Talk:Cornish phonology

Active discussions

Late Cornish Vowel systemEdit

@Fdom5997 - I quite like the table that you use on the Cornish Language page with long / short columns. Since almost everyone agrees that vowel quantity is phonemic at this stage, perhaps that is what we ought to use.

@Fdom5997 - I *really* would like to talk about the Late Cornish vowel table...

@Tewdar sure, I think its fine, what about it? Fdom5997 (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fdom5997 - Wmffre (pg. 10) gives five 'full' vowels that can be realized long or short, plus schwa:-

/a/ [æ] [æː]~[ɛː] /e/ [ɛ] [eː] /i/ [ɪ] [iː] /o/ [ɔ] [oː] /u/ [ʊ] [uː] (ə)

also he notes [ɒː], which he states may possibly not be phonemically distinct from /oː/ (which may in fact have been realised as [ɔː])

George, The Celtic Languages, states "The Late Cornish system of stressed vowels was a simple one of five members" in which "phonemicity passed from the consonants to the vowels c. 1625", and thus concludes that "there were therefore *ten* vocalic phonemes in Late Cornish":

/i(ː)/ /u(ː)/ /e(ː)/ /ɔ(ː)/ /a(ː)/

Also note Bock and Bruch, who argue for a distinction between /eː/ and /ɛː/

So, what do you think the vocalic *phonemes* of Late Cornish were?

/æ/ /æː/ /ɛ/ (/ɛː/) /eː/ /ɪ/ /iː/ /ɔ/ /oː/ /ʊ/ /uː/ (/ə/) [schwa is probably sub-phonemic] (/ɒː/)

or maybe...

/i/ /u/ /e/ /o/ /a/ (/ə/)

or even...

/i(ː)/ /u(ː)/ /e(ː)/ /o(ː)/ /a(ː)/

Which representation do you think is best?Tewdar (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tewdar I think that Wmffre gives the most detail, so you should keep his source that explains the vowels. Fdom5997 (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fdom5997 So you think we should use Wmffre as a basis...I presume, then, that you have his book and have read it? Or are you basing this on what I said above? Regardless, Wmffre gives five vowel phonemes, which can be realised either long or short, whereas George gives ten vowel phonemes. (George goes into a lot more detail in PHC, which I presume you are also familiar with). Why then would we base our vowel tables mainly or solely on Wmffre?Tewdar (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tewdar, we could maybe do both. I think that will be good. Fdom5997 (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fdom5997 - okay...that is 'sort of' what is on the page at the moment...it is a difference of interpretation I suppose. Wmffre interprets the vocalic system like, one phoneme /i/, realised as [ɪ] (when short) and [iː] (when long), whereas George would class these as two phonemes. There are problems with both approaches, but I think giving all the long / short phonemes makes sense, especially as Bock / Bruch (and Kennedy) give a long [ɛː] phoneme which either does not have a short counterpart, or causes [e:] not to have a short counterpart depending on your interpretation of this, calls into question the 'one phoneme - long or short' system of Wmffre. I was thinking of possibly either using a table like the one you have on the Cornish language page already, with long / short columns, or even separate tables long vowels vs short vowels?

@Tewdar I believe a table like the one on the Cornish language page, with long / short columns would be useful. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The ReferencingEdit

I think it's okay now...

Phonological tablesEdit

@Tewdar Ok, so here's exactly what I did to make the charts look nicer, I merged all of the empty cells, then in Middle Cornish I also merged the geminated consonants with the voiceless plosives. Is that okay? Fdom5997 (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fdom - I'm probably getting a little grumpy, because a) it's quite hot weather today and b) it takes me a lot of time to create the tables. So, I'm sorry about that. I think the most important thing is to keep each phoneme in its own cell. Now, in Middle Cornish, /m/ and /m:/ are separate phonemes. If they are both in the same cell, it makes it look as though [m:] is a possible realization of /m/. Which is very, very wrong according to almost everyone. I am very happy for you to tidy stuff up, and I really do appreciate your assistance, but please try not to remove important information when doing so. Thanks.

@Tewdar All's /m/ and /m:/ are, are not "seperate" phonemes, the only real difference is that they are geminated. That is not necessarily different. Gemination is a suprasegmental, not a diacritic. Understood? Fdom5997 (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fdom5997 - /m/ and /mm/ (for example) are TWO PHONEMES in Middle Cornish (/m:/ may or may not be geminated, or a fortis, or something else), according to George, Chaudhri, Schrijver, Jackson, and Toorians. If you disagree with them, you need to publish a paper, and provide a link to it. I have already qualified the table by stating Williams view that /m/ and /mm/ fell together in Middle Cornish. Please get somebody else here to resolve this because I think we fundamentally disagree on this.

@everybody who thinks they can edit this page without knowing anything about Brittonic languages in general and the phonology of Cornish in particular - I really wish you would pick up or buy or download some of the sources in the article and read them, really REALLY read them, before modifying stuff you have no clue whatsoever about.Tewdar (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tewdar so all's I did for the consonant chart for Middle Cornish was add labels for each row, which show each of the voiceless and voiced sounds and just simply rearranged each of the rows and deleted the excess third columns within the main columns. I have done tons of work on these phonetic charts, so I do have a lot of experience and know what I am doing. All of the symbols are still there and are still the same, I just rearranged the format of the chart. Fdom5997 (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tewdar also, just to make you aware, /m:/ is by definition (according to the updated IPA chart) considered a geminated consonant. I have also corrected all of the other geminated phonemes to match their IPA phonetic values. Fdom5997 (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fdom5997 - remember they may be geminate, or perhaps devoiced, or maybe badly-defined 'fortis' or something else...I give up.

