[Spellyans] An SWF glossary

Michael Everson everson at evertype.com
Sun Jun 6 22:40:16 IST 2010


On 6 Jun 2010, at 22:11, Eddie Climo wrote:

>> I don't follow this logic. I publish with Traditional orthographic forms. Those are /T forms, whether or not the orthography I publish with differs from the SWF in any other particulars.
> 
> I'm sure you don't wish to follow where this logic leads, but KS is not the SWF/T. That orthography was the focus of my posting, not KS.

The point is not whether it is UC/T or UCR/T or KS/T or SWF/T. The point is that all of those share the Traditionalist aesthetic. It is admiration for the Traditionalist aesthetic that was part of the twenty-year opposition to KK. (The other part was based on criticism of KK's mistaken phonology and other "improvements".)

The Traditionalist aesthetic is independent of the SWF. The /K aesthetic is likewise not confined to KK.

The SWF contains within it both aesthetics because both were recognized as important to segments of the community. 

My criticism of the SWF/K-only glossary is not dependent on whether I have published literature in SWF/T or not. My criticism is as a member of the community of people who prefer the Traditionalist aesthetic. As a Traditionalist member of the Corpus Group, I have made my dissatisfaction with the present editorial practice clear. 

>> I don't publish in the SWF because as someone who admires and respects the Cornish language, I choose not to use particular spellings which are considered incorrect, linguistically.
> 
> As I said, if you decline to publish in the SWF/T, you can hardly complain if the SWF/KK sweeps the board.

I decline to publish in a form of Cornish which will perpetuate errors. 

I decline to publish in Unified Cornish, because I believe its inability to distinguish /ø/ and /y/, and its general use of voiceless consonants after long vowels in monosyllables, to be errors which ought not to be perpetuated.

I decline to publish in the SWF because it I believe its inability to distinguish long and short /u/ and /y/, its use of final voiced consonants in unstressed syllables, its inconsistent treatment of "i" and "y" and "e" in general, its incoherent use of -mm- and -nn- where they do not pre-occlude, and a number of other features, to be errors which ought not to be perpetuated.

I guess you are arguing that I should publish literature in a form of Cornish that I don't believe is accurate. I don't believe I ought to.

>> Furthermore, as you know, I worked with Agan Tavas to produce an SWF/T and SWF/K form of Skeul an Tavas. 
> 
> As the saying has it, one swallow does not a summer make. An elementary course book is very laudable, but what else have you done for the SWF/T since then? Do you have anything else planned for publication in the SWF/T? If not, you can hardly complain if SWF/K sweeps the board, can you?

Sweeps the board? I am talking about one sixty-page glossary published by the Partnership, which is itself prejudicial against the Traditionalist aesthetic.

> It's all very well holding your breath until 2013 in the optimistic expectation that KS will take over as the SWF Mark II, doubtless through sheer force of linguistical excellence.

No one is holding his breath. 

> But, unless someone starts publishing numerous, good-quality books in the SWF/T, the SWF/KK would have a clear shot at dominating this space. Through lack of competition, their publications —few in number, and poor in quality though they might be— would be dominant.

I won't publish anything with known errors in it -- particularly not errors which were cynically devised for force Traditionalists to use non-traditional forms. Cornish deserves better than that.

> We cannot let them win by default!

I am not afraid of them.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/





More information about the Spellyans mailing list