Idiom and current usage

[branvras]

...if the author (who is?)...

Matthi.

[towlenner]

We should probably offer Matthi to host it on the Kernewegva.

We could host it on Kernowek.net, if the author (who is?) will permit it.

I'm Spartacus!

[Golvan]

Let's pretend 1s preterite of prena was not attested. You'd be able to ask "A brensys an aval ma?" but not to reply "Prenav" if you only use attested forms.

In traditional Cornish one does not use the inflected form of a verb to ask a question. Instead one uses an auxiliary. A good example from Late Cornish is:

Ha e a lavarraze tha an vennen, Eah! reeg Deew lawle, Che na raze debre a kenevrah Gwethan an Looar? [Hag ev a lavaras dhe'n venyn, Ea, a wrug Duw lavaral, Che na wras debry a genyver gwedhen a'n lowarth?] 'And he said to the woman: Yes, did God say, You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?'

In the revived language therefore one would therefore say: A wrusta perna an aval-ma? And the answer would be Gwrug. There is not problem there at all.

Actually there is a very serious gap in our knowledge of Cornish usage. To ask 'when?' in traditional Cornish one uses peur followed by mixed mutation. There are very few examples.
It is likely that later Cornish used pana dermyn, but there is only one example and it is in an indirect (rather than a direct) question:
Nena Herod, pereeg e prevath crya an deez feere, e a vednyaz thoranze seer puna termin reeg an steare disquethaz 'Then Pilate, when he called the wise men privately, he asked them assiduously when the star appeared' Rowe.

Puna termin I take to be for pana termyn 'which time', but pana not infrequently is followed by lenition, so I should prefer to write pana dermyn. Pana dermyn is without warrant in the texts, however.

Golvan

[towlenner]

In traditional Cornish one does not use the inflected form of a verb to ask a question.

There is no example anywhere of this practise? In my experience it's commonplace in RMC.

[branvras]

In traditional Cornish one does not use the inflected form of a verb to ask a question.

There is no example anywhere of this practise? In my experience it's commonplace in RMC.

Well, it's certainly used in the texts. And if it's good enough for the texts it's good enough for me. It's difficult to see how the assertion can be made that 'in traditional Cornish one does not use the inflected form of a verb to ask a question'. What is meant by 'traditional Cornish' here?

[Golvan]

Towlenner queries my statement In traditional Cornish one does not use the inflected form of a verb to ask a question. He is right to do so.
I should have nuanced my remark. In the verse of the plays, the heptasyllabic line places restraints on the writer.
Inflected forms of the verb are therefore not uncommon in questions, for example:

a na wylta ol myns es orth ze vlamye 'do you not see all those who accuse you?' PA 120c
a glewsyugh why cowethe del vgy an vyl hore ov thenwel an pyth na vvth[/i] 'did you hear, comrades, how the vile whore names what does not exist?' OM 2727-29
A wylta kyrwas enos del vynnas Du whar ha dof 'Do you see stags yonder, as God willed, gentle and tame?' BK 848.

But in prose the use of auxiliaries is more usual:

Arluth esta ge ow Jugia mett 'Lord, do you consider me worthy?' TH 7
Symon mab Joannes, esta ge worth ow cara ve 'Simon son of Jona, do you love me?' TH 43
esta ge worth ow cara ve 'do you love me' TH 43 (not the same example as the preceding)
prag a reta gelwall an sea han stall an aposteleth an sea ha stall a pestilence 'why do you call the see and stall of Rome the see and stall of pestilence?' TH 48

And one also finds auxiliaries used with questions in verse:

a ny vynta obeye the thev a wruk the formye 'Are you not going to obey God who created you?' OM 1505-06
dar soposia a reta den rych nefra mones then neff da ny yl 'What, do you suppose a rich man can never get to blessed heaven?' BM 459-61
den a vynta gule a bry 'will you make a man of clay?' CW 260.

There is, by the way, often no hint of volition in the use of a vydn + verbal noun to render the future, e.g. mar myn ov descans servya 'if my education will be enough' BM 524.

The use of auxiliary verbs in questions is similar to such use with indirect questions, statements, indirect statements and in commands. In prose the use of auxiliaries is the default positiont. But auxiliaries are very common in direct statement and commands in verse as well:

Ellas gveles an termyn ov arluth pan wruk serry pan ruk drys y worhenmyn ov ertech gruk the gylly 'Alas to see the time when I angered my Lord; when I acted against his command I lost my inheritance' OM 351-54
ha gans myyn gureugh hy knoukye erna wrello tremene venytha na wreugh hethy 'and with stones strike her until she die. Never cease!' OM 2694-96.

In Tregear's Homilies, which are our longest text, a lever, a levar, a laver 'says' is not uncommon. Commoner by far, however, is yma ow leverall ' says', with the bos + 'participle' form of the verb used as a simple present. That is to say, the author uses bos as an auxiliary (yma eff ow leverall) in preference to the finite form of the verb (eff a levar).

When writing and speaking Cornish it is not often necessary to inflect any verb except one of the auxiliaries, bos, gwil, dos and mydnas.

