Cornish phonology

• Stress in polysyllables was originally on the final syllable in the earliest Cornish,[5][6] which then shifted to the penultimate syllable at some point in the eleventh century.[7]
• Monosyllables were usually stressed, apart from the definite article, possessive adjectives, verbal particles, conjunctions and prepositions.[8]
• According to George (2009a), Middle Cornish verse suggests that the pitch-accent remained on the final syllable.[8]

From around 600 AD, the earlier Brittonic system of phonemic vowel length was replaced by a system in which vowel length is allophonic, determined by the position of the stress and the structure of the syllable.[9][10] This is the system described by Jackson (1953) as the New Quantity System. After the accent shift to the penultimate syllable at some point in Old Cornish, the rules were as follows:

• vowels in unstressed syllables are short
• vowels in stressed syllables, followed by two or more consonants (including long fortis or geminate consonants) are short
  • There is some evidence that vowels were also realised as long or half-long before the consonant clusters /sk/ /st/[11] and /sp/.[12] This may have been due to the influence of English loanwords, or perhaps because such clusters were analysed as a single consonant.
• vowels in stressed syllables, followed by a single consonant (or in hiatus) in polysyllabic words were half-long
• vowels in stressed syllables in monosyllabic words were long
• vowels in irregularly-stressed final syllables of polysyllabic words were long

The date of the breakdown of these quantity rules, due to the influx of English loan-words not conforming to the original system, is disputed. Williams (2006a) dates it to before the earliest Middle Cornish texts,[13] whereas George (1985) claims it did not change until roughly 1600.[14] According to this analysis, Cornish at some point returned to a system of phonemic vowel length as in early Brittonic after this so-called "Prosodic Shift", and most vowels in polysyllables became or remained short.

The suggestion that Cornish phonology underwent systematic changes in its vocalic system first appears in George (1985), who dated it to around 1600. Nicholas Williams, however, later suggested that this Prosodic Shift occurred some centuries earlier, either in the early thirteenth century[13] or the twelfth century. According to Williams, the consequences of the prosodic shift are:[15][16]

• Vowel length becomes phonemic
• Half-long vowels become short
• All long or geminate consonants are reduced to short or single consonants
• Vowels in unstressed syllables tend to be reduced to schwa
• Vocalic alternation
• All nuclei in diphthongs are now short

Williams's theory has been criticised by several linguists. Chaudhri (2007) points out that "there is no incontrovertible evidence as yet to show that any such Prosodic Shift ever occurred" at any time, especially not as early as postulated by Williams; he further argues that "the observed results of pre-occlusion in the sixteenth century would have been impossible if the inherited quantity system had been radically re-shaped centuries before."[17] and states that George is "quite correct in his rejection of Williams's evidence for the Prosodic Shift at a date before the Middle Cornish period"[18] He also rejects George's use of Late Cornish spellings to support a shift c. 1600.[18] Bock & Bruch (2010) argue that Williams's claim that all diphthongs were short from the thirteenth century at the latest "does not withstand even a cursory glance at Edward Lhuyd's transcription of Late Cornish diphthongs", which were collected in the early 1700s.[19]

Williams (2006a) points out that the reflex of Common Brittonic /i/ and /ɪ/ in the Middle Cornish texts is usually written as ⟨y⟩ in monosyllables, but is often written as ⟨e⟩ in polysyllables.[20] This phenomenon is known as 'vocalic alternation'.

