Hewitt CUP Breton Orthographies an Increasingly Awkward Fit

M.C. Jones (ed.) Creating Orthographies for Endangered Languages, Cambridge University Press, 2015

Breton orthographies: An increasingly awkward fit

Steve Hewitt, [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 Julien Maunoir introduced the iconic against French ch to differentiate clearly between

~x and ,1 and began to indicate initial consonant mutations systematically. For most of the 19th century, one track continues traditional Early Modern habits, the other innovating and systematizing (not always felicitously), leading ultimately to the 1908-11 KLT (Kerne-Leon-Treger) standardization, which in turn fed into the 1941 Peurunvan traditional Gwened, G, SE]) orthography. The 1955 Orthographe universitaire removing certain inconsistencies, introduces new (Jackson 1967). The 1975 Orthographe interdialectale (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. My own etymological orthography (E) builds on ID to demonstrate that several more powerful and useful supradialectal conventions are possible. At each stage of modern spelling reforms, unfortunate choices have been made, often owing to insufficient comprehension of etymological considerations and the related interdialectal correspondences. At the same time, the implications of the massive shift in users during the second half of the 20th century from native speakers to learners have not been taken properly into account. Finally, at no point has there been an informed debate on the relative merits of a simple monodialectal standard vs a more complex supradialectal standard.

Thematic considerations

Breton is an endangered language because natural transmission has completely ceased (the Breton of learner-activists is not really a continuation of the same language; native speakers do not perceive it as such, at any rate). Most of the 200,000-odd traditional, mainly rural, native speakers are today over 60 years old, and there are practically none under 45. There is no more than 0.2-0.3% functional literacy (ability to write a personal letter) in Breton among such speakers. The activist community consists overwhelmingly of learners, is not very numerous (5,000-10,000 with a reasonable command of the rather artificial literary language and perhaps another 10,000 with some exposure to it), and is almost completely cut off from the traditional speech community, with whom learners most can barely communicate in Breton.

A good orthography for any language, whether endangered of not, would have a relatively straightforward grapheme-to-phoneme mapping. In the case of languages like Breton, with significant dialect variation, there are basically two possible approaches to orthography design: (1) a mononomic (monodialectal) system based on a single, usually prestige, dialect, or (2) a polynomic (supradialectal) system, where orthographic conventions make it possible to derive local reflexes in fairly regular fashion; such a system is usually etymological, going back to a state from which most modern dialect reflexes can be derived. We will argue that the latter is preferable for Breton.

The main Breton orthography (ZH, Peurunvan, 1941) falls between two stools: it represents an artificial merger of the mainly L-based KLT orthography with the traditional G (Gwened, Vannetais) orthography of the highly aberrant SE dialect, without taking into account any of the

-SW axis. Decisions on the orthography have been largely out of the hands of the traditional native speech community, which is still overwhelmingly illiterate in Breton, since the advent of ZH in 1941. It will be seen that the majority ZH orthography is linguistically particularly ill -suited to Breton, and contributes significantly to poor pronunciation by learners, thus helping to perpetuate the very significant native/learner gap.

Of the three competing modern orthographies, ZH is used by a large majority (85% +). It was chosen as the official orthography of the private, state- m

1 In this article, italics will be used for graphemes: , and bold for phonemes and .
mailto:[email protected]

Steve Hewitt Breton orthographies: An increasingly awkward fit 2

in 1980, with the result that nearly all pedagogical materials are now published in it. With traditional native speakers now ageing and overwhelmingly illiterate in Breton, there is little prospect that they are suddenly going to become literate in their mother tongue and begin using the written language actively. Written Breton is thus likely to remain largely confined to the learner-activist community, and to remain a minority interest. Breton is thus not about to become a language of public administration there are nowhere near enough people competent to staff such a service, and public demand for it is insignificant. So even though the learner-activists are still far less numerous than traditional native speakers, they are likely to remain the main users of written Breton. Most of them take the ZH orthographical norm as primary, rather than the living dialects, which they know poorly.

Breton seems to have stumbled into its current orthographical mess. Certainly, at no point has a conscious methodology been used for orthography development, with the partial exception of the two post-ZH orthographies: OU (1955) and ID (1975), neither of which has been particularly successful.

