““I think sports gave me the first place where this awkward girl ...
Breton orthographies: An increasingly awkward fit
32
Fourth Cambridge Conference on Language Endangerment, 4 July 2014 Orthography development for language maintenance and revitalization Breton orthographies: An increasingly awkward fit Steve Hewitt, [email protected]; [email protected] Breton has a venerable, if increasingly skewed orthographical tradition, so there can be no question of developing a Breton orthography from scratch. Early Modern Breton begins in 1659, when Maunoir introduced the iconic <c’h> against French <ch> and systematically indicated initial consonant mutations. For most of the 19th c., one track continues traditional Early Modern habits, the other innovating and systematizing, leading ultimately to the 1908 KLT (Kerne-Leon-Treger) standardization, which in turn fed into the 1941 Peurunvan (ZH; “fully unified” [with the traditional Gwened, SE]) orthography. The 1955 Orthographe universitaire (OU) “while removing certain inconsistencies, introduces new ones” (Jackson 1967). The 1975 Orthographe interdialectal (ID), aimed at including the best of both ZH and OU while ensuring better coverage of regular dialect correspondences, did not go as far as possible in that direction. At each stage of modern spelling reforms, unfortunate choices have been made, often owing to insufficient comprehension of interdialectal correspondences. At the same time, the implications of the massive shift in users from native speakers to learners have not been taken properly into account. Finally, at no point has there been a real debate on the relative merits of a simple monodialectal standard vs a more complex supradialectal standard. Speaker demography Type of speakers Number of speakers % of activists Orthography Political views Traditional spontaneous native speakers 200,000, all local dialects, 0.2-0.3% functional literacy in Breton (ability to write a simple personal letter) ?? any, if literate, or more likely spon-taneous forms 95% same as French mainstream Popularizing activists Neologizing activists Optimistic estimate: 10,000 – 20,000 95% of whom are learners (i.e. no more than 500- 1,000 Breton-literate native speakers) 10-14% OU (Orthographe universitaire – skolveurieg) 90% same as French mainstream, support for Breton language 1-2% ID (Interdialectale – etrerannyezhel) support for Breton, regional autonomy 85-90% ZH (peurunvan – ‘fully unified’) support for Breton, regional autonomy, independence All traditional native speakers speak dialect; there is no generally agreed oral standard. Functional literacy (ability to write a personal letter) is well under 1%. Literate native speakers in formal situations speak their own dialect clearly, sometimes moving towards more literary morphology. Learners for the most part pronounce what they see with more or less French phonetic habits. The have little idea of Breton idiom or phraseology. Their syntax is either calqued on French or hypercorrectly different from French (e.g. overuse of fronting with initial focus). Their lexicon is much more purist than spontaneous Breton, most of the neologisms being quite opaque to traditional speakers. While no single one of these factors (with the possible exception of the lexicon) is sufficient to impede comprehension, the cumulative effect is to make communication between learners and native speakers laborious at best, and usually unfeasible in practice.
Transcript of Breton orthographies: An increasingly awkward fit
Fourth Cambridge Conference on Language Endangerment, 4 July 2014 Orthography development for language maintenance and revitalization
Breton orthographies: An increasingly awkward fit Steve Hewitt, [email protected]; [email protected]
Breton has a venerable, if increasingly skewed orthographical tradition, so there can be no question of developing a Breton orthography from scratch. Early Modern Breton begins in 1659, when Maunoir introduced the iconic <c’h> against French <ch> and systematically indicated initial consonant mutations. For most of the 19th c., one track continues traditional Early Modern habits, the other innovating and systematizing, leading ultimately to the 1908 KLT (Kerne-Leon-Treger) standardization, which in turn fed into the 1941 Peurunvan (ZH; “fully unified” [with the traditional Gwened, SE]) orthography. The 1955 Orthographe universitaire (OU) “while removing certain inconsistencies, introduces new ones” (Jackson 1967). The 1975 Orthographe interdialectal (ID), aimed at including the best of both ZH and OU while ensuring better coverage of regular dialect correspondences, did not go as far as possible in that direction. At each stage of modern spelling reforms, unfortunate choices have been made, often owing to insufficient comprehension of interdialectal correspondences. At the same time, the implications of the massive shift in users from native speakers to learners have not been taken properly into account. Finally, at no point has there been a real debate on the relative merits of a simple monodialectal standard vs a more complex supradialectal standard.
Speaker demography
Type of speakers Number of speakers % of activists Orthography Political views
Traditional spontaneous native speakers
200,000, all local dialects, 0.2-0.3% functional literacy in Breton (ability to write a simple personal letter)
?? any, if literate, or more likely spon-taneous forms
95% same as French mainstream
Popularizing activists Neologizing activists
Optimistic estimate: 10,000 – 20,000 95% of whom are learners (i.e. no more than 500-1,000 Breton-literate native speakers)
10-14% OU (Orthographe universitaire – skolveurieg)
90% same as French mainstream, support for Breton language
1-2% ID (Interdialectale – etrerannyezhel)
support for Breton, regional autonomy
85-90% ZH (peurunvan – ‘fully unified’)
support for Breton, regional autonomy, independence
All traditional native speakers speak dialect; there is no generally agreed oral standard. Functional literacy (ability to write a personal letter) is well under 1%. Literate native speakers in formal situations speak their own dialect clearly, sometimes moving towards more literary morphology.
Learners for the most part pronounce what they see with more or less French phonetic habits. The have little idea of Breton idiom or phraseology. Their syntax is either calqued on French or hypercorrectly different from French (e.g. overuse of fronting with initial focus). Their lexicon is much more purist than spontaneous Breton, most of the neologisms being quite opaque to traditional speakers. While no single one of these factors (with the possible exception of the lexicon) is sufficient to impede comprehension, the cumulative effect is to make communication between learners and native speakers laborious at best, and usually unfeasible in practice.
Breton orthographies: An increasingly awkward fit 2 Steve Hewitt – [email protected]; [email protected]
Dialects of Breton
Traditionally divided into Leon/Léon (L), Treger/Trégor (T), Kerne/Cornouaille (K), Gwened/Vannes (G); some validity – isoglosses naturally do not all follow boundaries of traditional bishoprics.
L and G peripheral, linguistically conservative; traditionally devout areas, both produced numerous priests who used their native dialect with the faithful; thus arose separate L and G semi-standards; much less dialect writing in T or K. L and G not really mutually intelligible.
T-K, NE-SW innovating axis (aire de Carhaix medieval centre of linguistic innovation) – easy intercomprehension along this axis, but little literary tradition (partial tradition in T, but not K). L used by church in L, K and T, G in G. (Broudic 1995 – L priests less well understood with increasing distance from L: not true that L accepted as literary language by speakers from T and K).
From Old Breton (OB) to Middle Breton (MB) and the Modern Breton (ModB) dialects
Table 1. Old Breton – approximants and fricatives Most common graphemes
1 μ β δ γ -m- -b- -d- -g- 2 f θ s x h f th, dt s ch, h h 3 (f’h) (θ’h) (s’h) (x’h) ? ? sh, ss ?
3
Table 2. Middle Breton – fricatives and affricate Most common graphemes
1 v v ð (ɣ) ff, fu v, u z ch, h 2 v1 ð2 z ʒ ḩ3 h f z, -tz s j, g ch, h h 3 f θ s ʃ x ff zz, zh ss, sh ch ch 4 tθ?/ʦ cz, çz, çc, ç
Underlying lenis and fortis series of initial fricatives in modern dialects
Table 3. Modern Breton – fricatives “Etymological” orthography
1 v v ñv v ż 2 v1 z ʒ ḩ3 h f zh s j x4 h 3 f s ʃ x ff zzh ss ch xx5
Table 4. Geographical reflexes in Modern Breton of the dental fricatives of Middle Breton
ð z,-h- - ð’h s - ð z z ð’h > θ s s ż - - żż - - zh z, - h zzh s h
Table 5. Simplified modern system of fricatives “Peurunvan (ZH)” orthography
1 v v z ʒ h ñv v z, zh 2 f s ʃ (x) f zh z, -s j c’h h f sh s ch c’h
KERGOAT 1974:22, “Er memes lec’h eo diaes a-wechoù diazezañ ur reolenn eeun. E Plogoneg (Kernew Izel) da skwer e lârer : chupenn / ar chupenn med chiletenn / ar jiletenn pe saro / ar saro med sac’h / ar zac’h. Faltazius kenañ eo ar yezh war ar poent-se. Un doare-skrivañ n’hell ket bezañ.”