This written alternation does not appear in all of the Middle Cornish texts,[21] and there is disagreement on how this alternation should be interpreted. Both Dunbar & George (1997) and Williams (2006a) interpret this as a purely orthographic phenomenon. According to Williams, the continued writing of ⟨y⟩ and ⟨i⟩ in monosyllables is an archaism and a reflection of orthographic conservatism which does not represent the contemporary pronunciation of the scribes.[20] According to Dunbar & George, the scribes who wrote ⟨y⟩ were describing the quality of the vowel, whereas those who wrote ⟨e⟩ were describing the reduced quantity of a half-long vowel in a polysyllable.[22] Both of these interpretations are questioned by Bock & Bruch (2012) who argue that the use of ⟨y⟩ and ⟨e⟩ in the texts reflects the phonetic reality of the language at around the time the manuscripts were written. According to their analysis, the graph used by the scribes is determined by the quality of the vowel (rather than the quantity), and vocalic alternation is a consequence of the lowering of Old Cornish /ɪ/ to /e/. They further state that vocalic alternation "cannot therefore be the result of a general shortening of vowels, unless one accepts Williams's assertion that 'by the Late Cornish period, vowels in stressed monosyllables had again lengthened.'"[23]

Changes from Common Brittonic:

Consonants:

/p/ > LBrit. /b/ > OCorn. /b/ /V_V

e.g. /mapos/ 'son' > LBrit. /mab/ > OCorn. /mab/

/t/ > LBrit. /d/ > OCorn. /d/ /V_V

e.g. /tatos/ 'father' > LBrit. /tad/ > OCorn. /tad/

/k/ > LBrit. /ɡ/ > OCorn. /ɡ/ /V_V

e.g. /dekan/ 'ten' > LBrit. /dɛɡ/ > OCorn. /dɛɡ/

/m/ > LBrit. /μ/ > OCorn. /β̃/ /V_V

e.g. /damato/ 'sheep (sg.)' > LBrit. /daμad/ > OCorn. /daβ̃ad/

/b/ > LBrit. /β/ > OCorn. /β/ /V_V

e.g. /abonā/ 'river' > LBrit. /aβon/ > OCorn. /aβɔn/

Vowels:

/ā/ > LBrit. /ɔ/ > OCorn /œ/

e.g. /ˈmāros/ 'great' > LBrit. /mɔr/> OCorn. /mœr/

/a/ > LBrit. /a/ > OCorn /a/

e.g. /ˈwlanā/ 'wool' > LBrit. /ɡwlan/ > OCorn. /ɡwlan/

Final i-affection of /a/ gives /ɛ/:

e.g. /wrakī/ 'woman, wife' > LBrit. /ɡwre̝ɡ/ > OCorn. /ɡwrɛɡ/

/ē/ > LBrit /uɪ/ > OCorn. /uɪ/

e.g. /ˈbēton/ 'food' > LBrit /buɪd/ > OCorn. /buɪd/

/ɛ̄/ > LBrit. /oɪ/ > OCorn. /uɪ/

e.g. /kɛ̄tos/ 'forest, wood' > LBrit. /koɪd/ > OCorn. /kuɪd/

/e/ > LBrit /ɛ/ > OCorn. /ɛ/

e.g. /ˈdekan/ 'ten' > LBrit /dɛɡ/ > OCorn. /dɛɡ/

/ī/ > LBrit. /i/ > OCorn /i/

e.g. /ˈwīros/ 'true' > LBrit. /ɡwir/ > OCorn /ɡwir/

/i/ > LBrit. /ɪ/ > OCorn /ɪ/

e.g. /ˈbitus/ 'world' > LBrit. /bɪd/ > OCorn /bɪd/

/o/ > LBrit. /o/ > OCorn /ɔ/

e.g. /mor/ 'sea' > LBrit. /mor/ > OCorn /mɔr/

Internal i-affection of /o/ gives /ɛ/:

e.g. /monijos/ 'mountain' > LBrit. /mönɪð/ > OCorn /mɛnɪð/

/ō/ > LBrit. /ü/ > OCorn /y/

e.g. /tōtā/ 'people' > LBrit. /tüd/ > OCorn /tyd/

/u/ > LBrit. /u/ > OCorn /ɔ/

e.g. /dubnos/ 'deep' > LBrit. /duβn/ > OCorn /dɔʊn/

/ū/ > LBrit. /i/ > OCorn /i/

e.g. /dūnon/ 'fort' > LBrit. /din/ > OCorn /din/

• [ŋ] was an allophone of /n/ before /k/.
• Whether [ʍ] should be classed as a phoneme, rather than a realisation of /hw/, is disputed. Chaudhri (2007) lists it as a separate phoneme.[2]
• Wmffre (1999) speculates that /x/ may have been phonetically a uvular [χ].[24]
• The precise realizations of /r/ and /rr/ are unknown. Chaudhri (2007) speculates that an apical realization is perhaps the most likely.[25]
• By the end of this period /β/ and /β̃/ had both merged as /v/.
• /ɣ/ disappeared by the Middle Cornish period except in the groups /-lɣ/ and /-rɣ/, where it became /x/.

• /ç/ (mainly from loan-words of French origin) is given the status of a phoneme by Chaudhri (2007).[26]
• /ʒ~dʒ/ is the reflex of Old Cornish /d/ in many environments according to Chaudhri (2007).[27] According to Williams (1990), Old Cornish /d/ in these environments was either palatalized to /dʒ/ or assibilated to /z/, depending on dialect.[28]
• According to George (2009a), /pː/, /tː/, /kː/, /fː/, /θː/, /sː/, and /xː/ are new phonemes arising to accommodate English loan-words to the Cornish quantity system.[29] These phonemes are not generally accepted.[30][31] They may however have existed as allophones, especially in comparatives, superlatives and certain verb tenses.
• Assibilation and palatalization of Old Cornish /t/ and /d/ to /z/ or /dʒ/:
  • According to George (2009a), [t] in the groups /lt/ and /nt/, except when followed by /VL/ or /VN/ (i.e. a vowel plus a liquid or a nasal), was assibilated (to [s]) c. 1275.[32]
  • Also according to George (2009a), medial and final [d], both by itself and in the groups /ld/, /nd/ and /dw/, became assibilated (to [z]) in similar phonetic environments, c. 1325[29]
  • Chaudhri (2007) argues that these phonemes in this environment were first assibilated (apart from a few early cases of palatalization), then palatalized to [dʒ] later, perhaps with [ʒ] as an intermediate step.[33]
  • George[34] now argues that assibilation occurred first, followed by palatalization, but states that the [dʒ] realization did not take hold in the Powder hundred.
  • Williams (1990) proposes the following schema for the evolution of Old Cornish /t/ and /d/:[35]
    • In medial and final position /t/ in the groups /lt/ and /nt/ was affricated to /ts/ before the twelfth century.
    • Intervocalic /t/ was affricated to /ts/ in some words.
    • Around 1100, /d/ was affricated to /dz/ finally, and medially before certain vowels and /w/
    • Before a stressed front vowel, or before /j/ followed by a stressed vowel initial /d/ was affricated to dz in some words following a final /n/
    • Medially after /l/ and /n/ /ts/ was voiced to /dz/
    • Before stressed front vowels and /j/ followed by a vowel, /dz/ was palatalised to /dʒ/, and *[an tsiː] became [an tʃiː]
    • Some dialects of Cornish tended to more regularly palatalise /dz/ to /dʒ/, and /ts/ to /tʃ/, even when not followed by a high front vowel.
    • In dialects in which this did not happen, /dz/ was simplified to /z/ and /ts/ was simplified to /s/

• Williams (2006a) argues that /ɪ/ merged with either /ɛ/ or /i/ (depending on dialect) at an early date. George (2019) argues that this merger took place gradually through a process of lexical diffusion throughout the Middle Cornish Period.
• Williams argues that /ɔ/ merged with either /o/ (or the Old Cornish diphthong /ui/) or /u/ depending on dialect at an early date.[36]
• In George's view, the /o/ phoneme is realized as [ɤ] when short.[37]

/ɪʊ/ is rare according to George, who has now removed it from many words,[38] and its continued existence at all in Middle Cornish is disputed by Williams[39] and Toorians (2014:15)

/yʊ/, the apparent reflex of Old Cornish /uiʊ/ according to George, is based on rhyme evidence and etymology, but only occurs in a few words, and is disputed.