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, spontaneous 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, plus support for Breton language

1-2% ID (Interdialectale Etrerannyezhel)

support for Breton, regional autonomy

85-90% ZH (Peurunvan

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 basically French phonetic habits. They 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 mutual comprehension outr ight, the cumulative effect is to make communication between learners and native speakers laborious at best, and usually unfeasible in practice.

3 M.C. Jones (ed.) Creating Orthographies for Endangered Languages

Figure 1: Estimates of percentages of Breton-speakers in 2004

Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Distribution_relative_des_brittophones_en_2004.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Distribution_relative_des_brittophones_en_2004.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Distribution_relative_des_brittophones_en_2004.png


Dialects of Breton

Figure 2: Dialects of Breton

Source: http://www.geobreizh.bzh/geobreizh/fra/carte -langue.asp

Breton dialects are traditionally divided into Leon/Lon (L), Treger/Trgor (T), Kerne/Cornouaille (K), Gwened/Vannes (G). This has some validity, although isoglosses naturally do not necessarily follow the boundaries of these traditional pre-revolutionary bishoprics.

L and G are peripheral, linguistically conservative dialects; these were traditionally devout areas, both of which produced numerous priests who used their native dialect with the faithful. There thus arose separate L and G semi-standards; there was much less dialect writing in T or K. K, L, T on the one hand and G on the other are not really mutually intelligible , especially to traditional speakers not literate in Breton; for such speakers, intercomprehension is also difficult between L and the more distant varieties of K and T; BROUDIC 1995 notes numerous testimonials to the difficulty T and K speakers, especially those in areas remote from L, had in understanding their L-speaking priests.

There is a T-K, NE-SW innovating axis (aire de Carhaix, a medieval centre radiating linguistic innovations) along which there is relatively easy intercomprehension, but these dialects have little literary tradition ( a weak traditio n in T, and none at all in K). L was used by the Catholic Church in L, K and T, G in G, but, contrary to the learner- not really true that L was actively accepted as a literary language by speakers from T and K.
http://www.geobreizh.bzh/geobreizh/fra/carte-langue.asp


From Old Breton (OB) to Middle Breton (MB) and the Modern Breton (ModB) dialects: Approximants/fricatives and graphemes

Table 1. Old Breton

Approximants and fricatives2 Most common graphemes

1 -m- -b- -d- -g-

2 f s x h f th, dt s ch, h h

3 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ? ? sh, ss ?

Table 2. Middle Breton

Fricatives and one affricate Most common graphemes

1 v ff, fu v, u z ch, h

2 3 4 z 5 h f z, -tz s j, g ch, h h

3 f s x ff zz, zh ss, sh ch ch

4 6 cz, z, c,

Underlying lenis and fortis series of initial fricatives in modern dialects

Table 3. Modern Breton fricatives

1 v v v v

2 1 z 3 h f zh s j x7 h

3 f s x ff zzh ss ch xx8

Table 4. Geographical reflexes in Modern Breton of the dental fricatives of Middle Breton

z,-h- - s - z z s s

- - - - zh z, - h zzh s h

Table 5. Simplified modern system of fricatives

1 v v z h v v z, zh

2 f s (x) f zh z, -s j h

f sh s ch

2 OB , , , are intervocalic approximants, derived from Brythonic m, b, d, ;

MB has true voiced fricatives: , v, , ( ). 3 has more breath and friction than a normal v f

lenition/voicing of voiceless fricatives from Early MB. Thus, OB f, > MB, ModB , v. 4 had more breath and friction than a normal . Thus OB , >

MB , . ModB dialect reflexes are somewhat complex; see Table 4. 5 is an abstract symbol representing a lenis fricative with various realizations: either with some velar

friction [ hx, , ], etc., or a purely glottal voiceless [h], in which case it is not separate from h (historically initial h-); it is the r x or the reflex of OB (the two fell together). Thus OB x, > MB, ModB ~h.

6 The MBr affricate variously written cz, z, c, , e.g. danczal , -z may have been dental rather than alveolar . That would account for the frequent (80-90%) use of z (MBr , , ) in the grapheme, and also for the behaviour of certain Old French loanwords such as voiz moez ModB mouezh, where -z/ -zh patterns exactly with the reflexes of OB - .

7 Or . 8 Or c .


Table 6. Underlying L lenis and F fortis series of Modern Breton initial fricatives

and realization according to geographical area and mutation status9: radical / lenition / provection

L f- s- j- -

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 xw10 f s xw z f s

F f s f s f s f s

lenition6 lenition6 (lenition) (lenition)

L z z z f s

F z f s f s f s

(provection) (provection) provection6 provection6

L f s xw f s xw f s xw f s

F f s f s f s f s

KERGOAT 1974: -wecho diazeza ur reolenn eeun. E Plogoneg (Kernew Izel) da skwer e lrer : chupenn / ar chupenn med chiletenn / ar jiletenn, pe saro / ar saro med z . Faltazius kena eo ar yezh war ar poent-se. Un doare-

(Kerne Isel), for instance, people say chupenn / ar chupenn chiletenn / ar jiletenn saro / ar saro z language is extremely capricious in that regard. An orthography cannot be.) [Treger radical (unmutated) forms: ssaro s-, h z-, chupenn -, jiletenn -, which means that Plogoneg lenites after the article where Treger has the voiced fricative as radical, but does not lenite where Treger has the voiceless fricative as radical.]

Initial fricatives and neo-lenition and neo-provection (from the MB period on) have been unevenly addressed in the various orthographies. There appear to be two underlying series of initial fricatives, in E orthography, a lenis series f-, s-, j- -) and a fortis series ff-, ss-, ch-, with realizat ions as radical, lenited, provected as shown in Table 6 according to geographical area; see also Figures 6, 7 and 8 for greater detail. KLT showed some neo-lenition, but not very systematically. ZH decided not to show any neo-lenition at all, as it is mostly inoperative in G, and messy over the whole area of KLT. OU systematized neo-lenition, but for both L and F series above, giving for E kals a ssukr kalz a zukr, which practically no one says. Thus far, no orthography (apart from E, which is not being actively promoted) indicates neo-provection, an important rule over a significant part of the Breton-speaking area; see Figure 8. Learners who try to sound like T are usually unaware of this rule: selled, me so o sselled INF, I am PROG zelt, me zo selt me zo zelt.

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 z p t c k f s x

9 Effective mutation within a given type highlighted and in bold + italics. 10 Also, variously, , , , and, notoriously, in the far SW, f. The important thing is that both xw and

undergo lenition.


Final obstruent voicing before vowels and voiced consonants:

p t c k f s b d z

Neither of the Breton rules of final obstruent devoicing/voicing are natural for French-speakers. 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 write as many lenis/ voiced finals as possible (for native speaker, it does not matter so much, since they are incapable of pronouncing wrongly; their sandhi habits carry over into French: du vin rouche,

). The pernicious effect for learners of writing voiceless finals in ZH may be seen here, and in the recording of learners speech towards the end of this article:

(E) mad / [ ]; mad eo

(ZH) mat / [ ]; mat eo ; learners: mat, -o

(E) gweled meus gw d / [ gw d ]

(ZH) gwelet em eus gwel t ]

E (and fortis )

Only ID and E distinguish clearly between zh < OB ; modern dialect reflexes in Figures 3, 4, 5.

Figure 3: s: kaseg, keseg z everywhere [s/z- -z- -z/s ] (Old Breton s)


Old Breton s is pronounced internally z everywhere. Initially, see below, Figures 6, 7 and 8.

Figure 4: L z, elsewhere not pronounced (Old Breton )

z lonard going back to OB , is pronounced only in L, NW.


Figure 5: zh: kazh K, L, T z; G h (Old Breton )

The zh digraph, used in ZH, ID and E, has modern reflexes K, L, T z, G h.


Initial fricatives voiceless/voiced, neo-lenition, neo-provection

Figure 6: initial fricatives, underlying lenis s-, f-, j- and neo-lenition

There is a NE-CS band where the radical of initial fricatives s-, f-, j- is voiced. Neo-lenition of initial fricatives operates in approximately the western third of the Breton-speaking area. No voicing or neo-lenition at all in G.


Figure 7: initial fricatives, underlying fortis ss-, ff-, ch- and neo-lenition

Initial underlying fortis fricatives ss-, ff-, ch- are less prone to neo-lenition than the lenis series s-, f-, j-, and this operates in a smaller area of the W.


Figure 8: initial fricatives, underlying lenis s-, f-, j- and neo-provection ss-, ff-, ch-

In the NE-CS band of voicing of initial fricatives, the corollary of neo-lenition, namely neo-provection operates. Words of Celtic origin tend to have s- and f- for initial fricatives, but for loanwords, the treatment is quite arbitrary and unpredictable; see Table 7.

Table 7. Voicing or not of initial fricatives in loanwords in Treger

-/ foenn foss fonta

forssi

/f -/ ffamilh ffbl ffblessite ( ffelloud

ffota ffoura ffoutr ffri a


/z -/

santoud seblant

sigaretenn sina siniffoud simant

soubenn sourssenn sur

/s -/ ssampar

ssaro ssauti (sseizh (sseiteg sstier sseulamant ssekl ssidr der ssort ssukr ssystem

/ -/ jardin ervij ikour

jiletenn istr er ojal, T josal

journal

/ -/ chass chapel cheich chik choas chom chupenn

-, aw/ao

Another complex problem is the treatment of OB w, which rapidly split into w (E ) before back vowels, and (E w) before front vowels. Traditional graphs were o for E and u for E w, but these were unfelicitlously merged by Le Pelletier, Le Gonidec and KLT (in order to make the gw > w mutation appear simpler in print) into (g)w- for both; elsewhere for , - for xwe/i-, -v- for E -w- intervocalically, and finally, iou, -eo, -ao, -aou (- u) (G -i, -u, -a, -e). There are three solutions for E -w-: (1) L, K C -, -v-, -w; (2) T w everywhere, and (3) G everywhere, as may be gathered from Figures 9-12.


Figure 9: , L

everywhere -w-; but pewar , bwa w.

W, KU T G

xw- C -

w gw-

-w-, =w- -v-

-w -w

x -

w g -

- -, = -


Figure 10: -w-: -v-; T -w-; G - -


Figure 11: gw-, =w-: gwenn ar re wenn NW -, =v-; C, SW g - =v-; NE gw-, =w-; SE -, = -


Figure 12: xw: xwex xw-, hw-; extreme SW f-; SE h -


Distribution of E oa

Figure 13: NW go ad; NE-SW gwa d; SE gwe d

Only E distinguishes between , for wa everywhere, and for KLT wa, G, SE we ( o a is an automatic adjustment in L for wa in stressed monosyllables, whatever the origin).


Figure 14: oa: koad NW o a; NE-SW wa; SE we


aw/ao braw KLT /braw/, G /bra / paotr L /paot/, KT /po t/ , G /p ut/

Figure 15: ao: paotr L ; K, T o ; G u

Only E distinguishes between ao (L ao, NE-SW o , G ) and aw, e.g. braw (KLT a o, G a ).


Initial h-

Figure 16: initial h-: had, hada h-

Initial h- is never omitted from L texts even though not pronounced there.


-oN > L ouN

Figure 17: -oN: don N > L u N

This was rarely written, except in pure L texts not expected to be used outside L. No present or past orthography has ever systematized oun for on. It operates in L only when there is contingent nasality on the o; where there is no nasality, there is no change of vowel: tomm tom even in L (tuem in G).


-v

Figure 18: -v: klav ; SW (Old Breton )

The reflex of OB has been written v ever since KLT; written in G, but the map shows no final diphthong in .


Plural -o

Figure 19: plural ending -o -u; T -o, EKU - o; WG u; G


Plural -jo/-do

Figure 20: palatalization in plural of words in -d: koajo - -; G - -

In ZH, the unpalatalized plural in -do is preferred even though it is found only in G.


Plural -cho/-to

Figure 21: palatalization in plural of words in -t: hencho - -; G -t-

In ZH, the unpalatalized plural in -to is preferred even though it is found only in G.


Infinitive endings -i and -a

Figure 22: infinitive ending -i: dibri -i; ET - ; C -o; G - (similar distribution for -a)


3PL preposition ending -e/-o

Figure 23: -e/-o 3PL ending of prepositions: gante / ganto L, WK -o; T, EK, G -e; Cap Caval - ; Pays Bigouden - n

KLT, ZH, OU tend to prefer -o as the standard 3PL ending for conjugated prepositions, even though -e is more widespread. This is a reflection of the dominance of L for the KLT written standard.

Hewitt CUP Breton Orthographies an Increasingly Awkward Fit

Documents

Transcript of Hewitt CUP Breton Orthographies an Increasingly Awkward Fit