[Spellyans] Why KS is important in light of SWF/M and SWF/T

[Michael Everson]

Here is something else I saw on Cornwall24 the other day. It was  
written by "Taran" and is in response to a question about KS.

Craig had said:
> I have the seen the SWF future too, and it does work. Rather well.


Someone else responded:
> then why are you guys promoting KS ???/


Taran said:
> Because KS is what the SWF could have been or could yet be.
>
> There isn't a vast difference between them. KS is a disambiguated,  
> consistent, SWF/T. All the deliberate spoilers and intentional  
> inconsistencies have been addressed. All those bits that weren't  
> done right or missed in the SWF are fixed in KS. It also maintains  
> the stylistic link to historical writing styles.
>
> The SWF/Main, on the other hand has a freakish and pointless  
> aesthetic, but then that was the whole intention. It serves only one  
> purpose, it keeps the KK spelling style visible, although it doesn't  
> serve the same function as KK.
>
> It would be missed by absolutely no-one if it were dropped today.  
> Its sole reason for existence is to be the virgin sacrificed on the  
> alter to reanimate the corpse of KK in 2013.
>
> The argument will go something like this:
>
> 1. The SWF has failed as no one uses it (there will be no mention of  
> SWF/T and only the Council and any fast moving schools will be using  
> SWF/Main).
>
> 2. SWF Main looks a whole lot like KK superficially, so anybody that  
> has learned SWF/Main could transfer to KK.
>
> 3. The others (UC,UCR,KS/SWFT/RLC) don't matter and to hell with  
> them. Forget the SWF as a failed experiment and make KK the official  
> form.
>
> 4. So give us the money!
>
> SWF/Main is a dead duck and it serves no-ones purposes well. UC/UCR  
> users won't use it as it is inauthentic, RLC users won't use it as  
> it doesn't suit their purposes well, KK proponents won't use it as  
> it isn't KK. KK users.... they might.... perhaps, because it will at  
> least be familiar, but the word forms are there as a shadow of KK,  
> not for any good reason.
>
> The artificial hurdles put in place against the SWF/T, relegating it  
> to the twilight zone are there to prevent its (relatively) superior  
> aesthetic (IMHO) gaining any official traction.
>
> I personally feel that that concession was a tactical defeat for  
> those that wish to use the traditional form. I think the two forms  
> should compete on an even playing field and that councils and  
> schools should be allowed to choose the SWF form they wish to teach.  
> Then we would have a fair contest. There is no good, or even  
> rational reasons why anyone would use SWF/Main that I can see. The  
> SWF/T is a different matter. However in the end the differences  
> between SWF/M and T are purely cosmetic and they are very close to  
> KS in operation.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com