[Spellyans] <kk> and <ck>

[Daniel Prohaska]

Thomas, 

I'm glad you agree. The confusion isn't you and it's certainly not because
you're a newbie. The on-topic borderline between discussing emendations to
the SWF and the further development of KS are somewhat blurred. I tend to
treat them as separate on-topic list subjects, but maybe that's not how
everyone sees it. 

Dan

 

  _____  

From: Thomas Leigh
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:10 PM

 

"Hi Dan,
I agree with you re: <kk> in SWF/M and <ck> in SWF/T. That's much more
sensible than the current Hodge-podge (ba-dump bum!)
Also, since I'm a newbie here as well, I've gotten a bit confused wading
through the archives as well: are we mostly further developing KS, or taking
the current SWF as a starting point and discussing how to modify it so that
it's acceptable to, shall we say, those of stronger orthographic preferences
than I? (My apologies if this was explicitly stated somewhere that I missed
- but I couldn't tell.)
Thomas"



On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Daniel Prohaska <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com>
wrote:

Dear all, 

Apart from our continued work on KS, I would like to propose that we put
together a list of issues that need to be discussed until and when the SWF
undergoes further tweaks in 2013. The Partnership has stated that no more
changes are to be recognised until then.

The issue I would like to bring up here is the matter of when to write <ck>
and <kk> in the SWF. We have Paul Hodge to "thank" for the current
SWF-solution of spelling <ck> in loanwords and <kk> in native Cornish words.
I don't find this particularly helpful for either users of traditional
graphs (SWF/T) or for users of the main form (SWF/M). I should rather
propose that the SWF/M should write <kk> and SWF/T <ck>. I would like to
hear opinions on this. 

Dan

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20081218/ee373f71/attachment.htm>