everson at evertype.com
Wed Feb 25 10:30:49 GMT 2009
I resigned from C24 the other day. It was wasting my time. I'll go
back to it to announce more publications. A word, however, to our
"nemesis" Keith Bailey, with whom some of us have jousted for three or
On 15 Jan 2009, at 11:52, Keith Bailey wrote:
>> Michael Everson said:
>> I asked you a question. You were courteous to me. Then you attacked
>> me in public, again. Why? Never mind "why should I answer you?".
>> Why were you courteous to me and then nasty again a short time later?
> I have no personal animosity towards you.
I don't believe you, Keith. Just yesterday on C24 you suggested on a
public forum that I shìt my books out of my arse. In what way does
this not display "personal animosity"?
> What happens on C24 is 90% politics, as you must realise. Well maybe
> you don't?
That is no reason for such incivility.
> In any case you appear to be a little over-sensitive at times.
My my. Is taking offence a the kinds of abuse you fling at me "over-
I think I know the answer. It's something you said nearly two years ago:
On 13 Mar 2007, at 14:29, mongvras wrote:
> You are not just a bunch of pathetic losers, you are a bunch of
> PATHETIC BAD LOSERS! You deserve no respect.
I think you should look in a mirror. You and your friends refused to
talk with UdnFormScrefys about a Fifth Form. You insisted that the
Commissioners should examine all of the materials sent to them. (We
sent them dictionaries; I am sure you did the same. We sent them our
personal statements; I am sure you did the same. You've complained
that they did not engage in follow-up discussion with you, but we had
the same treatment.) Ken would not talk to us about a Fifth Form
because he wanted KK to have its day in court. It did. It was not
chosen, and a Fifth Form was.
Then you managed to get 4 KK supporters onto the AHG, balancing 2 UC/R
supporters and 2 RLC supporters, and you managed to succeed in
refusing *me* a place amongst the 2 UC/R supporters (despite the fact
that the Commissioners said each group should have the RIGHT to choose
whom they wished), AND you managed to even prevent me from turning up
to give a short discussion of the principles of KS. You were very
successful there. And you created a hierarchy where KK's "aesthetic"
glyphs are "Main" and the "Traditional" form contains forms which are
not traditional. I suppose you have noticed that even despite Bock and
Bruch's waffle in the SWF spec, KK's bogus phonology is pretty much
off the table.
And it *is* bogus. There's not a shred of fortis or lenis in the
English dialects of Cornwall; even had it been there in the earliest
Middle Cornish, bilingualism and Sprachbund erased it pretty quick,
probably about the time that fortis /N/ broke into pre-occlusion
because English learners of Cornish couldn't manage /N/, and here even
Jenner says that pre-occlusion must have been spoken long before it
Yet you hold these unpronounceable consonants to be sacrosanct, a goal
to be aspired to, even though your own teachers don't use them and
don't teach them because it's unnatural to them.
You think *KK phonology* is more important than good books and
authentic grammar. You think *KK phonology* is more important than a
credible Cornish phonology which unsurprisingly is not unrelated to
the phonology of English in Cornwall -- just as it must have been in
reality. You scrape the bottom of the barrel trying to find reasons to
dislike beautiful new publications like "Alys in Pow an Anethow" and
"Adro dhe'n Bÿs in Peswar Ugans Dëdh". It sure makes you look
"pathetic", if not a "loser", or even a "pathetic bad loser".
I asked the Commissioners for a proper Orthography Congress, where
your linguists and our linguists would be put in a room and told to
devise a Fifth Form with a design brief based on identified
requirements. We got the AHG instead. I think that had we all been put
in such a room, we would have come out with something a lot like KS,
since we would have been forced to accept that realism in phonology
makes better sense than impractical reconstructivism. Oddly, Keith, in
July of last year you criticized the Gorseth for being linked to "some
imaginary past full of druids and celtic myst" yet your attachment to
George's Bretonized phonology is little more than "anything-but-
Englishism" based on the same Celtic-myst befogged fantasy.
Will the penny drop, I wonder? Probably not. You probably will never
give up the idea that the Kesva should "run" the Revival, that
geminates should drip off the tongues of Cornish schoolchildren, and
that "in whir" is Cornish. You'll probably stew away angrily I feel
sorry for you, because it's your attitude which perpetuates the split
in the Revival. You oughtn't go blaming us. You ought to look into the
mirror and see who the loser is.
We were all losers already. We chose it. We gave up UC and UCR. For
something better. It was worth it.
I don't hope for a conversion from you Keith. It would be splendid if
you could surprise me. Think what wonderful books we might make if we
all worked together.
But I imagine that what I've written is more a fit of spring cleaning
than anything else.
Back to work. I've got books to publish.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
More information about the Spellyans