(In a single place it is sometimes difficult to establish a straightforward rule. In Plogoneg (Kerne Isel), for instance, people say chupenn / ar chupenn ‘jacket’ but chiletenn / ar jiletenn ‘vest’ or saro / ar saro ‘smock’ but sac’h / ar zac’h ‘sack’. The language is extremely capricious in that regard. An orthography cannot be.)
[Treger radical (unmutated) forms: ssaro /s-/, sac’h /z-/, chupenn /ʃ-/, jiletenn /ʒ-/ = Plogoneg lenites where Treger has the voiced fricative as radical; does not lenite where Treger has the voiceless fricative as radical.
1 v has more breath and friction than a normal v. 2 ð has more breath and friction than a normal ð. 3 ḩ is an abstract symbol representing a lenis fricative with various realizations: either with some velar friction [hx, ɣ, ɣ], etc., or
a purely glottal voiceless [h], in which case it is not separate from /h/, if such a phoneme is present in the dialect in question. 4 Or c’h. 5 Or c”h.
Breton orthographies: An increasingly awkward fit 4 Steve Hewitt – [email protected]; [email protected]
Table 6. Underlying L lenis and F fortis series of Modern Breton initial fricatives and realization according to geographical area and mutation status6: radical / lenition / provection
L f- s- j- c’hw- F ff- ss- ch-
Type 1: NW, far W, SW Type 2 : CW Type 3 : NE, C, (CS) Type 4 : SE
radical radical radical radical L f s ʃ xw7 f s ʃ xw v z ʒ ḩw f s ʒ hɥ F f s ʃ f s ʃ f s ʃ f s ʃ
lenition6 lenition6 (lenition) (lenition) L v z ʒ ḩw v z ʒ ḩw v z ʒ ḩw f s ʒ hɥ F v z ʒ f s ʃ f s ʃ f s ʃ
(provection) (provection) provection6 provection6
L f s ʃ xw f s ʃ xw f s ʃ xw f s ʃ hɥ F f s ʃ f s ʃ f s ʃ f s ʃ
Linguistic issues Sandhi rules
final –b, -d, -g / -p, -t, -k and Breton sandhi rules
• Final obstruent devoicing in pause or before voiceless consonants:
↓ b d ɟ ɡ v z ʒ h p t c k f s ʃ x
• Final obstruent voicing before vowels and voiced consonants:
↓ p t c k f s ʃ b d ɟ ɡ v z ʒ
Final obstruent voicing is a less natural rule than devoicing – more difficult for learners; with an increasing proportion of learners among the users of written Breton, it is important to have as many lenis/voiced finals as possible:
(E) mad ‘good’ /maːd/ [maːt]; mad eo ‘it is good, it’s OK’ /'maːd 'eː/
(ZH) mat ‘good’ /maːd/ [maːt]; mat eo ‘it is good, it’s OK’ /'maːd 'eː/; learners: [mat e-o]
(E) gweled meus [seen I.have] ‘I have seen’ /gwéːləd mœːz/ [gwéːləd mœːs]
(ZH) gwelet em eus [seen I.have] ‘I have seen’ learners [gwelɛt ɛmœs]
6 Effective mutation within a given type highlighted and in bold + italics. 7 Also, variously, xɥ, ḩɥ, hɥ, and, notoriously, in the far SW, f. The important thing is that both xw and xɥ undergo lenition.
