daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Mon Apr 13 12:08:49 IST 2009
From: Ray Chubb
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 10:19 AM
"I think perhaps, Dan, you are being over generous to the KK representatives
on the AHG. They were in effect dragged kicking and screaming to the AHG
meetings and they had no intention from the outset of building on KD as the
commission had recommended."
Since I wasn't in the actual meetings I cannot judge how the KK
representatives were on behaviour. What is not so much a concern to me is
that they didn't build on KD, whether out of ignorance of it or for the sake
of pushing KK to the front again. KD is very, very similar to KK. KD had chi
for "house", too. KD also would have had gaver as in KK. KD was KK with a
few cosmetic changes; yes, changes we liked, but they were superficial at
best. The SWF is different in that the difference to KK is less superficial
(at least in the "main" form), but more in depth, more structural. The SWF/T
is much closer to what we wanted than KD ever was.
"The aim was to make as few changes as they could get away with to KK. This
means that they were nothing but Ken George's hench men and women because
Ken had said all along that maybe a few small changes to KK would satisfy
the rest of us."
Well, in that case Ken was wrong in his assessment of what would satisfy us.
"I shall never forgive them for they way they have cheated our children out
of their language heritage."
If that is how you feel. for my taste this phrasing is a little drastic,
because I think the children should be taught Cornish. I would have liked it
better if we had the SWF/T as SWF-full-stop, but I suppose it's in the
nature of compromise that nobody, especially the extree ends of the
spectrum, likes the outcome. I was expecting something like what we got.
"Problems have already arising in trying to teach SWF. Children aren't
stupid, they know full well that, although they are being taught 'chi', all
around them it is spelt 'chy' and this leads them to question what they are
being taught. Clive will back me up on this one. This sort of thing only
serves to undermine the SWF.
Yes, this is a good point. As you may have seen in my recommendations as
linguistic advisor to the AHG I called for <y> in every final position,
stressed or unstressed - which would have given us chy. My recommendation
wasn't followed. Now, I can either throw a tantrum and walk away, or I can
try and work with the compromise we achieved. I choose the latter.
"On 12 Ebr 2009, at 12:43, Daniel Prohaska wrote:
Dhis lowena, Clive!
I'm not quite sure who you're referring to when you say "the whole purpose
was usurped by 'Bill and Ben'" beyond the flower pot men reference.
According to the first hand report I go from Albert Bock KD was the basis at
the first AHG meeting and Ben Bruch (do you consider him the "Ben", I
wonder) tried to focus everyone on the KD foundation several times, but
failing. It was Albert's impression that the KD spec was either not known
enough to the AHG members, or they didn't care about it, so it shifted
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans