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Just an observation, my "main language" is Spanish, it is also my "second language". Boynamedsue (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox map

History DMZ questioned my recent reversal of the infobox map on my talk page. Here is my reply. The map was discussed a while ago here [2] I think the same points arise as then. In summary, IMO, there is a risk in misleading the reader into thinking that Cornish is the same as languages like Irish, a minority language being saved from extinction, which it isn't because Cornish is already extinct. Its use within society should be viewed from a different angle, that of attempted revival and cultural effect in Cornwall. The map is also based on primary evidence - census data - and the numbers are well below any margin of error so they should be treated with enormous scepticism. also, I think the addition of the map in the infobox amounts to unnecessary IBX clutter. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I don’t have a strong view about whether it should be in the Infobox - although because I think infoboxes are an abomination and anything that reduces them...so much the better. However, I do think the map should be included in the article somewhere as it does say something about how far the language revival has got (i.e. not very far). It is highly relevant to the article and it’s probably best placed in the modern language section. that’s assuming it’s accurate etc which I haven’t checked. I would also challenge that it is that different from the Irish map. Yes, Cornish was extinct which Irish never has been. But outside of ‘native’ speakers i.e. in the Gaeltacht areas, Irish is a ‘learned’ language (i.e. in the sense they grew up speaking English but learn Irish at school) for the vast majority of the speakers across the country. I don’t think it’s different enough to say it can’t be used at all. DeCausa (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Someone recently pointed out the difference between a language being extinct and being dead. The difference to me is obvious but I was guilty of using the two words interchangably. I am not sure of your view on this, noting you wrote 'Cornish was extinct'. If you mean it was, but is no longer, I think I would disagree. The current spoken Cornish is an artificial creation based on a lot of guesswork of what the language did look like in the past. This makes it considerably different from languages like Irish, where the new learned L2 speakers have a real L1 language base to work from - something not available to the Cornish L2 speakers. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, that’s true. But I’m not sure what difference that makes to having the map. A language is a language - Modern Hebrew is largely recreated. But so what? Esperanto is 100% artificial - it’s still a language. This article has a section about how there’s an attempt to bring Cornish back from the dead. Don’t we want to show the information available on what’s happened on that? The map shows that the corpse has twitched, gthat’s all. Not sure what the problem is really. DeCausa (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and whether Cornish is “extinct” or not, I don’t have a view. I note the article says UNESCO changed its classification from “extinct” to “critically endangered”. I can see arguments on both sides. It’s the sort of thing that WP likes to debate until the cows come home. But it has no bearing on the map in my view - unless you are arguing that the revived language is so different from the old one as to be a different language. If so, you’d need some very specific RS that avoids SYNTH to back that claim up. I doubt it exists. And a big chunk of the article would have to be re-written. DeCausa (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the critical difference between contemporary Cornish and Irish et al is that Cornish is not a community language and should not be treated as such. Contemporary Hebrew became a community language even though it was artificial in creation. Esperanto might be a better comparison with Cornish than Irish or even Manx, where a far better understanding of the actual living language does exist. The map of Irish gives a visible representation of the western spread of English and areas where communities still hold on to that living language; the Cornish map does no such thing. You did not address the statistical problem of the survey: the numbers used are far below any realistic margin of error so they should simply not be used in any attempt to give authority to the number of speakers. (How many people in the survey thought it would be a "joke" to tick Cornish as their native language? Quite a few I guess.) The 'critically endangered' label needs to be taken in context. The UN determined that 'extinct', its then label, was not an accurate description of Cornish today, but neither was the label above (I cannot remember what it was - the UN had a handful of descriptive labels, it did not invent them for each language). So, a new label, 'critically endangered' was created, that can be used for other languages too. I note that that label does not decribe Cornish as a living language even though it is often taken here to mean that. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Sounds a little WP:OR: not a “community language”?; “Joke” to tick the Cornish box?; Interpretation of UNESCO labels?; Need to be a “living” language? With respect, I think you’re overthinking this. We have an article with sources that already describe an attempt at a language revival. We have a map, sourced from a census, that shows that the revival has made virtually no impact, but that to the extent there is any impact it’s more in the west of the county than the east. I really don’t see the problem with including it. There is currently no empirical information on the status of the revival: a lacuna that could be filled by this map. DeCausa (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have time here to find the sources but they have been used here before so it is not my guesswork! Thus the exact position might not be precisely as described, but it is certainly close enough.- Cornish is described as an language used by academics and enthusiasts, not a community language, which is self evident. There is a source, perhaps UN published?, that explains why Cornish was 'elevated to be 'critically endangered'. (see [3]) The map is OR based on data that is primary. Such maps are commonly used on WP and doubtless are great fun to create, but they need to be used with care. I assume you are not advocating the use of primary evidence? Even if there is no reliable and independent data on the status of the revival attempt, that does not mean we can use bad primary sources instead. You still have not addressed the problem of the very low numbers involved in the census data.

