Modern Cornish and the Standard Written Form

Modern Cornish and the Standard Written Form

From the Modern Cornish perspective we are obviously disappointed that the Language Commission established during the SWF process did not take this opportunity to adopt Modern Cornish – the Cornish of the last generations of Cornish speakers – as its standard. This logical and simple solution to the interminable arguments that surround the spelling of late medieval Cornish was unfortunately not grasped. In the final analysis the dead hand of medievalism maintains the cloying grip it has had on the imagination of anyone coming into contact with Cornish since the 1920s.
Nonetheless, on the 9th of May the Cornish Language Partnership finally agreed (almost unanimously, with just one abstention) a Standard Written Form (SWF) of Cornish to be used in formal schooling and for official purposes. The process involved two years of discussion and argument and the result is somewhat messy, to say the least. One thing that everyone can agree on is that no-one really loves the SWF. Nevertheless, the fact that it’s come under fire from all quarters of the revivalist movement may mean it’s along the right lines.
One thing the SWF is not intended to be is the last word on the spelling of the Cornish language. During the debates that accompanied its genesis it’s become palpably clear that there remain many outstanding questions about Cornish pronunciation and vocabulary. Hopefully, one effect of this agreement will be to encourage those who disagree to begin to debate their differences in a more open and civilised fashion across the sectarian divides of the institutions of the Cornish Revival. For the SWF marks another important and understated change. It takes Cornish beyond the narrow confines of a tiny and parochial language movement obsessed by its past and immersed in its own petty squabbles. Now we have the opportunity to build some properly representative institutions for a post-revivalist language, taking Cornish out from a revivalist ghetto that has not served it particularly well and into the towns and villages of Cornwall.
For the first time, the SWF recognises that there are two equal variants, or dialects, of revived Cornish. First, there is Revived Middle Cornish (RMC), the Cornish that was put together by Robert Morton Nance in the 1920s and continued by those who have dominated the small Cornish Revival. This is based on the language as it was presumed to have been spoken around 1500 or around 1550, depending on your perspective. ‘Presumed’ as no-one can actually be certain. Reconstructions are based on a medieval literature composed almost entirely in verses of eight seven-syllable rhymes, hardly the best evidence for the way an everyday language was spoken.
Second, there is Revived Late Cornish (RLC), the Cornish the Cussel uses. This is the Cornish of the first revivalists and of Henry Jenner, who wrote the first grammar, before the Revival took its medieval turn. RLC is based roughly on the Cornish spoken around 1700, for which we have the evidence of Edward Lhuyd’s researches, the only contemporary account of the language written by someone with a knowledge of comparative linguistics.
However, this picture of two dialects over-simplifies things. In reality those who use RMC have to look to RLC for examples of Cornish prose and for some of their vocabulary. It has also become clear that speakers of RMC do not use the purported sounds of late medieval Cornish but are closer in pronunciation to the Cornish of 1700. In similar fashion users of RLC have to turn to MC texts for vocabulary and for
examples of more complex and literary verbal paradigms. In short both actually sign up to a policy of tota cornicitas, using resources from the whole period of Cornish. It is only the emphasis and the philosophical assumptions that differ.
The SWF has tried to recognise this by including a standard form with two equal variants, one reflecting RMC pronunciation, or at least what users of RMC aspire to in theory, and the other RLC pronunciation. However, the two variants share the same spelling system and combinations of letters to try to bring them closer together and support a convergence among Cornish users. Neither of the variants is to be regarded as better or superior to the other although clearly we prefer RLC and groups such as Agan Tavas or the Cornish Language Board will support RMC. Textbooks for anyone learning Cornish other than young children will have to note the existence of the other variant and give examples of it where it diverges from the preferred form. No longer can anyone insist that their Cornish is the only right ‘Cornish’ and everyone else is either ‘wrong’, ‘deluded’ or somehow ‘corrupt’.
So in order to maintain the connection between the two variants it will be necessary to use a number of common spellings. These are unfortunately in the main based on medieval spellings as the argument of the linguists is that the medieval pronunciation involved more sounds. These have to be indicated for those who are trying to speak RMC, even though they have fallen together in RLC. This is not so strange as it sounds as the spelling of English also reflects a much more conservative pronunciation than modern English. For example, the words and are spelt differently reflecting different pronunciations in Middle English, but pronounced identically (at least in BBC English!) If both words were spelt then someone wanting to pronounce in its Middle English form would get no guidance from the spelling.
Although logical for the linguists this will involve some effort from users of Modern Cornish, as different letters may have the same sound. For example the final unstressed syllable in SWF , and is the same – the colourless sound of the second vowel in English . But it’s spelt differently because it may have been pronounced differently in MC, although the jury is actually out on that one. Similarly, we will have to get used to letter combinations unknown in Modern Cornish, such as for . We still pronounce as and every time we see we give it an /e/ sound. This is probably not too difficult but makes the SWF somewhat more complicated than it might have been.
However, in the RLC variant we are still able to spell RMC as in a familiar way. This goes for virtually all words with RMC or . In RLC these are spelt as they are sounded – with or . Furthermore, because the unnecessary doubled consonants after unstressed vowels that were typical of the Kernewek Kemmyn version of RMC are now single consonants (for example becomes ). When we see a RMC or we can be fairly confident it’s actually or in RLC.
Although we will be faced by a lot of unfamiliar letter combinations in the bulk of even the RLC variant, the oddest being for a /y/ sound, the RLC variant will maintain more familiar verbal forms, for example and not the medieval spelling . Learning to read the SWF is not an overnight task for those unfamiliar with RMC but should not be too taxing once anyone has a working knowledge of Cornish.
And there is a further aspect of the SWF that can make it more familiar. In its main form the sound /k/ as in English , or is spelt consistently ,
while /wh/ as in is spelt . However, it will be acceptable to use more traditional forms for these sounds, i.e. spelling /k/ as depending on context and spelling as . Writing the RLC variant using these traditional forms brings it closer to the spellings Modern Cornish users have learnt.
These are just a few aspects of the SWF. (For more information see the Outline available at http://www.magakernow.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=41352). Moreover, it does not mean we have to give up our own spelling of Cornish. In fact we should continue to research, develop and refine this as in five years time there will be a review of the SWF. Hopefully, that review and the research and discussion that informs it can take place free from the egoistic and arrogant posturing and verbal violence that has so sadly accompanied the ‘debates’ on the spelling of Cornish hitherto. If the SWF can encourage a new spirit of trust and openness then the time spent on it will have been well worth the trouble.