Talk:England/Cornwall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For more of the same, see Talk:Cornwall.

Contents

[edit] Cornwall

Page refactored. Row about status Cornwall excised. sjc

[edit] More Cornwall

Is Cornwall a county of England, or what?

It is a county which some people (English) like to think is in England and others (Cornish) humour them about. Usually. Until they become to arrogant, that is. user:sjc

Okay, but how shall we describe it in the Wikipedia? If we list the countries of the UK, England is one of them. If we list the counties of England, is Cornwall one of them? Must we say that the UK consists of:

  • Cornwall, a county
  • England, Scotland, and Wales (countries)
Cornwall is in-between; neither a country nor a county; it is the last vestige of the Cornish Celtic nation that was joined with the Welsh until a major military defeat in the 5th century. It is in administrative terms an English county (this may yet change!) but is not technically in England since it is a duchy, with an autocthonous population which has its own language. I am content as a Cornishman for Cornwall to be listed as an English county since it describes the realpolitik of the situation, but the legal status of Cornwall may well be and probably is otherwise. user:sjc
Sort of like the Duchy of Benevento not really being part of Italy. What about the kingdom of Kent and the kingdom of Mercia? Is Kent also a county but not a shire? Neo-nationalism! Up with the Fen-men! Keep the ruddy Angles out! Wetman 14:31, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sounds more like Taiwan, which China calls a "province" but which nevertheless considers itself an independent nation. (I've never really understood the "one-China" policy.)
Anyway, will you now permit GrahamN to make his edits without ominous forebodings of reversion? --Ed Poor
Sorry to jump in this discussion at this point in time, but Taiwan Province does not call itself an independent nation. The Republic of China claims to be an independent nation, which the People's Republic of China claims does not exist or does not legitimately exist. Administratively, Taiwan is a province of the ROC. That's unless you call "Taiwan" the short form of the ROC. The analogy fails. --Jiang 21:02 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Bravo; this is a very important nuance. QuartierLatin1968 05:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No I won't. We have an agreed form of words that works; I have spent enought time and effort brokering deals and compromises to make it acceptable. Please refrain from interfering in a debate you manifestly know little about. user:sjc

I still think of Massachusetts as a colony, so I'm all mixed up. --Ed Poor

No, Massachusetts is a commonwealth. -- isis 6 Sep 2002
What does that mean? Massachusetts doesn't mention it or explain. Province, country, commonwealth... It's at this point of the conversation that I usually misquote Giles from Buffy saying "we still think of you lot as bloody colonials" ... ;-) -- Tarquin 21:49 Sep 6, 2002 (UCT)
Massachusetts and the other three commonwealths are the same as states. (Just like the Principality of Asturias, the Generalitat of Catalunya, and the Region of Murcia are all autonomous communities of Spain.) Not to be confused with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Or The Commonwealth. - Montréalais
If this helps, the "Commonwealth of Massachusetts" is a state of the United States. On the other hand, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is an free state associated with the United States. QuartierLatin1968 05:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hey, nothing legitimate about "West" Virginia! Reclaim it I say! and Connecticut's charter ran to the Pacific Ocean!
  • Cornwall is a county of England, although it was once an independent country, but this was many centuries ago. Some of the older generations like to think they are different from the rest of the English population, but in truth this isn't true at all. Cornwall in no way differs from any other English county. Also in response to one statement above, the UK consists of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Grunners 04:45, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Administratively, Cornwall is little different from any other English county. But many Cornish regard Cornwall as constituting a land of its own, and the Cornish a people of their own. Compare the county Waterford. Waterford is now administratively in

the "South East Region" of the Irish Republic, if I'm not mistaken. But people from Waterford are quite conscious of being part of Munster, despite the fact that Munster has no administrative function and practically never has had. Is it so far-fetched to imagine that Great Britain is composed of 'provinces', if you like (Cornwall, England, Wales, Scotland), just as Ireland is? QuartierLatin1968 05:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Cornish Language in England