It’s use should be per WP:PRIMARY: a statement that the map is the output of the census no more no less. Unless you have a secondary source discounting the Cornish language result because of ‘low numbers’ I don’t see the relevance of that point. I can see that you are firmly set in your view so will leave it at that, other than to say, to me, including the map is uncontroversial and obvious thing to do and I’m bemused by the objection. DeCausa (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Minority or regional language?

This discription is based on the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The terms regional and minority are seperated. I suggest they are seperated for a reason. However, they are usually treated as refering to one conceptone, ie 'Regional AND minority' languages. IMO the difference is fairly clear. An extinct language can still have a affect on a region's identity. However, I did snoop around a while ago and found that this distinction is not made clearer in various EU documents about the intent of the Charter, which could imply that my view is incorrect. Another possible reason for the seperation is that a regional language might not be a minority language in that region, of a particular sovereign state. Having the two definitions would allow that language to be covered, unambiguoysly, by the Charter. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you proposing a change to the article as a result? It’s unclear what you are looking to do as a result of your post. DeCausa (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Cornish is noted as a (living) language, in several articles, including infoboxes. The reference often used is the EU Charter that confirms it is a minority (ie still spoken as an L1) language. If the EU Charter is describing Cornish as a regional language then that does not confirm it is still spoken, just that it affects the culture of that region, spoken or not. I have raised this before without much feedback from other editors.

If I am correct, defining Cornish as a regional rather than a minority language would IMO better suit its actual position, which as far as I can tell is one of an extinct language being heavily promoted by a group of generally academic resurrection enthusiasts and a few Cornish celtic nationalists. These enthusiasts appear to be using many of the local govt backed initiatives to help promote their cause, such as road signs. Because those initiatives are only there due to national govt obligations under the Charter I would question their independence as reliable secondary sources. So, am I correct that the charter deals with two groups of languages, minority and regional, or do others think they are the same? And if you think they are the same, why does the charter specify the two separately? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think we can reach that conclusion without an RS specifically stating that conclusion - to do so would be WP:OR (or SYNTH). All the Charter should be used for as a source in itself is saying that Cornish is recognised under it - nothing more nothing less. WP:PRIMARY is quite clear that secondary sources are needed to provide interpretation. (Btw, not that it’s relevant for the reason I just stated, I think your interpretation (regional v minority) is unlikely. The difference between regional or minority is much more likely solely to do with the geographical coverage within a state. I would describe Urdu as a minority language in the UK and Piedmontese is a regional language in Italy.) DeCausa (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, DeCausa, I think you may be correct and my interpretation is incorrect, as well as being OR. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

To carry on with the OR (!) I was pondering the point of separating minority from regional - surely they would all be minority and regional would be a sub-set of that so what’s the point of a separate regional category? But I see that German is recognised under the charter for Switzerland, even though the majority of Swiss are German-speakers. I guess that’s an example (the only example?) of a regional language not being a minority language. DeCausa (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is the definition of 'regional or minority language' from the actual treaty. It sees to be treating the term 'regional or minority' as one thing, rather than two things, as I thought it did. That would then render pointless us trying to work out what each word means! Perhaps a little interesting though is why Cornish ever was added to the list. I think it is stretching matters a bit to fit Cornish into this definition from the treaty. Without seeing the minutes of the meeting that added Cornish to the list, we may never know. Or see the application document. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The key part of the definition seems to me to be “…traditionally used…”. Clearly, Cornish ticks “traditionally”. And “used” is a very broad term - there’s no indication of the nature or extent of that use. “Use” by the small number of revivalists would tick that too I suspect. DeCausa (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

There’s some brief background on the decision on the third and fourth (unnumbered) pages of this academic research paper. Seems to be based on a report by Ken MacKinnon. DeCausa (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Excellent - thanks for finding that. I'll read it in full when I get the time. The link would probably be a very useful addition to External links, as well as a source for useful references. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

New WP:OWNership needed

Unnecessary thread based around a WP:PA

Now, WP:OWNers of articles are often annoying, but they usually are also knowledgeable and passionate about the article they WP:OWN. Neither of these adjectives seems to apply to Roger 8 Roger, however. In fact, Roger appears to be rather dismissive of "this revived language": his main goal appears to be ensuring that Cornish became extinct as early as possible ("late 17th century", he added at one point - nearly 100 years before ol' Dolly passed away!) and claiming that Cornish has as few speakers as possible ("0-100"), while sadly not seeming to know very much about it. Yesterday's edits, and previous encounters I have had with Roger, seem to substantiate this. Now, what this page needs, is somebody competent and diplomatic to watch it, so that Roger cannot revert accurate information using rollback tools that somebody decided (!) were a good idea to give him. The article needs watching by somebody who is capable of telling him he is wrong without being overruled by random recent changes patrollers, who may be lawyers, dentists, or indeed fishwives, who may also (= "definitely won't" ) have very little (= "any") knowledge of the Cornish language. Tewdar (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC) User:Tewdar, please stop making personal attacks such as the above. No other editor is required to satisfy you. If someone takes an hour, a day, a week to reply to you, that's fine. If they never reply to your satisfaction, that is also fine. Behaviour like this is rude and unlikely to make any other editor agree with what you have to say. Badgering people by repeatedly posting new messages as in the section #Last traditional first language speaker and here is rude and unlikely to make any other editor agree with what you have to say. From what I see on this page, your behaviour on this topic has been far more disruptive than that of any other editor. Kahastok talk 10:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC) How is "WP:BRD" supposed to work if 'R' "never" replies to 'B'? Tewdar (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Although I do not have to justify myself here, my interest on this and other Cornish sites is heavily influenced by the large number of agenda driven contributions, which I have tried to weed out. It is not always easy to distinguish the good stuff from the bad. Being accused of being anti-Cornish, or anti-celtic, is an amusing interpretation, one that could not be further from the truth. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Well, I apologize if my assumption was incorrect. I do appreciate you get a lot of activism on this page that needs to be removed. Tewdar (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC) As someone who is Cornish and definitely not neutral I choose not to edit Cornish articles and only observe others behaviour and possible bias. I agree with User:Tewdar viewpoint as to the likely extinction date of Cornish especially after reading his links. Furthermore I consider User:Roger 8 Roger to have consistently attempted both to minimise and marginalise any views expressed contrary to his own interpretation of the facts throughout his history of editing the page Lyndaship (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC) I nearly choked on my pasty - someone agreeing with me on Wikipedia! 😮 Tewdar (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC) There is nothing wrong with challenging those contributions and holding people to account. In fact, IMO doing just that is what we should all be doing. There have been considerably more editors here who have attempted, without references or talk page discussion, to bring forward the date of the last L1 speaker from the traditional date of 1777. Many of these are IPs or one topic editors. I think it is unreasonable to portray my edits as opinion based, Lyndaship. I think they are based on what the sources say. If my interpretation of those sources is shown to be wrong then I am the first to admit it (see section above). I would be more than happy to see this page improved with altered facts. Rather than describe my edits as 'minimising' others' opinions I think it would be more accurate to decribe them as trying to hold people to account. I can see though that that may not come across that way at times. What happened here for example, is exactly that - I agreed with what Tewdar had posted but not exactly with the way he has gone about it, hence I questioned/reverted it. I suppose I can see how that may have appeared as though I was 'marginalising' his contribution. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Can I fix the bleddy dates yet or not, Roger? 😭 Tewdar (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC) To clarify, the edits of Tewdar that I reverted should be reinstated. He can then add to them or alter them as he sees fit. I hope we can now move forward. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Thanks! I'll add some references if you like. Also I would like to apologise to Roger - much of my annoyance was caused by the actions of the autopatroller, which was not Roger's fault. I share Roger's sentiment that we now move forward. Tewdar (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Done. Now let's not allow "1777" to creep in again, unless we're actually talking about Dolly, or the "last known first language speaker"... Tewdar (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Last traditional first language speaker