5
E s / ż / zh (and fortis ss / żż / zzh)
s /z/ everywhere (s/z- -z- -z/s)
Breton orthographies: An increasingly awkward fit 6 Steve Hewitt – [email protected]; [email protected]
ż L /z/, elsewhere not pronounced /-/
7
zh KLT /z/; G /h/
Breton orthographies: An increasingly awkward fit 8 Steve Hewitt – [email protected]; [email protected]
initial fricatives s-, f-, j- / ss-, ff-, ch- and neo-lenition and neo-provection
9
Breton orthographies: An increasingly awkward fit 10 Steve Hewitt – [email protected]; [email protected]
Table 7. Voicing of initial fricatives in loanwords in Treger
/v-/ foenn ‘hay’ foñss ‘bottom’ fontañ ‘melt’ forest ‘forest’ forssiñ ‘force’ fourniss ‘furnish, provide’ ar Frañss ‘France’ frisañ ‘curl; whizz along’
/f-/ ffamilh ‘family’ ffèbl ‘weak’ ffèblessite ‘weakness; blindness’ (fféiż ‘faith’) ffelloud ‘want, need’ ffèriñ ‘iron [clothes]’ ffin ‘end; sly, crafty, clever’ ffleur ‘flowers’ ffotañ ‘want, need’ ffourañ ‘put, bung’ ffoutr ‘[give] a damn’ ffriķañ ‘crush’
11
/z-/ sac’h ‘sack, bag’ santoud ‘feel’ seblant ‘semblance, sign, ghost’ serriñ ‘close, gather’ sigaretenn ‘cigarette’ sinañ ‘sign (document)’ siniffîoud ‘mean, signify’ simant ‘cement’ soup ‘soup’ soubenn ‘broth’ sourssenn ‘source, spring’ sur ‘sure’
/s-/ ssampar ‘recovered, back in good
health’ ssaro ‘smock ssautiñ ‘explode’ (sseizh ‘7’ da seizh...) (sseiteg ‘17’ da seiteg...) ssèñtier ‘worksite’ sseulamant ‘only, however’ ssîekl ‘century’ ssidr (S) ‘cidre’ ssort ‘sort, kind’ ssukr ‘sugar’ ssystem ‘system, way of doing sth.’
/ʒ-/ jardin ‘garden’ şervij ‘serve, service’ şikour ‘help’ jiletenn ‘vest’ şistr (N) ‘cidre’ şoñjal, T joñsal ‘think’ journal ‘newspaper’
/ʃ-/ chañss ‘luck’ chapel ‘chapel’ cheiñch ‘change’ chik ‘handsome, nice’ choas ‘choose, choice’ chom ‘stay, remain, live’ chupenn ‘jacket’
Breton orthographies: An increasingly awkward fit 12 Steve Hewitt – [email protected]; [email protected]
ẘa/oa gẘas everywhere /gwaːz/, L /’goːaz/
13
ẘ/w ẘ diẘall ‘be careful’ everywhere /-w-/; but pewar ‘four’, béwañ ‘live’, like w.
w KL ẅ- -v- -w T w- -w- -w G ẅ- -ẅ- -ẅ
Breton orthographies: An increasingly awkward fit 14 Steve Hewitt – [email protected]; [email protected]
15
Breton orthographies: An increasingly awkward fit 16 Steve Hewitt – [email protected]; [email protected]
Distribution of E gẘoa-
17
Distribution of E oa
Breton orthographies: An increasingly awkward fit 18 Steve Hewitt – [email protected]; [email protected]
aw/ao braw KLT /braw/, G /braẅ/ paotr L /paot/, KT /poːt/ G /pəut/
Distribution of E ao
19
h- L, WK /-/ elsewhere /h-/
Initial h- (never omitted from L texts even though not pronounced there)
Breton orthographies: An increasingly awkward fit 20 Steve Hewitt – [email protected]; [email protected]
L oN > uN
21
Reflexes of Old Breton -m
Breton orthographies: An increasingly awkward fit 22 Steve Hewitt – [email protected]; [email protected]
Most common plural ending -où
23
Palatalization in plural of words in -d
Breton orthographies: An increasingly awkward fit 24 Steve Hewitt – [email protected]; [email protected]
Palatalization in plural of words in -t
25
Infinitive ending (E) –iñ (similar distribution for –añ)
Breton orthographies: An increasingly awkward fit 26 Steve Hewitt – [email protected]; [email protected]
3PL ending of prepositions – gante / ganto
27
Conditional infix: -f-, -ɛf-, -eh-
Breton orthographies: An increasingly awkward fit 28 Steve Hewitt – [email protected]; [email protected]
Object pronoun construction: KLT a-marking (post-verbal); G proclitic pronoun
Other morphological problems
‘you have 2SG’ lit. ac’h eus, az peus, peus, teus, ffeus
‘we have’ lit. hon eus, hon deus, hor beus, hom meus > meump, neusomp
‘they have’ lit. o deus, deus, neus, > neusont, deuint, neuint
‘we’ ni, nei, nign, nimp, mimp, mump
‘they’ i, int-i, int, hint, hê, ģi
‘my’ va, ma
‘our’ hon, hon/hor/hol, hom, ho’ X domp
future plural and conditional, KLT -ff-, G -eh-
29
Orthographic principles
Basic possibilities:
• mononomic (monodialectal) parallel systems: problem of choice of dialect base – Breton-speakers will not accept imposition of single dialect OU parallel systems for L and G (G standard little used);
• binomic (bidialectal) ZH single system based on L, some conventions meant to include G – two conservative peripheral dialects – no account taken of majority innovating central dialects;
• polynomic (supradialectal) umbrella system: problem of amount of variation allowed ID first attempt at real supradialectal system; E goes considerably further in this direction.