The Cornish Language is an Indo-European Celtic language originating in Cornwall, England. I have reasons to believe that it is now accorded equal status within the United Kingdom as Welsh (in Wales), Irish (in Northern Ireland) and Scottish Gaelic (in Scotland). I am not saying that Cornish is a language from all England, but just from Cornwall, and as Cornwall is an English county, I believe that it should be included in the article.
The Cornish language in England has a similar status to Gaelic in Scotland; they are both confined to a small area (in Scotland's case Gaelic is mostly found in the Highlands and on the Western Isles. You wouldn't find any Gaelic speakers in Aberdeen or on the Shetland Islands), they are both officially recognized by the British Government and in the areas where each language is spoken you will find that the road signs are in both languages.
You may want to check out the following WebSites:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2410383.stm (BBC: Cornish gains official recognition)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2144523.stm (BBC: Cornish language 'to be recognised)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2206191.stm (BBC: Back from the dead: UK's new language)
http://www.cornish-language.org/ (The Cornish Language Online)
http://www.eurolang.net/State/uk.htm (6 lesser used languages are spoken on the territory of the United-Kingdom)
http://www.agantavas.org.uk/ (Agan Tavas/Our Tongue)
Thursday 3rd March 2004 
by Kjspahis, 
e-mail: kjspahis@yahoo.co.uk

Hi. I'm afraid there is a vast difference between an 'official' language, and a 'recognised' language. If you read our article about Official language this should make it quite clear. Certainly it has absolutely nothing like Welsh's special status in Wales - the Welsh Language Act [http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1993/Ukpga_19930038_en

_1.htm] specifically allows for example, the use of Welsh in courts. There is no such legislation allowing the use of Cornish in courts. Morwen 18:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Hi! Even so, that does not mean that it is not one of the national languages of England.
The Cornish language and Culture are an important part of English and British history, and omitting the recognized Cornish language would be like omitting the Gaelic language from the article Scotland.
Kjspahis


I think everyone seems to be agreed that Cornish is a significant language and deserves to be mentioned, but is not an official language. Hence, I have removed the (incorrect) reference to it as an official language, but created a short section on languages which discusses it amongst others. Feel free to add more detail about its status there, since my knowledge is very limited. I hope this compromise solves the problem and satisfies everyone. Best wishes, Cambyses 20:46, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Certainly, it is not the de facto official language of all England. In theory though, it is partly official alongside English in Cornwall.
I believe that even as a partly official in that particular county, it should be mentioned.
In response to Morwen's statement, nobody doubts Gaelic's status in Scotland as an official regional language, but the use of Gaelic before the Scottish courts is also not allowed.
I see that many of you believe that it should not be mentioned in the “Official Language” section so I have taken the liberty of inserting it after saying that English is de facto. I hope this solves the problem.
Kjspahis,

The reason why nobody doubts Gaelic's status is because there is statute law recognising it as such. There is no statute law at all that even mentions Cornish as a language, let alone declares it to be partly official. Morwen 13:52, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)


No, there isn't, but there is a 'Gaelic Bill' before the Scottish Parliament. It hasn't been passed yet.
You may want to look at http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/cornish/charterfull.htm I find article 9 most interesting. Kjspahis



I thought I'd make the rather interesting point, (well I think so anyway!) that I live in a part of Herefordshire that had native Welsh speakers well into the 19th century. Should we therefore include Welsh as one of the native languages of England?! ;) User:Pazzer

From the Cornish Language Board:

http://www.cornish-language.org/english/faq.asp

  • How many people speak Cornish these days?
    • No exact census has been taken of Cornish speakers. It is also difficult to say an number because it depends on the level of fluency. Estimates put the number of fluent speakers of Cornish at around three or four hundred people. The number grows if you wish to include those who can converse in Cornish, but would not consider themselves fluent. This figure could be put at a couple of thousand.

That makes it worth a note that one of the six celtic languages is based in England, but it certainly doesn't make it official or national. The are more people fluent in sylheti in one council ward of Sunderland than are fluent Cornish in all of Cornwall, does that deserve listing? --garryq 16:24, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Cornish language has been recognized as official in Cornwall, and because of that, it being an official language in an area within England’s borders, I believe that it should be included. Other languages, such as Polish, Urdu and Turkish are also spoken in England and they have more speakers than Cornish, but those languages have not been recognized by the Government as official in any area in England. Kjspahis

I thought declaring it a national language was exaggerating its status, but it seems it has been given regional language status – my apologies I believed the County Council had merely resolved to promote its use. I changed the references not to infer Cornish is not used but to show how little it is used. I also pointed out that it is regarded (in my POV unfairly) as a Cinderella language. I said that there were a few hundred speakers; the official studies seem to show even fewer. Any rewrite should show it as a regional language, after many years being discussed by the European regions committee, but leave its badly treated status, especially compared to Welsh and even Scots Gaelic. --garryq 18:23, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really object to this thing about Cornish being an official language, because it does not reflect the reality which is that people simply do not 'use' Cornish, as the page now states they do, in the sense that people use Welsh in their everyday lives. There are more Welsh speakers in England than Cornish speakers, and certainly many more of literally dozens of languages from overseas. Cornish nationalists: stop using Wikipedia for political axe-grinding.--XmarkX 14:52, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)


http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo021105/text/21105w15.htm To paraphrase the above Hansard reference from 2002:

The government recognise Cornish as falling under Part II of the European Charter for Regional or Minority languages, and will be registering this decision with the Council of Europe.
This acknowledges the symbolic importance the language has for Cornish identity and heritage.
Cornish will join Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Irish, Scots and Ulster Scots as protected and promoted languages under the Charter, which commits the Government to recognise and respect those languages
Officials will discuss with Cornwall county council and Cornish language organisations in Cornwall to ensure the views of Cornish speakers and people wanting to learn Cornish are taken into account in implementing Part II of the Charter

My previous posts misunderstood Cornwall County Council's use of Cornish – they do so at national, not "merely" local, request. Even so, I do not think Cornish can be said to be an official national language. It is an important regional language, worthy of protection.

By the way, XmarkX says "[there are] literally dozens of languages from overseas. Cornish nationalists: stop using Wikipedia for political axe-grinding". But any Cornish nationalist who wanted to grind axes would doubtless point out English is the language from overseas, which has forced Cornish across the Tamar. --garryq 16:10, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

...which would be a pretty silly thing to point out, because even Celtic languages are languages from overseas if you go back far enough (they originated in Central Europe). Marnanel 14:13, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
true, but many a cornish man will acknowledge themselves British, not English; adding to the problems of not acknowledging a recognised minority language. --garryq 15:51, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I object to this. Cornish is now an officially recognized language. It also originates in ENGLAND. Therefore, it requires treatment that reflects its status. I would also like to say that it is most misleading of you to imply that Cornish is not used is daily situations like Welsh is. Comparing Welsh to Cornish is also unfair, as the populations of Wales and Cornwall are considerably different. I will now ask you to explain, how is Gaelic a national and official language of Scotland, if it is only spoken in a small area of the country, just like Cornish is. In fact (in my opinion) the status of both Cornish and Gaelic are equal in both countries respectively. I would also like to say that this has nothing to do with Cornish Nationalism. This is about facts. Not nationalistic fantasies. Also bear in mind that I am not Cornish. I am from Durham, England. Kjspahis.

