[Spellyans] More on bys/bes words and diacritical marks

Craig Weatherhill weatherhill at freenet.co.uk
Sat Jul 12 08:45:34 IST 2008

No, Craig hasn't really demonstrated that at all.  I have no problem 
typing diacritics on a Word document, where it is extremely easy to do 
so.  I have a new e-mail system that needs to be worked out a bit (and 
one has to bear in mind that I am the sort of guy who spent 3 months 
learning how to switch on a PC).  So, any problem I have is confined to 
e-mailing (and I know that it is possible to do it).  Once I work out 
what to click and when, then problem solved (and I did note that when I 
found the tool by accdent, it catered for a hell of a lot of diacritics 
and symbols).

You seem to have a very negative view, Mary, but look at it this way - 
these discussions, especially among those much more adept in linguistics 
than I am, show that there is much that hasn't been very well understood 
in Cornish, even after 100 years of the revival.  The KS process threw 
up many such questions, too, and they were discussed, researched and 
addressed for the very first time.  Don't you think that this is highly 
beneficial, especially when these discussions are open?  Compare that 
with the data-base that formed the basis of KK - a data-base that its 
originator has refused to release into the public domain for more than 
20 years.


Michael Everson wrote:
> At 22:39 +0000 2008-07-11, Mary Williams wrote:
>> I wonder what this list is really for. Michael 
>> asks for opinions, but when anyone disagrees 
>> with his own view he tells them they're wrong. 
>> Then he says the matter is closed and it has to 
>> be how he has decided. Sorry, but what's the 
>> point of asking people to take the time to make 
>> helpful suggestions and then ignoring them?
> Someone was complaining that we were talking round in circles recently.
> (1) We know we have an [e:]-class of words which have [e:] in both RMC and RLC.
> (2) We know we have an [i:]-class of words which have [i:] in both RMC and RLC
> (3) We know we have an [I] class of short 
> unstressed words which have [I] in both RMC and 
> RLC.
> (4). We know we have an [i:]~[e:]-class of words 
> which have [i:] in RMC and [e:] in RLC. (KK 
> theory says it is [I:]~[e:] but few if anyone 
> actually achieves a distinction between [I:] and 
> [i:]. Some KK users use [I] here but then they 
> are getting the vowel length wrong anyway.)
> SWF gives us <i> for (1), <e> for (2), <y> for 
> (3), and <y>~<e> for (4). That's there. Done and 
> dusted. It will be used by the Council and in 
> schools.
> A solution which treads lightly on the SWF changes (4) to <ÿ>~<ë>.
> Other solutions, like going back to the umbrella 
> graphs <ei> or <ey>, simply take us further away 
> from the SWF. I don't believe that that is a good 
> idea; it will make the books we wish to publish 
> less accessible to learners of the SWF, and it 
> will give fuel to those who want to point out 
> what a failure the SWF is (since they want KK 
> "restored" to its former "position", it seems).
> We have also recently seen some people attempt to 
> say that there are not four clesses as described 
> above, but I do not think that this is credible.
> On this matter then, since I am the editor of the 
> KS description and grammar, I judge that we've 
> got enough information on this point to take a 
> decision and close the discussion on this 
> particular point.
> Did you see another alternative to taking a decision on this partcular point?
>> By the way, Craig appears to have just 
>> demonstrated that doing accents isn't a simple 
>> matter for us mere mortals.
> And yet millions of Europeans manage it every 
> day. (As an aside, yesterday in a bookstore here 
> in Budapest I notice a book by Charlotte Brontë.)

More information about the Spellyans mailing list