Orthographies of Breton Old Breton (800-1250) continues Brythonic tradition (see Table 1)
Middle Breton ((1350) 1450-1659) now French-based + extra conventions: -iff, -aff, -off /-ıv, -av, -ov/; ch /ʃ ~ x, h/; ç/çz/cz /ʦ(tθ?)/; z /ð, ð/, -tz /-θ/. (see table 2) (E) ż/zh confusion neuez, brezonec x/xx confusion sechaff ‘to dry’; sechaff ‘driest’ ẘa/oa confusion goas ‘husband’; goad, goed ‘blood’ aw/ao confusion glau, glao ‘rain’; pautr, paotr ‘boy’
Early Modern Traditional (begins 1659 with Maunoir >1800~1900+) mainly Leon (L, NW)-based; also Gwened (Vannetais – G, SE); initial consonant mutations written for first time; MB -iff, -aff, -off replaced by –in, -an, -on; and ch now unambiguous for /ʃ/ and, most iconically, c’h /x, h/. (E) ż/zh confusion; x/xx confusion; ẘa/oa confusion; aw/ao confusion (as above)
Le Pelletier 1753 introduces gwa, gwe, gwi instead of trad. goa, but gue, gui, but not systematic: dioüall instead of diwall; diveza instead of diweza(ñ) (gẘa-/gwe- confusion > gwa-/gwe- for trad. goa-/gue-) (E) ż/zh confusion; x/xx confusion; ẘa/oa confusion; aw/ao confusion (as above) ẘ/w confusion; old goaska, da (v)oaska ‘(to) press’ and guelet, da velet ‘(to) see’ become gwaska, da waska, gwelet, da welet
Pre-Modern Reforming (Le Gonidec et al. 1807-1900+) mainly L-based adopts hard g, k instead of gu-, qu- before front vowels; uses gwa, gwe, gwi instead of goa-, gue-, gui, like Le Pelletier. uses –s- for intervocalic –ss- and –z- for both –s- (< OB s) and –z- (< OB θ, δ; MB ð, ð) – so impossible to tell which is not pronounced outside Leon (E ż), which is pronounced /h/ in Gwened (E zh), and which is pronounced /z/ everywhere (E s). (E); x/xx confusion; ẘ/w confusion; ẘa/oa confusion; aw/ao confusion s/ż/zh confusion (z for E s, ż, zh) braz, nevez, brezonek (E bras, neweż, brezhoneg)
Gwened (Vannetais) finally stabilized 1902, Guillevic & Le Goff. Excellent fit for Upper Gwened
KLT (Kerne-Leon-Treger) 1908> mainly L-based (without L oN > ouN brezouneg, choum for brezoneg, chom), continues Le Gonidec s/z confusion; adopts gwa-/gwe- confusion (to please T); imposes final –p, -t, -k for all categories except nouns, so mat, everywhere /ma:d/ – goes against native speaker intuitions and distorts learners’ pronunciation. (not a major factor at the time) (E) s/ż/zh confusion; x/xx confusion; ẘ/w confusion; ẘa/oa confusion; aw/ao confusion mat/mad confusion old mad written mat because not a noun (possible in L, because all monosyllables lengthened: pesk ‘fish’ /peːsk/; lak ‘put’ /laːk/, but not outside L) s/ss confusion old lous ‘dirty’ /luːz/ (Gonidec louz) and douss ‘soft’ /dus/ (Gonidec dous) fall together as lous, dous even though everywhere distinguished by length and lenis/fortis consonant; because <s> is now /-s-/ internally, often interpreted as such by learners finally (becomes increasingly pernicious as proportion of learners among users increases). f/ff confusion old difenn ‘defend’ /-v-/, but differañs ‘difference’ /-f-/ become difenn, diferañs
Breton orthographies: An increasingly awkward fit 30 Steve Hewitt – [email protected]; [email protected]
generalization of voiceless finals except for nouns so brezonek ‘Breton, adj.’, but brezoneg ‘Breton, noun, name of language’ (no possible difference in pronunciation anywhere. No problem for native speakers, who apply final obstruent devoicing/voicing automatically, even carrying them over into French (du vin rouche; n’imporde où); for learners, important to use the voiced final as often as possible because final obstruent devoicing is a much more natural and easily acquired rule than final obstruent voicing, especially for French speakers: grand oncle /ɡʁãt ɔkl/, Bourg-en-Bresse /burk ã brɛs/. Failure to apply final obstruent voicing is rampant among learners today.