@Tewdar if they were devoiced, they would have looked like this [m̥]. Fdom5997 (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fdom5997 - Yes, thank you. I know that. But how do we neutrally represent a phoneme that may have been geminate, may have been devoiced, or may have been something else? My suggestion is to go with the majority view, which means representing these sounds as /mm, /nn/, etc.

@Fdom5997 - Hey, perhaps you could fix the nasalised voiced bilabial fricative symbols on the chart, the nasalisation symbol is not combining correctly with the beta on my system.

[dʷ]Edit

Where did this come from? Is that some more original research, Fdom5997? Is that supposed to represent a labialized [d]?

@Tewdar yes, that is correct. Fdom5997 (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fdom5997 - as in 'yes, this is original research' or 'yes, that is supposed to represent a labialized d'? I changed it to a phonemic notation anyway so you don't have to worry about the exact phonetic representation anymore. Unless you changed it back of course (I have not checked the page to see what havoc has been done during the night yet...)

@Tewdar that is yes, this is original research, in that it is supposed to represent a labialized d. I would not have said yes to that if it weren’t for my *numerous* research on the rules of the IPA chart. Fdom5997 (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fdom5997 - I never doubted for a second your knowledge of the IPA. What I am questioning is the suitability of dʷ for transcribing Cornish. Lets take a look at Welsh <pedwar>, for instance. Nobody transcribes this as **/ˈpɛdʷar/. Everybody transcribes it as /ˈpɛdwar/. Similarly, nobody (with the sole exception of...er, you) ever transcribes Old Cornish /dw/ as **/dʷ/. Just you, against everybody else. Why do you feel the need to do this? Similarly with your /ᵇm/ and /ᵈn/ in Late Cornish. This is a convention used in Manx, for example, but may not actually be suitable for Cornish.
Read the literature. Stick to the sources. Don't include original research. Seems the best way forward for this article in my opinion.Tewdar (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Article rename?Edit

Just about all of the other X phonology articles cover contemporary pronunciations. It seems like a better name to reflect the article's scope is historical phonology of Cornish. Thoughts? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 02:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

You mean "Phonological history of..."? There are no articles named "Historical phonology of...". Nardog (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Even better, yeah. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Contemporary pronunciations are coming soon in a new section. I think in view of the special status of Cornish as a revived language, and that the various contemporary pronunciations are wholly or mainly based on the various conjectured reconstructions of various historical periods of Cornish, they should all be contained in this single article. Also please bear in mind that there is a lack of scholarly research on contemporary pronunciations (rather than just recommendations...) Tewdar (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Even if we include contemporary pronunciations, it's still the case that this is a phonological history article, rather than a phonology article. If what you're saying is true, we probably shouldn't even have a Cornish phonology article. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 20:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ƶ§œš¹ - I'm slightly inclined to agree with you about the name of the page - on reflection, I think perhaps the best solution is to rename the current article to 'Phonological history of Cornish', and create a new article 'Cornish Phonology' to attempt to deal with the revived (recommended) pronunciation systems to the extent that this is possible. I don't agree that there should be no article at all for the current phonologies used in the revived language, but there are some problems with this.Tewdar (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tewdar: Contemporary phonology of Cornish can be dealt with @ Cornish language. We don't have to create a separate article. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, let's start by putting that in the relevant section at Cornish language and then, if that section becomes large enough, we can create a standalone phonology article that covers contemporary pronunciation(s). — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 20:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, we should add the recommended pronunciations for speakers of Unified Cornish, Kernewek Kemmyn, UCR, the RLC speakers and whoever else to the existing page. I don't believe that a proper survey of actual contemporary phonology exists.Tewdar (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Williams and GeorgeEdit

There are a number of unclear citations to Williams and George. In many situations, such as the one I've tagged here, there's a citation given that I'd assumed was an indirect citation, but is still incomplete. I suspect someone may have accidentally given the wrong citation in these instances, but I could be wrong. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I suspect someone may have muddled the references up while cleaning up...looks like some separate references got merged into one? Perhaps Ball (1990) and Ball(2009) got confused somehow? Either that or the person who first put the sources in (cough, splutter) made a few errors. Besides that reference you tagged (hopefully correct now, it was the wrong book I think), what other citations do you consider unclear? George, in Celtic Languages 2nd edition (Ball 2009) writes an article titled 'Cornish' where a lot of his current thinking is outlined. Williams writes an article “A problem in Cornish phonology”, in: Ball, Martin J., James Fife, Erich Poppe, and Jenny Rowland (eds.), Celtic linguistics / Ieithyddiaeth Geltaidd.Tewdar (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh I see! So Ball et al. is an anthology with chapters written by different authors. Okay, that clears it enough for me that I can adjust the citations. Thank you. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. Just remember there are two books, Ball 1990 (Williams, Problem in Cornish Phonology) and Ball 2009 (George, Cornish). Thank you (and others) for fixing the citations.Tewdar (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think I've confused those. The confusing thing that I just parsed through in my most recent edit is between two Williams 2006s and George 2009s. Feel free to double check to make sure I haven't goofed on this parsing. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 02:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Fortis or Geminate PhonemesEdit

Please avoid merging the cells of long and short (or fortis and geminate) consonants. Thanks. Tewdar (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there a wikipedia convention on whether geminates should appear on the left or the right of their singleton counterparts? Everybody is a massive pain and moves them left to right to left to right...I wish these folk would find something more interesting to add to the article - there's loads and loads and loads of theories and debates and arguing and fighting and death threats that could be included in this article...Tewdar (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

In general, I've seen fortis go first. I think it might keep switching because people find it strange to list the geminate version first. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what the last person to talk about this said. Which is why I changed it. And now its fortis on the right again. Ah well, at least no one's actually removing the geminates (any more) Tewdar (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review processEdit

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thank you for this informative new article..

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Cornish phonology" page.