[Spellyans] SWF spec.
craig at agantavas.org
Fri May 7 18:30:06 BST 2010
There seems to be some misunderstanding of the spec., and following
debate, I can see why.
Street signage and new place-names are done in the Main Form. Michael
doesn't like that and, quite honestly, neither do I. BUT our hands
The SWF final spec. says: "(traditional graphs) will not appear in
elementary language textbooks or in official documents produced by
public bodies". Like it or not, street signage, as a function of the
Council, counts as "official documents". No way around it.
But - hold on - how has that happened? The draft spec., dated
29.1.08, sent out to the linguistic advisers had rather different
wording. This said: "The Main Forms will be given preference in
textbooks and official documents". "Will be given preference" is not
the same as "will not appear".
Similarly, the Jan 08 draft says: "It is also likely that many place-
names will be written in forms that reflect Side Form spellings using
<c>, <q> and <wh>." In the final spec., this statement is missing.
There is not a single mention of place-names.
Why the changes? Who authorised them? They weren't noticed before
now because only a few people saw that Jan. 08 draft, which wasn't
publicly circulated. The impression given by the final spec. was that
it illustrated what had been agreed by the AHG. These changes were not.
How many other surreptitious changes were made to the spec?
On 7 Me 2010, at 18:08, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 7 May 2010, at 17:56, Michael Everson wrote:
>> But its orthography is *outside* of the Glasney-based scribal
>> tradition that our (and Jenner's and Nance's) orthography
> ... is based on.
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
More information about the Spellyans