[Spellyans] SWF principles

Craig Weatherhill weatherhill at freenet.co.uk
Fri Jun 27 08:45:53 IST 2008


I'm currently working on how best to represent place-names in accordance 
with SWF principles for the purposes of road signage, etc.  This affects 
"historic place-names", rather than names for new developments.  My 
definition of an "historic place-name" is one that was established prior 
to the birth of the revival in 1904.

With regard to new developments, my own view is that, if the site was 
open field in the 1840s (when the Tithe Apportionmant took place), 
research the field name and reuse it.  Often, in West Cornwall, those 
names are already in Cornish and, if not, they can be translated.  
Sometimes, there are even older names, such as those recorded in the 
1696 Lanhydrock Atlas.  It's a policy that preserves the history of the 
site.

Craig



Terry Corbett wrote:
> Craig, I think that is a very good definition. Does anyone know what 
> is meant by "Traditional Cornish" as used in the SWF principles? I 
> don't understand what they mean by "pronunciation of traditional 
> Cornish."  Where in the continuum of Cornish does this begin? I can't 
> imagine that anyone would propose that it includes Old Cornish. How is 
> this pronunciation to be determined? KK advocates will insist that KK 
> pronunciation is "traditional" even if the spelling is not.
>
> Terry
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Craig Weatherhill 
> <weatherhill at freenet.co.uk <mailto:weatherhill at freenet.co.uk>> wrote:
>
>     I would say that it can be defined as Cornish used by native
>     speakers/writers and before revivalists started buggering around
>     with it.
>
>     Craig
>
>
>     Terry Corbett wrote:
>     > What is the definition of "Traditional Cornish"?
>     >
>     > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Michael Everson
>     <everson at evertype.com <mailto:everson at evertype.com>
>     > <mailto:everson at evertype.com <mailto:everson at evertype.com>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     At 13:29 -0600 2008-06-26, Terry wrote:
>     >     >Are the 5 principles of the SWF set in stone or are they
>     open for
>     >     >discussion when the 5 year review occurs?
>     >
>     >     As far as I am concerned they are open for discussion now.
>     >
>     >     >These principles are listed as:
>     >     >
>     >     >1. *Inclusivity *- Users of all varieties of Revived Cornish
>     >     should be
>     >     >able to write as they speak.
>     >     >2. *Accessibility *- The SWF should be as easy as possible for
>     >     speakers,
>     >     >learners, and teachers to learn and use.
>     >     >3. *Accuracy *- The SWF should reflect the pronunciation of
>     both
>     >     >traditional and Revived Cornish.
>     >
>     >     I don't have any problem with these.
>     >
>     >     >4. *Authenticity *- The SWF should use spellings that reflect
>     >     >established traditions of Cornish orthography.
>     >
>     >     This is disingenuous. Indeed it is bollocks. Evidently the
>     authors
>     >     believe -- or pretend to believe -- or want some people to
>     believe
>     >     that they believe -- that KK is an "established tradition",
>     which is
>     >     why <kw> and <hw> and <-i> were not simply thrown out as
>     they ought
>     >     to have been.
>     >
>     >     >5. *Continuity *- Where practical, the SWF should produce the
>     >     smallest
>     >     >possible number of changes for the largest possible number of
>     >     speakers.
>     >
>     >     This "principle" was devised and added by the Arbitrator,
>     and it is
>     >     likewise unacceptable, because it is clear that some choices
>     were
>     >     made in order to produce few changes for KK users, since KK
>     users
>     >     "are the largest number of speakers". The "principle" was not
>     >     discussed at either of the first two AHGs and when this
>     appeared in
>     >     the first SWF draft, Agan Tavas and its Linguistic Advisors
>     protested
>     >     and requested that the text be removed.
>     >
>     >     The distribution of <i> and <y> is the worst example of this
>     >     "principle". No matter how many times Nicholas and I tried
>     to get
>     >     discussion of the distribution, we were just ignored. The
>     >     distribution of <i> and <y> in the SWF is as it is in KK.
>     That is why
>     >     it is incoherent. It's not based on phonetic or phonemic
>     principles.
>     >     It's based on George's etymologies. I don't accept that as
>     sufficient.
>     >     --
>     >     Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>     >
>     >     _______________________________________________
>     >     Spellyans mailing list
>     >     Spellyans at kernowek.net <mailto:Spellyans at kernowek.net>
>     <mailto:Spellyans at kernowek.net <mailto:Spellyans at kernowek.net>>
>     >     http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Spellyans mailing list
>     > Spellyans at kernowek.net <mailto:Spellyans at kernowek.net>
>     > http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>     >
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Spellyans mailing list
>     Spellyans at kernowek.net <mailto:Spellyans at kernowek.net>
>     http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>   





More information about the Spellyans mailing list