By this time, /x/ was merging with /h/ (or disappearing) in all environments.[40]

By 1600, historical /mː/ and /nː/ were generally being realised as /ᵇm/ and /ᵈn/ in stressed syllables (and occasionally /bː/ and /dː/ in penultimate syllables), respectively.[40]

There is a tendency for final fricatives to be lost or confused with one another[40][41]

Whatever their phonetic realisation, the distinction between /rː/ and /ɾ/ may have been lost at this stage, if not earlier.

Bock & Bruch (2010) classify /ɛː/ as a separate phoneme to /eː/.[19]

Lhuyd's description of Late Cornish phonology, as well as contemporary pronunciation of Cornish placenames, may indicate the raising of /a/ to [æ].[42]

Wmffre (1999) disputes the recordings of Lhuyd (1707) in regards to /ɒ/ as a distinct vowel and claims that the lower realization of Cornish long /o/ (perhaps as [ɔː]) may have led him to make a distinction that did not exist.[43]

/uɪ/ seems to be found in only a few words such as /muɪ/ ('more') and /uɪ/ ('egg').[43]

Cornish ceased to be spoken as a community language around 1800. The revival of the language is generally dated to the publication of Henry Jenner's Handbook of the Cornish Language (1904). Jenner's work aims to pick up where the language left off and, as such, is mainly based upon Late Cornish vernacular and Lhuyd. Since this time, a variety of other recommended phonologies have been proposed, based upon various target dates and different theoretical reconstructions.

Jenner's system is largely based on the phonology of late Cornish, and therefore is characterised by pre-occlusion, the loss of the rounded front vowels, and the raising of /a/ to [æ]. This system was used by the earliest revivalists, until it was replaced by Nance's Unified Cornish.

Robert Morton Nance developed what came to be known as Unified Cornish from the 1930s. Nance based his system more on the earliest Middle Cornish texts, Pascon Agan Arluth and the Ordinalia. With a target date of around 1500, Nance's system is characterised by the addition of the rounded front vowel /y/ and a recommendation not to use pre-occluded forms.

Mainly associated with Richard Gendall, who began to promote this system in the early 1980s, Revived Late Cornish again seeks to base its phonology upon an analysis of Lhuyd and the other Late Cornish sources.

Developed mainly by Ken George following the publication of his thesis, A Phonological History of Cornish (1985), Kernewek Kemmyn again returns to a Middle Cornish target date. This system has a number of differences from Nance's reconstruction, including the addition of a second rounded front vowel /œ/, an additional vowel /o/, and a phonemic contrast between /i/ and /ɪ/. Also Kernewek Kemmyn is characterised by phonemic consonant length, half-long vowels in stressed penultima of polysyllables where appropriate, and a number of diphthongs which are not used in other systems. The following tables are based on George (2009b).

Following the publication of Williams (2006a), Nicholas Williams published his revision of Nance's system in the form of a grammar, Clappya Kernowek, and an English-Cornish Dictionary. UCR is notable for the absence of George's /o/ and /ɪ/ phonemes, lack of half-length, and a phonemic contrast between long and short vowels rather than consonants. However, it retains the /œ/ vowel of KK, which Unified Cornish does not use.

The Standard Written Form, agreed in May 2008, was developed with the intention of allowing all users of previous systems to write as they pronounce the language. It attempts to represent the pronunciation systems of UC, UCR, KK and RLC in a single orthography. As such, it does not represent a single phonology, but seeks to cover a range of pronunciations based on a period of several hundred years.

Kernowek Standard is an orthography and recommended pronunciation developed mainly by Nicholas Williams and Michael Everson in response to perceived problems with the SWF. Like the SWF, it attempts to represent a diverse range of pronunciations, with the exception of KK, the recommended phonology of which is not catered for. Although it mainly differs from the SWF orthographically, it has a number of phonological features which distinguish it from the SWF.