[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
> 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
> (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 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
>> 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
>> 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
> Craig Weatherhill
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans