[Spellyans] An SWF glossary & Unified versus SWF

Craig Weatherhill craig at agantavas.org
Wed Jun 9 09:04:53 IST 2010

That's a very valid point, Ray.  Everyone acknowledge that there were  
inherent faults within UC (given the limited material Nance had to  
work with, that's hardly a surprise) which needed attention.  UCR  
addressed that problem, with subtle, gentle adjustments that didn't  
compromise the overall integrity of UC.  It is a shame that the SWF  
process got in the way of its progress because I was very happy with  
UCR.  I was very comfortable with it and, having been more used to LC,  
that's quite a testament to UCR.  I wrote the first edition of  
"Cornish Place-Names and Language" in RLC, but rewrote the second  
edition in UCR (cheekily referring to it as "standard Cornish", as a  
kick-back against the claims being made by the Kesva).  I found the  
adjustment very easy.


On 9 Efn 2010, at 08:17, Ray Chubb wrote:

> On 8 Efn 2010, at 22:30, Christian Semmens wrote:
>> Don't get me wrong, I like UC, I like its aesthetic, I also  
>> appreciate the warm place it has in many hearts, but its days are  
>> passed as the primary vehicle for written Cornish. It served its  
>> purpose fairly well, but its downfall came with the rigidity of  
>> those who failed to adapt when its inadequacies became too much for  
>> many to bear. It had a brief chance in the 90s with UCR, but again  
>> the chance was lost with the failure to adapt, with users sticking  
>> doggedly to the original ossified form.
> Much of the reason for this was the fact that the Cornish Language  
> Board would not allow their exams to be taken in UCR.  If the  
> Language Board feared UCR so much that tells us that it has got  
> something worth hanging on to.
> Ray Chubb
> Portreth
> Kernow
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

Craig Weatherhill

More information about the Spellyans mailing list