You cannot use "1777" as a date. The source from the 1940s previously used says, "It is popularly said that Mrs. Dolly Pentraeth, who died in 1777 at an advanced age, was the last person to speak Cornish." You cannot extrapolate from this a definite date. Since when do approximations of language extinctions get based on the last Mousehole fishwife some antiquary could find? It'd be like dating the death of the Hittite language by radiocarbon dating the latest clay tablet we can find to 1163BC +/- 84 years or something equally ludicrous. Tewdar (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You were bold and I reverted. Here comes discuss. I do not necessarily disagre with everything you posted but there are some issues. The 1946 source says it is popularly said that Dolly Pentreath was the last native speaker, not that she was - (amend the lead text). In the infobox it stated circa 1777, not exactly 1777, so the article is not stating for certain that she was the last speaker. 1777 is closer to late 18thC. than is 1800. And 1800 is just a guess with nothing at all to back it, unlike 1777. You should know better than to remove an academic source without very good reason. It might be dated but it is better than the sources you added which are by their very nature slanted to promote Cornish (nothing necessarily wrong with the detail, but its independence is questionable.) I suggest you put your case forward here before making such changes to well established cited informtion in the article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Tewdar - To clarify, I reverted everything because I could not easily take out the 'good' edits from what I thought were not so good. If my laziness is just that, laziness, then I apologize - I was more concerned about what to me appeared to be an broad unilateral unnecessary change to the 1777 question. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what has happened here. I did not intentionally make that very large deletion on this talk page. Hopefully someone will revert to the last good post. I cannot do it now. My last good edit here was a short clarification based on your post on my talkpage.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Look, here's the sources then:

• Right, so there's this: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282577683_Where_Cornish_was_spoken_and_When_A_Provisional_Synthesis Tewdar (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• And this: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NdTGWVa25AkC&lpg=PA1&pg=PT716#v=onepage&q&f=false Tewdar (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• But this one's my favourite: doi:10.1590/S0102-44502007000300004 - "Cornish became extinct as a native language with the death of Dolly Pentreath in Mousehole in 1777, perhaps on 17 October at 11pm." Tewdar (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

There we have it. Tewdar (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Also this: doi:10.1515/9783110408362.77 - "Cornish became extinct as a living community language at the end of the 18th century or beginning of the 19th century" Tewdar (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, not forgetting legendary Cornish Language activist Ken Jackson LHEB pg 6,"Modern Cornish is the language of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, at the end of which time it became extinct." Tewdar (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

LHEB ="Language and history in early britain" - very expensive book... Tewdar (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

£532.07 on Amazon! Tewdar (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Studies in the Consonantal System of Cornish - Chaudhri "Of the six Celtic languages that survived until the modern period, Cornish was the first of two to become extinct, around the end of the eighteenth century" Tewdar (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• The Celtic Languages - Donald MacAulay "...believed that Dolly was survived by a scattered handful of elderly people... unlikely that any of them survived beyond the end of the eighteenth century" Tewdar (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• "c. 1777" is like saying the Last Glacial Maximum was at c. 18:03, July 19th, 18,446 BCE. Tewdar (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• So yeah, "end of the 18th century" looks like the consensus view among modern scholars. Tewdar (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Also, please can I put the classification stuff back yet? Tewdar (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• LOL at this "discussion" 😂 Tewdar (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ynter hwerthin hag ola, yth esov... Tewdar (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Esov, po ov? Ple'ma Roger? Ple'ma ev? Tewdar (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, and what exactly did you mean by, "it is better than the sources you added which are by their very nature slanted to promote Cornish"? Care to explain? Or was this another example of "laziness", or a mistake, or something else? Tewdar (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I posted above this - "I do not necessarily disagre with everything you posted but there are some issues." Your mistake was not explaining properly what you were doing with your series of consecutive posts. That could have easily been rectified with an explanation by you followed be reinstating your edits, possibly with a few adjustments. That process, the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a fundemental part of the way wikipedia operates, as you doubtless know. Another core value is civility, something you show little of at the moment. You have been around long enough not to react in such a puerile way when your contributions are questioned. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I did put edit summaries. I was not allowed to reinstate my edits without your approval because a random page patroller said so. Did you read the sources yet? I propose the following:

• Reinstate the "Classification additions"
• Change lede and infobox "1777"s to "late 18th century" or "1800" Tewdar (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, I will try hard to be civil from now on. Your use of rollback made me a little grumpy, is all. Tewdar (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• So, I want to change the lede from "extinct as a first language in Cornwall in 1777" to "extinct as a first language in Cornwall around the end of the 18th century" - please say yay or nay below... Tewdar (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

And by the way, that is what it used to say, until a mere two months ago, when it was changed to 1777 on a whim. Tewdar (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Please can somebody explain to me, without being too long-winded, under what circumstances a discussion can be collapsed? Tewdar (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Everybody agreed. Everyone's happy. Why would we want to leave this train wreck open? Tewdar (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I’ll give you one way it can’t be closed. By having this message on it: “WARNING! DO NOT ADD TO OR MODIFY THIS DISCUSSION WHICH HAS NOW CONCLUDED!”. That’s not the way to do it. Discussions can be collapsed if they are basically pointless/unnecessary/uncivil etc which the one below may well qualify for. Discussions can be closed (not usually collapsed) when a consensus has been reached. However, closing a discussion after just over a day is inappropriate as others may well yet join in. But basically there’s no particularly need to to collapse/close it. DeCausa (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Actually, never mind. I'm very happy to carry on discussing the date. Anyone found any reliable examples of first language speakers from 1850s Zennor, yet? Tewdar (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Duw re dallo dhewgh hwi, @DeCausa:! Tewdar (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Heb grev DeCausa (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Peur hwrussysta deski agan yeth ni? Tewdar (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• "around the end of the 18th century" - do we agree with contemporary scholarly consensus, or do we do WP:OR based on the last Mousehole fishwife some antiquary could find? Tewdar (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

BTW, "we" don't verify when a language became extinct. What *we* do, is find reliable source(s), by appropriate experts, who give us an approximate date, except for languages that died out relatively recently such as Manx, where we can be reasonably certain, (and which will be reported by reliable sources in any case) Tewdar (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Also bear in mind the now collapsed section below, where Roger said that his edits should be reverted to the last version by me, which had 1800 in the infobox. Also note that one source above uses late 18th/early 19th century. Tewdar (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I do agree that 1800 looks overprecise, I just thought it looked better in the infobox than "late 18th/early 19th century", really. Tewdar (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

And remember, William Bodinar was a spritely "try egence a pemp" in 1776. Tewdar (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

"Orthography" separate section, or merge with "History"?

Do you think the separate Orthography section is a good idea? I made a start, but perhaps it should all just be put in the History section, as some of it is already? Tewdar (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead

@Tewdar: just one comment on the numerous changes you’ve made to the article: generally speaking, per WP:LEAD, the lead shouldn’t have citations in it. The reason is that the points made in the lead should be a summary of what’s in the main body of the article - and the citations should be there supporting the main text. Citations tend to make the text less readable to a casual reader, which tends is the target audience for leads. I also see that a couple of places you’ve got 4 inline citations and someone’s added an “excessive citations” tags. that’s quite right - 4 citations is generally considered too much. - rule of thumb, 2 should generally be the max. DeCausa (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, "the lede shouldn't have citations in it"? I know that. I started off *removing* citations from the lede, remember? That's what started all the trouble. I'm not sure where the four citations together are, is that the "end of eighteenth century" thing? Would you object if I remove those citations, then, or add them to the infobox, perhaps? In general, I have been *adding* citations to what was a woefully under-referenced article. More to come soon. Finally, is that all you object to, of all the "numerous changes" I have made? Gwynn ow bys! 😁 Tewdar (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, it was CycoMa who put the tag there. Boy am I glad to see them involving themselves in this article. 😭 Tewdar (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know what that means. If it’s sarcasm - don’t. I haven’t looked through what you’ve done yet - I only noticed the citations in the lead via CycoMa’s tag. Looks like you’re in an ongoing re-write - once you’ve finished, I’ll take a look. DeCausa (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Not really a re-write - I've been adding citations, rearranging stuff... I separated a few things into sections, added a morphology and syntax section, made a new orthography section, added some literature to the history section, most of it cited, apart from the grammar, which I'll probably do last. If I am not driven away from this article by the inevitable mass of "citation needed" tags or mass content deletions that I suspect may be coming soon, that is. Tewdar (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

BTW feel free to make suggestions if you think something sucks. Tewdar (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

If you’ve ensured that you’ve complied with WP:NPOV and WP:V (which are usually the two key issues), then there shouldn’t be aNy “citation needed tags or mass content deletions” problems. DeCausa (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

My additions are exceedingly neutral, and nobody with knowledge of Cornish is likely to dispute any of the linguistics. But perhaps CycoMa can prove me wrong. Gwynn agan bys. 😭 Tewdar (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Cranken Rhyme

@Tewdar: Hi, the text at the minute includes the text "the last recorded traditional Cornish verse may have been the Cranken Rhyme". The link which supports this is broken, what is the exact text which supports this statement? Boynamedsue (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

That link doesn't support that claim. I added Chaudhri 2007 as a source. Let me know if you don't think this is explicit enough and I'll find something better tomorrow. Oll an gwella...  Tewdar  (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Added another source, "Cranken Rhyme published long after his death by John Hobson Mathews in 1892. Regardless of its literary level, which seems rather low, it should be considered the last surviving piece of the original Cornish literary tradition." Nos da!  Tewdar  (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily against a sentence appearing, but to me the current wording makes it look like the Cranken Rhyme is a piece of Cornish literature, when it is a fragment transmitted by Davey who can't have understood its meaning. The reconstruction is possibly valid, but we can't be sure of that. I feel if we include it there needs to be some qualification. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, we have a source describing it as perhaps the "last surviving piece of the original Cornish literary tradition", so I think we're safe in calling it "Cornish literature", however corrupted it is (have you read Bewnans Ke?!). I'll add some stuff about its corrupt nature, uncertain date and provenance, and difficulties with the translation later today if you like. Personally I'm not entirely convinced that Davey, rather than Matthews (or whoever transcribed the rhyme), didn't understand what he was saying. Thanks for your useful contributions with the article.  Tewdar  (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"Revived Cornish" vs "Recent Modern Cornish"

A user recently changed a section title from "Recent Modern Cornish" to "Revived Cornish". Personally, based on RS and accuracy, I'd prefer using "Revived Cornish", but since it has been there for a long time I thought I'd ask if anyone has any thoughts on this? Tewdar (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

One month, no comments, so I changed it.  Tewdar  (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taylorxfrankel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

These contributions actually were quite good for the most part.  Tewdar  (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Cornish language tags

Hi! Please feel free to add your opinions and suggestions to the discussion here. You might also like to read the previous section, which is here. Thanks!

At the moment, the tags I'm using are:

• oco = traditional Cornish up to 1200AD

• cnx = traditional Cornish up to the revival, including any 'post-Cornish' fragments eg antiquaries recording old men talking to their cat c. 1890. Perhaps this isn't such a great idea.

• kw-uccor = Unified Cornish orthography

• kw-kkcor = Kernewek Kemmyn orthography

• kw-ucrcor = Unified Cornish Revised orthography

• kw-kscor = Kernowek Standard orthography (nb this is not the same as the Standard Written Form)

• kw = anything that doesn't fit into the other boxes, including the Standard Written Form or other attempts at orthographic normalization.  Tewdar  (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)