From the charter:

“regional or minority languages” means languages that are [...] different from the official language(s) of that State;

So this charter actually DEFINES regional or minority languages as non-official, yet is the only evidence presented showing that it is official? Morwen 07:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You are wrong. different from the official language(s) of that State means that it is not linked to the official language(s), for example as a local dialect, In England however there is no official language, even though English is de facto. Therefore even English can be included in the Charter. It is also worth noting that Welsh and Scottish Gaelic are included in the Charter and they are (de facto) official in Wales and Scotland. Kjspahis 10:45, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wading in a little way:

  1. In England the only language which may be used in legal situations, in parliament, in official dealings of every description is English. Many other languages are in common day-to-day usage (and Urdu and Gujurati far more than Cornish, I would suggest) but they may *not* be used in such ways although councils will make attempts to publish and translate documents appropriate to the people living in their area, as is only reasonable.
  2. As we 'invented' the language English it isn't specified as the 'legal language' otherwise (I suspect this may be the case in other countries too where the lanugage is based / sourced in that country).
  3. Conrnish has a 'status' as a regional language of the 'EU' however this does not give it any status in 'England'.
  4. There is another language which has a legal status in the country though - the four words of Norman French with which the Queen gives the Royal Assent to a Bill. Not Cornish, nor anything else regional. --VampWillow 17:39, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Languages can be recognised at different levels (I'm living in Canada, believeme, I know). It looks very much as if Cornish is recognised as an important language, one to be supported and nurtured, much the same as native languages are here. If so that is good, but it doesn't make Cornish and official language of England. Even if it was given official status in Cornwall that wouldn't make it an official language of England. About other languages, VampWillow has it pretty much right I believe. DJ Clayworth 17:50, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This isn't really getting anywhere, as I find it unnecessary to repeat all my arguments, I am now just going to sum up. According to the Council of Europe's Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, any language included in it is entitled to special treatment from the State. This includes the use of the language in question (in this case Cornish) by administrative authorities, the right to use the language before the courts and more. In short the language is official in the area where it is autochthonous (in this case Cornwall). Also I am not saying that Cornish is equal with English, nor am I saying that it is official in all England. I am saying that it is official alongside English in Cornwall, and from the moment that Cornwall is an English county, England (in practice) has two languages being used as official within its borders (English and Cornish). I will now ask you again to explain How can the article Northern Ireland have the Irish Gaelic and Ulster Scots listed as official languages when they are used officially even less than Cornish in Cornwall. And how can the article Scotland have Scots Gaelic listed as an official language when it is autochthonous only in the Highlands and the Western Isles, not the Lowlands or the Shetland and Orkney Islands (not all Scotland). Kjspahis 07:41, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I will explain the differences: Scots Gaelic is a day-to-day language. Cornish is a dead language, like Latin or Anglo-Norman French. The best sources I've read confirm that Cornish died out from day-to-day use at least two hundred years ago. Ulster Scots is, as I understand it, a sop to the Protestants so that they have something comparable to the Republicans having Irish Gaelic. Ulster Scots is closely related to the English language, and as such segways into it - Ulstermen with broad accents and dialect usage are probably getting on for speaking Ulster Scots, just as in the case of Scots and English in Scotland. The claim for it to be a language is pretty tendentious, and I disagree with it - but that dispute is described on the Ulster Scots entry. Irish Gaelic is also still spoken, but the Ulster dialect is in fact a dead one, making this case similar to the case of Cornish, aside from the fact that it's only died out in living memory. Also, this is an absolutely crucial issue for the whole of Northern Ireland, not just for one county. What would be analogous to the inclusion of 'Irish' in the Northern Ireland page would be the inclusion of Cornish on the page about Cornwall, not about England, of which Cornwall is a very small part.--XmarkX 16:26, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cornish name for England

Why do we need to have the Cornish name for England in the article, considering that we don't have the Welsh or Gaelic names? -- ChrisO 17:19, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The current debate (see above) is over whether Cornish is an "official language" (or similar) of England. If it was, it would make sense to include Pow Sows in the list of names for the country. Marnanel 17:25, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
In that case, it's easily resolved. English may not be defined as the official language of the country but "England" is very definitely its official name; "Pen Sows" has no official status whatsoever. -- ChrisO 17:37, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pow Sows

I try to recognise Cornish as one of the six officially designated minority languages in the British Isles, and the only one in England. I hope I made it clear that it not official in the sense that Ireland has two official languages. Sadly what I had assumed was a decent compromise between those who refuse to think Cornish exists and those who would have England bi-lingual so upset some that a flurry of reverts ensued.

Thus to summarise a la ChrisO (Cornish is an officially recognised minority language, how often does this need to be said??)

And yet again the great god google Try looking up "Pow Sows" in an on line dictionary

  • Breton: Bro-Saoz
  • Cornish: Pow Sows
  • Irish: Sasana m

Or another site England - Pow Sows, English - Sowsnek

Not only does the language exists, a common thread with several Celtic languages is obvious

Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man. All wiki. Pages happy to recognise the Celtic name. Why can't that happen in England? Are we frightened that another language will bring the cosmos to a close? --garryq 20:53, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We seem to be going round in circles here.
The point that you're missing, I think, is that there is a difference between an official language and an officially recognised minority language. Let me give you a foreign example - the only official language in France is French. "Official" in this context means "used for administrative purposes." However, French government bodies also recognise as minority languages Alsatian, Breton, Catalan, Corsican, Flemish and Occitanian (and probably others). A few parts of France (I'm thinking of Alsace in particular) are officially bilingual. However, this does not mean that the state is bilingual or that those languages are given an equal status to French.
Here in England, no language is formally recognised as official, but English has a de facto official status throughout the UK. (Ironically, Welsh is the only language which is treated as official by UK-wide statute but the applicability of this is limited - a typical fudge.) Neither English nor Cornish are therefore official languages. Cornish is, however, an officially recognised minority language, as you point out. Therefore we can legitimately include Cornish in the "languages spoken in England" section but not as an "official language". It simply isn't one, and nor is English.
Having said that, I think there's an interesting point that could be made about the Celtic names for England, so I'll reintroduce "Pow Sows" in a more appropriate place in the article. -- ChrisO 21:53, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I didn't miss the point, I went to great pains - even if duplicating some information in another section - to point out that officially recognised minority language is little more then protection and encouragement to learn. But what place is more appropriate than the head of the table? as happens with the Scotland and Wales pages.

And what do you mean by "official language" for Wales? The Welsh Language Act only applies to public bodies in Wales but not to individuals - unlike Quebec's forcing government and private businesses to use French. Is there additional legislation? --garryq 23:27, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you really aren't trying to promote Cornish specifically, I look forward to you adding France's many recognised minority languages to the article on France. Morwen - Talk 11:53, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If we can't be consistent over the use of recognised minority languages in pages about the several areas of the British Isles why look at France.?

[edit] Should "Pow Sows" be in the summary box?

According to Wikipedia policy, it should not. The template for the summary box is defined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. Note that this states that the information required for the country name is "Official Country Name(s) (local)". Examples of this can be seen at Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland is given, not Germany) and France (République Française, not France). Both of these are the official names of the countries as defined by law. The name of England is not explicitly defined by law as far as I know, but the name "England" is the only name ever given to the country for official purposes. The name "Pow Sows" does not have any official status and is not used by government or the law (try this Google search [1] to illustrate the point) so is clearly not appropriate for inclusion in this box. -- ChrisO 16:33, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Your statements are very vague, as England does not have an Official Language specifically defined by law and England as a country is not administrated as a whole so the name England is hardly ever used, save for the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. I believe, as England is not an independent state that the Wikipedia Policy you mention does not apply in this case. If what you say is true, then the pages Scotland and Northern Ireland should not include the names of the countries that are not used officially, that is in (Ulster) Scots and Irish/Scottish Gaelic. Kjspahis 18:11, 11 Jun 2004 (GMT)

Please stop trying to evade the issue. Is Cornish an official language of England? No it's not, as you've admitted. The policy is clear: the Cornish name is not official and should not be used in the language box.
Also, why are you deleting the content under "naming" about the different between the Celtic and mainland European names for England? -- ChrisO 17:16, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Page protected

The article has now been protected, as required by the Wikipedia:Revert policy. I hope everyone takes the opportunity to work out the issue here now that reverting is off the agenda... -- ChrisO 17:34, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of "Pow Sows"?

Does Pow Sows mean England-including-Cornwall or England-which-starts-east-of-the-Tamar? Andy G 18:04, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm guessing the latter. As it means "land of the Saxons", this would seem to differentiate it from "Kernow", Cornwall. It occurs to me that saying that England="Pow Sows" is rather a political statement, as it implies that Cornwall isn't part of England. -- ChrisO 21:32, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am now going to ask you to look at the following map
http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/0/04/UKEngland.png
do you see Cornwall? Is it included in the red area which is England? But surely, how can the name "England" be derived from "Engla-lond" or "land of the Angles" if the Angles settled mostly on the Eastern Coast of England, the Saxons in the South and the Celts remained in Cornwall and Cumbria. In short the name omits the Saxons and Celts, but is a name for the red area on the map and Pow Sows is merely a translation of England, as is Anglaterre (in French). Again I will compare England to Scotland by pointing out that Scotland means land of the Scots, but it leaves out the Picts, the Anglo-Saxons, the Norwegians and other people who also settled there. I think that you can now rest assured that Pow Sows is not a political statement.
I think that we should try to compromise now I would like to hear your suggestions.
Also why are you deleting the link I added to the page to the Latin translation at http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglia ? Kjspahis

There is an enormous difference between how a name is used now and its etymology. The fact that "England" derives from "land of the Angles" is a historical and linguistic fact. That doesn't alter the fact that nowadays it's used for a much wider area than that originally settled by the Angles. Similarly, the fact that "Pow Sows" derives from "Land of the Saxons" says nothing about the current meaning of the name. There's no reason at all to assume that it means "England east of the Tamar". However, the etymology is (to me, at least, and presumably to other readers) extremely interesting, and should definitely be included.
None of that bears any relation to whether Pow Sows should be included as a header to the table, which seems to be the main area of contention. My opinion is that it shouldn't: it's a minority language, spoken by less than 4000 people, and with no official status (as opposed to official support). The local name, in the de facto language used throughout the country (including Cornwall) is England. Cornish is interesting, as a language which developed within the borders of present day England, but it is more than adequately covered in the current revision (and in the article on Cornish language. -- ALargeElk | Talk 14:57, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As a Cornish speaker, I don't think the use of England="Pow Sows" is political or has much to do with the Tamar boundary. It's just the Cornish name for England. QuartierLatin1968 23:25, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Is Cornish Official?

I am beginning to believe not.
I e-mailed:
1. The Cornish Language Board,
2. Cornwall County Council
3. The Office of The Deputy Prime Minister
asking if Cornish is official and explaining the situation here about a week ago. So far no one has replied.
Also, given that no encyclopaedia article so far has included Corrnish as an official language in England. It is only mentioned in articles about Cornwall. Therefore I think that Cornish should not be listed in the official languages cell, but perhaps make its status clear in a separate paragraph about Official Languages.
Kjspahis 10:30 Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

Noting the appearance of Cornish on the United Kingdom page just now (which was reverted although, in that particular instance, I feel it may be justifed int hat section) it did dawn on me that there is no Cornish Wikipedia (and SFAIAA no accepted code for the language either but IMBW). I don't like how this seems to be becoming a "Cornish against the world" issue, but I do feel one has to face the test of whether Cornish (a) is an active language (ie. could you walk into a shop and find it being spoken as a matter of course) and it would appear (IME) to fail this test, (b) has any "official" status (seemingly not), (c) has a "recognised" status (seems to by the EU but not otherwise), (d) whether these 'discussions' are helping or hindering the work on WP. I've just received a questionnair from my local council (admittedly in London) which includes the question "Which languages are spoken regularly in your household?" There are 15 options listed; none of them 'Cornish'. I support the resurrection of the Cornish lanugage in the same way I do the Welsh language, but in no way can anyone say it is an actively-used 'official' language of England anymore. --VampWillow 11:21, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm wondering what's left to resolve before this article can be unprotected. As there is a section on Cornish under languages, as Kjspahis suggests, the last remaining issue would appear to be whether the table should be headed just "England" or whether it should also say "Pow Sows". I strongly support the former - does anyone feel differently? -- ALargeElk | Talk 11:34, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Since more people speak the now dead (as is Cornish) but formerly main languages used by the English, of Latin and Old English, and we don't have translations for those and also since we don't include the Cumbric. I see no reason for the use of Pow Sows. Mintguy (T) 11:42, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I now believe that if Cornish is not going to be included in the official languages cell, the name Pow Sows should not be included at the head of the table. I could be included in the NAMING section.
It is also worth noting that there is a Cornish Wikipedia at http://kw.wikipedia.org. Kjspahis 12:39 Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
Well good luck with it. According to the Cornish Language Fellowship the number of fluent speakers of Cornish is around three or four hundred people. I suppose the Cornish Wikipedia will give it more exposure. but please don't try to mis-represent Cornish as being a language that is used in everyday situations. Mintguy (T)
Indeed, although as there is only a single page and that states "Welcome to the Cornish version of Wikipedia. Cornish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornish_language) is a language spoken in Cornwall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornwall)." rather than is a language spoken in England I think it rather proves the point under discussion here! ISTR a discussion elsewhere about wikipedias and 100 articles too. Time to resolve and move on I feel ... --VampWillow 13:10, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Excellent! I am assuming that everyone now agrees that Cornish should not be included in the Official language cell, nor should Pow Sows be included at the head of the table.
Those issues should be dealt with in the Naming and the Language sections. Kjspahis 13:20 Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
And indeed they currently are discussed in both those sections. I would suggest that we are in agreement. Is there an admin around to unprotect the article? -- ALargeElk | Talk 13:24, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I hope that you will not object if I now add the link to the Latin version. The one that was always being removed. Kjspahis 13:27 Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

No objection here - other language wikipedias should always be linked. I notice that the Latin wikipedia, unlike this one, does include "Pow Sows" at the top of the table - but that's entirely a matter for discussion for the participants there. Each wikipedia will have slightly different policies, naming conventions, style guidelines, etc.-- ALargeElk | Talk 13:36, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'll uprotect it on the understanding that the name "Pow Sows" that the name is already sufficiently discussed. Mintguy (T) 13:33, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think someone's already unprotected it, thanks. -- ALargeElk | Talk 13:36, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I added Pow Sows to the Latin Wikipedia article Anglia, as I rewrote with Iustinus. If you think that it should be removed you should remove it. You might want to remove it from the other translation I have made, the Greek one (at Ελληνικά). Kjspahis 13:43 Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
Not my place to remove it - apart from anything else, I certainly wouldn't have enough Latin to defend that removal on the talk page! Strictly English for me, I'm afraid (not something I'm proud of). -- ALargeElk | Talk 13:53, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] CORNISH LANGUAGE TO RECEIVE OFFICIAL STATUS (by the ODPM)

I recently e-mailed the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister asking for information about the Cornish Language. Their response was as follows:

WW88 5 November 2002

CORNISH LANGUAGE TO RECEIVE OFFICIAL STATUS


The Cornish language is to be recognised by the Government under the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, Local Government and Regions Minister Nick Raynsford announced today.

In answer to a Parliamentary Question Nick Raynsford said:

"After careful consideration and with the help of the results of an independent academic study on the language commissioned by the Government, we have decided to recognise Cornish as falling under Part II of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The Government will be registering this decision with the Council of Europe.

"The purpose of the Charter is to protect and promote the historical regional or minority languages of Europe. It recognises that some of these languages are in danger of extinction and that protection and encouragement of them contributes to Europe's cultural diversity and historical traditions.

"This is a positive step in acknowledging the symbolic importance the language has for Cornish identity and heritage.

"Cornish will join Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Irish, Scots and Ulster Scots as protected and promoted languages under the Charter, which commits the Government to recognise and respect those languages.

"Officials will be initiating discussion with Cornwall County Council and Cornish language organisations in Cornwall to ensure the views of Cornish speakers and people wanting to learn Cornish are taken into account in implementing Part II of the Charter."

Notes for Editors
1. The UK Government ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in March 2001

2. The purpose of the Charter is to protect and promote regional or minority languages as expressions of cultural wealth. Part II of the Charter sets out the general principles and objectives of recognition and support for regional or minority languages. Part III contains provisions for the active promotion of specific regional or minority languages in public life. As a signatory to the Charter, the Government is bound to apply Part II to all languages that meet the Charter’s definition of a regional or minority language. Signatories are free to decide to which of the languages they have recognised they wish to specify for the application of Part III.

3. The Government has specified Welsh, Scottish Gaelic and Irish under Part III.

4. The full text of the Charter and an Explanatory Report can be found as European Treaty Series document number 148 on the Council of Europe’s website at http://conventions.coe.int


ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER BY GOVERNMENT NEWS NETWORK SOUTH WEST. FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT WAILIM WONG ON 01752-635053 OR 07748-654468.

Kjspahis 15:23 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

All of which is interesting, but it's already covered in the article. No-one disputes that Cornish is officially recognised as a minority language worth supporting - but it doesn't make it an official language of England and doesn't change my views on what should be in this article. I think we've got it just about right as it is now. -- ALargeElk | Talk 15:37, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I didn't say anything different. I just showed you the response I got from the ODPM. The response I got from the Cornish Language Board is as follows:

Dear Mr Sanderson,'
Although Cornish has recently (March 2003) been specified by the UK government under Part II of the Council of Europe's Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, it can in no way be described as 'official'. However, Cornish was never banned as were other autochthonous languages in the UK, so there is theoretically no legal let to its use. Cornwall County Council is working with the Government and language NGOs to produce a strategy for the development of Cornish and to identify funding sources (see CCC website).

Regards
GEORGE ANSELL
Kjspahis 15:55 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder whether, conversely, the fact that it wasn't banned contributed in some way to its dying out? Perhaps the fact that Welsh and Gaelic were banned encouraged people to see them as an important element of their identity, and so to work harder to keep them alive. I'll do some research on whether anyone's proposed that hypothesis and maybe add to the Cornish language article if I can find anything.-- ALargeElk | Talk 16:04, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Quite apart from gaining status from Westminster as a regional or minority language, Cornwall County Council has an official policy of promoting Cornish. I'd like to suggest a parallel in South Africa, whose constitution specifies a whole raft of official languages, but then also a fair handful of other languages that the state undertakes to uphold and protect (Arabic, Sanskrit, Khoisan languages -- languages not used by very many people but worth throwing some money at because it's good politics). To use this analogy, Cornish today is by no means an official language of the UK, England, the South West Region, or Cornwall -- but it is given a subsidiary recognition like Arabic in South Africa. QuartierLatin1968 05:14, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Plug for Cornish Language Wikipedia

The Cornish language Wikipedia now has over 100 articles! A small group of us have been working very hard to build this wiki, but we really do need more contributors (and viewers!). Do check out Wikipedia yn Kernewek, and feel free to add articles even if you've only got a smattering of Cornish. Heaven knows mine's not perfect! QuartierLatin1968 05:20, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)