[Spellyans] SWF, KK, KS, and Bailey.
ray at spyrys.org
Mon May 11 12:37:43 IST 2009
You have summed up the position well Michael. It seems to me that
there are some users of Kemyn who are happy to use and support the
Standard Written Form and others who are hoping it will just fade
away. The Kemyn camp is therefore divided.
The position of Agan Tavas is quite clear, members support the SWF
although we recognise that KS is better and, while we do not wish to
undermine the SWF, we do indeed hope that KS can be used to inform the
review of it.
The mood that I picked up at our Special General Meeting was that
members wish to be actively involved with the SWF in all its
variations. I think those Kemyn users who hope that the SWF will
quietly disappear will be shocked when the outcomes of that desire of
Agan Tavas members start to appear.
On 9 Me 2009, at 22:42, Michael Everson wrote:
> The C24 forum is mostly both a wasteland and a waste of time, but
> just for the record, I made the following posting there:
> Keith Bailey said to "PieterCharles" (whoever that is):
>> Pieter : What is the point of a 'compromise' where only one side
>> changes its position? That looks rather more like a surrender to
>> me. I don't doubt that some of those involved acted in good faith.
>> But since that good faith has now been abused by the intransigence
>> of the other side, they have nothing to gain by continueing to
>> honour the agreement.
>> It should be clear by now that the SWF is an expensive failure.
>> That should be impressed on the Council and the Kesva and Kowethas
>> should only support KK which can be justified linguistically,
>> whereas the SWF is a mess which cannot be justified from *any*
>> standpoint, neither ours nor theirs. It's only justification was as
>> a compromise that everyone would accept and use. And since the
>> others will not use it, but continue to press for something more to
>> their liking...
>> Well I hope you see the point.
> It's easy to see your point, Keith.
> I've been asked by a colleague to say a word here.
> Keith is wrong. This should come as little surprise to readers of
> this forum.
> Yes, the SWF has faults. We (who have participated in the open
> discussion on Spellyans) believe that the faults are serious. We
> have examined the SWF, identified its faults, and have both provided
> a set of corrections to those faults, and begin publishing with
> those corrections made.
> We are aware, of course, that the CLP may or may not adopt all or
> some or any of the corrections in 2013. That's up to them and
> whatever structures they have in place then.
> Of course, this is no secret.
> What is interesting is Keith's confession. He has never wanted any
> kind of compromise, and never been interested in the least feature
> of the SWF. (Actually, I believe he likes the use of the hyphen with
> *-ma* and *-na* in KS.)
> But we see here just what I predicted we would see. As a diehard KK
> supporter, he likes each and every one of the faults in the SWF. He
> wants the SWF to fail. He won't use it. He doesn't want the Cowethas
> to use it. He doesn't want the Kesva to use it. He doesn't want us
> to help to fix it. He wants it to die, because he is wedded to a non-
> traditional orthography that represents a theoretical phonology that
> nobody uses, *not even the inventor of the theoretical phonology*.
> He lies, quite constantly, on this forum, saying that KK represents
> Cornish as it was actually spoken, when of course there is *no
> evidence of this at all at all at all*. The only evidence we *really
> do have* for how Cornish was spoken was Lhuyd's phonetic respelling.
> And Keith will turn handsprings to show how that cannot be trusted.
> The only thing that can be trusted is the thesis Ken George
> proposes. It's not verifiable. And it's not been put into practice
> by speakers of Revived Cornish.
> But that's all Keith wants. Kernowek Kebmyn or nothing. I am sure
> that this has been the aim of the Kesva hardcore all along. I am
> sure it was part of their plan to make sure that the SWF/T (which
> Traditionalists are meant to use) had non-traditional graphs in it,
> precisely so we would have to derogate—so they could claim that the
> SWF was a failure. So they could claim that only Kernowek Kebmyn
> should be used, because it has all the books, and all the grammars,
> and all the dictionaries.
> I don't believe that will be true for very long.
> Well, that's my word. I believe I might repeat this on Spellyans, so
> it gets recorded in a reputable archive.
> I'll get back to working on a forthcoming publication now.
> Just for the record.
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
Caderyer Agan Tavas
More information about the Spellyans