ZH – Peurunvan (fully unified) 1941 – mechanical merging of KLT and Gwened, L-based; zh for L z and G h – a number of common words in E ż have zh because of hiatus consonant in G: anezhañ ‘of him’, kouezhañ ‘fall’, etc., suggesting /-z-/ pronunciation in K, T.; confusing final –v for KLT –o/-ou where T has –w and G –ù: e.g. E marw ‘dead’, merwel ‘die’ > marv, mervel; continues undifferentiated gwa-/gwe- of KLT and imposes final –p, -t, -k for all categories except nouns, so mat, everywhere /ma:d/ - goes against native speaker intuitions and distorts learners’ pronunciation. (E) s/ż confusion; x/xx confusion; ẘ/w confusion; ẘa/oa confusion; aw/ao confusion; mat/mad confusion; s/ss confusion; f/ff confusion erroneous ż/zh distribution confusing final –v for E –w.
OU – Orthographe universitaire / Skolveurieg 1955 – turns back on zh and –v of ZH, introduces parallel standards for KLT and G (G version very little used; most G writers continue to prefer traditional G) generalizes voiced –b, -d, -g, -z finals in many cases – good for learners’ pronunciation eliminates mat/mad confusion. mad / da vat eliminates s/ss confusion: louz / dous eliminates x/xx confusion: seha ‘to dry’, an hini sec’ha ‘the driest’ – the first orthography to do so eliminates f/ff confusion. divenn ‘defend’; diferañs ‘difference’ (at the price of f/v confusion) introduces h/x confusion: had /h/ not pronounced in W, gad ‘hare’, da had ‘your hare’ /h/ pronounced everywhere. imposes, grammaticalizes “neo-lenition”: f-, s-, ch-, c’hw- > ’f-, z-, j-, hw- (for both underlying lenis and fortis series, e.g., da zukr, which it seems no one says (for fortis series – very minority usage)
ID – Interdialectale / Etrerannyezhel 1975 adopts 3-way s-z-zh / ss-zz-sh distinction, generalizes w for T w, G ẅ, adopts –b, -d, -g finals of OU. (E) eliminates s/ż/zh confusion eliminates mat/mad confusion (like OU) eliminates s/ss confusion (with s/ss rather than z/s of OU) generalizes w for T w, G ẅ, but maintains ẘ/w confusion – realization rules complex
E – Étymologique ~ 1999 personal elaboration of ID, with addition of regular distinctions ao/aw, ẘa/oa, ẘ/w; 3-way distinctions h/x/xx; v/f/ff; lenis f, ż, zh, s, j, x vs fortis ff, żż, zzh, ss, ch, xx, etc. (E) eliminates s/ż/zh confusion eliminates mat/mad confusion (like OU) eliminates s/ss confusion (with s/ss rather than z/s of OU) eliminates x/xx confusion (with x/xx or c’h/c”h rather than h/c’h of OU) eliminates f/ff confusion eliminates ẘ/w confusion eliminates ẘa/oa confusion eliminates aw/ao confusion
31
Radio Kerne, An Divskouarn o nijal: Picasso hag ar maouezed 2
http://www.radiobreizh.net/bzh/episode.php?epid=11899
