NationStates

I do support the independence of the Dumnonian Kingdom.

Independence? They don't deserve Independence, they can't even put cream and jam on a scone in the right order!

Cornwall's a small place. There are no real sizable population centres. Cornwall's main industry is tourism from the rest of the English counties. What would they gain from independence? True, they have a regional dialect that uses some old Celtish words, but so does Cumbria. Likewise, Yorkshire and the East Midlands use bastardised versions of old Norse words as part of their dialects. Cornwall is no more unique than any other county.

Case in point, if you went to Sheffield and asked people if they were English, they would tell you 'No. I'm from Yorkshire.' English Nationalism and British Nationalism are very unpopular. People feel much more connected to their locality than to London.

Honestly speaking, in spite of their newly made-up Cornish language, Cornwall stopped being a true Celtic nation long ago.

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:
He doesn't know much about Ge'ez and Coptic, either - both of which are now solely liturgical languages that died out as community spoken languages well before Cornish did, and have been solely liturgical languages for centuries.

But when have simple things like historical facts ever managed to get in the way of a Nationalist Northumbria thread?

They admittedly provide some level of entertainment, but I wouldn't come to them to actually learn anything.

As you admit yourself, people spoke them. Unlike Cornish.

Some points here:

1) Your actual claim was:

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:Hebrew, Ge'ez, and Coptic never died out, unlike Cornish.

We've established that this was incorrect.

2) Modern Cornish, as we've established, is a grammatical and phonological compromise that draws on past literary forms of the original spoken language and modern Breton and Welsh.

3) Modern liturgical Coptic is a grammatical and phonological compromise that draws on at least six different divergent regional dialects, and where we have no real idea of the original phonology because there are have been no surviving closely related languages since Coptic died out as a community language in the 16th century (or thereabouts)

4) Ge'ez died out as a community language somewhere around the 10th century, and the modern liturgical version of the language likely bears little resemblance in pronunciation to the spoken language of late antiquity and the early modern period in Ethiopia - though we have no real way of known either way - while the grammar is a formalised version of multiple grammatical traditions. Pronunciation of the liturgical version is based on tradition rather than on actual knowledge of how the medieval language was pronounced.

3) Therefore people have, at various points in the past spoken all of these languages, just not in a form that's necessarily identical to either the modern liturgical versions (in the case of Coptic and Ge'ez) or revived version (in the case of Cornish). The comparison between the three is entirely apropos since the modern forms are all a combination of best guesses drawing on genuine literary traditions of languages that were all once community languages, even if the modern forms necessarily vary from the original spoken versions.

I mean, we could do this all night and all we would do is establish that I know far more about all of these languages than you do; but I need to go to bed, so we can pick this up tomorrow if you'd like.

Heloin wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:
I think they're more worried about the chains of Guernsey oppression.

They might be but truth be told that will only leave them vulnerable to oppression by Jersey.

Meanwhile:

*Alderney & Herm in the background*

The Archregimancy wrote:

Red Lake Circle wrote:Wow, you really don't know how modern Hebrew became a thing, do you?

He doesn't know much about Ge'ez and Coptic, either - both of which are now solely liturgical languages that died out as community spoken languages well before Cornish did, and have been solely liturgical languages for centuries.

But when have simple things like historical facts ever managed to get in the way of a Nationalist Northumbria thread?

They admittedly provide some level of entertainment, but I wouldn't come to them to actually learn anything.

But this thread taught me that Cornwall is part of the World Imperial Core! How else am I supposed to know what Sheryll Murray and Steve Double are really thinking?

New Stormhold wrote:Honestly speaking, in spite of their newly made-up Cornish language, Cornwall stopped being a true Celtic nation long ago.

If you want to talk some shit about a place read the thread first.

The Archregimancy wrote:Yes, well, we've covered that one already.

The Archregimancy wrote:

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:As you admit yourself, people spoke them. Unlike Cornish.

Some points here:

1) Your actual claim was:

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:Hebrew, Ge'ez, and Coptic never died out, unlike Cornish.

We've established that this was incorrect.

2) Modern Cornish, as we've established, is a grammatical and phonological compromise that draws on past literary forms of the original spoken language and modern Breton and Welsh.

