Irish in 100 years

Moderator: kevin

User avatar
Lur
Posts: 3052
Joined: 2012-04-15, 23:22
Location: Madrid
Country: ES Spain (España)

Re: Irish in 100 years

Postby Lur » 2013-06-14, 15:19

morlader wrote:The modern speaker would certainly have to change how they spoke to reflect the English-influenced Cornish of 1700, since the revivalist preference seems to be for the more Celtic Cornish of earlier periods.

Touché.
Geurea dena lapurtzen uzteagatik, geure izaerari uko egiteagatik.

User avatar
mōdgethanc
Posts: 10658
Joined: 2010-03-20, 5:27
Gender: male
Location: Toronto
Country: CA Canada (Canada)

Re: Irish in 100 years

Postby mōdgethanc » 2013-06-17, 2:19

morlader wrote:I'm still not clear as to what makes it feel somewhat artificial to you, since you say you've never studied it.
All revived languages are the conscious effort of a speech community to revive them. That means choices have to be made about what the language will be like so the revivalists can agree on it. Perhaps it was a bit much to say "conlang", but they are needs be planned languages and not the natural result of evolution from an earlier form. It's not anything specific to Cornish but a trait of revived languages as a whole.
As Lowena said, it does have native speakers. Unless you mean native speakers of traditional Cornish? And it has largely been standardised.
I wasn't aware it had native speakers until now. Maybe I was confusing it with something else. Does Manx have native speakers?

I also didn't mean to imply it wasn't standardized. I only said that there was a lot of strife over doing so.
I speak revived Cornish. Any other labels have long been proven to be either superficial (spelling system) or arbitrary (Middle/Late distinction). There weren't any native speakers 100 years ago, although the revival was 9 years into its infancy. If you want to know if revived Cornish would be understood by a native speaker of 1700, I'd say there'd be quite a good chance, though not without its difficulties. The modern speaker would certainly have to change how they spoke to reflect the English-influenced Cornish of 1700, since the revivalist preference seems to be for the more Celtic Cornish of earlier periods. And of course we'd only be able to talk about topics common to both time periods.
I didn't know there was a tendency to archaicize it. In that case at least, it's not much like Modern Hebrew.
Certainly not. But the largest source of input for the revived language has been and continues to be the remains of the traditional language. It's still identifiably the same language, albeit reconstructed and modernised. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be able to read and understand the traditional texts. Just because we've created neologisms, and idiomatic phrases are somewhat lacking, it doesn't warrant the use of the word 'conlang', which I think does the revived language a real disservice. Perhaps the fact that it has been revived, and is now out there in the real world developing on its own, also gives it a certain uniqueness.
Any successful language revival is quite a noteworthy feat, since there is only one case of it happening on a large scale (Hebrew) and most others have mixed results at best. It's become clear to me how little I know about the Cornish revival (after all, it's not a language I have ever been all that interested in) but I have learned a lot from this discussion and now know that many of my beliefs about it were wrong.


Return to “Celtic Languages”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest