[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The Brithenig Page
At 16:20 11/1/98, Peter C. Skye wrote:
><html>
Not html on my reader - but I think we'll manage.
>Greetings!<br>
><br>
>At long last I have gotten a good look at the revised Brithenig page, and
>I continue to marvel at Andrew's genius.
Quite right too.
>It was fascinating to see the impact of our group's conversations on the
>revisions. As one who protested against the (to my lips) excessive
>use of <i>LL</i>, I had a good laugh over Andrew's comment that my
>suggestion reduction of <i>LL</i> to <i>L</i> in the articles (at least)
>was "regarded by native speakers as a foreign or colonial feature
>and not an indigenous feature."<br>
So I should think. Though brought up in SE England where Welsh {ll} sound
is unknown, I can manage the sound quite well. Having lived in south Wales
for 22 years (I'm now back in SE England) probably helped.
[.....]
>On another front, I'm really sorry to note that the Church of Kemr
>capitulated to Roman suzerainty in 1100. There went any chance for
>substantive development of catholic doctrine and polity, particulary
>regarding (1) the exclusivity of Christ in the economy of salvation and
>(2) the role of women in the Church. I had been hoping for some
>real development here, but ah well.
I think one needs to be careful with religion. I know from bitter
experience how easy it is to offend. I don't know (indeed, have no wish to
know) the religious or other affiliations of list members; but I do know
that there is at least one committed, practicing Catholic amongst them so
that terms like 'capitulation' & 'Roman suzerainty' are not helpful.
I think Andrew's account is the most plausible. In the upheavals following
Saxon invasions, the Celts were severed somewhat from the mainstream
western Church. When things settled & churches we more in communication
again then, as we know from 'real' history, there was a desire for
uniformity. It affected _practice_, i.e. the Celts were still using a
pre-Nicene method of calculating Easter, not doctrine which was much the
same.
As regards the role of women, they have always had a role, but it has
differed at different times & in different places. There's no evidence
that I know of that things were any different in the among the Celts than
in other places. Remarkable women have played an important role in the
Church right up till the present day, as we have seen with Mother Theresa.
I think "the exclusivity of Christ in the economy of salvation" opens up a
can of worms; and four centuries of continued misrepresentation by
different factions does not help.
It seems to me very unlikely that any Celtic church would've different
significantly from the doctrines & practice in the continental western
Church & in the eastern Churches in this respect. I think it'd be very
unwise to have the Kembr anticipating by some six centuries the doctrines
of the later Protestant divines.
[.....]
>I'm not sure
>which is tougher, a model religion or a model language! But I'm
>having a heck of a good time with it.<br>
><br>
I doubt whether one is tougher or easier than the other. But one will
certainly cause more offense than the other. If you stay clear of model
languages as international auxiliaries, then language modelling is not
likely to upset anyone (IALs, however, always upset at least some other
rivals), but religion is another matter altogether.
Ray.