[Spellyans] Gavar etc

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Mon Apr 13 12:08:49 IST 2009


  _____  

From: Clive Baker
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 11:43 AM

 

“Lowena dhys ynweth Dan, 

{…} 

 

First of all Dan, my criticism is not against your position in this, as in
your role you have to produce a dictionary for the SWF. and I do understand
those limitations placed on your work and what is acceptable to it.”

 

Clive, 

Yes, I realise that your criticism was directed at the way the SWF
implementation was handled rather than at me and my work with the attempt at
a first draft of a SWF dictionary. I did not and wil not take your remarks
personally. 

 

“Yes, my Bill and Ben reference was to the pairing of Bock and Broch..(is
that spelling right?.. if not perhaps they could chair a committee and take
a year to put it right!)...and without any personal knowledge of these
seemingly private rulings my criticism stands.”

 

In all good humour – and having long laugh at the whole orthography debate
would probably help us all get things into perspective again – I really have
to say this, and please don’t get this the wrong way: I vehemently object to
the way you make a personal jibe at Albert Bock and Ben Bruch’s names in
this manner, which in level is not above Tim Saunder’s “NINJA” or “Nick an’
Mick” nicknames used elsewhere. I know both Ben and Albert personally,
Albert in fact for over 15 years and I have no qualm vouching for their
integrity and honesty in putting together the material decided by the AHG.
Both of them were not decision makers, but were also bound to the unanimous
decisions of the AHG members and Trond’s rulings. To imply somehow that they
took it upon themselves to “privatise” the SWF and making it their own,
knowing these two, is absurd. Especially in the light of their being the
authors of the KD spec, I would think it would have been in their interest
to further the commission’s decision to back KD rather than a compromise.
But no, they were able to take themselves and their ego out of the loop here
and write up what was decided whether they agreed with these decisions or
not.  

I fully agree that the protocol and minutes of the AHG sessions ought to be
publicly viewable and should have been published alongside the SWF spec,
that goes especially for Trond’s rulings which ought to have been
incorporated into the SWF spec in the first place. I cannot believe for one
instance that Ben and Albert would have neglected to do this out of
mal-intent. 

So, I would ask you, out of friendship and respect, also for my friendship
with them, to refrain from making jibes at their names or personal comments
about them and their alleged intentions. 

 

“Perhaps Craig will get lucky and obtain the written instructions and
rulings that others have been unable to obtain. By the way Craig... I dont
believe Jenny is in the office this week.. but good luck, as it would answer
a lot of questions.“

 

Yes, we need these minutes and a record of Trond’s rulings.

 

“Yes Ray I do agree with you, and it is one of my main concerns in that as
you know I am about to begin a Cornish class for families in Redruth, and
the chosen form is the SWF. I am merely teaching, the form having been
chosen by the venue because basically the hype has convinced them that since
their children are learning this form then they should.... fine but until
all their kids are indeed learning the SWF with all the necessary back up
materials.. such as dictionary and grammar books etc, then we are extremely
limited . "Porth" alone does little to help. The only advantage is that I
shall be teaching traditional graphs from the outset, since no-one is either
taking exams or involved in the LEA (or whatever they call it these days)
system. The biggest laugh is that the lessons are to take place in the old
boys grammar school recently named the "KROWJI".. the locals think that the
Polish have bought it! It is further humourous because the word they were
looking for was "workshops"...Oh well thats KK for you!”

 

While prominent KKers say that shoppa means “workshop” and not “shop”.

 

“And lastly, the business of gavar versus gaver. My mentioning it at all was
more about representation of the majority, since most people on here were
glad to see that form used ever since the revival began, die without
representation. The same of course applies to all those other words
involved... and I am sure you will just end up with mass derogation
whichever form wins out, if we do not take into account current and the last
80 odd years practice.

Thanks for all the comments

Clive”

 

In all fairness, the last 80 odd years includes the last 20 years of KK as
well. I realise that this is more a matter of principle rather than gaver
being offensive to the eye, linguistically unsound or inauthentic. I agree
that usage in Revived Cornish as a whole ought to be respected, but there
are also things in UC which are wrong, like the use of <u> for /u/, /y/ and
/ø/. This was corrected in UCR, KK, KS, KD and SWF, as well as in RLC (by
showing loss of rounding). So, I’d say we make the changes to whatever
orthography where we find them wrong and keep spellings where correct. In
truth, I couldn’t care less whether the Cornish word for “goat” is spelt
gaver or gavar. Both forms are authentic, both can be considered correct.
According to my information about Trond’s rulings, I am obliged to write
gaver in the SWF. That is what I will do. I have place-names and such
spellings in the traditional texts to back up that particular spelling.
That’s good enough for me.

Dan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090413/5db78cf7/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list