3) Modern liturgical Coptic is a grammatical and phonological compromise that draws on at least six different divergent regional dialects, and where we have no real idea of the original phonology because there are have been no surviving closely related languages since Coptic died out as a community language in the 16th century (or thereabouts)

4) Ge'ez died out as a community language somewhere around the 10th century, and the modern liturgical version of the language likely bears little resemblance in pronunciation to the spoken language of late antiquity and the early modern period in Ethiopia - though we have no real way of known either way - while the grammar is a formalised version of multiple grammatical traditions. Pronunciation of the liturgical version is based on tradition rather than on actual knowledge of how the medieval language was pronounced.

3) Therefore people have, at various points in the past spoken all of these languages, just not in a form that's necessarily identical to either the modern liturgical versions (in the case of Coptic and Ge'ez) or revived version (in the case of Cornish). The comparison between the three is entirely apropos since the modern forms are all a combination of best guesses drawing on genuine literary traditions of languages that were all once community languages, even if the modern forms necessarily vary from the original spoken versions.

I mean, we could do this all night and all we would do is establish that I know far more about all of these languages than you do; but I need to go to bed, so we can pick this up tomorrow if you'd like.

I have no doubt that you know far more about these languages than I do. Taking your knowledge into account, I have determined to call them and Cornish conlangs from now on.

Heloin wrote:

New Stormhold wrote:Honestly speaking, in spite of their newly made-up Cornish language, Cornwall stopped being a true Celtic nation long ago.

If you want to talk some shit about a place read the thread first.

The Archregimancy wrote:Yes, well, we've covered that one already.

"a grammatical and phonological compromise that draws on past literary forms of the original spoken language and modern Breton and Welsh" This is a conlang, sorry. Conlangs based on real languages are still conlangs.

The success of the Cornish Language is problematic for a number of reasons. Though some might compare Cornish to other formerly extinct or endangered languages, such as Latin, Assyrian, Coptic or Hebrew, all of which disappeared for many hundreds (or in one case thousands) of years, only to see a modern revival, the cases are not the same. Principally, this is because the aforementioned languages were actually all liturgical languages in one form or another. As such, they served as a bridging language between different communities. This meant that, although Hebrew stopped being a language of official use after the destruction of the Second Temple, it continued to be used as a spoken and written language by Jewish communities world wide. It was for this reason that it was chosen as the official language of Israel. During the Middle Ages, Western European nobility continued to use High Latin in a similar way. Latin was the language of scholars, intellectuals and nobility. As such, it was still very much in use, up until the French Revolution (comparatively recent in modern terms). It was also viewed as a classical language, like Greek, and was taught most British schools until the 1970s and in British Public Schools up until the present day. So even if Latin was a 'dead' language, it was still widely understood by many people up until the present day. Coptic and Assyrian are more problematic. However, they have been ingrained into an ethno-religious identity in their respective regions. As such, the languages never truly 'died' as their language tied these two communities to a much larger Christian community. By contrast, Cornish is not a language of religion or inter-communication. Cornish was never associated with any localised Cornish religion and nor is it mutually intelligible with any of the neighbouring Celtic languages in the British Isles. This is likely due to it's long isolation from Wales, following the Saxon conquest of Gloucester. Though there are similiarities with Breton in Britanny, the two are as distinct as Icelandic and Swedish.

Speaking of other Celtic languages, they too, are facing an existential crisis. A case in point would be Gaelic in Scotland. Though Gaelic (and to a lesser extent Doric) is a protected language in Scotland, it is not being widely taught. This isn't due to a lack of interest from the general public or the government, but a lack of teaching staff. This is because Gaelic is not a very useful language. Though it is beautiful to listen to and Gaelic poetry is very moving, it doesn't have very much use in the day to day. Scotland is an English speaking country (along with the separate Scottish dialect and Scots language) and English will allow you to speak with nearly everyone in Scotland and abroad. As such, learning Gaelic instead of English will actually impede upon someone's education. In addition, learning Gaelic as a second language is not in much demand (primarily because language learning is not prized in Britain but mainly because learning another European language, such as French or Spanish is much more useful). What this means is that very few people are actually educated enough to teach Gaelic, in spite of very high wages on offer for Gaelic teachers. A similar story is being told in Ireland, where, in spite of large swathes of the country being protected Gaelic speaking areas, English has actually begun to make inroads. This is in contrast to Irish Government policy and even public sympathy in Ireland, which is very much behind the preservation and promotion of the language.

