[Spellyans] An SWF glossary

Ken MacKinnon ken at ferintosh.org
Mon Jun 7 10:52:28 IST 2010


Yes when the working groups were set up I was put on the staus working 
group - which was Ok.  But i was also supposed to have some input into the 
corpus group, concerning which I have not heard a thing.

- Ken


Ken MacKinnon is now on Broadband  with new e-mail addresses:-

ken at ferintosh.org
and also at:-
ken.ferintosh at googlemail.com

My former e-mail addresses are no longer able to be used.

(Prof) Ken MacKinnon
Ivy Cottage, Ferintosh,
The Black Isle, by Dingwall,
Ross-shire  IV 7 8HX
Scotland  UK

Tel: 01349 - 863460


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Craig Weatherhill" <craig at agantavas.org>
To: "Standard Cornish discussion list" <spellyans at kernowek.net>
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 4:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] An SWF glossary


I warned about the deliberate sidelining of SWF/T months ago.  I also
warned that, if we did not start to produce in SWF/T - whatever its
shortcomings - then we would only be helping this process and pave the
way for the return of KK in 2013.  Have we learned nothing from 1987?

I repeat that warning right now.  If we don't publish in SWF/T during
this next 3 years, then KS will not even get the opportunity for a
look-in in 2013.  It has to be remembered that, despite the
Commissioners' recommendations, KS is not part of the SWF process.  It
was sidelined by stealth.  I understand that Michael does not want to
publish in a flawed orthography (he has produced Skeul an Tavas in SWF/
T, and also my dictionary of place-names which is compatible with both
KS and SWF/T) but, if we don't raise the visible profile of SWF/T, and
raise it considerably, then we're cutting our own throats.  Pride and
preference shouldn't enter into it.  We all need to see the bigger
picture and understand what is going on.  We really do need to be
publishing SWF/T and KS in at least equal amounts.  It's only for 3
years, for Heaven's sake.

If we don't publish in SWF/T, then we, too, will be guilty of
sidelining the /T form within the recognised process, and helping
those who are gearing up to engineer the return of KK.  If that
happens, then we can hardly complain because we will have contributed
to it by failing to support the /T form.  We have to open our eyes to
what is happening!

To put it very simply - the sidelining of SWF/T is deliberate.  It's
to ensure that, in 2013, the argument will be: no-one uses it; no one
publishes in it, so it can be discarded.  There isn't an active /T
form to be corrected (and KS gets pushed out right there). This leaves
only the /M form, which is flawed, and we have the perfect solution.
It's called KK.  If we get to that stage, anyone who thinks that KS
will get the slightest look-in is deluding himself.

Now - am I going to be listened to this time?  This is one issue where
I never want to have to say: "I told you so".  Wake up and smell the
manure!

I have produced an SWF/T glossary - Eng-Cornish and reversed as well,
which I can e-mail to anyone who wants a copy.  Not huge - about 2,000
headwords.

(By the way, I'm supposedly a member of the Corpus Group.  How come
I'm not being sent details of proceedings?)

Craig




On 6 Efn 2010, at 22:40, Michael Everson wrote:

> 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/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

--
Craig Weatherhill


_______________________________________________
Spellyans mailing list
Spellyans at kernowek.net
http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net 





More information about the Spellyans mailing list