[Spellyans] An SWF glossary

A. J. Trim ajtrim at msn.com
Mon Jun 7 19:45:08 IST 2010


Yes, please. I would like a copy of your Glossary.


Andrew J. Trim

From: "Craig Weatherhill" <craig at agantavas.org>
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 4:30 AM
To: "Standard Cornish discussion list" <spellyans at kernowek.net>
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