[Spellyans] An SWF glossary
kernuack at aol.com
kernuack at aol.com
Mon Jun 7 12:49:41 IST 2010
Craig wheg, Ello why danen goz glossary dha ve aweath. mina
From: janicelobb at tiscali.co.uk <janicelobb at tiscali.co.uk>
To: spellyans at kernowek.net
Sent: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 7:15
Subject: Re: [Spellyans] An SWF glossary
I'll say yes please to your glossary
ut please send it to janicelobb at gmail.com
my tiscali can't handle files!)
Oll an gwella
From: craig at agantavas.org
Date: 07/06/2010 4:30
To: "Standard Cornish discussion list"<spellyans at kernowek.net>
Subj: Re: [Spellyans] An SWF glossary
I warned about the deliberate sidelining of SWF/T months ago. I
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
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
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.
was sidelined by stealth. I understand that Michael does not want
publish in a flawed orthography (he has produced Skeul an Tavas in
T, and also my dictionary of place-names which is compatible with
KS and SWF/T) but, if we don't raise the visible profile of SWF/T,
raise it considerably, then we're cutting our own throats. Pride
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
to it by failing to support the /T form. We have to open our eyes
what is happening!
To put it very simply - the sidelining of SWF/T is deliberate.
to ensure that, in 2013, the argument will be: no-one uses it; no
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
only the /M form, which is flawed, and we have the perfect
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
I never want to have to say: "I told you so". Wake up and smell
I have produced an SWF/T glossary - Eng-Cornish and reversed as
which I can e-mail to anyone who wants a copy. Not huge - about
(By the way, I'm supposedly a member of the Corpus Group. How come
I'm not being sent details of proceedings?)
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
>>> 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
>> not the SWF/T. That orthography was the focus of my posting, not
> The point is not whether it is UC/T or UCR/T or KS/T or SWF/T.
> point is that all of those share the Traditionalist aesthetic. It
> admiration for the Traditionalist aesthetic that was part of the
> twenty-year opposition to KK. (The other part was based on
> 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
> 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
>> complain if the SWF/KK sweeps the board.
> I decline to publish in a form of Cornish which will perpetuate
> 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
> to distinguish long and short /u/ and /y/, its use of final
> consonants in unstressed syllables, its inconsistent treatment of
> "i" and "y" and "e" in general, its incoherent use of -mm- and -
> where they do not pre-occlude, and a number of other features, to
> errors which ought not to be perpetuated.
> I guess you are arguing that I should publish literature in a
> of Cornish that I don't believe is accurate. I don't believe I
>>> Furthermore, as you know, I worked with Agan Tavas to produce
>>> 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
>> 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
>> in the SWF/T, the SWF/KK would have a clear shot at dominating
>> space. Through lack of competition, their publications —few in
>> number, and poor in quality though they might be— would be
> I won't publish anything with known errors in it -- particularly
> errors which were cynically devised for force Traditionalists to
> 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
Spellyans mailing list
Spellyans at kernowek.net
pellyans mailing list
pellyans at kernowek.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Spellyans