[Spellyans] Gavar etc

Clive Baker clive.baker at gmail.com
Mon Apr 13 14:29:25 IST 2009


Dan
well, what can I say, except that I really could not remember their names,
hence both the first names and surnames being incorrect. The Bill and Ben
bit was unconscious, but the comment after my attempt at their surnames was
perhaps a little injurious, and therefore I withdraw it totally, my sarcasm
having got the better of me. If I could have remembered Trond's name then I
would have criticised the triumvirate for its shortcomings and not just
Albert and Ben. I trust that is sufficient for my forgiveness Dan,
Clive

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Daniel Prohaska
<daniel at ryan-prohaska.com>wrote:

>   ------------------------------
>
> *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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20090413/badd01d7/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list