Idiom and current usage

[Evertype]

But (for example) there is no evidence for "yn whir". Only for "in gwir". So what we have is a mistake on the part of one person (Nance) being noticed and corrected by others (Edwards and Williams). And then we see "entrenched" views ranging from "No! I won't change!" to excuses for how the adverbial particle can be (even if it never was) used in a phrase glossed in English as 'truly'.

You say that "people" are not taking the word of an expert, but checking themselves. Well in this case, the word of the experts is demonstrably true. And so instead of the experts who point to actual evidence in the texts, "people" are digging in their heels because they are following a different expert, who happens in this case to be wrong.

[branvras]

So what we have is a mistake on the part of one person (Nance) being noticed and corrected by others (Edwards and Williams).

This is a good example of my point - that facts presented by experts do have to be checked. I'd like to check exactly what Edwards said about 'yn hwir'. Where did he notice and correct Nance's mistake with respect to this phrase?

[Bardh]

One interesting development is the beginnings of divergences between different varieties, e.g. written vs. spoken, and formal vs. informal.

There seems to be more than one Cornish equivalent of 'answering machine'. My observation is that, in writing, you're more likely to get jynn-gorthybi, literally, 'machine of answering'. In speech, on the other hand, you're more likely to hear papynjay-tredan, literally, 'parrot of electricity'. Much less deferential than the Italian segretaria telefonica, perhaps - but a bit more on target!

Whereas people are often careful to form responses from appropriate verbal stems in careful speech, auxiliaries come closer to hand in casual conversation.

A dybydh bos prys dalleth hwath? - Tybyav. 'Do you think it is time to start yet?' - 'I think.' (i.e. 'Yes')

'Welsis an beldroes newer? - Na wrug. 'DId you see the football last night?' - 'I did not.' (i.e. 'No')

We need a lot more solid information on these phenomena. They can tell us a great deal about the contemporary development of Cornish, and also enrich the stylistic repertoire of the language.

Anyway, I'm off to visit family in Ireland. See you the week after next!

[Golvan]

The first person to notice that *yn whyr was unattested was Caradar. In the second supplement (first published 1955) to Cornish Simplified he writes:

YN GWYR -- never shows mutation "yn whyr" as if gwyr is taken as a noun not an adjective.

see Cornish Simplified: Part 2 (second edition 1984) page 31.

Golvan

[kiogh]

It should not be too difficult for speakers to switch to ' yn gwir/gwyr.

[towlenner]

Golvan, what are the attestations for yn gwir please?

[kiogh]

I checked CS part 2, and Caradar does not mention any attestations, but my edition of BK has 'gans arthor in gwyr heb mar' and also elsewhere in BK, and I believe in OM and BM.

[Dowrgi]

OM 3, 631, 1138, 2461, 2541, 2549; PC 296, 600; BM 1155, 4266;
towlenner has found the two examples in BK, making 12 in all.

The non-attestation of yn whyr does not make yn hwir wrong, as Golvan would have us believe. It just means that it is not attested in that form. It obeys the grammatical rules, showing 5th state mutation after adverbial yn. Lhuyd wrote En ụîr which looks very much like yn hwir expressed in his spelling.

Middle Cornish yn gwyr means 'in truth'; Revived Cornish yn hwir means 'truly, really'. There is a slight difference. There is room for both.

[towlenner]

towlenner has found the two examples in BK

Not me.

Middle Cornish yn gwyr means 'in truth'; Revived Cornish yn hwir means 'truly, really'. There is a slight difference. There is room for both.

Agreed. I think the problem may come from people using yn hwir where yn gwir would be more appropriate, not that yn hwir is fundamentally wrong.

[Evertype]

Middle Cornish yn gwyr means 'in truth'; Revived Cornish yn hwir means 'truly, really'. There is a slight difference. There is room for both.

That's a learner's error. Learners often want there be one-to-one equivalents in L2 for what they are familiar with in L1. English has "in truth" and "truly" so Cornish must have both too. But the argument is about semantic domains. In fact, we have dhe wir, in gwir, and i'n gwiryoneth to choose from. There's no reason we need to make excuses for *yn whir. We should strive to improve Revived Cornish. Nance gave "yn w(h)yr, truly"; his mistake is that this phrase with the mutation-causing adverbial participle is not attested; the attested form uses the non-mutating preposition.

I don't see why there is a need to defend, or to perpetuate *yn whir. It's not needed. Traditional Cornish offers richness enough.