Golvan

[branvras]

With all due respect, Golvan, I think this is a classic example of why Cornish speakers do not take the word of experts at face value but go off and check the facts for themselves. Here we were presented with an outright statement 'in traditional Cornish one does not use the inflected form of a verb to ask a question'. No two ways about it, and anyone that read that this morning and has not been back since for an update is probably spreading that myth already. Then, when this apparent statement of fact was queried and it was pointed out that there is textual evidence to the contrary, the statement was qualified. Substantially. And the qualification is not particularly compelling. The use of inflected forms of the verb in the plays is attributed only to restraints placed on the writer by heptasyllabic lines which 'therefore' makes inflected forms 'not uncommon'. But the one does not necessarily result from the other - a firm 'therefore' is unjustified. Perhaps inflected forms of the verb in questions are 'not uncommon' because they were 'not uncommon' in traditional Cornish. I'm also uncomfortable with the statement, 'but in prose the use of auxilliaries is more usual'. This looks like a fact about traditional Cornish prose. But the statement could just as validly have been 'but in Tregear the use of auxilliaries is more usual' (making a statement about Tregear's Cornish, not prose per se) or 'in later Cornish the use of auxilliaries is more usual' (making a statement about Cornish at the time Tregear was writing, not prose per se). This is a good example of what I said earlier about people looking at the evidence, weighing it up for themselves and coming to differing conclusions (for example, that this feature is directly attributable to: 'the prose nature of the piece', 'the particular style of the author, Tregear', 'the time at which it was written', 'all three'). I'm not suggesting that all theories have equal weight or validity, but it would help in evaluating them if experts could be much more careful about what they present as fact.

[Bardh]

An Donn Nowydh - I agree that our profanity should be as rich and expressive as we can make it. Everybody has something to contribute here, even if they've not been using Cornish for long. Being able to let off steam in a language is an important element of feeling at home in it. Somebody (no names, no pack drill) who'd been using Cornish for less than a year had come up with Kawgh kogh!, to which they resorted when Gast! didn't seem strong enough. The sheer physical force of such utterances gives them a certain rough virtue, I think.

Some of the items on the Mollethi list look vaguely familiar. It occurs to me that they may come from James Whetter's famous essay. What would be good in this matter would be a concerted effort, with people experimenting with different kinds of cursing, blaspheming, railing, flyting, and general verbal vileness. That way, we could find out what would genuinely shock us, as well as what would amuse, intimidate, and disgust. A swearing session would be a useful beginning at a Yeth an Werin, with each person present uttering a piece of foul language in turn. The first to repeat themselves or imitate another, or falter, would by the next round.

[Golvan]

[quote="branvras"]With all due respect, Golvan, I think this is a classic example of why Cornish speakers do not take the word of experts at face value but go off and check the facts for themselves

I accept your criticism, Branvras. My original statement was unjustified and too sweeping. I apologise; there is no excuse. I shall be more careful in future.

I did search the texts and find some direct questions in them. I then presented them on this forum. There are remarkably few.

Nobody should accept anything anybody says without checking, but the truth is, speakers ignore what you call "experts", and they ignore the texts as well. I really don't think you are correct, when you say that people go off and check for themselves. Apart from Ray Edwards, I have never met any Cornish user, who read the texts to improve his Cornish. I am sure such people exist but I cannot remember having met anyone who did so. Can you honestly say, Branvras, that you read the Passion Poem, the Ordinalia, Beunans Meriasek, Tregear, Bewnans Ke and the Creation of the World regularly to check what others say and write?

Tregear is effectively our only prose text of any length. JCH, Rowe, Nebbaz Gerriau and are too short to give a really full picture of good usage. They are useful, but when it comes to Cornish prose, like it or not, that really means Tregear.

This discussion was started when the 1s preterite of prena was mentioned. The third singular prennas 'bought' is attested ten times, always with the sense 'redeemed'. The verbal adjective prennys is attested 6 times, also with the sense 'redeemed'. The verbal noun occurs as prenna 'redeem' x2 and the past subjunctive prenna x 1. As far as I can see, apart from the third singular, no other part of the preterite is attested. Moreover, when the word means 'buy' it is always perna

mar cafa stoff the perna 'if I get stuff to buy' BM 1463
boys ha dewes the perna 'to buy food and drink' BM 1672
Dry dre an mona ha perna moy 'Bring home the money and buy more' Pryce
An gwaz reeg e perna, a reeg e thanen 'The fellow who bought it, sent it...' NBoson
Ny dalle deez perna kinnis war an sawe 'You should not buy coal by the load' JJenkins
Gwell eye veeha perna nebas glow 'It would be better to buy a little coal' JJenkins.

Not only is the 1s pret. not attested, but prena seems to mean 'redeem' and 'buy' is actually perna rather than prena.
It is rather as though the literary form prena/prenna has a theological sense, whereas the everyday sense is rendered by perna.

Golvan

[branvras]

Can you honestly say, Branvras, that you read the Passion Poem, the Ordinalia, Beunans Meriasek, Tregear, Bewnans Ke and the Creation of the World regularly to check what others say and write?

No, I can't. But I don't think they need to be read regularly to check what others say or write about the language. I probably read one or two texts a year, believing that there are more productive uses for my time, given the limited amount of it I can give to the revival. But that does mean I've read them all a number of times, and I do dip into them about once a week to do things like check usage, or the latest revelation from Cornwall 24 or the Spellyans list. It is so easy now that we have the texts as computer files.
I nevertheless overstated the case. Clearly not all Cornish speakers check the texts for themselves. But the point I was making badly was that if they take any action at all (and, indeed, many take none) they check what they are being told rather than take the word of an expert at face value. That is precisely why we end up with people having what appear to
be entrenched views on the use of 'kyttrin' and 'ilow' and 'yn kever' and 'yn hwir' and 'avon' and 'arghans' - because they have thought about it and checked the evidence, rather than just accepting or ignoring it. I have been a party to endless discussions about these and many similar matters (no doubt 'perna/prena' will be next), and if you are unaware that such discussions take place I can only suggest that you must be mixing with the 'wrong' kind of Cornish speakers.