ZH IPA should be IPA E ur vaouez œʁ ˈvawɛs œʁ ˈvəwɛs ur vaoues e vez anavazet ur vaouez e ve ãna'vezɛt œʁ 'vawɛs e ve ãn've:əd œʁ 'vəwəs e veż anveżed ur vaoues c’hoazh xwas hwas xwazh emaomp dirak un dra emɔm diˈʁak œn dʁa mom diˈʁag œn dʁa emomp dirag un dra mil nav c’hant mil nao xãnt mil 'nao hãn mil naw xant gant ar blakenn ˈgã:t aʁ 'blakɛn gãn ɐ 'blakən gant ar blakenn Kemper (Quimper) kæ:pɛ:ʁ ˈkempəʀ, ˈkepɐ Kemper a c’hell bezañ disheñvel a ˈxɛl bea diˈsæ:vɛl ɐ ˈhel bea diˈsẽ:vəl a xell beżañ disheñvel pouezus e oa 'pwe:zys e 'wa 'pwé:zyz ə 'wa pouesus e oa chomet e gwenn 'ʃɔmɛt e 'gwɛn 'ʃõməd e 'gwen: chomed e gwenn ha dedennus eo ivez a de'dɛnys e i:e a de'den:yz e 'i:e ha dedennus eo ive lakat al liv 'lakat al 'li:u 'lakɐd ɐ 'liu lakad ar liw labourat e unan la'burat e y:nãn la'bu:rɐd i hỹ:n labourad e hûn den ebet ober an dra-se 'den e'bɛt o'bɛʁ ãn dʁa-
ze 'de:n əbed 'obər n dra:-he
den ebed ober an dra-se
eñ jɔ hɛõ heñv n’eo oa ket ur vignonez ne wa 'kɛt œʁ vi'ɲɔnɛs nə 'wa këd œʁ vĩ'ɲones ne oa ked ur vignones den ne oar dɛn ne waʁ 'dẽ:n nə 'wa:r den ne ẘoar mont a rae mɔn a rae 'mõn: ə 'rɛ: mond a rae evit ul levr evit œl lɛəʁ vid œ leœr ewid ur levr
http://www.ina.fr/video/RN00001367127 Ur valss a garantez
http://www.wat.tv/audio/maria-prat-ar-melexour-13qu2_2g74z_.html Maria Prat “Ar Meleżour”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQY44BhTTJY Maria Prat ha Roje Laouenan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm9JeAEk2RU Maria Prat ha Roje Laouenan 2
Abbreviations
ALBB Atlas linguistique de la Basse-Bretagne (LE ROUX 1924-1953)
C centre, central E East F fortis G Gwened – Vannetais K Kerne – Cornouaille KI Kerne Isel – Basse-Cornouaille KU Kerne Uhel – Haute-Cornouaille L lenis
L Leon – Léon MB Middle Breton ModB Modern Breton NALBB Nouvel atlas linguistique de la Basse-
Bretagne (LE DU 2001) N North OB Old Breton S South T Treger – Trégor W West
Breton orthographies: An increasingly awkward fit 32 Steve Hewitt – [email protected]; [email protected]
References
BROUDIG Fañch. 1995. La Pratique du breton de l’Ancien Régime à nos jours, Presses Universitaires de Rennes. CHÂLONS (DE) Pierre. 1723. Dictionnaire breton-françois du diocèse de Vannes, F. Bertho, Vannes. DÛ (LE) Jean. 2001. Nouvel atlas linguistique de la Basse-Bretagne. 2 vols. Centre de Recherche Bretonne et
Celtique (CRBC), Université de Bretagne Occidentale (UBO), Brest. FALC’HUN François. 1953. Autour de l’orthographe bretonne, Annales de Bretagne, 60/1:48-77.
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/abpo_0003-391x_1953_num_60_1_1905 FALC’HUN François. 1981. Perspectives nouvelles sur l’histoire de la langue bretonne, Union générale d’éditions,
Paris. (revised and expanded version of his doctoral thesis, Rennes, 1951, first published as Histoire de la langue bretonne d’après la géographie linguistique. Presses universitaires de France (PUF), Paris, 1963.)
FLEURIOT Léon. 1964, 1985. Dictionnaire des gloses en vieux-breton. Klincksieck, Paris; English edition: Claude EVANS & Léon FLEURIOT. 1985. A Dictionary of Old Breton/Dictionnaire du vieux-breton: Historical and Comparative. 2 vols. Prepcorp, Toronto.
FLEURIOT Léon. 1964. Le vieux-breton: Eléments d’une grammaire. Klincksieck, Paris. GONIDEC (LE) Jean-François & Théodore HERSANT DE LA VILLEMARQUÉ. 1847. Dictionnaire français-breton,
Prud’homme, Saint-Brieuc. GONIDEC (LE) Jean-François. 1807. Grammaire celto-bretonne, Rougeron, Paris. GONIDEC (LE) Jean-François. 1821. Dictionnaire celto-breton ou breton-français, Trémeau, Angoulème. GONIDEC (LE) Jean-François. 1838. Grammaire celto-bretonne, 2nd ed., H. Delloye, Paris. GUILLEVIC A. & P. LE GOFF. 1902, Grammaire bretonne du dialecte de Vannes, Galles, Vannes. HEMON Roparz. 1955. La spirante dentale en breton, Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie 25/1-2:59-87. HEMON Roparz. 1975. A Historical Morphology and Syntax of Breton. Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. HEWITT Steve. 1987. Réflexions et propositions sur l’orthographe du breton. La Bretagne Linguistique 3:41-54. JACKSON Kenneth H. 1967. A Historical Phonology of Breton, Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. KERGOAT Lukian. 1974. Reolennoù an doare-skrivañ nevez [The Rules of the New Orthography]. Skol an Emsav,
Roazon [Rennes]. LAGADEUC Jehan. 1499. Le Catholicon: Dictionnaire breton-latin-français, Jehan Calvez, Tréguier. MADEG Mikael. 2010. Traité de pronunciation du breton du Nord-Ouest, Emgleo Breiz, Brest. MAUNOIR Julien. 1659. Le Sacré-Collège de Jésus [Breton catechism with dictionary, grammar and syntax], J.
Hardouin, Quimper. MERSER (AR) Andreo. 1980. Les Graphies du breton (Etude succincte), Ar Helenner, No. 15, Brest. MERSER (AR) Andreo. 1996. Précis de prononciation du breton, 3e édition, Emgleo Breiz / Ar Skol Vrezoneg,
Brest. MERSER (AR) Andreo. 1999. Les Orthographes du breton, 4e édition revue et corrigée, Brud Nevez, Brest. MORVANNOU Fañch. 1975. Le Breton sans peine, Assimil, Chennevières-sur-Marne. PELLETIER (LE) Dom Louis. 1752. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue bretonne, François Delaguette, Paris. ROSTRENEN (DE) Grégoire. 1732. Dictionnaire François-Celtique ou François-Breton, Julien Vatar, Rennes. ROUX (LE) Pierre. 1924-1953. Atlas Linguistique de la Basse-Bretagne. 6 fascicules of 100 maps each. Rennes-Paris
(reprint 1977: Éditions Armoricaines, Brest; currently available online in jpg format at: http://sbahuaud.free.fr/ALBB/
RUYET (LE) Jean-Claude. 2009. Enseignement du Breton: Parole, liaison et norme: Étude présentée dans le cadre d’un corpus de qutre règles de pronunciation pour le Breton des écoles. Thèse de Doctorat en Celtique, 18 décembre 2009. Université de Rennes II. http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/45/82/17/ANNEX/thes http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/45/82/17/PDF/theseLeRuyet.pdfeLeRuyetResume.pdf http://breizh.blogs.ouest-france.fr/archive/2011/01/26/faut-il-reformer-l-orthographe-du-breton.html
TRÉPOS Pierre. [1968]. Grammaire bretonne, Rennes: Simon (reprinted Ouest France, Rennes, 1980; new edition Brud Nevez, Brest, 1994).
WMFFRE Iwan. 2007. Breton Orthographies and Dialects: The twentieth-century orthography war in Brittany. 2 vols, Peter Lang, Bern, etc..
