[Spellyans] Why KS is important in light of SWF/M and SWF/T
everson at evertype.com
Tue Dec 30 20:00:54 GMT 2008
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 ???/
> 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
> 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
> 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
More information about the Spellyans