[Spellyans] 'up, upwards'
craig at agantavas.org
Sat Jan 24 09:11:09 GMT 2009
Yes, I see the point of accommodating RLC users. Indeed, I sympathise
as RLC fared particularly badly from the AHG agreements. Also, as you
know, I started off in RLC and therefore retain a soft spot for it.
With regard to <eu>, I understand some UC and UCR dissatisfaction with
it (and I have never really liked it from an aesthetic point of
view). However, it must not be thought that this graph is KK. Sure,
KK has always used it but, when I look through my archive of historic
place-names, it is in fact a commonplace graph in those historic
forms, particularly in words such as <meur>, and therefore genuinely
When I look through KS scripts, I note that we are using three
different diacritic marks: the grave, the circumflex and the
diaeresis. I wonder if we can reduce these to two? Would it be
practical? From maps and signposts, the grave (sometimes alternating
with an acute) and the circumflex are present, and have reasonable
grounds to be accepted as marks used in Cornish tradition, but the
diaeresis seems to be absent. If there is a way to replace it with
one of the others, I'd like to see that considered.
On 24 Gen 2009, at 01:16, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2009, at 23:18, Craig Weatherhill wrote:
>> Although I run the risk of ruffling feathers, I do wonder if we are
>> not drifting off track with some of the items being discussed
>> here. Surely, the idea was to concentrate upon addressing the
>> faults recognised within SWF. I don't understand where the yn/in
>> question comes into this. Are we, in fact, in danger of going a
>> little too far?
> One of the faults is that it has no principled distribution if <i>
> and <y> except in stressed monosyllables and some finals. The other
> is that its accommodation of RLC cosmetic preferences isn't so great.
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans