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, s.hewitt@unesco.org; stevehewitt49@gmail.com
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
<ch> 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 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. 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 s.hewitt@unesco.org; stevehewitt49@gmail.com
Dialects of Breton

Traditionally divided into Leon/Lon (L), Treger/Trgor (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 -m- -b- -d- -g-
2 f s x h f th, dt s ch, h h
3 (fh) (h) (sh) (xh) ? ? sh, ss ?
3

Table 2. Middle Breton fricatives and affricate Most common graphemes
1 v v () ff, fu v, u z ch, h
2 v
1

2
z
3
h f z, -tz s j, g ch, h h
3 f s x ff zz, zh ss, sh ch ch
4 t?/ cz, z, c,
Underlying lenis and fortis series of initial fricatives in modern dialects
Table 3. Modern Breton fricatives Etymological orthography
1 v v v v
2 v
1

z
3

h f zh s j x
4
h
3 f s x ff zzh ss ch xx
5

Table 4. Geographical reflexes in Modern Breton of the dental fricatives of Middle Breton
z,-h- - h s - z z h > s s
- - - - zh z, - h zzh s h

Table 5. Simplified modern system of fricatives Peurunvan (ZH) orthography
1 v v z h v v z, zh
2 f s (x) f zh z, -s j ch h
f sh s ch ch
KERGOAT 1974:22, Er memes lech eo diaes a-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 sach / ar zach. Faltazius
kena eo ar yezh war ar poent-se. Un doare-skriva nhell ket beza.
(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
sach / ar zach sack. The language is extremely capricious in that regard. An orthography cannot be.)
[Treger radical (unmutated) forms: ssaro /s-/, sach /z-/, chupenn /-/, jiletenn /-/ = 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
has more breath and friction than a normal .
3
is an abstract symbol representing a lenis fricative with various realizations: either with some velar friction [h
x
, , ], 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 ch.
5
Or ch.


Table 6. Underlying L lenis and F fortis series of Modern Breton initial fricatives and realization
according to geographical area and mutation status
6
: radical / lenition / provection
L f- s- j- chw-
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 xw
7
f s xw

v z w f s h
F f s f s f s f s
lenition
6

lenition
6

(lenition) (lenition)
L v z w v z w v z w f s h
F v z f s f s f s
(provection) (provection) provection
6

provection
6

L f s xw

f s xw

f s xw f s h
F f s f s f s f s

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 v z h
p t c k f s x
Final obstruent voicing before vowels and voiced consonants:

p t c k f s
b d v z

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 /mad/ [mat]; mad eo it is good, its OK /'mad 'e/
(ZH) mat good /mad/ [mat]; mat eo it is good, its OK /'mad 'e/; learners: [mat e-o]
(E) gweled meus [seen I.have] I have seen /gwld mz/ [gwld ms]
(ZH) gwelet em eus [seen I.have] I have seen learners [gwelt ms]

6
Effective mutation within a given type highlighted and in bold + italics.
7
Also, variously, x, , h, and, notoriously, in the far SW, f. The important thing is that both xw and x undergo lenition.

5
E s / / zh (and fortis ss / / zzh)
s /z/ everywhere (s/z- -z- -z/s)

L /z/, elsewhere not pronounced /-/

7
zh KLT /z/; G /h/

initial fricatives s-, f-, j- / ss-, ff-, ch- and neo-lenition and neo-provection

9


Table 7. Voicing of initial fricatives in loanwords in Treger
/v -/
foenn hay
foss bottom
fonta melt
forest forest
forssi force
fourniss furnish, provide
ar Frass France
frisa curl; whizz along

/f-/
ffamilh family
ffbl weak
ffblessite weakness; blindness
(ffi faith)
ffelloud want, need
ffri iron [clothes]
ffin end; sly, crafty, clever
ffleur flowers
ffota want, need
ffoura put, bung
ffoutr [give] a damn
ffria crush
11
/z-/
sach sack, bag
santoud feel
seblant semblance, sign, ghost
serri close, gather
sigaretenn cigarette
sina sign (document)
siniffoud mean, signify
simant cement
soup soup
soubenn broth
sourssenn source, spring
sur sure
/s-/
ssampar recovered, back in good
health
ssaro smock
ssauti explode
(sseizh 7 da seizh...)
(sseiteg 17 da seiteg...)
sstier worksite
sseulamant only, however
ssekl century
ssidr (S) cidre
ssort sort, kind
ssukr sugar
ssystem system, way of doing sth.
/-/
jardin garden
ervij serve, service
ikour help
jiletenn vest
istr (N) cidre
ojal, T josal think
journal newspaper
/-/
chass luck
chapel chapel
cheich change
chik handsome, nice
choas choose, choice
chom stay, remain, live
chupenn jacket


a/oa gas everywhere /gwaz/, L /goaz/
13
/w diall be careful everywhere /-w-/; but pewar four, bwa live, like w.
w KL - -v- -w
T w- -w- -w
G - -- -


15


Distribution of E goa-
17

Distribution of E oa
aw/ao braw KLT /braw/, G /bra/
paotr L /paot/, KT /pot/ G /put/

Distribution of E ao
19
h- L, WK /-/ elsewhere /h-/

Initial h- (never omitted from L texts even though not pronounced there)

L oN > uN
21

Reflexes of Old Breton -m

Most common plural ending -o
23

Palatalization in plural of words in -d

Palatalization in plural of words in -t
25

Infinitive ending (E) i (similar distribution for a)

3PL ending of prepositions gante / ganto
27

Conditional infix: -f-, -f-, -eh-

Object pronoun construction: KLT a-marking (post-verbal); G proclitic pronoun
Other morphological problems
you have 2SG lit. ach 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, h, i
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 /-v , -a v , -o v /; ch / ~ x,
h/; /z/cz /(t?)/; z /, /, -tz /-/. (see table 2)
(E) /zh confusion neuez, brezonec
x/xx confusion sechaff to dry; sechaff driest
a/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 // and, most iconically, ch /x, h/.
(E) /zh confusion; x/xx confusion; a/oa confusion; aw/ao confusion (as above)
Le Pelletier 1753 introduces gwa, gwe, gwi instead of trad. goa, but gue, gui, but not systematic: dioall instead
of diwall; diveza instead of diweza() (ga-/gwe- confusion > gwa-/gwe- for trad. goa-/gue-)
(E) /zh confusion; x/xx confusion; a/oa confusion; aw/ao confusion (as above)
/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 , ; MB , ) so impossible to tell
which is not pronounced outside Leon (E ), which is pronounced /h/ in Gwened (E zh), and which is
pronounced /z/ everywhere (E s).
(E); x/xx confusion; /w confusion; a/oa confusion; aw/ao confusion
s//zh confusion (z for E s, , zh) braz, nevez, brezonek (E bras, newe, 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//zh confusion; x/xx confusion; /w confusion; a/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 /pesk/; lak put /lak/, but not outside L)
s/ss confusion old lous dirty /luz/ (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 differas difference /-f-/ become difenn, diferas
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;
nimporde o); 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 /t kl/, Bourg-en-Bresse /burk brs/.
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 have zh because of hiatus consonant in G: anezha of him, kouezha fall,
etc., suggesting /-z-/ pronunciation in K, T.; confusing final v for KLT o/-ou where T has w and G : 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/ confusion; x/xx confusion; /w confusion; a/oa confusion; aw/ao confusion; mat/mad
confusion; s/ss confusion; f/ff confusion
erroneous /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 secha the driest the first orthography to do so
eliminates f/ff confusion. divenn defend; diferas 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-, chw- > 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
, adopts b, -d, -g finals of OU.
(E) eliminates s//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 , but maintains /w confusion realization rules complex
E tymologique ~ 1999 personal elaboration of ID, with addition of regular distinctions ao/aw, a/oa,
/w; 3-way distinctions h/x/xx; v/f/ff; lenis f, , zh, s, j, x vs fortis ff, , zzh, ss, ch, xx, etc.
(E) eliminates s//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 ch/ch rather than h/ch of OU)
eliminates f/ff confusion
eliminates /w confusion
eliminates a/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 vaws vws ur vaoues
e vez anavazet ur vaouez e ve na'vezt 'vaws e ve n've:d 'vws e ve anveed ur vaoues
choazh xwas hwas xwazh
emaomp dirak un dra em m diak n da mo m diag n da emomp dirag un dra
mil nav chant mil nao xnt mil 'nao hn mil naw xant
gant ar blakenn g:t a 'blakn gn 'blakn gant ar blakenn
Kemper (Quimper) k :p: kemp, kep Kemper
a chell beza dishevel a xl bea dis :vl hel bea dis:vl a xell bea dishevel
pouezus e oa 'pwe:zys e 'wa 'pw:zyz 'wa pouesus e oa
chomet e gwenn 'mt e 'gwn 'md e 'gwen: chomed e gwenn
ha dedennus eo ivez a de'dnys e i:e a de'den:yz e 'i:e ha dedennus eo ive
lakat al liv 'lakat al 'li:u 'lakd 'liu lakad ar liw
labourat e unan la'burat e y:nn la'bu:rd i h:n labourad e hn
den ebet ober an dra-se 'den e'bt o'b n da-
ze
'de :n bed 'obr n dra:-
he
den ebed ober an dra-se
e j h hev
neo oa ket ur vignonez ne wa 'kt vi' ns n 'wa kd v'o ne s ne oa ked ur vignones
den ne oar dn ne wa 'd:n n 'wa:r den ne oar
mont a rae m n a rae 'mn: 'r: mond a rae
evit ul levr evit l l vid ler 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 Meleour
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 Lon
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 Trgor
W West

References
BROUDIG Fach. 1995. La Pratique du breton de lAncien Rgime nos jours, Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
CHLONS (DE) Pierre. 1723. Dictionnaire breton-franois du diocse de Vannes, F. Bertho, Vannes.
D (LE) Jean. 2001. Nouvel atlas linguistique de la Basse-Bretagne. 2 vols. Centre de Recherche Bretonne et
Celtique (CRBC), Universit de Bretagne Occidentale (UBO), Brest.
FALCHUN Franois. 1953. Autour de lorthographe 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
FALCHUN Franois. 1981. Perspectives nouvelles sur lhistoire de la langue bretonne, Union gnrale dditions,
Paris. (revised and expanded version of his doctoral thesis, Rennes, 1951, first published as Histoire de la
langue bretonne daprs la gographie linguistique. Presses universitaires de France (PUF), Paris, 1963.)
FLEURIOT Lon. 1964, 1985. Dictionnaire des gloses en vieux-breton. Klincksieck, Paris; English edition: Claude
EVANS & Lon FLEURIOT. 1985. A Dictionary of Old Breton/Dictionnaire du vieux-breton: Historical and
Comparative. 2 vols. Prepcorp, Toronto.
FLEURIOT Lon. 1964. Le vieux-breton: Elments dune grammaire. Klincksieck, Paris.
GONIDEC (LE) Jean-Franois & Thodore HERSANT DE LA VILLEMARQU. 1847. Dictionnaire franais-breton,
Prudhomme, Saint-Brieuc.
GONIDEC (LE) Jean-Franois. 1807. Grammaire celto-bretonne, Rougeron, Paris.
GONIDEC (LE) Jean-Franois. 1821. Dictionnaire celto-breton ou breton-franais, Trmeau, Angoulme.
GONIDEC (LE) Jean-Franois. 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 fr 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. Rflexions et propositions sur lorthographe 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. Reolenno an doare-skriva nevez [The Rules of the New Orthography]. Skol an Emsav,
Roazon [Rennes].
LAGADEUC Jehan. 1499. Le Catholicon: Dictionnaire breton-latin-franais, Jehan Calvez, Trguier.
MADEG Mikael. 2010. Trait de pronunciation du breton du Nord-Ouest, Emgleo Breiz, Brest.
MAUNOIR Julien. 1659. Le Sacr-Collge de Jsus [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. Prcis de prononciation du breton, 3e dition, Emgleo Breiz / Ar Skol Vrezoneg,
Brest.
MERSER (AR) Andreo. 1999. Les Orthographes du breton, 4e dition revue et corrige, Brud Nevez, Brest.
MORVANNOU Fach. 1975. Le Breton sans peine, Assimil, Chennevires-sur-Marne.
PELLETIER (LE) Dom Louis. 1752. Dictionnaire tymologique de la langue bretonne, Franois Delaguette, Paris.
ROSTRENEN (DE) Grgoire. 1732. Dictionnaire Franois-Celtique ou Franois-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: ditions 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: tude prsente dans le
cadre dun corpus de qutre rgles de pronunciation pour le Breton des coles. Thse de Doctorat en Celtique,
18 dcembre 2009. Universit 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
TRPOS 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..

Breton Orthographies: An Increasingly Awkward Fit

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Breton Orthographies: An Increasingly Awkward Fit

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Fourth Cambridge Conference on Language Endangerment, 4 July 2014

Orthography development for language maintenance and revitalization

Anda mungkin juga menyukai