Bringing us back on topic we can see that Cornish faces two primary problems: 1) Cornish no longer has any reason to be used in Cornwall, as English is functionally a much more useful language (though reading Cornish poetry and stories in the old language might be fun) and 2) There is no practical means of educating people in the Cornish language as doing so has no incentive beyond sentimentality. This second reason is the primary reason for the decline of all the Celtic languages and even regional languages and dialects throughout Western Europe (see the gradual disappearance of Occitan in France and Leonese in Spain).

Munk, you're not a linguist. No linguist I have ever meet or who's papers I have read agrees with the point you are making. You don't get to decide what a conlang is, you don't have the knowledge or training to speak with authority on language revivals. This isn't you being clever, this is one of the most damning examples of the Dunning–Kruger effect in action.

Heloin wrote:

New Stormhold wrote:Honestly speaking, in spite of their newly made-up Cornish language, Cornwall stopped being a true Celtic nation long ago.

If you want to talk some shit about a place read the thread first.

The Archregimancy wrote:Yes, well, we've covered that one already.

I actually don't think an academic revival of the Cornish language is a terrible idea. I just think it's a logistically doomed project and making it an 'official language' of Cornwall when very few people speak it is politically meaningless. It's like declaring the language of Rheged to be the official language of Cumbria when it is only ever used in counting sheep.

-nvm-

Eh...as long as it hurts the damn İngilizler it's fine with me.

Heloin wrote:Munk, you're not a linguist. No linguist I have ever meet or who's papers I have read agrees with the point you are making. You don't get to decide what a conlang is, you don't have the knowledge or training to speak with authority on language revivals. This isn't you being clever, this is one of the most damning examples of the Dunning–Kruger effect in action.

I speak from common sense. You can apply common sense to anything, and I'm applying it here. Also, how am I "greatly overestimating my own knowledge" when I just said the mod was the expert not me?

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:

Heloin wrote:Munk, you're not a linguist. No linguist I have ever meet or who's papers I have read agrees with the point you are making. You don't get to decide what a conlang is, you don't have the knowledge or training to speak with authority on language revivals. This isn't you being clever, this is one of the most damning examples of the Dunning–Kruger effect in action.

I speak from common sense. You can apply common sense to anything, and I'm applying it here. Also, how am I "greatly overestimating my own knowledge" when I just said the mod was the expert not me?

"Common sense" is often wrong.

Red Lake Circle wrote:

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:I speak from common sense. You can apply common sense to anything, and I'm applying it here. Also, how am I "greatly overestimating my own knowledge" when I just said the mod was the expert not me?

"Common sense" is often wrong.

that's the thing about "common" sense; it's not really that common at all

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:

Heloin wrote:Munk, you're not a linguist. No linguist I have ever meet or who's papers I have read agrees with the point you are making. You don't get to decide what a conlang is, you don't have the knowledge or training to speak with authority on language revivals. This isn't you being clever, this is one of the most damning examples of the Dunning–Kruger effect in action.

I speak from common sense. You can apply common sense to anything, and I'm applying it here. Also, how am I "greatly overestimating my own knowledge" when I just said the mod was the expert not me?

You can't concede to someone else's expertise as more knowledgeable than you then proclaim that you will actually go along with the falsehood you previously stated but even more so.

Hukhalia wrote:

Red Lake Circle wrote:"Common sense" is often wrong.

that's the thing about "common" sense; it's not really that common at all

True, but I didn't want to start pulling out Foucault citations during a forum argument lmao

Red Lake Circle wrote:

Hukhalia wrote:that's the thing about "common" sense; it's not really that common at all

True, but I didn't want to start pulling out Foucault citations during a forum argument lmao

tbf the only thing foucault's bloody well worth is forum pseud points

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:You do realise that would make us independent by default, right?

No, you remain part of London's domain.

Even better: give Northern England to Cornwall and force them to speak Cornish.

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:I support every part of Britain becoming independent except northern England.

You do realise that would make us independent by default, right?

You go to Denmark.

I don't think it makes any sense to set new boundaries. The world does not need division, it needs unity like the European Union. My friends around me keep saying that independence is a democratic right, but I don't think so, division only brings pain. As humanity, we should be united in unlimited worlds.

"Cornwall declares independence from the United Kingdom"
And nothing of value was lost.

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:"Cornwall declares independence from the United Kingdom"
And nothing of value was lost.

You're right, the UK really doesn't have anything of value in it

Cornwall will pop itself out of Britain's territorial sovereignty.