[Spellyans] " 'Breakthrough' rung"
njawilliams at gmail.com
Mon Jul 21 11:59:39 IST 2008
There is an irony here. I have been described as the leading scholar
of Cornish alive today.
I am not making this claim. I merely repeat what others have said.
Michael Everson is certainly one of the leading experts on writing
systems in the world.
So when devising a common orthography, the revival had at its disposal
a someone considered the leading expert on Cornish and the leading
expert on writing systems.
For personal reasons (spite) these two experts were kept out of the
process and their
Does anybody seriously believe that the resulting spelling made without
consulting Michael or me is the best possible for Cornish?
Does anybody believe that it will last in a way that neither UC nor KK
Until the best scholars are given the job of extracting a spelling
from the texts,
Cornish will have a second-rate orthography.
As it is the SWF is neither 1. traditional 2. accurate 3. coherent 4.
easy to learn.
But there can be no going back to KK since 1. it had been under
since it was first published. 2. a large number of revivalists never
accepted it and will not
accept it now.
The struggle continues.
On 21 Jul 2008, at 09:12, Craig Weatherhill wrote:
> I tried at the Management Group meeting back in November, as did
> at the AHG stage, to get NJAW and ME involved, but the KK people used
> blackmail on Jenefer and Trond by insisting they'd walk out of the
> process if Nicholas or Michael were physically present. No other
> orthographic group behaved like this. It was an outrage but, then,
> KK central core has always behaved appallingly.
> nicholas williams wrote:
>> We were deliberately kept out of the consultation process,
>> lest our association with the emerging SWF taint it in some way.
>> As a result they have cobbled together an orthography which is
>> as unacceptable as KK.
>> It will not last.
>> On 20 Jul 2008, at 22:31, Michael Everson wrote:
>>> At 21:46 +0100 2008-07-20, Craig Weatherhill wrote:
>>>> Good question - if <y> is a short i and <i> a long one, then this
>>>> no sense at all.
>>> That is the SWF (and KS) rule for monosyllables. In KS we are making
>>> an attempt to rationalize (and make teachable) the distribution of
>>> <i> and <y>.
>>> Nicholas and I tried many times to have this distribution dealt with
>>> during the AHG meetings when we were asked our advice. Our concerns
>>> were not addressed. Not even acknowledged.
>>> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>>> Spellyans mailing list
>>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
>> Spellyans mailing list
>> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans